The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Monthly Labor Review U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics December 1989 In this Issue: Four articles on the quality of jobs Consumer spending by occupation and size of city Children in two-earner families https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis U.S. Department of Labor Elizabeth Dole, Secretary Bureau of Labor Statistics Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner The Monthly Labor Review is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Communications on editorial matters should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC 20212. Phone: (202) 523-1327. Subscription price per year—$20 domestic; $25 foreign. Single copy, $5 domestic; $6.25 foreign. Subscription prices and distribution policies for the Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) and other Government publications are set by the Government Printing Office, an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence on circulation and subscription matters (including address changes) to: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents. The Secretary of Labor has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of this Department. Second-class postage paid at Washington, DC, and at additional mailing addresses. Regional Offices and Commissioners Region I Anthony J. Ferrara Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont Kennedy Federal Building Suite 1603 Boston, MA 02203 Region II Samuel M. Ehrenhalt New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands New York, NY 10014 Phone: (617) 565-2327 Room 808 201 Varick Street Phone: (212) 337-2400 Region III Alvin R. Margulis Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia 3535 Market Street P O. Box 13309 Philadelphia, PA 19101 Phone: (215) 569-1154 Region IV Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi Donald M. Cruse North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30367 Phone: (404) 347-4416 Region V Lois L. Orr Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin 9th Floor Federal Office Building 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 353-1880 Region VI Bryan Richey Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Room 221 Federal Building 525 Griffin Street Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 767-6970 December cover: Region VII Region VIII Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming Gunnar Engen 911 Walnut Street Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: (816) 426-2481 Design by Richard L. Mathews https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Region IX Region X Sam M. Hirabayashi American Samoa Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington 71 Stevenson Street P O. Box 3766 San Francisco, CA 94119 Phone: (415) 744-6600 RESEARCH I Federai Reso. of St. Lo Monthly Labor Review December 1989 Volume 112, Number 12 Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor JAN 0 8 1990 THE QUALITY OF JOBS Articles 4 More than wages at issue in job quality debate Nonwage factors are important in employment decisions; wages often are traded for job security and other job attributes Neal H. Rosenthal 9 On the definition of ‘contingent work’ Factors in defining contingency should include job security and work hours; measurement may require a combined household-establishment survey Anne E. Polivka and Thomas Nardone 17 Flexible benefits plans: employees who have a choice Flexible compensation has received considerable attention in recent years, but was available to only 13 percent of surveyed workers in 1988 Joseph R. Meisenheimer II and William J. Wiatrowski 24 Employer-provided benefits: employer cost versus employee value Cash-equivalent value is one way to measure employees’ noncash benefits; more research is needed to resolve the complex issues regarding this approach Melissa Famulari and Marilyn E. Manser Other Articles 33 Spending differences across occupational fields Income is the most significant factor in determining levels of various expenditures; occupation and education also play a role Robert Cage 44 Consumer expenditures in different-size cities Large-city households spend more on housing, dining out, and public transportation, while small-city units spend more on food-at-home and private vehicles Susan M. Banta Reports 48 Children in dual income families increase; real family income lags Howard V. Hayghe Departments https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 48 53 54 58 59 111 Labor month in review Research summaries Major agreements expiring next month Developments in industrial relations Book reviews Current labor statistics Index of volume 112 Labor month in review JOB SAFETY IN 1988. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported results of its annual survey of employer records of job-related injuries and illnesses. The data show an injury and illness rate of 8.6 per 100 full time workers. Injuries and illnesses totaled 6.4 million. Although the 1988 rate was higher than in recent years, BLS noted that this increase does not solely reflect changing workplace safety and health conditions. Improved recordkeeping by employers and emphasis on monitoring employer records by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration may have contributed to the increase in the number of cases recorded. BLS has begun a multiyear effort to improve its data on workplace injuries and illnesses. Occupational injuries. Recordable injuries stemming from accidents at work are those which result in death, loss of consciousness, restriction of work or motion, transfer to another job, or medical treatment beyond first aid. Recorded job-related injuries occur red at a rate of 8.3 per 100 full-time workers in 1988. Of the 6.2 million injuries recorded in the private sector, almost one-half (2.9 million) were serious enough for workers to take time off from work or to be restricted in work activity. These cases resulted in about 54 million lost workdays. Slightly over one-third of the total injuries recorded during 1988 were in manufacturing. Other industry divi sions with substantial shares of total injuries included wholesale and retail trade (one-fourth), services (one-sixth), and construction (one-tenth). Injury rates varied by establishment size in 1988 as they have in previous years. Rates for establishments with fewer than 50 or with more than 1,000 2 Monthly Labor Review December 1989 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis b Ssbíb employees were lower than the rates for the midsize establishments. Occupational illnesses. The survey measures the number of new workrelated illness cases detected during the year and recognized as work related. The majority of these illnesses are either acute (for example, contact dermatitis) or chronic illnesses (carpal tunnel syndrome), with symptoms that are relatively easy to diagnose and relate to the workplace. In contrast, some chronic conditions (w ork-related asthma) and long-term latent illnesses (work-related cancers) often are difficult to recognize or relate to the workplace, and are not adequately recorded. The survey found more than 240,000 new cases of occupational illness among private sector workers. Manufacturing accounted for about three-fourths of the total illness cases. One category of illness—disorders associated with re peated trauma (conditions caused by repeated motion, pressure, or vibration such as carpal tunnel syndrome) ac counted for more than four-fifths of the total increase in illnesses. Repeated trauma accounted for almost one-half of the illness cases in 1988 and skin diseases for almost one-fourth. Occupational fatalities. The survey found 3,300 job-related deaths in estab lishments with 11 employees or more in 1988. Because fatalities are difficult to measure, BLS believes the count un derstates the work-related fatalities for the year. Currently, BLS is investigating methods for collecting and verifying data on occupational fatalities through the use of death certificates, workers’ compensation reports, and motor vehi cle accident reports. Background of the survey. The Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses is a Federal/State coop erative program in which employer reports are collected and processed by BLS in cooperation with participating State agencies. The 1988 survey, requiring mandatory response, involved a sample of 280,000 establishments. The estimates generated from the survey represent the work injury and illness experience of about 90 million workers in the private sector of the U.S. economy. Data reported in the annual survey are based on the records employers maintain under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Excluded from the act’s coverage are workplaces covered by other Federal safety and health laws. Thus, occupational injuries and illnesses for coal, metal and nonmetal mining, and railroad activities were provided to BLS by the Labor Department’s Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Transportation Department’s Federal Railroad Admin istration. The survey is limited to private industry. It excludes the self-em ployed; farmers with fewer than 11 employees; private households; and employees in the Federal, State, and local governments. The fatality data represent units with 11 employees or more; estimates for injuries and illnesses are for units with at least one employee. Estimates based on a sample may differ from those that would have been obtained from a census of establish ments using the same procedures. A relative standard error was calculated for each estimate from the annual survey and will be published in a BLS bulletin that will be available in the spring of 1990. Occupational injury and illness rates by industry for selected years are presented in table 51 of the Current Labor Statistics section of this issue. □ The Quality of Jobs hat makes jobs “good”? Time was when most of us would have answered that question simply in terms of pay. Today, we are likely to ask also about benefits offered, about steadiness of the work, and about other job conditions. Four articles in this issue of the Monthly Labor Review explore different ways we assess job quality. W Job characteristics. Because people devote so much time and effort to their jobs, the nature of the job as well as the conditions of the work place are, along with pay, important determi nants of the value of employment. In “More than wages at issue in the job quality debate,” Neal Rosenthal provides a review of the job attributes most commonly valued by workers in looking at the quality of the job they do. Rosenthal notes that developing measures of overall job “quality” is difficult because the same job characteristics may be valued quite differently by different persons (for example, some may seek outdoor work while others shun it). Although the pay level established for the position is important, job attributes and working conditions also are of wide interest. Contingent work. Among the most valued at tributes of a job of high quality is security and constancy of employment. While part-time em ployment and flexibility in working hours meet the needs of many workers and their families, concern has developed about the phenomenon of contingent jobs. These are jobs in which se curity of ongoing employment is limited. Be cause “contingency of employment” is difficult to measure directly, some researchers have used new groupings of employment statistics to esti mate the extent of contingent employment. In “On the definition of ‘contingent work’,” Anne E. Polivka and Thomas Nardone evaluate these data and assess their adequacy in provid ing the information needed. The authors con clude that existing employment data are not well-suited to measure contingent employment, and outline the steps needed to collect the type https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis of data they believe will better identify this seg ment of the labor market. Flexible benefits. What were once called “fringe” benefits have become essential to many workers and their families. Increasing attention has been focused on noncash benefit compensa tion, such as pension rights, health insurance coverage, and employee leave. Some employee benefits plans now let workers choose the types of benefits they want their employers to pro vide. These plans reflect the diversity of work ers’ needs, and help employees balance their work and family responsibilities. In “Flexible benefit plans: employees who have a choice,” Joseph R. Meisenheimer II and William J. Wiatrowski report on the prevalence of flexible benefit plans among medium-sized and large employers, and review case studies of employee choices made when such plans are introduced. Costs versus value. How much do workers value these noncash benefits? When is the value to the employee equal to the dollar cost of the benefit to the employer? Melissa Famulari and Marilyn E. Manser tackle these difficult ques tions in “Employer-provided benefits: employer cost versus employee value,” by reviewing measurement issues and relating them to eco nomic theory. They recognize that cost may not be a good proxy for the value of the benefit to the worker. They suggest that more could be learned about how to value benefits by surveying workers to determine whether they would choose less bene fits in exchange for more cash, and by studying the relationship between family spending pat terns and employer-provided benefits. d iv e r s i t y o f t h e s e a r t ic l e s illustrates the complexity of job quality issues, and of the whole range of expectations and needs that workers have from their jobs. Wider recognition of this diversity will help us improve our understand ing of the labor market and suppress the inclina tion to classify jobs as “good” or “bad.” □ T he Monthly Labor Review December 1989 3 The Quality of Jobs More than wages at issue in job quality debate Non wage characteristics of jobs play a role in employment decisions; workers often trade wages for job security, status, and other job attributes Neal H. Rosenthal veryone agrees that the quality of jobs differs, but determining if one job is bet ter than another can lead to great debate. Whether jobs have qualities deemed positive (“good jobs”) or negative (“bad jobs”) depends on the criteria used to evaluate the job as well as who does the evaluation. Economists focus their good jobs-bad jobs debate on wages, while individuals, as well as counselors and psycholo gists, who are primarily concerned with a com prehensive view of an individual’s well-being, also consider the importance of job satisfaction, job security, and many other factors. This article discusses the effect of nonwage attributes of jobs on the perceptions of job qual ity. It broadens the good jobs-bad jobs debate by considering factors in addition to wages which may be important to individuals in determining the quality of their jobs. The intention is not to detract from concerns about the economic bene fits of work, but to highlight important aspects of job quality other than wages. E Individual values Neal H. Rosenthal is chief o f the Division o f Occupa tional Outlook, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 4 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Individuals consider a multitude of factors in addition to earnings when characterizing a job as “good” or “bad.” For purposes of this discus sion, these factors are grouped into five cate gories: job duties and working conditions, job December 1989 satisfaction, period of work, job status, and job security. Although many of the factors are asso ciated with specific occupations, it is important to remember that they can vary within an occu pation. Just as earnings may have a wide range within an occupation, so may working con ditions, job security, and determinants of job satisfaction. The value individuals place on different job attributes varies and is determined by many fac tors. These values are derived from the socio economic background and the environment in the geographic area in which they live. In addi tion, different interests, perceived abilities, and interests in activities other than work, such as leisure or family responsibilities, result in indi viduals viewing the quality of a job from differ ent perspectives. It is not surprising that there is great diversity in how jobs are valued. This country’s popula tion has very diverse backgrounds. People live in inner cities, suburban areas, and rural areas. The population includes foreign bom immi grants, sons and daughters of immigrants of dif ferent cultures, and those whose ancestors have been in the country for many generations. Edu cational attainment varies from high school dropouts to recipients of doctorate and other advanced degrees. Family economic back grounds range from the very wealthy to those living in poverty. Each background would influ ence a person’s perspective of the quality of his or her job. Individuals from these diverse backgrounds have widely different interests and abilities. Some have artistic and creative talents, others work well with their hands. Some people are endowed with above-average intellectual abili ties, and some are not. Some like to work with people, others prefer to work alone. Some prefer to work outdoors, others like an office environment. Structured working conditions are preferred by some, while others prefer unstruc tured conditions. Each individual reflects a unique combination of interests and abilities. Job characteristics Just as individuals differ, the characteristics of jobs differ. Many job characteristics are com monly perceived to be positive and others negative. Hazardous conditions and lack of job security are viewed by most workers as nega tive. However, all jobs with these characteris tics are not undesirable. Playing professional football, for example, is certainly hazardous to one’s health and lacks job security, but most athletes are not deterred from pursuing a profes sional career in the National Football League because of this. Whether job characteristics are deemed nega tive or positive depends on each individual’s personal view. For example, artistic jobs are viewed as desirable by many, but common per ception does not indicate that nonartistic jobs are undesirable. Nevertheless, someone without artistic talent would likely be extremely frus trated in a job which required artistic abilities. The following discussion defines some char acteristics that may determine an individual’s perception of a job’s desirability. Nonwage benefits that translate into earnings, such as employer-paid health insurance, employer con tributions to pension plans, and paid vacations, are not discussed, although, like earnings, they are important to a job’s desirability. Some job attributes that relate to earnings, such as ad vancement opportunities, are discussed. Com monly held perceptions of the effect of a characteristic on job quality and specific occu pations associated with the characteristic also are included. Job duties and working conditions. The actual tasks performed on the job and the environment in which the tasks are performed, both the phys ical workplace and relationships with others, are important in evaluating the desirability of jobs. Hazardous jobs involve work with dangerous https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis equipment or materials or in dangerous sur roundings. In general, hazardous jobs are viewed as less desirable than those that have little or no risk to the worker’s physical well being. Nevertheless, millions of workers are in jobs with potential hazards— construction craft occupations, metalworking occupations, driv ing occupations, and a variety of production occupations in manufacturing industries, to name a few. Repetitious jobs requiring the same tasks to be done over and over again are, in general, not considered as desirable as jobs in which the tasks are varied. Jobs on the assembly line in manufacturing are commonly used to exemplify repetitious work, but many clerical workers are in occupations having this characteristic, for in stance, word processors, statistical clerks, and file clerks. Physical stamina is required in some jobs, as workers may have to lift heavy weights, walk long distances, stand for long periods, or stoop frequently. For many, such activity is undesir able. A variety of workers require physical stamina to perform their duties, including con struction craft workers, postal mail carriers, la borers, and food counter workers. In contrast, sedentary jobs, such as those performed at a desk in an office, may be considered undesir able by many people. A generally confined work space which re quires workers to be in one place most of the time during the workday, rather than moving from place to place, is often considered an unde sirable characteristic. Among the workers expe riencing this characteristic are long distance truckdrivers, telephone operators, and cashiers. At the other extreme are jobs that require workers to be on the move with little time in one place. These jobs may be desirable or undesir able, depending on individual preference. Sales representatives, insurance adjusters, mail carri ers, and telephone and cable television line in stallers are typical workers of such occupations. Stress is created in some jobs because of deadlines, life-threatening situations, and su pervisory pressures. Air-traffic controllers are commonly used as an example of workers in a stressful occupation. Most workers consider stress to be undesirable, but some receive a feel ing of importance and vitality while under stress. Autonomy is lacking in jobs that are closely supervised or where the tasks have to be done in a very specific way. Some jobs are in settings that make it difficult to receive or make personal phone calls, receive visitors, or leave the work site for any reason without obtaining the super visor’s permission. Such restraints make the job Actual tasks performed and the environment are important in evaluating desirability o f jobs. Monthly Labor Review December 1989 5 The Job Quality Debate Many job characteristics result in intrinsic satisfaction. undesirable to some workers. In general, jobs that permit more initiative in determining how the work should be done and more freedom in deciding one’s movements are more desirable. Some occupations are subject to more or fewer constraints than others. For example, as semblers in a manufacturing plant tend to have less autonomy than newspaper reporters cover ing a sporting event. However, the degree of autonomy in a specific job is often determined by regulations imposed by employers or indi vidual supervisors rather than the occupation itself. Because of the value placed on auton omy, it is not surprising that self-employment is a goal of many workers. Working with detail is required in some jobs requiring precision in handling or dealing with specific items. There is no generally held view that this characteristic makes good jobs or bad jobs, although individuals may strongly believe that this characteristic is either desirable or un desirable for them. Workers in occupations requiring attention to detail include accountants, optometrists, drafters, watch repairers, machinists, air-traffic controllers, surveyors, and dental laboratory technicians. Working as part o f a team is important in jobs requiring cooperation with coworkers in order to accomplish objectives. While this character istic is not considered positive or negative, indi viduals may have strong feelings about its effect on job quality. Many projects may require workers in differ ent occupations to work together as a team. Construction projects, scientific research proj ects, professional team sports, performing arts, and advertising campaigns all may require indi viduals in different occupations to work as a team. Conversely, each of these activities are conducted in some settings by individuals work ing independently. Job satisfaction. Many job characteristics re sult in intrinsic satisfaction. For the most part, all the characteristics listed below are positive, but the lack of the characteristic is not necessar ily negative. Ability to see the results of a job in a physical product can give a worker a sense of pride and satisfaction. Brickmasons, chefs, choreogra phers, artists, and architects are in occupations that possess this job attribute. Problem solving, that is identifying a prob lem or goal and deciding what must be done to achieve a successful solution, is an important part of some jobs. Automobile mechanics, in dustrial production managers, physicians, po lice detectives, and engineers are among the 6 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis December 1989 workers having problem solving as a significant job attribute. Creativity involves designing new products or services, procedures for making work more efficient, ways to accomplish a task or goal, or composing a song. Architects, designers, ad vertising workers, industrial engineers, and performing artists are in occupations where cre ativity is a significant job characteristic. Recognition of a job well done is an aspect of some jobs. Some occupations lend themselves to public acclaim or appreciation by supervisors and associates for the accomplishments of the workers. Writers and editors, public officials, and performing artists commonly are identified with this characteristic. Of course, they can elicit just the opposite reaction. Ability to influence others is needed in some jobs in order to stimulate others to think or act in a specific way. Teachers, counselors, psy chologists, sales workers, and managers are as sociated with this characteristic. Ability to fully utilize the skills that individu als have obtained through work experience and school training is possible in some jobs. This characteristic is generally not associated with specific occupations, but is determined more by the manner in which employers use their work ers. In general, workers with the most formal education view this characteristic as more im portant than those with little education. Studies have shown that this attribute is very important to workers.1 Opportunities to learn new skills is available in some jobs. New skills or training usually will enhance opportunities for advancement. This characteristic often is associated with the prac tices of employers rather than with a specific occupation. Research shows it is important to many workers.2 Possible advancement opportunities can be an important characteristic of a job and can lead to increased earnings and other desirable job attributes, or to a reduction in undesirable at tributes. Most occupations have advancement potential, but to widely different degrees. Occu pations having little or no advancement poten tial are known as “dead-end jobs.” Period o f work. The hours of work differ among jobs in terms of total hours worked per week and the hours when workers must be on the job. Some periods of work are generally viewed as negative aspects of a job and others are considered positive. Weekend and shift work are required in some jobs. That is, workers are assigned work during the weekend or on shifts other than the usual workday. In general, these work schedules are considered undesirable, but they may be wel comed by full-time students or persons in search of a second job. Jobs in retail sales, food service, and health service often are associated with weekend and/or shift work. Other activities that may re quire unusual hours of work are police and fire protection, public transportation, performing arts, power generation and distribution, and some manufacturing operations. Overtime is often needed on some jobs during peak times or to meet deadlines. The chance to earn overtime pay periodically may be consid ered desirable by some workers, but others may not appreciate spending the extra time at work. Overtime is not associated with specific occu pations, but is generally more common in indus tries in which deadlines are important to meet or in which some segments of the work must be completed before others can begin, such as construction, durable goods manufacturing, and advertising. Flexible work hours allow workers to set their own hours of work within some time framework as long as the required total number of hours are worked and the job is done. Such arrangements are considered desirable by workers. The availability of flexitime generally is de termined by the employer rather than by the occupation, and is more common in officerelated work environments. Salesworkers also have great freedom in setting their own sched ules to conform to the times when the customer load is heavy. Part-time work (fewer than 35 hours a week) may be considered desirable by workers who have family commitments or prefer more leisure time than would be available with a full-time job.3 To the contrary, a part-time job may not be desirable if an individual would like to work full time and increase his or her earnings. Although part-time jobs are found in most occupations, jobs in some occupations are largely part time, especially in food service and retail sales activities. Many clerical occupations also have above average numbers of part-time jobs, as employers can organize the work to accommodate part-time work schedules. Job status. How the importance of a job is perceived has an effect on an individual’s view of the quality of his or her job. One’s socioeco nomic background has a great impact on how a specific job is viewed by each individual. Social status is recognized as being associ ated with occupations.4 Those having high status are naturally more desirable. A person’s socioeconomic status has some bearing on how he or she ranks occupations by status, but stud https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ies have shown remarkable consistency in the ranking among different groups and over time.5 Occupations that rank high in social status generally require high educational achievement and include physician, lawyer, college profes sor, engineer, and architect. Occupations re quiring little education are usually at the lower end of the spectrum and include laborer, janitor, and private household worker. Status within an organization has a bearing on job satisfaction and is important to workers in evaluating a job’s desirability. This charac teristic is determined by the actions of the orga nization in which an individual is employed, rather than the occupation. Job security. The chance of keeping a job de spite economic conditions or other factors, can be a significant and positive aspect of a job. The amount of security associated with a job is more commonly determined by the employer or activ ity than by the occupation. Jobs in government are more secure than construction jobs, given the high risk of layoff because of seasonal and cyclical factors that affect the construction industry. Tradeoffs Everyone would like the perfect job— a job with varied duties, little stress, a product that can be seen, problem solving tasks, recognition from the public, flexible hours, high social status, and security, along with high wages. Very few individuals, however, have jobs with all of these qualities. But individuals usually try to choose a job that has more of the qualities that are most important to them and avoid those that have characteristics that seem undesirable. Wages are generally considered the most im portant determinant of job desirability.6 One reason is that higher pay may enable one to obtain greater enjoyment of life away from work. For example, enjoying leisure, caring for family, and the ability to meet one’s needs for food, clothing, and shelter depend largely on the level of one’s wages. Most workers spend about one-fourth of each week at work and, therefore, nonwage attributes of a job can be very important in determining job quality. Individuals, therefore, usually consider non wage job characteristics when selecting a job, in some cases trading wages for these non wage characteristics. The more education and experience an individual has, the greater the variety of jobs available to him or her, com pared with counterparts with lesser education or experience. Yet, data show that job shifting is greater among young workers and workers in Status within an organization has a bearing on job satisfaction. Monthly Labor Review December 1989 7 The Job Quality Debate low paying jobs.7 This may be because young workers have little understanding of what job characteristics are important to them, and gain that knowledge through experience in different jobs. Because wages are so important to most workers, many often leave a low paying job for a higher paying position, but they may also leave because of concern about other job characteristics. Measurement difficulties The values placed on each job characteristic dif fer among individuals. Studies have attempted to identify which characteristics are important to job satisfaction and to establish relative measures of the importance of different charac teristics. Measurement poses significant prob lems to researchers engaged in these efforts because of the highly subjective nature of the responses to questions in the surveys used in the studies.8 For example, individuals are usually asked to rank specific job attributes in some subjective way, such as high, medium, or low. The results of studies using this type of response can be very tenuous. In addition, problems arise when studies on job satisfaction are compared because the job attributes being measured often reflect the special interests or theories of the researchers. Some job satisfaction studies can be very in formative, however, especially if they focus on a very specific job characteristic. For example, as part of a supplement to the Current Popula tion Survey in May 1985, information was gath ered on whether employees would prefer to work more, fewer, or the same number of hours at the same hourly rate of pay they were cur rently earning. About a fourth of the respon dents said they would prefer to work more hours and earn more money; nearly 10 percent pre ferred to work fewer hours and earn proportion ally less; and the majority indicated they would prefer the same number of hours. While this survey lacks information on the relative impor tance of part-time work to job satisfaction, it does provide information on the extent to which workers are satisfied with their current hours of work.9 In contrast to other job characteristics, earn ings do lend themselves to statistical measure ments that allow comparisons among jobs and occupations, and cross classification by sex, race, and other characteristics. For this reason, earnings studies are perhaps the most reliable evaluation of job quality, although they do not represent a truly comprehensive measure. The value of nonwage attributes of jobs has traditionally been part of the theoretical con cepts used to explain labor market behavior. However, these attributes have, for the most part, been ignored in the debate concerning good jobs-bad jobs. Yet, trends indicate changes have occurred over time that affect nonwage attributes of jobs. Technology has had a great impact on reducing hazardous, tedious, and dirty jobs. Occupational safety and health legislation has improved workers’ safety. Em ployers, in attempts to reduce labor turnover, have adopted practices to improve job quality and job satisfaction. For example, new manage ment practices focus on reducing occupational rigidities and involving employees at all levels in the decisionmaking process concerning a variety of subjects affecting job quality. And finally, labor organizations increasingly have focused on nonwage aspects of jobs, such as job security, in labor-management negotiations. Wages may be the most important concern in the good jobs-bad jobs debate, but they should not be the only concern in this very important issue. □ Footnotes 1 Barry Gruenberg, “The Happy Worker: An Analysis of Educational and Occupational Differences in Determinants o f Job Satisfaction,” American Journal of Sociology, Sep tember 1980, pp. 2 4 7-71. Guidance Quarterly, December 1976, pp. 101-05; and Ste 2 Christopher Jencks, Lauri Pearlman, and Lee Rain water, “What Is a Good Job? A New Measure of Labor Market Success,” American Journal o f Sociology, May 1988, pp. 1322-57. 6 Jencks, Pearlman, and Rainwater, “What Is a Good Job?” 3 Rebecca M. Blank, Are Part-Time Jobs Bad Jobs? (Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1989). 4 Otis Dudley Duncan, “A Socioeconomic Index for All Occupations,” in Albert J. Reiss, ed., Occupations and Social Status (New York, Free Press, 1961), pp. 109-61. 5 George A. Kanzaki, “Fifty Years (1925-1975) of Sta bility in the Social Status of Occupations,” The Vocational 8 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis December 1989 fan J. Harasymiw, Marcia D. Home, and Sally C. Lewis, “Occupational Attitudes in Population Subgroups,” The Vo cational Guidance Quarterly, December 1977, pp. 147-56. 7 Occupational Projections and Training Data, 1982 edition, Bulletin 2202 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), p. 14. 8 Graham L. Staines and Robert P. Quinn, “American workers evaluate the quality of their jobs,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1979, pp. 3 -1 2 . 9 Susan E. Shank, “Preferred hours of work and corre sponding earnings,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1986, pp. 4 0 -4 7 . On the definition of “contingent work” Lack of an established definition has hindered estimates of this segment of the labor force; factors in defining contingency should include job security and work hours; measurement may require a combined household-establishment survey Anne E. Polivka and Thomas Nardone Anne E. Polivka is an economist in the Office of Research and Evaluation, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. Thomas Nardone is an economist in the Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis n the 1980’s, the American economy pro duced the longest peacetime expansion of the post-World War II era. During this ex pansion, employment increased by about 20 million and unemployment reached its lowest level in 15 years. While labor market prospects for many American workers undoubtedly im proved, the work arrangements of some individ uals may have fundamentally changed. During the 1980’s, firms have strived to gain greater control over their labor costs by seeking to quickly adjust the size of their work force in response to changing market conditions.1 A perception exists that firms are relying more heavily on part-time and temporary workers and contracting out for services previously per formed in-house. These flexible arrangements, along with other arrangements that do not in volve full-time wage and salary workers, have come to be referred to by labor market analysts as “contingent work.” Analysts of the effects of contingent staff ing methods on the American workplace have reached various conclusions. Some analysts view the flexibility provided by contingent ar rangements as necessary to meet variable mar ket conditions and changing demographics.2 I Many other analysts, however, have concluded that contingent staffing methods have detrimen tal effects for both employees and employers. Some researchers cite the possible erosion of pay, decline in benefits, loss of job security, inability to obtain on-the-job training, and lack of access to advancement resulting from contin gent arrangements as indications of the weaken ing position of the American worker.3 Others suggest that the lack of loyalty among contin gent workers to their employers could hurt pro ductivity and product quality.4 Unfortunately, a careful examination of these issues has been hampered by the lack of an established defini tion of contingent work. This article examines several issues surround ing contingent work, including its definition, reasons for its existence, and methods for meas uring the number of contingent jobs. Our goal is to stimulate further discussion and to move to ward a concise, consistent, and measurable def inition of contingent work. Defining contingent work The phrase “contingent employment arrange ments” was coined by Audrey Freedman at a Monthly Labor Review December 1989 9 Defining “Contingent Work' 1985 conference on employment security and was used to “connote conditionality.” She described: . . . these conditional and transitory employ ment relationships as initiated by a need for labor— usually, because a company has an in creased demand for a particular service or product or technology, at a particular place at a specific time.5 When an employer needs someone to pick apples, sort holiday mail, or fill in for a sick employee, a contingent arrangement is established. 10 Since the phrase’s original usage, contingent employment has been identified with a wide range of employment practices, including parttime work, temporary work, employee leasing, self-employment, contracting out, and homebased work. As a result, the operational definition of a contingent job has become any arrangement which differs from full-time, per manent, wage and salary employment.6 Despite its widespread usage, this approach to defining contingent work may cause a large number of jobs to be misclassified. As Audrey Freedman’s quote implies, an important charac teristic of “contingency” is a lack of attachment between the worker and employer.7 Yet, the operational definition of contingent work in cludes some arrangements which involve long term, stable employment. Many part-time workers, for example, are as attached to their employers as are full-time workers. In fact, in January 1987, half of all part-time workers ages 25 and older had 3.9 years or more of tenure with their current employers. This is about 80 percent of the median tenure of full-time work ers.8 Hence, the operational definition of con tingency may misrepresent the status of a substantial number of part-time workers. Another group that may be misclassified as contingent under the operational definition are Alternative approach. Probably the most the self-employed. These workers, by defini salient characteristic of contingent work is the tion, have no commitment to an employer, but low degree of job security. Contingent employ they may have long-term commitments to their ment can be described as “on-demand” employ occupations or businesses. Some self-employed ment. Often, when an employer needs someone individuals do have less employment security to pick apples, sort holiday mail, or fill in for a than paid workers, who may derive some pro sick employee, a contingent arrangement is es tection from market forces by belonging to large tablished. Once the work is completed, how organizations. However, the degree of employ ever, the employment relationship is severed. In ment stability is probably more related to the constructing a definition of contingent work, the self-employed individual’s occupation or field amount of job security embodied in the arrange of business rather than the work arrangement ment should be the key criterion. Specifically, itself. Self-employed doctors and lawyers un any work arrangement which does not contain doubtedly have more employment security than an explicit or implicit commitment between the do many wage and salary workers in manufac employee and employer for long-term employ turing industries. Furthermore, it is inconsistent ment should be considered contingent. to consider a self-employed doctor as contingent When job security is used as a basis for clas on the basis of job security, while classifying sifying jobs, it should be noted that contingent wage and salary employees of the doctor as non arrangements can last for extended periods. contingent. Clearly, assuming that all self- Jobs lasting for long periods of time, however, employed individuals are contingent leads to would still be contingent if there is a reasonable logical inconsistencies and an overestimate of degree of uncertainty about the continuation of Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the number of contingent workers. Defining as contingent any job in a firm that contracts to provide goods or services to another firm also would overestimate the prevalence of contingent work. Many workers employed by firms providing services under contract hold full-time, permanent jobs. For instance, the em ployees of a security firm that provides guards at a textile plant may be as secure in their jobs as the employees of the textile manufacturer. If the demand for the security firm’s service declines, its workers may lose their positions. Yet, the same could occur to textile workers if the de mand for textiles declines. The job security of both groups is subject to market forces. To clas sify one group as “contingent” and the other as “noncontingent” solely because one is em ployed by a contractor and the other by a manu facturer seems inappropriate. In fact, given the relative growth of the service-producing sector compared to the goods-producing sector, jobs in firms that obtain contracts to provide services may be more secure than jobs in firms that man ufacture goods. These examples illustrate the inconsistencies and possible misclassifications caused by the broadness of the operational definition of con tingent work— a definition which allows jobs offering a high degree of employment stability to be classified as contingent solely because they are not full-time, permanent, wage and salary positions. Perhaps a better approach would be to construct a definition based on the terms of employment, considering such factors as job security, variability in hours of work, and access to benefits. December 1989 employment. For example, a substitute teacher holding a position for a permanent teacher who is on maternity leave may be employed an entire school year. Nevertheless, the substitute posi tion would be contingent because there is no commitment to future employment. The crucial issue when classifying jobs is whether an expec tation of future employment exists, not the ac tual duration of the relationships. The lack of commitment for future employ ment also distinguishes contingent work from jobs that involve occasional layoffs. Individuals in noncontingent jobs may experience tempo rary layoffs due to the renovation of a firm’s equipment or a drop in demand for a firm’s product. Yet, the jobs would not be considered contingent if there was a reasonable expectation or explicit guarantee of recall. Another aspect of employment arrangements that could be included in a definition of contin gent work is variability in hours. In many jobs, the number and scheduling of hours worked may vary, depending on the availability of other workers, the season, or workers’ personal com mitments such as family or school responsi bilities. Arrangements in which the minimum number of hours worked can be changed in an unpredictable manner by the employer or em ployee should be regarded as contingent.9 When considering this aspect of contingency, the randomness of the hours variation is impor tant. Arrangements such as flexitime, in which hours can be changed according to established rules, should not be defined as contingent. Fur thermore, even if the hours worked do not con stitute a full-time schedule, the arrangement may not be contingent. For example, a perma nent 20-hour-a week job would not be contin gent. The emphasis should be on the unpre dictability of hours, not the level. Finally, much of the discussion surrounding contingent work has been concerned with indi viduals’ access to benefits, especially health insurance. Workers classified as contingent under the operational definition, typically re ceive few or no benefits. For instance, fewer than one-quarter of temporary help employees work in firms that offer health benefits.10 It could be argued that access to benefits should be included in a definition of contingent work because the presence of benefits in the employment relationship is a tangible sign of the commitment between the worker and em ployer. Nevertheless, while the availability of benefits is an important characteristic of em ployment arrangements, it is neither a neces sary, sufficient, nor even desirable condition for defining contingent work. Defining contin gency on the basis of who bears the financial https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis responsibility for benefits could misclassify jobs and deemphasize other important aspects of contingency. Self-employed individuals, for ex ample, are responsible legally and financially for all of their benefits. However, they often have long-term commitments to their employ ment, suggesting they should not be considered contingent. For wage and salary workers, a definition of contingency based on the lack of access to benefits probably would overlap a definition based on job security. The overlap arises because eligibility for benefits typically is tied to long-term employment. Taking into account the importance of job security and variability of hours, our definition of contingent work is: Any job in which an individual does not have an explicit or implicit contract for long-term employ ment or one in which the minimum hours worked can vary In a nonsystematic manner. 11 Dual labor market theory. A noteworthy fea ture of our definition is its apparent resemblance to the concept of the secondary job market de veloped by proponents of dual labor market the ory. Dual labor market theorists divide the labor market into primary and secondary markets. The primary market is characterized by jobs with relatively high wages, good working con ditions, promotion potential, and employment security. In contrast, the secondary market is characterized by jobs with low pay, poor work ing conditions, and little advancement or job security. Most dual labor market theorists con sider the difference in job security as the critical distinction between the primary and secondary markets.12 This emphasis on job security sug gests a connection between the secondary labor market and the proposed definition of contin gent work. Nevertheless, there are important differences in the motivation for the formation of the two concepts, as well as in the types of jobs which would fall within each category. Dual labor market theory was formulated during the 1960’s to explain the persistence of discrimination and unemployment among the economically disadvantaged, particularly urban blacks. The theory suggests that the poor eco nomic position of these individuals resulted from their entrapment in the secondary market. According to dual labor market theorists, no individual would choose to be employed in the secondary market.13 In contrast, when discussing contingent ar rangements, the economic positions of such di verse groups as working mothers and displaced workers are examined. Furthermore, analysts of the contingent labor market admit that some in dividuals hold contingent jobs voluntarily. Another aspect of employment arrangements that could be included in a definition of contingent work is variability in hours. .v December 1989 11 Defining “Contingent Work' In addition to these conceptual differences, secondary and contingent jobs differ in the breadth of occupations included in each cate gory. The secondary labor market is generally restricted to low-skilled occupations, while con tingent work often includes high-skilled occupa tions such as nurses, accountants, substitute teachers, and engineers. Thus, even though similarities exist between secondary jobs and contingent jobs, the differences are substantial enough that the discussion surrounding contin gent work cannot be subsumed by dual labor market theory. A shortage of labor in an occupation may force employers to hire individuals who are unwilling or unable to accept permanent positions. 12 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Why contingent work exists Before discussing issues involved in the meas urement of contingent arrangements, it would be useful to review the reasons why they exist. To draw attention to the fact that the desire for contingent arrangements can be generated by either the employer or the employee, the discus sion will be divided along these lines. Employers’ reasons. The most commonly cited reason for firms using contingent arrange ments is to control costs. Perhaps the largest cost savings result from the reduced time that paid workers are idle or work at less than full capacity.14 Within the course of a day, week, or year, the demand for a firm’s product can vary in a systematic way. Maintaining a constant work force through these expected changes in demand would be costly. To reduce these costs, firms may choose instead to hire workers on a contingent basis. For example, canning firms may hire seasonal workers during the harvest, owners of car washes may use day laborers to meet high demand on weekends, and private postal and fast food delivery services may use on-call hiring arrangements to meet daily peaks. In addition to decreasing the number of hours workers are idle, contingent arrangements can help firms contain costs by reducing worker compensation and administrative costs. Evi dence suggests that firms offer lower pay and few or no benefits to workers filling contingent positions.15 Additionally, contingent arrange ments can reduce personnel and training costs by eliminating many of the expenses which would be incurred when recruiting a “regular” employee.16 Any combination of these cost sav ings— a decline in the number of paid idle hours, lower wages, decreased liability for ben efits, or reduced personnel and training costs— could encourage firms to use contingent arrangements. Besides providing many cost savings, contin gent arrangements can help employers meet nonsystematic changes in demand for their D ecem ber 1989 products. At times, firms may be uncertain whether their product demand will continue at its current level. In the initial stages of an eco nomic recovery, for example, employers may be uncertain about whether an increase in de mand will be sustained. Consequently, even though firms may need extra workers, they may be reluctant to hire permanent staff until the economic outlook is more certain. Firms may choose instead to meet their labor demand with workers to whom they have no permanent com mitments.17 Adjusting to fluctuations in demand through contingent arrangements also can help firms in sulate a core of permanent employees from lay offs.18 There are several reasons why a firm may wish to protect the employment of its per manent staff. By increasing job security, firms can safeguard the human capital investment in their current workers and hire more talented new workers. In addition, firms may also obtain wage and work rule concessions from their per manent staff by offering them employment security. Similar to fluctuations in a firm’s demand for labor, the labor supply of its permanent staff could vary in both planned and unplanned ways. For instance, permanent workers may go on va cation, become ill, or have to care for an elderly parent or other family member. Firms may choose to cover these changes in labor supply with contingent workers. Firms may also use contingent arrangements to screen prospective candidates for permanent jobs. In a survey of 442 firms that was con ducted by Katherine Abraham in collaboration with the Bureau of National Affairs, 23 percent of the firms that used flexible arrangements re ported doing so in order to identify good candi dates for regular jobs.19 Many temporary help agencies view the practice of clients hiring “temps” on a permanent basis as enough of a problem to charge them a penalty when tempo rary workers are retained permanently.20 In addition to providing a mechanism to screen job candidates and reduce the personnel costs of clients, the temporary help industry may actually help stimulate the demand for con tingent workers. By assuring firms a steady sup ply of screened and trained workers, employers may be encouraged to use “temps” when they otherwise would forgo hiring. If firms had to recruit, train, and hire temporary replacements for permanent staff, the only cost effective alter natives may be to delay projects or reassign work. Access to the temporary help industry may enable firms to easily create contingent positions. While many factors encourage the use of con- tingent arrangements, there are times when firms may be compelled to do so. A shortage of labor in an occupation may force employers to hire individuals who are unwilling or unable to accept permanent positions. For example, some nursing homes and hospitals hire nurses on a contingent basis because they are unable to fill nursing vacancies at prevailing wages. Employ ers also may be willing to accommodate the desires of highly skilled workers for contingent arrangements in order to gain access to their expertise. For example, it is not unusual for firms to hire retired executives as temporary consultants.21 Finally, by increasing the cost of laying off workers, legislation designed to protect workers could inadvertently encourage employers to use contingent arrangements. Specifically, courts have held that under the Equal Employment Op portunity Act the composition of a group of laid-off workers can be used to establish that an employer’s actions are discriminatory, even if the intent to discriminate cannot be proven. Thus, any employer who lays off a large number of workers runs the risk of being sued. Contin gent arrangements can help employers eliminate this risk by reducing the need to furlough their own employees.22 All of the factors discussed above— cost con tainment, the ability to easily meet variations in product demand or labor supply, the desire to protect the employment of permanent staff, the inability to attract qualified permanent workers, and the existence of legislation which makes it costly to lay off permanent staff—may make contingent arrangements desirable for firms. Workers’ reasons. Much of the discussion surrounding contingent work suggests that indi viduals take contingent jobs only because they cannot find permanent work. This is undoubt edly true for some workers, especially during economic downturns. For a variety of reasons, however, some individuals may prefer contin gent arrangements. In order to meet family, school, or other non work responsibilities, many workers may need more flexible schedules than can typically be found in permanent work arrangements. Parents of young children may wish to work only during school hours or during the school year. Con versely, students may want to work only when school is not in session. Other workers may need flexible schedules so they can care for el derly parents. In order to gain this flexibility, workers may accept contingent positions.23 In addition to a desire for flexibility, workers may take contingent positions if they are unsure about their commitment to a particular field or https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to the labor market in general. To test their interests, new entrants or reentrants to the job market may take a contingent position in a field they are considering for a career. The temporary help industry may encourage market testing by providing workers an organized method of sam pling specific jobs as well as the job market in general. Another reason individuals may accept con tingent jobs is to supplement their income. Some workers may moonlight in contingent po sitions to meet regular expenses or pay off debts.24 Still others may accept contingent posi tions to meet temporary declines in family in come, particularly when other family members may be laid off. Older persons may work on a contingent basis to supplement pensions or So cial Security, where earnings limits often dis courage permanent, full-time work. While some individuals supplement income through contingent arrangements, others use them as a means of rearranging the form of compensation. Workers who are covered under their spouses’ health insurance and retirement programs may prefer the different combinations of benefits, hours flexibility, and cash income available through contingent arrangements. Others simply may be willing to trade compen sation for the freedom and independence of con tingent arrangements. Measuring contingent work Contingent arrangements are obviously not a new labor market phenomenon. However, some analysts have suggested that changing demo graphics and increasing cost pressures have caused the number of contingent jobs to in crease markedly in recent years.25 To ascertain whether contingent arrangements have become more prevalent, however, a good measurement of the number of contingent jobs is needed. A widely cited estimate of the contingent work force was made by Richard S. Belous of the National Planning Association. Belous esti mated that at least 29 million people held con tingent jobs in 1987. The figure is the sum of part-time workers, self-employed individuals, and a fraction of the employment in the tempo rary help supply industry.26 Although useful for drawing attention to the issue of contingent work, this estimate can be improved both in its concept and calculation. Conceptual problems stem from the approach used to make the estimate. Groups of workers are counted as contingent on the basis of characteristics that are not directly related to contingency. Specifically, all part-time and self-employed workers are counted as contin- To test their interest, new entrants or reentrants to the job market may take a contingent position in a field they are considering for a career. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 13 14 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Defining “Contingent Work' gent, although as previously noted, many of these individuals are in long-term, stable work arrangements.27 Belous’s approach also leads to both over counting and undercounting. A substantial num ber of workers fall into more than one of the categories included in his estimate, b l s data show that, in 1987, about 1.9 million of the self-employed worked part time, and an un known number of the workers in temporary help jobs may have held second jobs in which they were part time or self-employed.28 On the other hand, a major source of undercounting in the estimate is the lack of data about workers hired directly by employers for temporary jobs. Many of the above criticisms could be made of any estimate of contingent work that uses data currently available. Current nationally rep resentative surveys simply do not measure the extent of contingent arrangements.29 Ideally, an estimate of contingent employ ment would be made using data collected about job security and the variability of hours worked. Using our proposed definition of contingency as a guide, such data might be obtained through a new survey or additional questions on an exist ing survey. Prior to formulating the questions, a decision would need to be made on the most appropriate survey instrument. An establish ment, household, or combined establishment and household survey could be the vehicle for the measurement. An establishment survey would allow the distinction to be made between contingent jobs and workers who change jobs frequently, making the jobs they hold appear to be contingent. This difference is important be cause many workers move frequently among permanent jobs, particularly early in their ca reers. A household survey, however, would have the advantage of easily providing a variety of demographic information. Furthermore, it would permit an investigation of the proportion of workers who prefer contingent arrangements. To take advantage of the strengths of both types of surveys, the most appropriate instru ment for measuring contingent employment may be a combined establishment and house hold survey. Establishments and workers could be matched through the use of unemployment insurance records. A sample of the firms and workers could then be surveyed. A combined survey would provide information about a myr iad of demographic, occupational, industrial, and establishment characteristics. In addition, employers’ and employees’ perceptions of the terms of employment for specific jobs could be compared. Regardless of the type of survey, questions concerning job security and variability of hours would have to be developed. To understand and accurately measure contingent arrangements, it might be necessary to use at least three types of questions. Questions designed to (1) elicit in formation about the probability of existing em ployment arrangements continuing; (2) inquire directly about commitments to long-term em ployment; and (3) measure characteristics that may be indicative of contingent arrangements. For instance, when inquiring about job security, both employers and employees could be asked about the probability of a position remaining in existence if current economic conditions con tinue, the probability of the position being eliminated if conditions deteriorate, and, for workers who are laid off, the probability of being recalled if conditions improve. Employers and employees could also be asked directly if a commitment to long-term employment exists. Finally, information could be sought about characteristics of specific jobs such as the distri bution of individuals’ job tenure. Such informa tion may be useful for distinguishing between permanent and contingent jobs. The above dis cussion touches on some of the issues to con sider in a measure of contingent work. Final determination of the type of survey to be used and the questions to be asked will require further research and discussion. a r t ic l e h a s s o u g h t to define and explain the existence of contingent work. The extent and effects of such arrangements will un doubtedly continue to be important issues. Be sides counting the number of such jobs, the effects of these arrangements on America’s in ternational economic position, corporate profit, capital investment, and individual economic welfare are issues worthy of study. □ T h is Footnotes 1 Reasons firms have sought greater control of labor costs include the severe recessions of the early 1980’s, the rise in international competition in many manufacturing industries, and the deregulation of domestic transportation, communi cation, and finance industries. See Audrey Freedman, “How the 1980’s have changed industrial relations,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1988, pp. 35-38; and Roberta V. McKay, “International Competition: Its Impact on Employ D ecem ber 1989 ment,” in Flexible Workstyles: A Look at Contingent Labor (U .S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau, 1988), pp. 2 3-28. 2 Richard S. Belous, “How human resource systems ad just to the shift toward contingent workers,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1989, pp. 7 -1 2 . 3 Testimony of Rodger Dillon before the Committee on Government Operations, U .S. House of Representatives, Rising Use of Part-time and Temporary Workers: Who Ben efits and Who Loses? (Washington, U .S. Government Print ing Office, 1988), pp. 116-38; Kathleen Christensen, “Women’s Labor Force Attachment: Rise of Contingent Work,” in Flexible Workstyles, pp. 76-82; and Marcia Freedman, “Shifts in Labor Market Structure and Patterns of Occupational Training,” in Flexible Workstyles, pp. 6 5-68. 4 Joani Nelson-Horchler, “The Trouble with Temps,” In dustry Week, Dec. 14, 1987, pp. 53-57; and testimony of Rodger Dillon, pp. 136-37. 5 Testimony o f Audrey Freedman, Rising Use of Parttime and Temporary Workers, p. 35. 6 Kathleen Christensen states, “Contingent work is an umbrella term used to describe changes in employeremployee relations. It typically covers a variety o f forms including part-time, temporary, self-employed independent contracting, and occasionally home-based work arrange ments.” See her testimony, Rising Use of Part-time and Temporary Workers, p. 82. Christensen and Mary Murphree state, “Workers are being hired on a part-time, temporary, contractual, or leased basis. Collectively, this trend has been referred to as the ‘contingent workforce’.” See Kath leen Christensen and Mary Murphree, “Introduction to,” Flexible Workstyles, p. 1. Rodger Dillon states, “Con tingent workers include in their ranks part-time workers, temporary workers, self-employed contract workers, athome workers, and leased em ployees.” See his testimony, p. 119. Susan Christopherson states, “In addition to growth in the part-time workforce, other forms of contingent work have emerged, including a large temporary industry work force.” See “Production Organization and Worktime: The Emergence o f a Contingent Labor Market,” in Flexible Workstyles, p. 34. 7 Other authors have stated that the central issue with regard to contingent work is the employer-employee rela tionship. See Christensen and Murphree, Flexible Workstyles, p. 2; and Richard S. Belous, “How human resource systems adjust,” p. 7. 8 Bureau o f Labor Statistics, unpublished data from the Current Population Survey, supplement on job tenure and occupational mobility, January 1987. 9 In the temporary help industry, for example, either the employer or employee can vary the number o f hours worked on a daily basis. The agency may have no work to offer, or the “temp” may not seek or may reject an assignment that is offered. 10 Harry B. Williams, “What temporary workers earn: findings from new bls survey,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1989, pp. 3 -6 . 11 The definition refers to variations in the minimum number o f hours to ensure that jobs involving overtime are not classified as contingent. 12 For example, Michael J. Piore states: “The relative stability o f jobs and workers in the two sectors also appeared to be the critical explanatory variable in understanding the origins o f the two sectors, and the other characteristics may be viewed as derivatives of this one factor.” See “Notes for the Theory o f Labor Market Stratification,” in R. Edwards and others, eds., Labor Market Segmentation (Lexington, ma , D.C. Heath and C o., 1975), pp. 125-50. 13 For a good review of the literature on dual labor market theory, see Glen C. Cain, “The Challenge of Segmented La bor Market Theories to Orthodox Theory: A Survey,” Jour nal of Economic Literature, December 1976, pp. 1215-57. 14 Audrey Freedman, Rising Use of Part-time and Tem porary Workers, p. 37. 15 Evidence that contingent workers receive lower wages https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and benefits than permanent workers usually is inferred from the pay and benefits differentials between full- and part-time workers. See Belous, “How human resource sys tems adjust,” p. 11; Kathleen Christensen, “W omen’s Labor Force Attachment,” p. 82; and Sar A. Levitan and Elizabeth A. Conway, “Part-time Employment: Living on Half Ra tions,” Graduate Institute for Policy Education and Research Working Paper (Washington, George Washington Univer sity, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, 1988), pp. 1 0 - 15. 16 Audrey Freedman, Rising Use of Part-time and Tem porary Workers, p. 38. 17 Max L. Carey and Kim L. Hazelbaker, “Employment growth in the temporary help industry,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1986, pp. 37-44; and Christopherson, “Pro duction Organization and Worktime,” pp. 3 4-38. 18 Paul Osterman, Employment Futures: Reorganization, Dislocation, and Public Policy (New York, Oxford Univer sity Press, 1988), pp. 8 5-89. 19 Katherine G. Abraham, “Restructuring the Employ ment Relationship: The Growth of Market-Mediated Work Arrangements,” unpublished paper prepared for the confer ence on New Developments in Labor Markets and Human Resource Policies, held at mit’s Endicott House, June 1 1 - 12, 1987, revised October 1988, table 5. 20 Garth Mangum, Donald Mayall, and Kristin Nelson, “The Temporary Help Industry: A Response to the Dual Internal Labor Market,” Industrial and Labor Relations Re view, July 1985, pp. 599-611. 21 Kathleen Christensen, “Independent Contracting,” Flexible Workstyles, pp. 5 4 -5 8 . 22 The number of cases charging age discrimination in dismissals or layoff decisions has risen very rapidly. The number o f charges involving age discrimination handled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc) or by State agencies reporting to the eeoc more than doubled between 1980 and 1986, increasing from about 5,500 to more than 13,000. Settlements of these cases can be expen sive. The Equitable Life Insurance C o., which was in a lawsuit involving a layoff of 360 workers over the age of 40, ended up paying $12.5 million. See Abraham, “Re structuring the Employment Relationship,” p. 26. Even if a court case does not result in a lawsuit, complying with the law can be costly and time consuming. As Steve Crosely, vice-president of marketing for Norell Services, noted: “To drop a permanent employee may require a manager to go through equal opportunity checks that could take 90 days.” See “Technical Temps— A Growing Trend,” Administrative Management, February 1986, pp. 2 5 -2 9 . 23 Of course, accepting a contingent arrangement to gain flexibility may also reflect the lack of good alternatives. Lack of good child care may cause a parent who would otherwise prefer to work at a permanent job to take a contin gent one. See Christensen, Rising Use Of Part-time and Temporary Workers, p. 87. 24 Data from the May 1985 supplement to the Current Population Survey showed that about 40 percent of multiple jobholders worked at more than one job to meet regular household expenses or to pay off debts. See John F. Stinson, Jr., “Moonlighting by women jumped to record highs,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1986, pp. 2 2-25. 25 There is some indication that changing demographics and industrial structure within the United States has encour aged the growth of contingent arrangements. The relative increase in the number of women with both work and family responsibilities, for example, may have expanded the pool of workers interested in flexible employment arrangements. The labor force participation rate of women with children M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 15 Defining “Contingent Work' increased from 52.9 percent to 65.0 percent between 1978 and 1988. See “Labor Force Participation Unchanged Among Mothers with Young Children,” Bureau of Labor Statistics News, USDL 8 8 -4 3 1 , Sept. 7, 1988. The recent growth o f the service sector may also have increased the econom y’s reliance on contingent arrangements, because industries in the service sector typically cannot store their products. Furthermore, evidence exists that more rapidly changing technology has compressed product cycles. Evi dence also indicates that the greater integration o f the United States into the international economy has increased the vul nerability o f export demand to exchange rate variability. See Piore and Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide (New York, Basic Books Inc., 1984). Both shorter product life cycles and increased variation in export demand could increase unexpected fluctuations in firms’ product demand. Growth in expected and unexpected changes o f firms’ product de mand may cause the use o f contingent arrangements to rise. 26 9 -1 0 . 27 Belous also provides a higher estimate of the contin gent work force that includes all employees in the business services industry. See Belous, “How human resource sys tems adjust,” p. 9. As was argued earlier, however, employ ment in a firm that provides services under contract does not necessarily mean that a worker is contingent. Individuals working in advertising, credit reporting and collections, computer and data processing services, research and devel opment, and management consulting— industries included in business services— may have as much job security as manufacturing workers. 28 Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished data from the Current Population Survey, 1987 annual averages. 29 Information on the contracting-out practices in four manufacturing industries was obtained through a special survey undertaken by bls . For a summary o f the results, see Janice D. Murphy, “Business contracting-out practices: evidence from a bls survey,” unpublished paper presented Belous, “How human resource systems adjust,” pp. at the Eastern Economic Association Meetings, Mar. 3 -5 , 1989. Health care: a long case history Support for public health care and “sickness” insurance predates social secu rity. Since the colonial period, local communities had built and subsidized asylums, “pesthouses,” almshouses, dispensaries, and hospitals for the sick and poor. Most cities and many States by the early 20th century had health departments to monitor sanitation and to control disease. During the Progres sive period, reformers linked health care issues with income-maintenance schemes; by 1915, there was probably more support for governmentsupported health insurance than for a system of contributory old-age pen sions. California, New York, and Massachusetts considered compulsory health insurance proposals based on ideas formulated by the American Asso ciation for Labor Legislation. The American Medical Association suggested management guidelines for such compulsory programs. These initiatives foundered with surprising rapidity, however. American physicians suddenly turned hostile toward mandatory health insurance as they rethought its impli cations for their professional freedom and economic future. Others de nounced the idea as “Socialist” and “European.” The New York Medical So ciety, reversing its earlier stance, in 1925 flatly announced that compulsory health insurance “is a dead issue in the United States.” 16 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — W. Andrew Achenbaum S o c ia l S ecu rity: V ision s a n d R e v isio n s (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 162-63. D ecem ber 1989 The Quality of Jobs Flexible benefits plans: employees who have a choice Although flexible compensation arrangements have generated considerable attention in recent years, such plans were available to only 13 percent of surveyed workers in 1988 Joseph R. Meisenheimer II and William J. Wiatrowski Joseph R. Meisenheimer II, an economist formerly with the Division of Occupational Pay and Employee Benefit Levels, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, is currently with the Division o f Labor Force Statistics. William J. Wiatrowski is an economist in the Division o f Occupational Pay and Employee Benefit Levels. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis wice as many full-time employees of medium and large private firms were eli gible for flexible benefits plans or reim bursement accounts in 1988 as in 1986. Despite this growth, such plans were available to only 13 percent of workers covered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 1988 survey of employee benefits in medium and large firms.1 Flexible benefits plans, reimbursement accounts, and other arrangements, such as leave banks and alternative work schedules, have been the sub ject of considerable debate and interest in the 1980’s, as employers seek to control benefit costs and employees seek to satisfy individual needs. Flexible benefits plans, also called cafeteria plans, are arrangements in which employees tai lor their benefits package to their specific needs. Employees can select the benefits they value most and may forgo benefits of lesser impor tance to them. Under a flexible arrangement, an employer allocates a specified amount of money to each employee to “purchase” benefits. In this way, employers control the amount they spend on each employee for benefits, while the em ployee selects the benefits. This method differs from a traditional benefits program, in which an employer offers a standard package with few, if T any, choices to employees.2 Reimbursement accounts may supplement flexible benefits plans, or they may stand alone. Reimbursement accounts, also called flexible spending accounts, provide a way for em ployees to pay for certain expenses that are not covered by existing benefit plans, such as med ical care deductibles or dependent care costs. Under these accounts, eligible employees may deposit part of their pay into an account estab lished by the employer, usually before taxes are calculated. In addition, some employers also contribute to the accounts. Employees are then reimbursed from these accounts for specified expenses.3 The choices that employees make through their flexible benefits plans, reimbursement accounts, and other forms of flexible compensa tion reflect the worth employees place on bene fits. This article explores changes in the work force that have led employers to offer flexible compensation arrangements, the choices em ployees have made, and some means being used to measure the payout of benefits. (A more the oretical approach to deriving a value of em ployee benefits in relation to their costs to the employer is discussed by Melissa Famulari and Marilyn Manser on pages 24-32.) M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 17 Flexible Benefits Plans Changing demographics Flexible benefits plans, also called cafeteria plans, are arrangements in which employees tailor their benefits packages to their specific needs. 18 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Over the last two decades, the labor force has grown by more than 50 percent, and its compo sition has changed dramatically. One key devel opment has been the increasing participation of women. In 1988, women accounted for 45 per cent of the labor force, compared with 37 per cent in 1968. Fifty-seven percent of women age 16 and older participated in the labor force in 1988, up from 42 percent in 1968. And not only are women participating increasingly in the over all labor force, but they now make up a larger share of employment in some industries and oc cupations traditionally dominated by men. Another major change in the labor force is the increasing proportion of dual-income families. In 1968, the husband and wife were earners in 45 percent of married-couple families. By 1987 (the most recent year for which data are avail able), this proportion had risen to 57 percent. Conversely, the husband was the sole earner in 35 percent of married-couple families in 1968, compared with 19 percent in 1987. Changes in the composition of the labor force have led to changing benefits needs of its members. More dual-earner families can lead to duplication of certain benefits, such as health insurance, which is commonly available to em ployees and families. Conversely, dual-earner families have needs that may not be satisfied by traditional benefits packages— for example, they may require child care and time off to tend to family commitments. Hence, a uniform bene fits package that usually consists of health care, life insurance, income protection during short term disabilities, a pension plan, and a paid vacation may no longer be suited to a changing labor force. The industrial composition of today’s labor force is also quite different from that of two decades ago. In 1988, 18 percent of all workers were in manufacturing, down from 29 percent in 1968. Offsetting this decline is the increase in employment in service-producing industries— including wholesale and retail trade, finance, transportation, and other services—to 76 percent in 1988, compared with 65 percent in 1968.4 Employers, faced with domestic and foreign competition, are looking for ways to control costs, including employee benefits costs. No longer can employee benefits be considered “fringes of compensation”; in 1988, benefits ac counted for slightly more than 27 percent of the cost of total compensation.5 Another factor that may influence the growth of flexible compensation is the increase in mergers and acquisitions among U.S. firms. Flexible benefits plans may be used to integrate D ecem ber 1989 benefits offered to a newly merged work force. In this way, employees can keep their existing benefits even though they now work for a differ ent company. Each factor— the changing com position of the labor force, employers’ encoun ters with foreign and domestic competition, and mergers and acquisitions among firms— has resulted in increased interest in flexible com pensation arrangements, such as flexible benefits plans, flexible work schedules, and leave banks. Incidence of flexible plans Although growing in incidence and receiving considerable interest, flexible benefits plans and reimbursement accounts are not widespread. According to the 1988 survey of employee benefits, 5 percent of full-time employees were eligible for flexible benefits plans, and 12 percent were eligible for reimbursement ac counts. These plans are more common among white-collar workers than among blue-collar workers.6 Seven percent of professional and ad ministrative workers were eligible for flexible benefits plans in 1988; only 2 percent of produc tion and service workers were eligible. Reim bursement accounts were available to 20 percent of professional and administrative workers, compared with 5 percent of production and service workers. (See table 1.) In the b l s 1987 survey of employee benefits in State and local governments, 5 percent of full-time employees were eligible for flexible benefits plans and 5 percent were eligible for reimbursement accounts.7 Teachers (at 8 per cent) were twice as likely as regular employees (4 percent) and four times as likely as police officers and firefighters (2 percent) to be eligi ble for a flexible benefits plan.8 (See table 1.) However, the disparity was much smaller for reimbursement accounts for which 5 percent of teachers, 4 percent of regular employees, and 3 percent of police and firefighters were eligible. Flexible benefits plans were first instituted in 1974 at an East Coast service firm and a West Coast manufacturing firm. For several years there was little additional interest in such plans, as employers waited to gauge employee reac tion, and for legal uncertainties to be resolved. With the addition of Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code, effective in 1979, the legal un certainties began to disappear. During the 1980’s, the incidence of flexible benefits plans has slowly increased.9 Plan design In a flexible benefits plan, the employer allo cates a specified amount of money to each em- Table 1. Full-time employees eligible for flexible benefits plans and reimbursement accounts, medium and large firms in private industry, 1986 and 1988, and State and local govern ments, 1987 Private industry, 1988 (pre-expanded scope)1 Private industry, 1986 Coverage Total ................................... Eligible for flexible benefits and/or reimbursement accounts2 .......... Flexible benefits ........................... With reimbursement accounts .. Reimbursement accounts............. Freestanding reimbursement accounts................................. Not eligible for flexible benefits or reimbursement accounts — All employees Professional and administrative employees Technical and clerical employees Production employees All employees Professional and administrative employees Technical and clerical employees Production and service employees 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 5 2 2 5 9 4 3 9 8 2 2 7 2 1 (3) 1 15 6 5 14 23 9 8 22 20 10 8 19 6 2 1 5 3 5 5 1 9 14 11 4 95 91 92 98 85 77 80 94 State and local governments, 1987 Private industry, 1988 (expanded scope)4 Total ................................... Eligible for flexible benefits and/or reimbursement accounts2 .......... Flexible benefits ........................... With reimbursement accounts .. Reimbursement accounts............. Freestanding reimbursement accounts................................. Not eligible for flexible benefits or reimbursement accounts ___ All employees Professional and administrative employees Technical and clerical employees Production and service employees All employees Regular employees5 Teachers Police and firefighters 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 13 5 4 12 20 7 7 20 18 8 7 17 6 2 1 5 9 5 1 5 8 4 1 4 11 8 2 5 4 2 (3) 3 8 13 10 4 3 3 3 3 87 80 82 94 91 92 89 96 1 These data include only establishments covered by the pre-expanded survey and are directly comparable with the 1986 survey. 2 Flexible benefits plans (or cafeteria plans) allow employees to choose from a selection of benefits those that they value most highly. Reimbursement accounts (or flexible spending accounts) provide money for expenses not covered by existing benefits plans. 3 Less than 0.5 percent. 4 These data are not strictly comparable with 1986 data. The 1988 survey cov- ployee to purchase benefits. Many plans also will permit employee contributions if the cost of the desired benefit exceeds the employer alloca tion. Such contributions are often deducted be fore taxes, reducing the employee’s taxable income. In most flexible benefits plans, employees may choose from a variety of health care and life insurance options. Some plans permit the purchase of various levels of sickness and acci dent insurance, long-term disability insurance, and additional vacation and sick leave days. Employees may also “sell” vacation and sick leave days to buy other benefits. A few plans offer dependent care, adoption assistance, and legal assistance benefits. Many plans permit employees to take cash in lieu of benefits, and some allow contributions to a deferred compen https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ered firms in private sector industries, except agriculture and households (maids, housekeepers), employing at least 100 workers. The 1986 survey excluded several major service industries, and minimum employment ranged from 50 to 250, de pending on the industry. 5 Workers other than teachers, police, and firefighters. Note: Sums of individual items may not equal totals because some employees were eligible for both flexible benefits plans and reimbursement accounts. sation account, such as a 401(k) savings and thrift plan. Data from individual employers on the extent of workers opting for cash over some or all of their flexible benefits package show no clear trends. In some cases, only about 10 percent of workers chose cash in lieu of benefits, while in one establishment nearly 65 percent of work ers chose cash.10 In many cases where a cash option is available, employees are not allowed to trade all benefits for cash. Instead, a mini mum level of benefits must be chosen, while additional benefits may be declined in favor of cash. Reimbursement accounts are commonly de veloped as independent accounts, but may also be established as part of a flexible benefits plan. As noted earlier, these accounts are usually M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 19 20 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Flexible Benefits Plans funded by employee pretax contributions. In a few cases, employers may contribute directly to a freestanding reimbursement account, or if the account is part of a flexible benefits plan, an employee may deposit part of the employer’s plan allocation into the account. Reimbursement accounts are established to help pay for certain expenses specifically men tioned in the plan. Generally, there are two types of accounts: health care and dependent care. A typical health care account reimburses an employee for such items as premium contri butions, copayments, deductibles, and other ex penses not covered by the employer’s health plan.11 A typical dependent care account reim burses an employee for day-care expenses for dependent children, dependent parents, or dis abled dependents such as spouses. In rare cases, reimbursement accounts may be established for legal expenses. The following shows the cover age of certain expenses by reimbursement ac counts in medium and large private firms in 1988: T yp ic a lly c o v e r e d • Health care deductibles, copayments, and coin surance • Health expenses not covered by the employee’s health plan • Dependent care expenses C o v e r e d le s s fre q u e n tly • Employee’s share of health care premiums • Other insurance premiums such as life insurance • Legal expenses Some case studies Because of the small number of flexible benefits plans reported in the 1988 survey of employee benefits, the Bureau cannot project the survey findings into economy-wide estimates. How ever, individual situations from the benefits lit erature and from the survey illustrate choices made by employees. Indeed, flexible benefits have had varying effects on employee behavior. The following compares experiences of a large bank with those of a service organization. A bank’s experience. Prior to implementation of the bank’s flexible benefits program, an em ployee opinion survey revealed that only 39 per cent of its employees were pleased with their benefits package, even though the medical and dental plans were entirely paid by the employer. The company introduced a flexible benefits pro gram that included various levels of health, life, accidental death and dismemberment, and long D ecem ber 1989 term disability insurance coverage. In addition, the program included reimbursement accounts covering health and dependent care, a 401(k) savings plan, and the ability to buy or sell vaca tion days. Nearly all of the employees (94 percent) changed some benefits in the first election; 30 percent changed health coverage; 52 percent, life coverage; 39 percent, long-term disability coverage; and 43 percent, vacation benefits. In addition, 53 percent of the employees partici pated in the health care reimbursement account. The bank’s flexible benefits program appears to be a success; when the employee opinion survey was repeated 2 years later, 87 percent of the employees were pleased with their benefits package.12 Service organization’s experience. Although the bank’s employees took considerable advan tage of their flexible benefits program, the story at the service organization was quite different. Before the flexible benefits program began, a company survey found that 57 percent of the employees wanted to select their own benefits; 61 percent of them said they would take less of one benefit to get more of another. But, 88 percent of employees selected a benefits pack age very similar to their coverage prior to imple mentation of the program.13 Other experiences. Another establishment of fered a flexible benefits program in which em ployees received an amount of money based on their pay, years of service, job grade, and age. With this money, employees could purchase health coverage, life insurance for themselves and their dependents, accidental death and dis memberment insurance, survivor income bene fits, and long-term disability insurance. They could also buy or sell up to 5 vacation days, receive cash in lieu of benefits, and deposit money into health and dependent care reim bursement accounts. Employees could choose from four levels of medical plans (basic, medium, high, and pre mium), three health maintenance organizations ( h m o ’ s ) , and a dental plan.14 They were allowed to waive health benefits, but only if they were covered as a dependent under another group medical plan (6 percent waived their health ben efits). h m o ’ s and high benefits plans were the most popular, each selected by 29 percent of employees, followed by basic plans with 21 per cent of employees; premium plans, 10 percent; and medium plans, 5 percent. Most employees (94 percent) also selected dental benefits. Employees could choose life insurance cover age equal to one of five multiples of annual pay. Thirty-one percent of employees chose one-half annual pay; 21 percent chose one times pay; 19 percent, two times pay; 17 percent, four times pay; and 12 percent, three times pay. Of the three long-term disability benefits plans, 57 per cent of the employees chose the plan replacing half of annual pay, 31 percent chose to replace seven-tenths of pay, and 12 percent chose to replace six-tenths of pay. Experiences with public plans. Flexible bene fits plans in State and local governments are frequently not as comprehensive as those in the private sector. According to the Bureau’s 1987 survey of employee benefits in State and local governments, public sector plans generally re strict options to health care coverage and life insurance. Often, employees are permitted to receive cash in lieu of benefits, and a few plans offer various amounts of long-term disability coverage. Flexible benefits plans in State and local governments generally do not include re imbursement accounts; only 1 in 5 employees eligible for a flexible benefits plan in 1987 was also eligible for a reimbursement account. Pub lic sector flexible benefits plans almost never include 401(k) plans, vacation, or sick leave options. The experiences of a large Southwest city show that even when choices are limited, em ployees have very definite ideas of what bene fits they prefer.15 With the implementation of flexible benefits in 1986, the city’s employees could choose between different levels of medi cal and dental care, and could improve disabil ity protection. Several benefits were specifically excluded from the plan, such as life insurance and vacations. Prior to implementing the new program, 60 percent of employees chose the fee-for-service plan and 40 percent chose the h m o . In addition, 63 percent chose dental care. These numbers were virtually unchanged under the flexible benefits plan, but nearly all fee-forservice plan participants opted for a different deductible than the one provided under the old plan. In most cases, a lower deductible was chosen. Likewise, one-third of dental plan par ticipants, when given the choice, switched from a fee-for-service plan to a plan in which services are provided free, or for a small, fixed fee. Few of the city’s employees chose the additional dis ability coverage that was offered. Other flexible arrangements The needs of the changing work force have prompted interest in other forms of flexible ar rangements. For example, to accommodate the special needs of two-earner and single-parent https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis families, some employers have adopted flexible work schedules. These programs range from al lowing employees to vary arrival and departure times to permitting employees to work extra hours on some days and fewer hours on other days. A recent Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of private and public sector establishments with 10 or more employees showed that 43 percent of the establishments offered flexible work sched ules.16 Leave banks are also receiving attention. These programs combine several forms of paid leave— for example, vacation time, sick leave, and personal leave— into one leave category. Restrictions on the purposes for which leave may be used are relaxed, giving employees more flexibility in meeting their needs. Another practice, found primarily in public school districts, is leave-sharing programs. These plans typically allow employees to donate sick leave each year into an “account,” which can be drawn upon by employees who have exhausted their own sick leave due to lengthy illnesses. The Federal Government is experi menting with this type of leave-sharing policy. Early indications are that fellow employees are generous in donating their leave, and that those with lengthy illnesses are benefiting. The litera ture indicates that other employers are begin ning to adopt a variety of flexible leave policies.17 Greater employee choice has also been evi dent in insurance and retirement benefit pro grams. Data from the Employee Benefits Survey show that the proportion of establish ments offering full-time employees more than one medical plan has risen from 13 percent in Dual-earner 1980 to 32 percent in 1984, then to 54 percent families have in 1988.18 needs that may To help curb rising health care costs, employ ers may offer workers alternatives to traditional not be satisfied by fee-for-service health insurance plans. Among traditional medium and large firms, participation in h m o ’ s benefits packages. (which are often offered in addition to fee-forservice plans) rose from 3 percent of health care plan participants in 1980, to 5 percent in 1984, and to 19 percent in 1988.19 A more recent plan, preferred provider organizations, grew from 1 percent of participants in 1986 (the first year studied) to 7 percent in 1988.20 (Preferred providers are groups of hospitals, physicians, and dentists who contract to provide health care services. These plans limit reimbursement rates when participants use the services of nonmem ber providers.) Employers have also built flexibility into their retirement programs by introducing salary reduction or 401(k) plans. Relatively unknown in 1980, these plans were available to one-third M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 21 22 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Flexible Benefits Plans of full-time employees in medium and large firms in 1988.21 Employees can reduce their taxable income by channeling part of their earn ings into long-term retirement and savings plans. Typically, employees choose whether to join the plan and the amount to save, subject to a maximum limit. These plans allow employees to use their own contributions to supplement employer-sponsored retirement plans (such as defined benefit pension and profit-sharingplans) and, in effect, create their own retirement program. Measuring payouts Comparing employee benefits plans is difficult because plans typically consist of many provi sions. For example, how does a health in surance plan with a $100 deductible, an 80percent coinsurance rate, extensive mental health care coverage, and an employee premium of $100 per month compare to an h m o plan with no deductible, a coinsurance rate of 100 per cent, restrictive mental health care coverage, and an employee premium of $20 per month? To meet the needs of data users who have requested simpler measures, the Bureau is working on several statistical models that esti mate plan payouts.22 The models compute pay outs by making certain assumptions about plan provisions. As with any model, these are sim plified versions of reality: They do not take into account the circumstances of individual workers or employers, and they do not consider all fac tors affecting payouts. The first of these models used 1984 defined benefit pension plan data.23 For each pension plan, monthly benefits and replacement rates (the percentage of preretirement income re placed by pension benefits) are computed for employees with assumed final earnings and years of service. These data are averaged to estimate benefits for all defined benefit pension plan participants. Calculations take into account benefit formulas, service maximums, Social Se curity integration, alternative methods of com puting benefits, and other features.24 Future plans include expanding the replacement rate calculations to account for reduced benefits at early retirement and for survivor benefits. In 1986, the replacement rates model calcu lated that participants in defined benefit pension plans in medium and large private firms with 30 years of service and final year earnings of $25,000 would have an average of 28 percent of preretirement earnings replaced by their plan D ecem ber 1989 benefits. If primary Social Security benefits were included, the replacement rate rose to 62 percent. Data from the 1987 survey of State and local governments showed higher replacement rates, and variations in benefits, depending on Social Security coverage.25 W hat’s ahead The Bureau is preparing other models. Perhaps the most ambitious is a measure to summarize payouts from health care plans. This model will compute the benefits paid by the health plan and the expenses the employee must pay in a num ber of annual medical scenarios. For each health care plan in the survey, the total cost of a medical procedure will be compared with de ductibles, copayments, maximum dollar limita tions, coinsurance rates, and out-of-pocket expense limits to determine the plan’s and the employee’s share of costs. Employee premiums will be included in calculations to determine total employee costs for a year. To highlight distinctions among plans, data will be tabulated separately for h m o ’ s and, perhaps, for other variables. Also planned are the results of an analysis of life insurance benefits available to employees. For each life insurance plan in the Employee Benefits Survey, coverage was computed for employees, based on assumed earnings and years of service. These data were averaged for the entire survey, revealing typical benefits available to a beneficiary upon death of an em ployee. Additional calculations provide the av erage insurance coverage for older active employees, whose benefits may be reduced as the cost of coverage increases. In addition to the Bureau’s work on the pay outs of pension, health care, and life insurance plans, the Employee Benefits Survey will ex pand its coverage of flexible compensation. The 1989 survey collected information on the inci dence of flexible work schedules, and in 1990, data will be collected on the incidence of leave banks. Also in 1990, the survey will improve its coverage of flexible benefits plans and reim bursement accounts to acquire more specific de tails on these plans. At the same time, the sur vey coverage is expanding. Medium and large private firms will be surveyed in odd years, and small firms (from 1 to 99 employees) and gov ernments in even years. These changes should enable the Bureau to chart developments in flex ible compensation more extensively throughout the economy. □ Footnotes 1 The 1988 Employee Benefits Survey is a sample survey o f approximately 2,500 private sector establishments in the District o f Columbia and all States except Alaska and Hawaii. An establishment must employ at least 100 workers to be within the scope of the survey. The survey provides representative data for 31 million full-time employees on a variety o f employee benefits, such as leave benefits, shortand long-term disability coverage, health benefits, life in surance, retirement and capital accumulation plans, child care, employee assistance programs, and educational assis tance. Survey data are published in a Department o f Labor news release and in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin, Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1988, Bul letin 2336 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1989). In addition, detailed articles on survey findings are published periodi cally in the Monthly Labor Review. 2 The survey tabulated the number of eligible employees, those who could receive flexible benefits if desired. To be included in this study, a flexible benefits plan had to offer at least two types o f benefits (health care and life insurance, for example). Employees could then choose one benefit, or both, depending on their needs. 3 Flexible benefits plans and reimbursement accounts are established under the requirements of Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. Regulations concerning these plans can be found in 26 C.F.R. 1.125. The tax code and regulations specify benefits that may and may not be included in these plans. For example, the only deferred compensation plans that may be included are cash or deferred arrangements (Internal Revenue Code Section 401 (k) plans). The law also imposes the restriction that money allocated by an employee to a reimbursement account and not used by the end of the plan year is forfeited. 4 Labor force data were obtained from Labor Force Statistics Derived from the Current Population Survey, 1948-87, Bulletin 2307 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988); and unpublished data from the Current Population Survey and the Current Employment Statistics survey. 3 Employment Cost Indexes and Levels, 1975-88, Bul letin 2319 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988), p. 43. 6 In the 1988 Employee Benefits Survey, workers were classified into three broad occupational groups: professional and administrative, technical and clerical, and production and service. Professional and administrative and technical and clerical workers are commonly referred to as whitecollar employees, and production and service workers as blue-collar employees. The Bureau tabulated employee ben efits data for each o f the three occupational groups and for all three occupational groups combined. 7 The 1987 Employee Benefits Survey is a sample survey o f approximately 1,000 State and local government employ ers in the District o f Columbia and all States except Alaska and Hawaii. Local government entities had to employ at least 50 workers to be within the scope of the survey. The survey provides representative data for approximately 10 million full-time State and local government employees. Survey findings are in Employee Benefits in State and Local Governments, 1987, Bulletin 2309 (Bureau of Labor Statis tics, 1988). 8 In the 1987 Employee Benefits Survey, workers were classified into three broad occupational groups: regular em ployees, teachers, and police and firefighters. Regular em https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ployees were defined as workers who were not teachers, police officers, or firefighters. 9 “Employees Satisfied with Flexible Benefits at Three Companies with Oldest Such Programs,” Spencer’s Re search Reports, September 1983, pp. 0 0 7 .-3 1 — 32. 10 “Colonial Penn Employees Build Their Own Benefits,” Spencer’s Research Reports, August 1985, pp. 0 0 7 .-4 7 — 50. 11 Deductibles and copayments are required to be paid by a plan participant before benefits are paid by the plan. 12 Polly T. Taplin, “Flexible Benefits After Two, Three, and Five Years,” Employee Benefit Plan Review, June 1988, pp. 3 0 -3 4 . 13 “Flex Plan Participants Opt for Few Changes,” Busi ness Insurance, Mar. 21, 1988, p. 6. 14 A health maintenance organization (hmo) is a prepaid health care arrangement that delivers comprehensive medi cal services to enrolled members for a fixed periodic fee. 15 “City of Scottsdale Develops Flex Plan through Con sultation with Employee Task Force,” Spencer’s Research Reports, September 1986, pp. 0 0 7 .-2 1 — 25. 16 Howard V. Hayghe, “Employers and child care: what roles do they play?” Monthly Labor Review, September 1988, p. 42. 17 See, for example “Amoco Corp. Announces New Poli cies to Allow Employees More Flexibility,” Benefits Today, Dec. 16, 1988, p. 407; “Around the U .S .A .,” Benefits To day, Jan. 27, 1989, p. 27; and “A Leave Sharing Program: The Federal Government Experiments with Its Employees’ B enefits,” Spencer’s Research Reports, January 1989, pp. 3 2 3 .1 .-1 9 — 20. 18 Although these are unweighted tabulations o f sample establishments, they do provide a rough measure of how the options available to employees have increased this decade. 19 Employee Benefits in Industry, 1980, p. 23; Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1984, p. 40; and Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1988, p. 46. 20 Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1986, p. 48; and Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1988, p. 46. 21 Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1988, p. 107. 22 It should be emphasized that projected plan payouts are not measures o f value. For a discussion o f some of the problems associated with the concept of value, see the arti cle by M elissa Famulari and Marilyn E. Manser on page 2 4 -3 2 . 23 Donald G. Schmitt, “Today’s pension plans: how much do they pay?” Monthly Labor Review, December 1985, pp. 19-25. 24 The pension data are published annually in the Bureau of Labor Statistics bulletin, Employee Benefits Survey in Medium and Large Firms. 25 For further details on differences between public and private sector defined benefit pension plans, see Lora Mills Lovejoy, “The comparative value of public and private pen sions,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1988, pp. 18-26. Monthly Labor Review December 1989 23 The Quality of Jobs Employer-provided benefits: employer cost versus employee value Cash-equivalent value is one approach to measuring employees’ value of noncash benefits; more data and research are needed, however, to resolve complex methodological issues regarding this approach Melissa Familiari and Marilyn E. Manser Melissa Famulari is an economist in the Office of Economic Research, Bu reau o f Labor Statistics. Marilyn E. Manser is as sistant commissioner o f the same office. 24 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis mployers compensate their employees not only with cash, but also with noncash payments. The latter, sometimes called “in-kind” or “fringe” benefits, include some that are legally required, such as Social Security, workers’ compensation, and unemployment in surance, and some that are not, such as paid leave, health and life insurance, and pensions. This article discusses the effort of economists to measure the value individuals place on noncash payments.1 Economists have developed the concept of “cash-equivalent value” to measure the value of noncash benefits to an individual.2 A person’s cash-equivalent value is the least amount of money he or she would be willing to accept in exchange for not receiving particular noncash goods. When applied to an employer-provided benefit, the cash-equivalent value is the mini mum amount of additional cash compensation the worker will accept in lieu of receiving the benefit. Although some estimates of cashequivalent value for Government-provided inkind benefits such as food stamps, public and subsidized housing, medicaid, and medicare exist, little has been done to quantify employerprovided benefits, primarily because of a lack of data. Moreover, even if data were available, a variety of problems have made it difficult to implement the cash-equivalent value approach.3 E D ecem ber 1989 Information on the employer’s cost of provid ing the benefit is readily available through the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Cost Index ( e c i ) program. To what extent does em ployer cost approximate employee value? We believe that there are various biases associated with using employer cost as the measure of the employee’s value of employer-provided benefits. These biases can result in misleading conclusions. This article (1) outlines the cash-equivalent value approach to measuring value and points out the relationship of employer cost to cashequivalent value, (2) describes the three most commonly utilized techniques to estimate cashequivalent value and examines the data require ments and limitations of each technique, and (3) discusses both the types of studies where the biases do not appear to distort conclusions and studies where we feel the use of employer cost as a measure of employee value would result in highly misleading conclusions. While some of this material is quite technical, we have endeav ored to keep the discussion as general as possible.4 Employee value Perhaps the simplest approach to estimating value is that which holds value to be the em ployer’s cost of a given benefit. A more sophis- ticated view is the funds-released approach, which maintains that value can be measured as the amount of money an individual would have spent to acquire a certain good in the absence of being provided the benefit associated with that good. In contrast to this is the market-value approach, in which value is the amount the indi vidual would have paid for the benefit if he or she had purchased the specific amount the em ployer provided (as opposed to the amount the individual would have chosen at the existing market price). Finally, there is the cash-equiva lent approach, wherein value is the least amount of money an individual would be willing to ac cept in exchange for not receiving a certain ben efit. This last approach is the way most economists define value.5 Consequently, in such a situation, the cost of the benefit provided is a measure of its value. Despite this apparent consonance, there are a number of reasons why employer cost can di verge from employee value. Employer cost for a noncash benefit that is not legally required can diverge from employee value because (1) the benefit is not subject to personal income taxes, (2) the benefit is provided uniformly to large groups of employees in a firm, and (3) the employer’s cost of providing the benefit may be lower than the market price of the benefit to the employee. Let us consider each of these in turn. (Several graphical representations of the dispar ity that may arise between employer cost and employee value are presented in the appendix.) 1. When the benefit is not subject to income taxes, the equality of employer cost and em Description o f the theory. If an individual is ployee value breaks down even for the marginal given some noncash benefit by his or her em worker. Specifically, in a world with taxes, the ployer, such as free or subsidized meals, pen sions, or health insurance, and nothing else marginal worker would be expected to consume changes, plainly the individual will be better off noncash benefits up to the point where the mar than before the receipt of the noncash good. But ginal value of another dollar of benefits equals how much better off? The cash-equivalent value the after-tax value of another dollar of money approach to determining the change in individ wages. That is, the marginal worker, whose ual well-being is fairly straightforward: we ask, marginal tax rate is, say, t, would need to re “What is the minimum amount of additional ceive 1/(1 — t) dollars of pre-tax income in cash compensation an individual would require order to get a dollar of after-tax income. (The to become just as well off as that individual amount t/(l —t) is paid in taxes, leaving would be if he or she received the noncash [1/(1—/)] — [i/(l —/)] = one dollar.) More good?”6 The cash-equivalent value is then the of the benefit will be consumed than if this dif amount of cash compensation which makes the ferential tax treatment did not exist, and as a individual indifferent between getting the bene result, employer cost will overstate the cashfit and no cash and getting the cash and no equivalent value of the benefit. (One common explanation for the growth of employee benefits Various biases benefit. has been the increasing tax rates faced by typical associated with Sources o f difference between employer cost workers.) An implication of the differential tax using employer and employee value. In many ways, it would treatment is that higher income workers will cost as the seem that the relationship between employer place a higher value on noncash benefits than measure of cost and employee value is fairly straightfor will lower income workers, because the tax rate employee value ward. Any employer-provided benefits other of the former exceeds that of the latter. can result in than legally required ones result from employer2. Historically, firms have typically promisleading employee contracting, directly for unionized, vided benefits to their work forces as a whole, conclusions. and less directly for nonunionized, workers. Ex instead of tailoring them to the preferences of cept for legally mandated benefits, employers individual employees.8 In addition, laws man can compensate employees with either wages or dating that personal income tax advantages be noncash benefits, and because both cost the em available only for benefits which do not favor ployer the same amount, in general the em higher paid workers provide incentives for a ployer has no incentive to prefer one form of more uniform provision of benefits to all em compensation over the other.7 Thus, in a per ployees in a firm. If there are costs associated fectly competitive situation, in the absence of with changing jobs and if employees are not government intervention, taxes, and other insti perfect substitutes for one another in produc tutional restrictions, the marginal worker (the tion, then uniform provision of benefits drives a last worker convinced by the total compensation wedge between employer cost and employee package to accept the job) would be expected to value for at least some individuals.9 Under these value the last dollar of each benefit type equal to conditions, the employer would be expected to another dollar of money wages, or he or she could provide benefits in accordance with the prefer be made better off at no cost to the employer. ences of the “median” worker.10 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 25 Valuation o f Employer-Provided Benefits When a benefit is not subject to income taxes, the equality of employer cost and employee value breaks down. 26 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the employer’s marginal cost is lower than the employee’s market price, then the benefit will be “overprovided” relative to the amount the em ployee would choose at the market price. Thus, employer cost will provide a lower bound on em ployee value, and the amount provided by the employer times the price the employee would pay in die market will provide an upper bound. The cost to the employer may be less than the purchase price to the employee for three rea sons.13 First, employers are often able to take advantage of discounts sellers offer for bulk purchases. Second, sellers are willing to pro vide benefits to groups of people at a cheaper rate than to individuals when there are adverse selection problems. Adverse selection occurs when, for example, the workers in the poorest health are the ones who want to purchase the most health insurance. By selling benefits to a group of workers, sellers can mitigate adverse selection. Finally, employers may prefer providing more of a given type of benefit than is demanded in order to reduce turnover, maintain a healthier and more productive work force, or attain another, similar objective. Here, a more inclusive measure of employer cost— one which “nets out” the gain accruing to the firm in providing the benefit— would result in an em ployer cost that is less than the market price. The case of legally required employerprovided benefits is different from that of nonrequired benefits. The difference between the two is that employers and employees can negotiate about which nonrequired benefits will be pro vided in what amounts, whereas quantities of legally required benefits may be arbitrarily set with regard to employee values. Even given that employees as a group vote for legislators who will enact desired changes in the provision of mandated benefits, some voters who pay taxes are neither workers nor participants in the labor market, so median voter results may not apply.14 In addition, the aforementioned prob lem concerning the uniform provision of bene fits is exacerbated in the case of legally required benefits. Legally required benefits are provided uniformly to the work force as a whole and not just to groups of workers within a firm. Further, because unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation are not fully experience rated, workers in some industries or firms will place a relatively higher value on them than will other workers.15 As a result, while there may be some cases in which it is reasonable to use employer 3. Ignoring taxes and issues relating to the cost as a measure of the typical employee’s uniform provision of benefits, an employee’s value for benefits that are not legally required, marginal value of a noncash benefit will be set it seems quite unrealistic to assume that em equal to the employer’s marginal cost of provid ployer cost of legally mandated benefits is a ing the benefit, everything else being equal. If reasonable approximation of employee value. Even in the absence of differential tax rates, higher income workers would be expected to demand more of any “normal” good (a good which people want more of as their income in creases) than would lower income workers. In support of this proposition, Steven A. Wood bury estimated an income elasticity for noncash benefits which is greater than one; that is, a 1-percent increase in income leads to a greaterthan-1-percent increase in the demand for non cash benefits.11 Consider the class of benefits whose provision does not typically vary with employee income (for example, health in surance, child care, Christmas bonuses, and parking). Because employer cost will be the same regardless of employee income, the bene fit ratio, that is, the ratio of employee value to employer cost, would be expected to be higher for higher income workers than for lower in come workers in a firm. By contrast, for bene fits which are provided in amounts proportional to income, such as life insurance and pensions, less of a difference in benefit ratios among workers would be expected. In general, benefit ratios are also expected to vary by some demographic factors, particularly family status. For instance, two-earner families that receive largely duplicative health insurance policies would place a relatively low value on one of them, single individuals may place a low value on life insurance policies, and so on. Thus, assuming that employee benefits are val ued equally by all households— even at a given income level— may severely distort compari sons of well-being among households.12 As of 1978, cafeteria plans—that is, plans whereby workers choose among a “menu” of ben efit options—could qualify for tax-exempt status. Depending upon the particular choices the em ployees have, these plans allow the provision of benefits to vary among the workers of a firm. That individuals do choose differently when given a choice is additional evidence that uniformity is a factor in driving a wedge between employer cost and employee value. We may assume that, as more options are given, the amount of the benefit the employer provides approaches the amount the employee would choose. Anecdotal evidence that employees do choose differently when given a choice is presented in the article “Flexible benefit plans: employees who have a choice,” by Joseph Meisenheimer II and William Wiatrowski, else where in this issue. D ecem ber 1989 Estimating cash-equivalent value willingness to pay for various noncash benefits. Questions like “What is the maximum amount Given the many discrepancies between the em you would be willing to pay to receive this ben ployer’s cost and the employee’s value of a cer efit?” are posed to individuals who do not have tain benefit, just how difficult is it to get a the benefit in question. Support for this ap measure of the cash-equivalent value of the ben proach in regard to valuing public goods such as efit?16 The discussion that follows shows that environmental quality exists in the literature,20 estimation of cash-equivalent values is in gen because study results are both replicable and eral quite difficult, both because the data re logically consistent with the predictions of de quirements are so extensive and because of the mand theory. In addition, evidence that the sur complex issues involved in the actual estima vey approach yields the predicted magnitudes tion, even if the data were available. Certainly, relative to hedonic wage equation results (see if more high-quality data existed, more research next) is also in the literature.21 would be done on the methodological issues. The two chief problems with the survey ap Three approaches are currently the most fre proach are that (1) estimates of value are based quently utilized:17 upon hypothetical as opposed to actual choices and (2) empirically, there appears to be a sig 1. Utility-Based Estimates. Researchersnificant downward bias in people’s stated have estimated recipient values by assuming values— estimates of 50-67 percent exist in the some functional form for utility.18 This sets a literature.22 particular functional form for the demands for goods. Theoretically, because we can observe 3. The Hedonic Approach. The theory be quantity demanded and price, and economic hind the hedonic approach, which was popular theory suggests which variables affect the de ized by Sherwin Rosen in 1974, is that variation mand for goods (although demand is also af in the observed mix of benefits and cash com fected by factors influencing utility functions pensation offered by employers competing for across individuals— something about which workers having the same productivity is the re economic theory has nothing to say), demands sult of the different tastes for benefits of those for goods can be estimated. After estimating a workers and the differential ability of employers particular demand system, researchers use the to provide those benefits. In theory, ignoring parameter estimates to compare the costs of institutional features discussed earlier, the achieving levels of utility with and without a amount of wages given up to obtain a specified given noncash benefit. This permits the calcula amount of a noncash benefit is a measure of tion of the cash-equivalent value of the benefit. both the marginal value of the benefit to a Ideally, the data needed to support such a tech worker who accepted the wage-benefit compen nique include information on prices, wages, sation package and the marginal cost to the firm Under certain amounts of leisure and goods consumed, and in providing the benefit.23 The simplest applica conditions, characteristics of the benefit package. Although tion of the hedonic approach would estimate a to our knowledge, there are no data sets with all regression equation relating the wage to the uniform provision the desired data, there are some studies that amount of a particular benefit offered, all else of benefits drives employ the utility-based technique to examine being equal.24 However, movements along the a wedge between recipient values of Government transfer function given thereby reflect both differences employer cost and programs.19 in worker tastes for benefits and the firm’s abil employee value. There are a number of methodological prob ity to provide the benefits. As a result, such lems with utility-based estimates of cash-equiv movements do not, in general, provide a meas alent value. Probably the foremost is that it is ure of the change in employee value for signifi computationally difficult to estimate a demand cant changes in the amount of the benefit system (much less, get all the data) for all the provided.25 goods people demand. Somewhat questionable The hedonic wage equation tells one very lit assumptions must be made in order for the esti tle about either the demand for or supply of mates to be valid, for example, that (1) today’s benefits; rather, it provides an estimate of a sin consumption is unrelated to both past and future gle point on compensated demand and supply consumption, (2) a reasonable functional form functions. However, identifying the underlying for utility has been chosen, and (3) utility func compensated demands could provide an esti tions among individuals are the same, at least mate of the cash-equivalent value of the bene within demographic subgroups. fits. Rosen has suggested a second stage to the hedonic method which would enable a re 2. Survey Approach. This technique in searcher to identify the said cash-equivalent volves asking employees directly about their values.26 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 27 Valuation o f Employer-Provided Benefits There are difficulties, however, even in the first-stage estimation— that is, estimating the wage differential associated with the differential provision of benefits.27 First, because the level of benefits provided is often based upon the amount of wages paid to the individual, statisti cal complexities arise.28 Second, researchers must assume that individuals were able to obtain the desired amount of the particular benefit being studied, rather than having had to choose among a limited number of packages of wages and benefits.29 Finally, because no particular shape of the hedonic wage function is specified by theory, researchers need to allow for variety in their empirical estimates. In the second-stage estimation, identification of the underlying compensated supply and de mand parameters has proven to be far more complex than originally anticipated by Rosen.30 Data requirements are significant for the proper implementation of the proposed technique, and to our knowledge, no empirical estimates of cash-equivalent values for employee benefits exist in the economics literature. By contrast, estimates of compensated demands for clean air, housing amenities, neighborhood character istics, and noise from hedonic price equations do exist in the literature.31 Conclusions In examining the issues that arise in obtaining employee values of employer-provided bene fits, we conclude that employer cost is limited as a measure of employee value. For some pur poses, however, using employer cost to proxy the median worker’s value of non-legally re quired benefits seems to be a reasonable approx imation to employee value. For example, use of this aproximation along with an estimate of after-tax wages to compare the “typical” em ployee after-tax value of compensation in two industries would appear reasonable. If there are differences in median after-tax wages and non cash benefits between industries, interesting re search could be done to determine what the source of the differences is— for example, dif ferent median characteristics of the work forces in those industries, differences in median job amenities, or some other disparity. Employer 28 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis cost as a proxy for how the median employee’s value of benefits has changed over time also seems reasonable.32 In contrast, the use of employer cost as an approximation in distributional analyses could be highly misleading. Such studies typically focus on the well-being (proxied by some meas ure of income) of people at varying income lev els or family structures. But as we have argued, income and family structure are themselves as sociated with variations in employee values, and these variations may be considerable. Fur ther, and perhaps more important, the available employer cost measures refer to the “typical” worker in broadly defined industries (nine) and occupations (three). But employers often actu ally pay more for benefits provided to some types of workers than for others. For example, they may make higher pension contributions for more highly compensated workers or pay a higher cost for family health insurance policies than for single coverage. Thus, imputing these average employer costs to individual observa tions in a household file to do distributional studies would clearly yield misleading results. There is no theoretical basis for concluding that such comparisons using after-tax cash wages plus the average employer cost for benefits would provide a better proxy for the value of compensation than would use of after-tax cash wages only.33 Empirical evidence of the extent of the bias involved would, of course, be useful. More research on employee values is needed. In particular, empirical estimates of the differ ence between employee value and employer cost for workers of different demographic char acteristics would provide evidence for whether the possible discrepancies are significant enough to preclude the use of employer cost as a measure of employee value in distributional studies. Empirical estimates of whether, and how much, employer per-unit cost differs from market price for the median worker in different industries, occupations, areas, and so forth, would provide evidence as to whether crosssectional analyses using employer cost as the measure of employee value are reasonable. For these purposes, additional data and methodolog ical research are essential. □ Footnotes 1 The focus is on the em ployee value o f employer-benefits, one must always take into account the fact that the employee could have purchased the benefit on his or her provided noncash benefits, as opposed to job character own. istics, such as safety, security, and cleanliness. For the 2 A detailed discussion of the notion of cash-equivalent purposes of this article, the chief distinction between the two value and its relation to measurement issues in the case o f is that there exists an explicit market for noncash benefits. Government-provided transfers is given in Timothy M. As a result, while many measurement issues are conceptu Smeeding, “Alternative Methods for Valuing Selected Inally the same for both job dimensions, in analyses involving D ecem ber 1989 Kind Benefits and Measuring Their Effect on Poverty,” Technical Paper No. 50 (Bureau o f the Census, March 1982) ; see also Bureau of the Census, Proceedings, Con ference on the Measurement of Noncash Benefits, vol. 1, December 12-1 4 , 1985. Considerations that arise in the context o f employer-provided benefits are treated in Jack E. Triplett, “An Essay on Labor Cost,” in J.E. Triplett, ed., The Measurement of Labor Cost, nber Studies in Income and Wealth, vol. 48 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1983) , pp. 1-60. 3 See, for instance, Smeeding, “Alternative Methods”; Triplett, “Essay on Labor Costs”; Bureau of the Census, Proceedings', and Marilyn E. Manser, “Cash-Equivalent Values from In-Kind Benefits: Estimates from a Complete Demand System Using Household Data,” Working Paper No. 173 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, December 1987); as well as studies cited in these references. 4 Most o f the concepts we discuss can be found in any second-course college economics text, for example, Jack Hirshleifer, Price Theory and Applications, 2nd ed. (Engle wood Cliffs, nj, Prentice-Hall, 1980). 5 For an examination of the similarities and differences between these alternative approaches, as well as a discus sion o f the relative merits of each, see G. Cooper and A. Katz, The Cash Equivalent of In-Kind Income (Stamford, ct , Cooper and C o., 1977); Smeeding, “Alternative Meth ods”; and Bureau o f the Census, Proceedings. 6 This phrasing is after a measure called the Hick's equiv alent variation. An alternative measure is the Hick’s compensating variation, which asks, for an individual who already has the employer-provided benefit, “What minimum amount o f cash compensation would have to be taken away from the individual to return the individual to the level of satisfaction he or she could achieve without the benefit?” While the two questions will in general have different an swers, one is not more correct to ask than the other. How ever, the former seems a more natural way to approach the issue o f employee value, so we shall appeal to it for the rest o f our analysis. Chapter 4 of Richard W. Tresch’s Public Finance: A Normative Theory (Plano, TX, Business Publi cations, Inc., 1981) offers a further discussion of the two approaches; see also Cooper and Katz, The Cash Equiva lent, pp. 7 3 -8 1 . 7 This statement is not universally true, because when benefits are excluded from Social Security tax, the employer and employee split the tax savings. (See Richard A. White, “Employee Preferences for Nontaxable Compensations Of fered in a Cafeteria Compensation Plan: An Empirical Study,” The Accounting Review, July 1983, pp. 539 -6 1 , esp. p. 541.) Also, employers sometimes provide benefits to increase worker productivity, as when health insurance is provided to improve health care, which then results in more productive workers. Yet again, employers may prefer the provision o f benefits over wages in the case o f employees working overtime if the employees are compensated at more than the hourly wage for overtime hours. In any of these cases, the employer would not be indifferent to the provision o f cash as against benefits. For simplicity, we shall ignore these exceptions in our analysis. 8 Avoidance o f adverse selection (see shortly) is one ex planation for the uniform provision of benefits. The high cost o f tailoring benefits to the preferences o f each employee may be another. 9 If there were no costs to switching jobs, and if any worker were equally as good as another in any particular job, one would expect to see a segmented labor market— that is, those with similar tastes, family structures, nonlabor income, and so on would “sort” into the same firms. Then https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis there would be no disparity between employer cost and employee value as a result of the uniform provision of benefits. Some evidence that, as benefits have increased as a proportion of total compensation, the labor market has become more segmented is provided in Frank A. Scott, Mark C. Berger, and Dan A. Black, “Effects of the Tax Treatment of Fringe Benefits on Labor Market Segmenta tion,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, January 1989, pp. 216-29. 10 For any employee who could resell the benefit at the market price, no divergence would arise. 11 See Steven A. Woodbury, “Substitution between Wage and Nonwage Benefits,” American Economic Review, March 1983, pp. 166-82. 12 This bias would arise even if employer cost were meas ured for each employee separately. Another bias would be introduced if the eci measure were used for distributional studies, because the eci measures employer costs for the work force as a whole, whereas employer costs for some employee benefits vary among workers in a firm (for exam ple, life insurance costs may be higher for higher income than for lower income workers, and employers often pay more for health insurance coverage for married workers than for single workers). Using the eci as the measure of em ployee value entails assuming that average costs provide a measure of employee values for all workers in an industry and/or occupation, which is not appropriate. 13 It is possible for the employer’s cost to be higher than the em ployee’s market price if administrative costs are high enough. This would appear more likely in the case of certain Government transfers in which monitoring costs are high, such as housing subsidy programs or the food stamp pro gram. Because these are not examined here, only the situa tion in which provider cost is less than market price is analyzed in the text. 14 For a discussion of the notion of a median voter, see Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory o f Democracy (New York, Harper and Brothers, 1956). 15 See the Methods.” discussion in Smeeding, “Alternative 16 When the benefit is provided to the individual in amounts less than or equal to the amounts the employee would purchase at existing market prices, estimation of em ployee values is, in principle, straightforward. The em ployee value would be the market price times the amount the employer provided. Estimation of employee value would thus involve ascertaining (1) the appropriate market price and (2) how much the individual would purchase at that price. The latter is straightforward if the person can be observed to purchase more of the good than the employer provides. For instance, an individual who receives em ployer-provided life insurance and purchases additional life insurance can be assumed to desire at least as much of the benefit as is provided by the employer. If the employer provides more than the employee would choose at existing market prices, then the cash-equivalent value of the benefit must be determined. 17 For a description of a variety of other alternatives, see Cooper and Katz, The Cash Equivalent', and Smeeding, “Alternative Methods.” 18 A utility function mathematically describes an individ ual’s preferences for various bundles of goods. 19 Among recent studies are Manser, “Cash-Equivalent Values,” on medicaid and food stamps; Christine K. Ranney and John E. Kushman, “Cash Equivalence, Welfare Stigma, and Food Stamps,” Southern Economic Journal, vol. 54, no. 4, 1987, pp. 1011-27; and Alan S. Caniglia, “The Economic Evaluation of Food Stamps: An Intertemporal Analysis with Nonlinear Budget Constraints,” Public Fi- M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 29 Valuation o f Employer-Provided Benefits nance Quarterly, January 1988, pp. 3 -2 9 . Earlier studies include those cited in Cooper and Katz, The Cash Equiva lent ; and in Smeeding, “Alternative Methods.” 20 See studies cited in Davis S. Brookshire, Mark A. Thayer, William D. Schulze, and Ralph C. d’Arge, “Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison o f Survey and He donic Approaches,” American Economic Review, March 1982, pp. 165-77. 21 See Brookshire and others, “Valuing Public Goods.” 22 The estimates of downward bias were based upon a study (see Brookshire and others, pp. 174-75) which asked for willingness to pay for goose hunting permits. Willing ness to pay was then compared to actual repurchases. 23 See Sherwin Rosen, “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Mar kets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 82, 1974, pp. 3 4 -5 5 . The theory is that if everything else about the workers and the job is equal, the workers will be compensated the same. If there are two identical workers working identical jobs, and one is given more health insurance than the other, the worker with more health insurance will have lower wages. Measuring this difference in wages is the goal of the hedonic wage equation. 24 Estimates of the wage differential associated with the differential provision o f employer-provided benefits have primarily been for pensions (see Robert S. Smith and Ronald G. Ehrenberg, “Estimating Wage-Fringe Trade offs: Some Data Problems,” in Triplett, The Measurement of Labor Cost), but some also have been made for paid sick leave (Arleen Leibowitz, “Fringe Benefits in Employee Compensation,” in Triplett, The Measurement of Labor Cost-, and Smith and Ehrenberg, “Estimating Wage-Fringe Trade-offs”) and for health insurance (Leibowitz, “Fringe Benefits”). The technique has been applied extensively to the evaluation of workplace amenities such as job safety, repetitive work, and employment stability. (See Robert S. Smith, “Compensating Wage Differentials and Public Pol icy: A Review,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, April 1979, pp. 339 -5 2 .) between different amounts of benefits, is an estimate of cash-equivalent value. 27 See, for example, Smith and Ehrenberg, “Estimating Wage-Fringe Trade-offs.” 28 The difficulty is one of “simultaneous equation bias,” which arises because a variable (here, benefit provision) not only affects, but is affected by, the dependent variable (here, wages). The instrumental variables method is one standard econometric technique used to solve this estimation problem. (See J. Johnston, Econometric Methods, 3rd ed. (New York, M cGraw-Hill, 1984).) 29 If benefits are provided “lumpily” (and if there are mobility costs, and if labor is not perfectly substitutable), then the researcher cannot assume that empirical estimates are tracing out true wage-benefit tradeoffs. See Freeman, “Hedonic Prices,” pp. 161-63, for a discussion o f this point with respect to the tradeoff between housing prices and air quality. 30 For discussions of the problems involved in identifying structural equations using the hedonic method, see espe cially Dennis Epple, “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Estimating Demand and Supply Functions for Differentiated Products,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 95, no. 1, 1987, pp. 59-80; and Timothy J. Bartik, “The Estimation of Demand Parameters in Hedonic Price M odels,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 95, no. 1, 1987, pp. 81-88; but also James N. Brown, “Structural Estimation in Implicit Markets,” in Triplett, The Measurement of Labor Cost, pp. 123-51; James N. Brown and Harvey S. Rosen, “On the Estimation o f Structural Hedonic Price M odels,” Econometrica, May 1982, pp. 765-68; and Freeman, “Hedonic Prices.” In brief, the problem of identification centers around the fact that the hedonic wage equation need not be linear. As a result, both prices and quantities of benefits are choice variables. Extreme care in the modeling of the errors in the hedonic wage equation and the demand equation for the benefit is necessary to determine appropriate instruments for prices and quantities of the benefit. 31 See Epple, “Hedonic Prices,” for references. 25 See Myrick A. Freeman, III, “Hedonic Prices, Prop erty Values and Measuring Environmental Benefits: A Sur vey of the Issues,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 1979, pp. 154-73, esp. p. 158; and Smith, “Compensating Wage Differentials,” p. 349. 32 For this purpose, analysts would have to be willing to assert either that the overconsumption of benefits induced by the taxation of wages has not changed significantly over time, or that this distortion is small enough that ignoring it will not introduce a significant bias. 26 Rosen, “Hedonic Prices.” According to Rosen, first we estimate the hedonic wage equation. Then we take the first derivative of the wage equation with respect to the benefit of interest and evaluate it at the amounts of the benefit pro vided to the employees in the sample. This represents the implicit marginal price of the benefit. Finally, we use the resulting implicit price variable as the dependent variable in the estimation o f compensated supply and demand equations (that is, supply and demand equations in which utility is held constant— see Tresch, Public Finance, pp. 6 3 -6 4 ) for the benefit. The area under the compensated demand curve, 33 Other issues may also arise in income-distributional studies. For instance, we have not discussed what should be included as benefits in a more comprehensive measure of income. David T. Ellwood and Lawrence H. Summers (“Measuring Income: What Kind Should Be In?” in Bureau of the Census, Proceedings, Conference on the Meas urement of Noncash Benefits, pp. 8 -2 7 ) argue against including employers’ contributions toward pensions in ana lyzing income, on the grounds that to do so entails double counting if, as is the present practice, pension benefits are treated as income when received by retirees. APPENDIX: Graphical analysis of the relationship between employer cost and employee value in various situations Employer cost equals employee value 30 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Assume that employer per-unit cost of the benefit is constant and equals the price Pg the employee would have to pay in the market to obtain the benefit. D ecem ber 1989 Assume also that there are no institutional or other constraints. Then the employer and employee will contract to have benefits provided until the em ployee’s marginal value o f the benefit (as measured along the employee’s ordinary demand curve for the Chart A-1. Price Employer cost versus em ployee value of benefits, selected scenarios (a) Price Quantity of fringe benefit Price (C) Quantity of fringe benefit benefit) is equal to the market price P B. Thus, if Q* is the number of units of the benefit the employer will provide, we have Price (d) Quantity of fringe benefit taxes) to give up more than P B • Q* in cash wages to be provided the benefit by the employer. Employer cost does not equal employee value Employer cost — P B • Q* = Employee value (See chart A -1(a).) I f c o m p en sa tio n in the fo r m o f ta x ed w a g e s o r un ta x e d fr in g e ben efits is p r o v id e d . Assume that em Note that the cash-equivalent value of the benefit provided is equal to price times quantity, and not the area under the demand curve— that is, it does not include consumer surplus. Because it is always possi ble to purchase Q* at price P B, the employee would not be willing (in this hypothetical world without ployer per-unit cost of the benefit is constant and equals the price P B the employee would have to pay in the market to obtain the benefit. Assume also that the only institutional constraint is that taxes are paid on money wages. Let t be the employee’s marginal tax rate. Then the tax on wages acts like a subsidy on fringe benefits, and the vertical distance between the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 31 Valuation o f Employer-Provided Benefits ordinary demand curve D x presupposing no tax on wages and the ordinary demand curve D 2 given that wages are taxed (see chart A -1(b)) is [1/(1 — 01In that case, the employer and employee would con tract to have Q x units of the benefit provided. The value of the additional units to the employee (Q \ ~ Q *) is given by the area under the compensated demand curve (which holds utility constant— see, for example, Tresch, P u b lic F in a n ce, pp. 6 3 -6 4 , cited in text footnote 6) through point C on the graph. Then we have Employer cost Employee value = = PB ’ Q\ abc Note that the after-tax value of wages of amount w is then w (l - t ) , which is less than the employer cost of those wages. Also, employer cost is an upper bound on the employee’s value of benefits. I f p ro v is io n o f b en efits is un iform to the e m p lo y e e s w ith in a fir m . Assume that employer per-unit cost of the benefit is constant and equals the price P B the employee would have to pay in the market to obtain the benefit. Assume also that the only institutional constraint is that benefits are provided uniformly to the employees within the firm. Then, for a given employee, the relationship between employer cost and employee value depends upon whether the bene fit is over- or underprovided to the employee. If the amount of the benefit provided is less than or equal to the amount the employee would otherwise have cho sen at P B, then employer cost will equal employee value. If, on the other hand, the amount of the benefit provided is greater than the amount the employee would otherwise have chosen at P B, then employee 32 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Employer cost Employee value = = PB PB • Q\ Qi — Area of triangle ABC I f e m p lo y e r c o s t differs f r o m th e p r ic e the e m p lo y ee w o u ld p a y in th e m arket. Assume that there are no P B ■Q \ — Area of triangle value will be less than employer cost. This is because the additional units of the benefit ( Q x — Q *) are val ued at an amount represented by the area under the compensated demand curve through point C, while the employer’s cost o f each unit is the constant mar ket price P B. (See chart A -1 (c).) For this case, if Q x is the amount of benefit provided, we have D ecem ber 1989 taxes or other institutional constraints. Assume, how ever, that the employer cost P \ of providing the ben efit is less than the price P B the employee would have to pay in the market to obtain the benefit. Then em ployee value will exceed employer cost, and for an amount Q x of benefit provided, we have Employer cost Employee value = = P \ ‘ Q\ P \ ■ Q i + (P B ~ P \) Q \ — Area o f triangle ABC (See chart A -1(d ).) Employee value is greater than employer cost by an amount (P B - P \) because the employee would have to pay P B, and not P x, in the market to acquire the benefit. Employee value is less than P B • Q \ be cause the cheaper price to the employer causes “overprovision” of the benefit in relation to what the employee would choose to purchase at P B. The “overprovided” units ( Q x — Q *) are valued at an amount represented by the area under the compen sated demand curve through point C. □ Spending differences across occupational fields Multivariate analysis reveals that income is the most significant factor in determining levels of various expenditures; occupation and education also play a role Robert Cage ince the late 1940’s, the U.S. labor force has undergone several substantial changes affecting its composition and structure. Female participation has grown rapidly since World War II, and consequently, there are more dual-earner families.1 Growth of the suburban population has contributed to increased com muting time to and from work. And although average weekly work hours have decreased for the civilian labor force, the average American household has less time available for leisure activities: S . . . the amount of leisure time enjoyed by the average American has shrunk 37 percent since 1973. Over the same period, the average work week, in clu din g co m m u tin g , has jumped from 41 hours to nearly 47 hours. In some professions, predictably law, finance, and medicine, the de mands often stretch to 80-plus hours a week. Vaca tions have shortened to the point where they are frequently no more than long weekends. And the Sabbath is for, what else, shopping.2 Robert Cage is an economist formerly in the Division o f Expenditure Surveys, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. He was assisted by Carolyn White, an economic assistant in the same division, in preparing this article and in constructing tables and charts for it. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis According to the same source, the course of the rat race has led to less time available for family activities, increased consumption of service-oriented items, and more labor-saving gadgetry. This increased demand for services is reflected in the change in employment by occu pational group. Projections by b l s indicate that employment by the year 2000 will increase most for service workers and least for operators and laborers. (See table 1.) Does the shift in employment towards service workers have any implications regarding con sumption? In other words, does occupation as a demographic variable affect the level and distri bution of consumption for any given expendi ture category? Do white-collar workers, for example, spend differently than blue-collar workers, or are these distinctions becoming an tiquated? Does one’s working environment have a measurable effect on one’s perception of so cial class, formation of tastes and preferences, and, consequently, spending patterns? The pur pose of this article is to compare and contrast various occupational groups to investigate what effect, if any, occupational status has on family expenditures for certain goods and services after controlling for income, education, number of earners, and other demographic variables. Background It is well documented that, throughout a per son’s life cycle, permanent income has a sig nificant effect on consumption.3 Age also influences consumption with respect to the na ture of the bundle of goods and services an in dividual consumes. As one ages, tastes and preferences are likely to change, as are such needs as medical care and transportation. Not much attention has been given to the study of the effects of occupational status, a means of obtaining income, on consumption behavior. Perhaps this is because such a study is more a sociological question of tastes and preferences than an economic question of constraints on opportunities. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 33 Spending Differences by Occupation Even after controlling for income and education, expenditures for certain goods and services are affected by occupational factors. 34 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis In developing variables for their analysis of consumer demand, H. S. Houthakker and Les ter D. Taylor observed that the effect of oc cupation, or more generally, social class, on consumption is usually less obvious than that of other factors.4 Of course, developing an appro priate measure of social class is inherently dif ficult. Sociologists define the “classes” as social strata sharing essential economic, political, or cultural characteristics. In this regard, income, education, and occupation are arguably factors which influence one’s position in society: income determines economic power or bud getary constraints, while education and occupa tion contribute to the formation of preferences and cultural characteristics. Income, education, and occupation, how ever, are interrelated. Human-capital theorists have long argued that individuals can, by fore going earnings and obtaining higher levels of education, augment the quality of their labor services in such a way as to raise their future market value.5 It is typically believed, there fore, that more educated individuals attract higher wages.6 Also, at least one authority maintains that on-the-job training may be just as significant as formal schooling in determining an individual’s labor productivity and market value.7 An in-depth technical discussion of the re lationships among education, occupation, and income is beyond the scope of this article. However, distinguishing education levels and income levels among different occupational groups is important in understanding the spend ing patterns associated with various occu pations. It may be that members of the same occupational group are characterized by similar educational attainment and income level. For example, intuitively, one might expect managers and professionals, or white-collar workers in general, to have higher incomes and higher levels of education than blue-collar workers such as operators and laborers. If so, the question then would be whether these differ ences account for any differences in spending between the two groups. It is hypothesized in this article that, even after controlling for in come and education, expenditures for selected goods and services such as food, transportation, housing, reading materials, entertainment, occupation-related items, and apparel are di rectly affected by the circumstances surround ing one’s occupational environment and job field. An analysis of the distribution of total expenditures will be used to determine any dif ferences in spending behavior among different occupational groups, while a multivariate tobit regression (see later) will be employed to pin D ecem ber 1989 point the effects of occupational status alone on the expenditures. Data and demographics The b l s Consumer Expenditure Survey pro vides an excellent source of household data for cross-sectional studies. The survey collects ex penditure data which provide a continuous flow of information on the buying habits of American consumers. The data are used in a wide variety of research endeavors by Government, busi ness, labor, and academic analysts. The survey consists of two components: a diary survey and an interview survey. The data used for this arti cle are from the 1986 and 1987 interview surveys.8 It is important to note that the reference group in the Consumer Expenditure Survey is a con sumer unit9 and that the income and expenditure data are those of the entire consumer unit, or household. Data for individual or personal ex penditures are not available. The sample of con sumer units was divided into occupational groups based on the occupation of the reference person.10 Five occupational groups were compared: managers and professional specialists; techni cians, sales, and administrative support; preci sion production, craft, and repair workers; operators and laborers; and service workers.11 Specific occupations are classed into these groups by the Census Bureau and are commonly used in producing labor market data at b l s . Managers, professionals, technicians, and sales and administrative support personnel are gener ally considered employed in white-collar fields, while precision production workers, craft and repair employees, operators, and laborers are Table 1. Employment by occupation, 1986, projection to 2000 (moderate alternative), and percent change [Number in thousands] Occupation Service workers................... Managerial and professional specialty............................. Technicians, salesworkers, administrative support........ Precision production, craft, and repair........................... Operators, laborers, farmers, forestry............................... 2000 Percent change 17,536 22,917 30.7 24,121 30,808 27.7 36,183 43,594 20.5 13,924 15,590 12.0 19,556 20,117 2.9 1986 Source : George T. Silvestri and John M. Lukasiewicz, “A look at occupational employment trends to the year 2000,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1987, pp. 46-63. considered blue collar. Service workers have developed into a third distinct group comprising such occupations as firefighters, police officers, food preparation and service workers, dental as sistants and health aides, and cleaning and per sonal care service workers. Analysis was restricted to salaried workers and wage earners and excluded self-employed workers for two reasons. First, salaried workers and wage earners comprise 91 percent of all workers in the sample, and second, many differ ent occupations are lumped together in the selfemployed category. Thus, it would have been difficult to interpret any results with respect to differences caused by specific occupational fields. Two years of data were used to ensure a large enough sample size for each of the groups under investigation. Table 2 shows some selected characteristics, including income and percent distribution of total expenditures, for the five salaried and wage earner groups. Managers and profession als make up 32 percent of all salaried workers and wage earners, with service and craft and repair workers having the smallest representa tion, at about 10 percent each. The blue-collar groups of craft and repair workers and operators and laborers have the largest consumer units with an average size of 3.1 and 3.0 persons, respectively, while the households of whitecollar and service workers are smaller, with an average of 2.6 persons each. Chart 1 illustrates the relationship between income and education for the five salaried and wage earner groups. Although there is a trend which suggests that income is greater as educa tional level increases, the two variables are not perfectly correlated for the groups. Managers and professionals represent the greatest devia tion from the mean, with an average income of $42,000 and 80 percent having obtained a col lege education. Although both white-collar groups are characterized by higher educational attainment, average income for technicians, salespeople, and administrative support person nel is less than that of craft and repair workers. A study by the Conference Board and the Census Bureau on discretionary income, or “spare cash,” reports similar findings. Accord ing to that study, the second strongest determi nant of discretionary income, after household income, is education. Certain occupations are associated with high levels of education and in come. More than half (53 percent) of all house holds headed by a person in a professional or managerial job have discretionary income. But still, 27 percent of all households with discre tionary income are headed by an individual in a blue-collar, farm, or service job.12 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The spending power of the five groups is also represented by the market value of an owned home and the ratio of total expenditures to in come. Managers and professionals have the highest percentage of homeownership, while the majority of service workers are renters. Al though managers and professionals and craft and repair workers have roughly the same per centage of homeownership (about 66 percent each), the estimated market value of an owned home for managers and professionals is almost twice as high. The ratio of total expenditures to income be fore taxes is around 87 percent for technicians, salespeople, and administrative support person nel, as well as for both blue-collar groups, while the ratio for service workers is considerably higher at 97 percent and for managers and pro fessionals, considerably lower at 80 percent. Although this does not necessarily indicate the level of saving for any of the groups, it empha sizes the higher income of managers and profes sionals. Almost all of the average income after taxes of the other groups, especially service workers, is absorbed by the expenditure cate gories, while only 80 percent of managers’ and professionals’ average income is used for that group’s expenditure needs. This indicates that a greater share of the average income of managers and professionals is available for investments, such as second or vacation homes, financial se curities, or savings. Property income, of which a large part is interest and dividends, is greatest for managers and professionals, supporting this conjecture. Shares analysis In terms of average dollar amounts, managers and professionals spend more on all major ex penditure categories. The percent distribution of total expenditures is more useful, however, in determinining any difference in consumption patterns across the five occupational groups. A chi-square test of proportions was used to meas ure the significance of mean expenditures as a proportion of total expenditures for one group compared to the average of the others. This was done for all major expenditure categories and for more specific items for which occu pational status was hypothesized to influence expenditures. The results of the test are listed in table 2. An asterisk (*) on an expenditure category indicates that the share of total expenditures distributed to that category was significantly different, at the 99-percent confidence interval, from the aver age of all other groups. For example, service workers spend 16.5 percent of total expendi- A greater share of the average income of managers and professionals is available for investments, financial securities, or savings. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 35 36 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Spending Differences by Occupation tures for food, which is significantly higher than the average of any other salaried and wage earner groups. Thus, the cost for food as a share of total expenditures is lower for managers and profes Table 2. sionals and higher for service workers and oper ators and laborers. Because service workers re port the lowest average income, the data support Friedrich Engel’s contention that a higher share of the income of poorer households goes to food Selected characteristics and percent distribution of total expenditures of salaried workers and wage earners, Consumer Expenditure Survey, interview survey, 1986-87 Item Number of consumer units (thousands).......... Percent of total salaried workers and wage earners .......................................... Production, craft, and repair workers Managers and professionals Technicians, salesworkers, administrators 20,123 16,686 6,503 6,449 12,610 Service workers Operators and laborers 32.3 26.8 10.4 10.3 20.2 Consumer unit characteristics: Income before taxes .......................................... Income after ta x e s .............................................. Average number of persons in consumer unit . . . Age of reference person ..................................... Average number of vehicles............................... $42,021 37,620 2.6 40.9 2.3 $28,590 25,661 2.6 38.9 2.0 $17,848 16,449 2.6 40.2 1.6 $29,289 26,491 3.1 38.6 2.7 $24,172 22,047 3.0 39.0 2.4 Percent reporting: Homeownership.................................................. Black................................................................... 67 7 55 11 43 21 66 7 58 12 Education level: Elementary ( 1 - 8 ) ................................................ High school (9-12) ............................................ C ollege............................................................... 1 20 79 2 44 54 12 54 34 8 61 30 10 66 23 Estimated market value of owned home ............... $73,165 $45,731 $29,149 $45,111 $33,827 Average annual expenditures................................. F o o d ................................................................... Food at hom e.................................................. Food away from hom e..................................... $33,592 *13.05 *8.13 *4.92 $17,311 *16.51 *11.96 4.54 $25,185 15.04 *10.94 *4.09 $20,828 *16.20 *12.10 *4.11 Alcoholic beverages .......................................... 1.17 $24,772 14.33 9.65 4.68 1.29 1.28 1.18 1.29 Housing .............................................................. Owned dwellings ............................................ Rented dwellings ............................................ Other lodging .................................................. 30.52 *11.87 *4.25 *2.32 30.22 9.80 *6.61 1.81 31.05 *8.01 *9.54 *1.01 *27.96 *9.60 *5.05 *1.49 *28.55 *8.71 *6.31 *1.07 Apparel and services.......................................... Men, 16 and o v e r............................................ Women, 16 and o v e r...................................... 5.64 *1.24 *1.96 5.55 1.07 1.95 5.18 .85 1.64 *4.65 .89 *1.33 *4.71 .92 *1.38 Transportation .................................................... Vehicle purchases .......................................... Gasoline and motor oil ................................... Public transportation ...................................... *20.15 10.02 *3.18 *1.36 21.23 10.05 3.89 1.11 20.91 9.67 4.44 1.04 *23.73 *11.61 *4.99 *.59 *23.05 10.62 *5.21 *.62 Health care.......................................................... 3.35 3.66 *4.00 3.51 3.62 Entertainment...................................................... Fees and admissions...................................... Television, radios, and sound equipment........ 5.32 *1.67 1.65 4.91 1.43 1.61 *4.39 *1.02 1.83 5.49 1.19 1.74 4.76 *.98 1.85 .85 Personal ca re ...................................................... .84 .92 .99 .78 Reading .............................................................. .66 .58 .50 .49 .50 Education............................................................ ‘ 1.86 1.46 1.29 *1.02 *.90 Tobacco products and smoking supplies........... *.57 .94 *1.41 *1.30 Miscellaneous .................................................... Cash contributions.............................................. 1.88 *3.56 2.10 1.72 *2.60 *2.05 *2.08 Personal insurance and pensions ..................... Life and other personal insurance ................. Retirement, pensions, Social Security ........... *11.43 1.22 *10.20 2.63 10.17 1.17 9.00 *1.58 2.07 *1.94 *8.72 1.18 *7.54 10.18 1.27 8.91 9.95 1.25 *8.69 * Chi-square test of proportions was significant at the 99-percent confidence interval for this line item. See N. M. Downie and R. W. Heath, Basic Statistical Methods (New York, Harper and Row, 1974), pp. 200-01. D ecem ber 1989 C hart 1. C orrelation b e tw e e n income and education for w a g e and s ala ry earners, Consum er E xpenditure S urvey 1 9 8 6 and 1 9 8 7 in te rv ie w Surveys Income before taxes $ 5 0 ,000 $ 4 5 ,000 Managers, professionals • $ 4 0 ,000 $ 3 5 ,000 $ 3 0 ,000 Technicians, sales, administrative support f Precision craft • and repair workers $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 Operators and • laborers $ 20,000 # Service workers $ 15,000 i $ 10,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 i i 60 i 70 80 90 Percent obtaining college education than is the case for richer households.13 Also, the average size of households headed by craft and repair workers or operators and laborers is larger than those headed by managers and pro fessionals and technicians, salespeople, and ad ministrative support personnel, and therefore, those households require greater expenses for food. Food away from home, in contrast, is highest for managers and professionals and lowest for the blue-collar groups. This can be explained, in part, by the fact that managers and professionals are likely to eat at more expensive restaurants than those that blue-collar workers patronize. It is also possible that, in general, managers and professionals eat out more often than do bluecollar workers. The share for rented dwellings is highest for service workers, reflecting the high percentage of renters in this group. On the other hand, the share for owned dwellings is highest for man agers and professionals, as is that for other lodg ing, indicating a greater probability on the part of that group’s families to incur expenses for vacation homes and lodging while out of town. Managers and professionals also spend a higher share of income on men’s clothing than all other groups, due to the preponderance of suits purchased as working attire. The share for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis women’s clothing is higher as well, with a greater percentage reporting expenses for dresses, coats, and furs. Transportation expenditures were higher for the blue-collar groups at 23 percent of total expenditures, significantly more than the 20percent share spent by managers and profes sionals. Blue-collar families also allocate a much higher share of total expenditures for vehicle purchases (both new and used cars and trucks) and gasoline and motor oil. The average blue-collar worker evidently relies mostly on the automobile for transportation needs and may be commuting a greater distance to work as well, thus consuming more gasoline. The average number of vehicles owned by families headed by craft and repair workers and by families headed by operators and laborers is 3.0, much higher than the figure for the other groups. Some transportation expenses of man agers and professionals and salesworkers are likely to be reimbursed by their employer as business expenses—particularly costs for gas oline. Also, the use of a company car may contri bute to the lower share of total transportation expenses for managers and professionals. Another reason for the lower transportation expenditures of managers and professionals may be that a large proportion of these individM o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 37 Spending Differences by Occupation Income was a driving force in determining all expenditure levels investigated; occupation and education were significant for most items. 38 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis uals are employed in urban areas and, therefore, have public transportation at their disposal for commuting needs. Ninety-three percent of all managers and professionals in the Consumer Expenditure Survey sample live in urban areas, compared to only 82 percent of the blue-collar groups. Together with the fact that managers and professionals are more likely to incur ex penses related to travel, such as the cost of air line fares, the higher concentration of this group in urban areas might explain the greater share they spend for public transportation. Managers and professionals spend a higher share than do any of the other groups for fees and admissions to sporting events and clubs. These include club membership dues, which are generally very expensive. By contrast, the share of expenditures spent for tobacco and smoking supplies is significantly higher for the bluecollar groups and lower for managers and professionals. Finally, costs of education, cash contribu tions, and monies allocated to retirement funds, pensions, and Social Security are significantly higher for managers and professionals com pared to the other groups. Interestingly, of all types of expenditures made by technicians, salespeople, and administrative support per sonnel, only the share allocated for rented dwellings proved to be significantly different from the average such expenditure for all the groups. This implies that, on average, this group does not distribute expenditures signifi cantly differently from all other salaried and wage earners. Therefore, it is most representa tive of the “average” worker. It is obvious from these results that differ ences exist among the five occupational groups, although, with respect to demographics and consumption patterns, the white-collar groups tend to be similar to each other and the bluecollar groups to each other. Chart 2 highlights the major differences in expenditure distribution among the five groups. Regression analysis In this section, regression analysis determines the effect occupation alone has on the probabil ity and level of incurring an expense after controlling for variation due to income and edu cation. Tobit analysis utilizes maximum like lihood estimation in a single equation when a set of continuous observations on a dependent vari able is truncated.14 For household expenditure data, it is more advantageous than ordinary least squares, because many households might not incur an expense for some goods and services. The data have a lower bound of zero. D ecem ber 1989 Eleven different expenditure categories, listed in table 3, were chosen as dependent vari ables. These include most major categories for which, according to the shares analysis, the five occupational groups have significantly different mean expenditures. Among such categories are food at home and away from home, housing, transportation, apparel, reading, cash contribu tions, and personal insurance and pensions. Ex penses for personal care and occupational expenses were also chosen, as it was reasoned that occupational status would have an effect on these items. The independent, or causal, variables were chosen from the socioeconomic characteristics of the family. Dummies were created for the five occupational groups, with managers and professionals being left out of the model as the control group. Parameter estimates produced for the occupational dummies indicate the relation ship of these groups to managers and profes sionals with respect to the probability and level of incurring an expense for the dependent vari able. Education was accounted for by including dummies for the educational level of the refer ence person. As mentioned previously, income is an im portant determinant of consumption. The cate gory of total expenditures was used as an approximation of income in these models as a continuous variable. Total expenditures are cho sen as a proxy for income primarily because (1) in the short run, families have more control over expenditures than income, and (2) total ex penditures give a better fit than income in mod els designed to predict expenditures in a number of different categories.15 Because Houthakker and Taylor argue that family composition is so important that no cross-sectional analysis should ignore it,16 dummies were included in the models with husband-and-wife-only families being the control group. Other socioeconomic variables included in all of the models were family size (squared), age (squared), race, urbanization, housing tenure, and number of earners. The region of residence, season, and sex of the reference person were included in some of the models if it was be lieved that they influenced the level of expendi tures for the dependent variable in question. The models produce an intercept which represents the expected quarterly expenditures for the de pendent variable, before accounting for the con tinuous variables (total expenditures, age squared, family size squared, and number of earners), of the control group: a husband-andwife-only family headed by a white manager or professional with some college or more educa- Chart 2. S hares of to ta l expenditures for w a g e and s ala ry earners, Consum er E xpenditure Survey, 1 9 8 6 and 1 9 8 7 In te rv ie w Surveys Expenditure shares 39 Expenditure shares 39 ■ Transportation E3 Housing 18 Food Service workers Operators and laborers tional attainment, living in an owned home in an urban area. The sample used for the analysis was re stricted to one-earner salaried and wage families, and two-earner salaried and wage families if both earners belonged to the same occupational group. This way, the family ex penditures of a specific occupational group would be highlighted without introducing error caused by families whose earners belong to dif ferent occupational groups. The sample con sisted of 4,101 consumer units. The descriptive data indicated that expendi ture differences exist among occupational groups. The regression analysis tests whether these differences still exist after controlling for other demographic variables. Results are listed in table 3. To test the overall significance of the set of variables included in each expenditure model, the likelihood ratio test statistic was used.17 The resulting chi-square values were statistically significant at the 0.01 level. This allowed for the rejection of the null hypoth esis that all of the coefficients (except the inter cept) were equal to zero for all the models considered. An asterisk (*) indicates that the parameter estimate was significantly different from zero at the 95-percent confidence interval, while two https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Craft and repair Technicians, sales, administrative support Managers, professionals asterisks (**) indicate significance at the 99percent confidence interval. The parameter esti mates for total expenditures were significantly different for all of the dependent variables at the 99-percent confidence interval. This indicates that total expenditures (used as a proxy for in come) has a major influence in determining the probability and level of incurring an expense for the expenditures upon which the regression is performed. In fact, total expenditures proved to be the only significant variable, along with age squared, influencing entertainment and cash contributions. Occupation proved to be a significant vari able for all of the dependent variables except apparel, entertainment, and cash contributions. This implies that income is a better predictor of the level of expense for most of these expendi ture categories. Although, as a proportion of total expendi tures, service workers spend the most on food at home, the negative parameter estimate in the regression implies that they spend significantly less than managers and professionals in terms of average dollar amount. All occupational groups were less likely to incur an expense for food away from home compared to managers and professionals, except service workers, which is similar to the result obtained in the shares analM o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 39 Spending Differences by Occupation ysis. Household composition had a significant influence on food expenditures as well, with single consumer units more likely to have higher expenditures for food away from home while husband-and-wife families with children are more likely to eat at home. Education had little effect on the probability or level of food expenses. All occupational groups had significant neg ative coefficients for housing, indicating the greater likelihood of managers and profes sionals incurring higher expenses for housing. Those families headed by someone with some college or more educational attainment also Table 3. are more likely to have higher housing expenditures. The much larger proportion of expenditures allocated to transportation by the blue-collar groups and service workers is reflected in the significantly positive parameter estimates for transportation expenses by these groups. Recall that these workers own more vehicles and are more likely to use them in their business. All groups were less likely to incur expenses for reading materials and for personal insurance and pensions compared to managers and pro fessionals. This is consistent with the shares analysis. Tobit regression analysis: coefficients of estimation of causal variables Food at home Item Food away from home Housing Apparel Trans portation Enter tainment F-statistic ........................................................................... 211.0 52.9 203.5 76.5 215.2 60.2 Chi-square statistic ............................................................ *2585.6 *816.9 *2939.1 *1525.5 *3160.2 *916.6 Adjusted R-squared statistic.............................................. 0.47 0.18 0.51 0.31 0.53 0.20 Constant..................................................................................... Total expenditures..................................................................... **424.33 **.0194 **133.88 **.0201 **941.28 **.2061 30.75 **.0499 **-1791.40 **.4250 -106.91 **.0666 Occupation (managers/professionals): Technicians, sales, administrative support ........................... Service w orkers..................................................................... Production, craft, and re p a ir.................................................. Operators and laborers.......................................................... -16.03 **-47.90 -20.95 4.94 **-31.64 -23.62 *-36.55 *-29.01 *-125.11 **-240.28 **-232.57 **-302.93 -12.08 -28.54 -32.33 -7.85 **259.12 **441.47 **341.28 **424.93 13.82 23.27 -25.20 57.44 Education (some college or more): Some high school or less ...................................................... High school graduate ............................................................ *-29.70 -13.02 *-32.69 -1.66 **-186.94 **-152.24 *-38.19 *-34.71 **489.53 **338.27 11.68 -5.14 Household composition (husband and wife only): S in g le ..................................................................................... Husband and wife with children ............................................ Other families......................................................................... **-203.85 **99.90 -3.93 *30.91 **-50.35 *-41.23 *-148.29 **206.45 106.88 -31.55 4.45 *-52.68 **392.48 -183.76 60.80 34.66 -15.61 20.35 Urbanization (urban): R ural....................................................................................... **-83.37 **-42.56 **-406.26 **-58.50 **473.43 27.52 Independent variables Housing tenure (owner): Renter..................................................................................... -20.81 -18.53 **-258.57 *29.24 **471.53 -7.00 Age of reference person squared.............................................. **.0338 -.0054 *-.0382 *-.0122 **-.0752 *-.0243 Consumer unit size squared...................................................... **11.28 -1.03 2.65 1.69 -7.26 -.9 8 Race of reference person (white): Black....................................................................................... Other races ........................................................................... *-38.53 35.05 **-42.04 3.68 37.96 -76.00 *50.96 -48.29 139.33 154.30 -44.31 -24.22 — Season (fall): W inter..................................................................................... S pring..................................................................................... Summer ................................................................................. Region (midwest): Northeast ............................................................................... South ..................................................................................... W e s t....................................................................................... — — — — — — — — — **66.06 -28.31 -11.73 — — — — 7.85 -5.16 -11.43 52.92 50.47 *-187.20 — — — — — — — — — 73.17 17.57 **186.46 — Sex of reference person (male): Fem ale................................................................................... — — 52.63 **101.88 111.00 — Number of earners ................................................................... *39.08 24.12 34.33 -12.42 **-400.54 39.07 Number of vehicles................................................................... — — — — **200.56 — See footnotes at end of table. 40 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 Table 3. Continuée!—Tobit régression analysis: coefficients of estimation of causal variables Item F-statistic ................................................................................................................ Chi-square statistic ................................................................................................ Adjusted R-squared statistic................................................................................... Cash contributions Occupational expenses Personal insurance and pensions Personal care Reading materials 58.9 *899.5 0.19 40.7 *814.8 0.18 43.1 *821.6 0.18 13.1 *217.4 0.05 119.5 *1736.3 0.34 **41.2 **.0027 **27.39 **.0025 **-277.83 **.0590 *-20.19 **.0024 **275.4 **.0636 **-5.87 **-12.80 **-17.80 **-15.20 **-7.31 **-14.41 **-13.35 *-12.65 -10.21 24.08 70.05 34.33 -1.12 1.44 **43.03 **11.65 **-152.57 **-179.81 **-178.23 **-191.25 **-11.83 -3.81 **-17.16 **-11.10 -24.56 -4.70 *-7.80 2.36 *-87.03 *-57.25 **-16.23 -1.62 *-8.36 -4.06 4.97 -1.62 39.45 *-98.50 -44.86 **12.15 2.32 8.90 -88.68 14.43 -67.35 **-15.34 *-6.88 16.24 1.29 *-71.24 *-4.94 *-4.20 44.71 -3.54 **-203.96 **.0049 **.0049 **.0500 .0013 .0201 .51 -.1 3 -.2 6 .42 **-6.58 **14.40 *-10.33 *-6.84 2.58 28.64 -10.19 -1.15 .30 -14.53 **172.71 Independent variables Constant................... ..................................................................................................... Total expenditures.......................................................................................................... Occupation (managers/professionals) : Technicians, sales, administrative support ............................................................... Service workers.......................................................................................................... Production, craft, and re p a ir....................................................................................... Education (some college or more): Some high school or less .......................................................................................... High school graduate ................................................................................................ Household composition (husband and wife only): S in g le ......................................................................................................................... Husband and wife with children ................................................................................. Urbanization (urban): Housing tenure (owner): Race of reference person (white): Season (fall): — — — — — — — — Region (midwest): — — Sex of reference person (male): 2.78 _ * Significantly different from zero at the 95-percent confidence interval. Note : 2.48 *-4.21 -3.28 **-104.94 -29.47 -37.92 2.37 24.96 3.22 42.66 _ _ — — — — — — -45.06 **11.81 — **232.67 — Dash indicates that the variable was not used in the model. Significantly different from zero at the 99-percent confidence interval. The blue-collar job fields are, on the face of it, more likely to have workers who belong to labor unions and, consequently, have greater occupational expenses because of union dues. The tobit analysis reflects this intuitive assump tion: both operators and laborers and craft and repair workers spend more on occupational ex penses, which include the cost of union dues, tools, uniforms, and licenses and permits, than do managers and professionals. To determine the overall significance of oc cupation on the dependent variables, a chi https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis square test was performed using the logarithm of the likelihood of the variables in the restricted model (without the occupational dummies) and the logarithm of the likelihood of the variables in the full model. (See table 4.) The test was also performed for education. The results demonstrate that, after control for education and income, occupation has a significant effect on the probability and level of incurring expenses for food, housing, transportation, personal care products, reading materials, occupation-related items, and personal insurance and pensions. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 41 Spending Differences by Occupation Education also is influential in predicting the level of expense for housing, apparel, trans portation, personal care products, reading mate rials, occupation-related items, and personal insurance and pensions. Conclusions The shares analysis illustrated that differences exist among the five occupational groups with respect to their distributions of expenditures. The demographics and family characteristics as sociated with these occupational groups help ex plain some of the differences. The multivariate tobit analysis demonstrated that income was a driving force in determining the level of expense for all expenditure categories investi gated. Occupation and education proved to have significant effects for most items; however, the only variables that occupation alone influenced that education did not were food at home and food away from home. This suggests that some occupational fields are associated with the same level of educational attainment. The data, fur thermore, indicate that managers and profes sionals have higher degrees of educational attainment and higher incomes, on average, than blue-collar and service workers. These so cioeconomic characteristics result in a greater allocation of expenditures towards housing, reading materials, pensions, and entertainment by families headed by managers and profession als, while service workers and blue-collar families are more likely to spend a larger share for food and transportation. The tobit analysis Table 4. Tobit regression analysis results: significance of occupation and education on selected expenditures Dependent variable Occupation Education Food at home ......................... Food away from home ........... Housing .................................. Apparel and services ............. *12.0 *12.0 **30.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 **16.0 ‘ 8.0 Transportation ......................... Entertainment ......................... Personal care products........... Reading m aterials................... **32.0 6.0 **50.0 **40.0 **38.0 2.0 **22.0 **62.0 Cash contributions................... Occupational expenditures . . . . Personal insurance and pensions................................. 4.0 **94.0 0.0 *8.0 **52.0 *8.0 * Significant at the 95-percent confidence interval. "Significant at the 99-percent confidence interval. Note : x2 = ~ 2 (Log likelihoodRestricted - Log likelihood^,,). confirms these findings for the most part. Fur ther investigation into the effects of occupa tional status, and even its relationship to income and education, would be worthwhile, given that the composition of the labor force is changing. An analysis of the interaction among income, education, and occupation could be employed in future research. As employment of service and white-collar workers continues to grow, and that of high-wage blue-collar positions contin ues to decline, changes in consumption at the aggregate level may occur. □ Footnotes 1 See Eva Jacobs, Stephanie Shipp, and Gregory Brown, “Families o f working wives spend more on services and nondurables,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1989, pp. 15-23. 2 Nancy Gibbs, “How America has run out of time,” Time, Apr. 24, 1989, pp. 58-67. 3 See H. S. Houthakker and Lester D. Taylor, Consumer m a , Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 254-57. Demand in the U.S. (Cambridge, 4 Houthakker and Taylor, Consumer Demand, p. 59. 5 See Angus Deaton and John Muellbauer, Economics and Consumer Behavior (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1980). 6 See Gary S. Becker, Human Capital (Chicago, Univer sity of Chicago Press, 1975). 7 See Jacob Mincer, “On-the-Job Training: Costs, Re turns, and Some Implications,” Journal of Political Econ omy, October 1962, pp. 50-59. 8 Publication of the data occurred in bls news releases 88-175 (Apr. 14, 1988) and 89-330 (July 6, 1989). 9 A consumer unit is (1) a single person living alone or sharing a household with others but who is financially inde 42 Monthly Labor Review December 1989 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis pendent, (2) members of a sample household related by blood, marriage, adoption, or some other legal arrange ment, or (3) two or more persons living together who share responsibility for at least two out of three major types of expenses—that is, food, housing, and other expenses. The terms “household,” “family,” and “consumer” are used for convenience. 10 A reference person is the first member mentioned by the respondent when asked to “start with the name of the person or one of the persons who owns or rents this home.” Other consumer unit members are then referenced to this person by their relationship to him or her. 11 Managerial and professional specialty occupations in clude officials, administrators, financial managers, person nel and labor relations managers, purchasing managers, managers, marketing advertising and public relations ad ministrators, administrators in education and related fields, medicine and health managers, properties and real estate managers, accountants and auditors, architects, engineers, mathematical and computer scientists, natural scientists, physicists, dentists, nurses, therapists, teachers, counselors (educational and vocational), librarians, social scientists, social recreation counselors, religious workers, writers, artists, entertainers, athletes, lawyers, and judges. Technical, sales, and administrative support occupations include health technologists and technicians, electrical and electronic technicians, science technicians, computer pro grammers, sales supervisors and proprietors, insurance salespersons, real estate salespersons, securities and finan cial services salespersons, sales representatives, commodi ties brokers, salesworkers (cashiers), administrative support supervisors, computer operators, telephone operators, postal clerks, distribution clerks, adjusters and investiga tors, bank tellers, data entry clerks, and teachers’ aides. Service occupations include child care workers, cleaners, firefighters and fire prevention workers, police and detec tives, guards, bartenders, waiters and waitresses, cooks, short-order cooks, kitchen workers, dental assistants, health aides, nurses’ aides, orderlies and attendants, maids, jani tors, cleaners, barbers, hairdressers and cosmetologists, attendants, amusement and recreation facilities workers, public transportation attendants, and welfare service aides. Precision production, craft, and repair occupations in clude m echanics and repairers, construction workers, carpenters, extractive workers, and precision production workers. Operators, fabricators, and laborers include textile, ap parel, and furnishings machine operators (textile sewing machine, pressing machine); fabricators, assemblers, and handworkers; motor vehicle operators; industrial truck and tractor operators; freight, stock, and material handlers; and workers engaged in farming, forestry, and fishing. 12 See A Marketer’s Guide to Discretionary Income (Washington, The Conference Board and U .S . Bureau of the Census, 1989). 13 See Deaton and Muellbauer, Economics, p. 193. 14 See Jean Kinsey, “Probit and Tobit Analysis,” Con sumer Research Paper prepared for American Council of Consumer Interest Conference, Atlanta, April 11-14, 1984. 15 See Jacobs, Shipp, and Brown, “Families of Working W ives,” p. 20. 16 Houthakker and Taylor, Consumer Demand, p. 225. 17 The likelihood ratio statistic is used to test the signifi cance over all the coefficients in the model. This statistic is analogous to the F-statistic in ordinary least squares regres sion. The null hypothesis is that the probability of a house hold’s having expenditures for the items under study is independent o f the values of the coefficients in the tobit function. The test statistic is X2 = - 2 (log likelihood^ - log likelihood^), where R denotes the restricted model and U the unrestricted model. The statistic is asymptotically chi-square distributed, with the degrees of freedom equal to the number o f coeffi cients set equal to zero. 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 anaytical, not polemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-inChief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Depart ment of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 43 Consumer expenditures in different-size cities Patterns of spending differ between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan cities; large-city households spend more on housing, dining out, and public transportation, while small-city units spend more on food at home and private vehicles Susan M. Banta Susan M. Banta is an economist in the Division o f Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. 44 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis he 1980’s were a decade of metropolitan Data migration, with large cities continuing to house a growing percentage of our popu The data are from the 1987 Bureau of Labor Consumer Expenditure Interview lation. The Bureau of the Census recently Statistics re Survey. This is a continuous survey in which ported that: information on income and expenditures of con More than 3 of every 4 people live in the sumer units2 is collected in five consecutive country’s 282 designated metropolitan quarterly interviews following a rotating panel areas. . . .The metropolitan increase [bet design with approximately 5,000 consumer ween 1980 and 1987] was 8.5 percent units each quarter. The data are collected on an (14.6 million), more than twice the 4.1 ongoing basis in 101 primary sampling units percent increase (2.2 million) in non (psu ’s) across the country. The comparisons metropolitan territory. National growth made here are based on weighted data which since 1980 has amounted to 7.4 percent.1 represent the U.S. population. The growth of U.S. metropolitan areas may af For the purpose of this study, a large city is fect consumption if these areas have different considered to be any urban area classified as a patterns of expenditures. Two questions can be Metropolitan Statistical Area (msa ) by the Bu raised with respect to urban areas: Do earning reau of the Census, including rural areas within and spending patterns differ with city size? and, m sa ’s . A small city is considered to be any If so, are these differences similar to those be non-MSA urban area.3 tween urban and rural areas? To answer these questions, this article presents a comparison of Statistical method and results the average annual expenditures and income in metropolitan (large) and nonmetropolitan Table 1 shows the differences between the aver (small) cities. age metropolitan consumer unit and the average T D ecem ber 1989 nonmetropolitan consumer unit. A chi-square in testing the significance of the difference be tween expenditure shares is4 2 N (aA = ~ bf i )2 where: ait Ci bi, di the average expenditure on line item i for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan cities, respectively; the total o f average expendi tures on all line items other than line item i for metropoli tan and nonmetropolitan cities, respectively; k average total expenditures, met ropolitan cities; l average total expenditures, non metropolitan cities; ™i flj “PC j , + n, bi N k + di Table 1. Selected characteristics and average annual expenditures of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan urban consumer units, 1987 Shares Expenditures Item ; Metro politan Nonmetro politan Metro Nonmetro politan politan Chi-square statistic l. On average, metropolitan households have more earners per household and slightly larger households. They also have higher levels of ed ucation, are more likely to hold a mortgage, and are more likely to own at least one vehicle. Income and expenditures. As might be ex pected, average income and expenditures are notably higher in metropolitan cities. Note, however, that although on average households in larger urban areas earn and spend more, they spend a smaller percentage of their income than households in small cities. Large-city dwellers spend only 84 percent, while those in smaller cities spend 91 percent, of their reported in come. As might also be expected, housing ex penditures account for a higher share of total expenditures in metropolitan areas in compari son with nonmetropolitan areas. Expenditure shares on shelter are significantly different at 19 percent and 14 percent, respectively. Con versely, expenditures on utilities account for a higher share of total expenditures in non metropolitan areas than in metropolitan areas. There is evidence that this is due to the inclusion of at least one utility in the cost of rent in metropolitan areas: 30 percent of all metropoli tan consumer units report that at least one utility is included in their rent, as compared with 20 percent in nonmetropolitan consumer units. Food expenditures also follow expected trends. While the expenditure shares for total food in both classifications are similar, those for “at home” and “away from home” expenditures are https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis very different: nonmetropolitan consumer units spend a significantly higher proportion of ex penditures on food at home, while metropolitan consumer units spend more away from home. Table 1 reveals some interesting results with respect to out-of-pocket health care expendi tures.5 The difference in expenditure shares between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan consumer units is highly significant at 4.2 and 5.7 percent, respectively. Table 2 shows the component differences in health care expendi tures. Nonmetropolitan consumer units allocate a much higher share for health insurance and prescription drugs, while metropolitan con- Number of consumer units (thousands) ........................... 71,765 8,968 — — — Consumer unit characteristics: Income before taxes1 ........... Persons in consumer u n it___ Age of reference pe rson........ Earners per consumer unit . . . Percent attended college ___ At least one vehicle owned . . . $29,330 2.5 47 1.4 46 85 $19,879 2.4 47 1.2 39 81 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 38 33 — — — 21 41 25 42 _ _ _ — — — Average annual expenditures . . . F o o d ...................................... At home ............................. Away from home ............... Alcoholic beverages ............. $24,616 3,736 2,576 1,161 287 $18,078 2,831 2,081 750 158 — 15.2 10.5 4.7 1.2 — 15.6 11.5 4.1 .9 — 1.82 *11.75 *7.86 *8.64 Housing ................................. Shelter ............................... Utilities ............................... Household operations ........ Housefurnishings and equipment....................... 7,722 4,641 1,676 407 5,145 2,574 1,556 258 31.3 18.9 6.8 1.7 28.4 14.3 8.6 1.4 *42.24 *157.70 *48.02 3.50 998 756 4.0 4.1 .37 Apparel and services............. Transportation ....................... Health ca re ............................. Entertainment......................... Personal ca re ......................... 1,302 4,771 1,036 1,210 233 917 3,427 1,026 872 164 5.4 19.4 4.2 4.9 .9 5.2 18.9 5.7 4.8 .9 0.67 1.40 *48.65 .11 .18 Reading ................................. Education............................... Tobacco and supplies........... Miscellaneous ....................... Cash contributions................. Personal insurance and pensions............................. 150 346 223 535 770 108 247 219 422 786 .6 1.4 .9 2.2 3.1 .6 1.4 1.2 2.3 4.3 .03 .12 9.47 1.22 44.05 2,293 1,755 9.3 9.7 1.84 Housing tenure (percent): Homeowner with mortgage . Homeowner without mortgage......................... Renter................................. 1 Income values are derived from “complete income reporters” only. The distinction between complete and incomplete income reporters is based in general on whether the respondent provided values for at least one major source of income, such as wages and salaries, self-employment income, or Social Security income. Note : Asterisk indicates significance at the 5-percent level. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 45 Consumer Expenditures by City Size Table 2. Selected average annual health care expenditures of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan urban units, 1987 Expenditures Item Metro politan Health care ............................... $1,036 Health insurance ................... 370 Medical services ................... 482 Prescription drugs ................. 131 Medical supplies ................... 53 Shares Nonmetro politan $1,026 423 370 185 48 Metro politan Nonmetro politan Chi-square statistic 100.0 35.7 46.5 12.7 5.1 100.0 41.2 36.1 18.0 4.7 '6.62 *23.27 *11.53 0.21 Note : Asterisk indicates significance at the 5-percent level. sumer units spend a higher share for medical services. Thirty percent of all metropolitan con sumer units reported paying the total premium on their health insurance, compared with 50 percent of all nonmetropolitan consumer units. Thus, nonmetropolitan households are not nec essarily spending more on health care, but merely paying a higher portion of health costs out of pocket. The differences in expenditure shares for prescription drugs and medical serv ices are also a reflection of the difference in insurance coverage between the two city types. Transportation expenditures are highlighted in table 3. The differences in expenditure shares between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan urban areas are highly significant with respect to public transportation, although there is virtually no difference in private vehicle purchases across the two city types. Table 3 shows that those who live in metropolitan-area cities are less likely to Table 3. Selected average annual transportation expenditures of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan urban consumer units, 1987 Expenditures Item Metro politan Shares Nonmetro politan Metro politan Nonmetro politan Chi-square statistic At least one vehicle owned (percent)............................... 85 81 — — — Transportation......................... Vehicle purchases............... Gasoline and motor oil ........ $4,772 2,130 873 $3,427 1,528 757 100.0 44.6 18.3 100.0 44.6 22.0 0.00 *18.04 Public transportation ........... Airline fares ..................... Mass transit ..................... T a x is ................................. Other public transportation ................. 322 221 69 14 150 112 28 4 6.8 4.7 1.5 .3 4.4 3.3 .8 .1 *20.66 *9.51 *6.75 2.84 14 6 .3 .2 1.15 Other transportation............. 1,448 993 30.3 29.0 1.79 Note : Asterisk indicates significance at the 5-percent level. 46 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 — use their private vehicles than are nonmetropoli tan-area dwellers, whose gasoline and motor oil expenditures account for a significantly higher share of their transportation expenditures. A strong difference in modes of transportation thus exists between the two city types, with public transportation replacing a significant por tion of private vehicle usage in metropolitan areas. This is especially evident in airline fares and mass transit expenditures. While total entertainment expenditures do not exhibit any significant difference between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan cities, there are some interesting comparisons between the disaggregated expenditure items of the two city types, as shown in table 4. Foremost of these is the large difference in expenditures on fees and admissions and on televisions and radios and sound equipment between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan cities: metropolitan-area dwel lers spend significantly more on fees and admis sions, while nonmetropolitan-area dwellers spend a significantly higher amount on televi sion sets. Perhaps a more indicative statistic, however, is the percentage of those interviewed who re ported expenditures on these items. Of the metropolitan consumers interviewed, 60 per cent reported expenditures on fees and admis sions, while there were 46 percent reporting in the nonmetropolitan sample. Similarly, 64 and 79 percent reported expenditures on television and radios and sound equipment in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, respectively. Greater accessibility to out-of-home activities in metro politan areas probably accounts for much of these differences. Urban versus rural areas. Given the results alone, how comparable are these findings to those of comparisons made between expendi tures in urban and rural areas? John Rogers stud ied urban versus rural differences using 1985 Consumer Expenditure Survey data.6 The re sults of his study showed that average income and total expenditures are higher in urban con sumer units than in rural consumer units, with much of the difference due to higher food, hous ing, and health expenditures. Many of Rogers’ urban/rural results match those found here. For example: In 1985, urban consumer units spent more for housing than did their rural counterparts, and the amount spent accounted for a larger share of total expenditures.7 Rural homeowners were more likely to have paid off their mortgages.8 [Utility] costs accounted for a larger share of rural consumers’ housing costs than of urban consumers’.9 Rural consumers also spent more per unit on health care than did urban consumers. . . . [They] more frequently paid the full cost of their health insurance policies while employers more frequently paid the cost of policies for urban consumers.10 In general, the differences between expend itures in urban and rural areas found by Rogers were larger and more often significant than those discussed in this article. A divergence also occurred between specific comparisons. For ex ample, Rogers found transportation expend itures and expenditure shares to be higher in rural areas, whereas here they were found to be larger in metropolitan areas. Also, in Rogers’ study, rural consumer units were found to be more likely to own a home, while here met ropolitan consumer units had a slightly higher incidence of homeownership. In general, then, most metropolitan/nonmetropolitan compari sons made in this article resemble urban/rural comparisons made by Rogers, although some important differences exist. Table 4. Selected average annual entertainment expenditures of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan urban consumer units, 1987 Shares Expenditures Item Metro politan Nonmetro politan Metro politan Nonmetro politan Chi-square statistic Entertainment ....................... $1,210 $872 100.0 100.0 — Fees and admissions ........ Fees for participant sports Admissions to sports eve nts......................... Admissions to movies, concerts, etc................. Club memberships.......... Fees for recreation lessons ....................... Total out-of-town recreation ................... 363 47 188 25 30.0 3.9 21.6 2.9 *18.55 1.57 20 10 1.7 1.1 .91 67 83 24 47 5.5 6.9 2.8 5.4 *9.40 1.87 48 19 4.0 2.2 *5.20 98 63 8.1 7.2 .54 401 271 359 283 33.1 22.4 41.2 32.5 *14.10 *26.25 130 76 10.7 8.7 2.34 446 325 36.9 37.3 .04 Televisions, radios and sound equipment....................... Televisions ................. Radios and sound equipment............... Pets, other entertainment supplies and equipment.. Note : Asterisk indicates significance at the 5-percent level. Conclusion Significant differences exist between average expenditure patterns in metropolitan and non metropolitan urban areas. While generally these differences are similar to those of urban/rural comparisons (that is, higher income and expen ditures in metropolitan and urban areas), the trends of item-level expenditures often follow very different paths in the two comparisons. With increasing metropolitan migration, this in formation will be useful in reaching a better understanding of future expenditure patterns nationwide. □ Footnotes 1 Bureau o f the Census, News Release, Sept. 30, 1988. 2 A consumer unit consists of all members of a particular housing unit or other type of living quarters who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or who are parties to some other legal arrangement, such as foster children. Determina tion o f membership in a consumer unit in the case o f unre lated persons is based on financial independence. The term “household” may be used interchangeably with “consumer unit.” 3 A non-MSA urban area is any city with population be tween 2,500 and 50,000. 4 N. M. Downie and R. W. Heath, Basic Statistical https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Methods (New York, Harper and Row, 1974), pp. 193— 201. 5 Health care expenditures include out-of-pocket expendi tures only; reimbursed health costs are not recorded as health care expenditures. 6 John Rogers, “Expenditures of urban and rural con sumers, 1972-73 to 1985,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1988, pp. 4 1 -4 6 . 7 Ibid, p. 42. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 47 Research summaries Children in 2-worker families and real family income Howard V. Hayghe In recent years, changes in marital trends and family stability, along with changes in the labor force activity of mothers, have affected the lives of many of the Nation’s children. The high incidence of divorce, separation, and out-of-wedlock births during the 1970’s and 1980’s has led to an in crease in the proportion of children liv ing with just one parent. The rapid increase in the proportion of employed married mothers has resulted in contin uing growth in the percentage of chil dren in families in which both parents are working. And, as racial minorities have increased, so have the number and proportion of minority children. This research summary is based on information collected annually in March as part of the Current Popula tion Survey.1 It reviews the changing work patterns and composition of families with children, and trends in children’s median family income. This measure of income differs somewhat from the more commonly used meas ure— median income of families with children. 2 Family trends The primary change in the family situ ation of children has been the wellpublicized increases in the proportion who are living in dual-worker families, that is, families with both parents em ployed (including fathers in the Armed Forces). Secondarily, the proportion living in single-parent families main- Howard V. Hayghe is an economist in the Office o f Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. 48 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 tained by mothers has also increased. These developments, of course, were coupled with the decline in the number of children living in “traditional” families (two-parent families in which only the father was employed). At the same time, the total number of children under 18 years was also declining. Dual-worker versus traditional fam ilies. In March 1988, 24.9 million children under the age of 18 lived in dual-worker families. These children accounted for 43 percent of the total in families. Just 13 years earlier, children in such families numbered 18.9 million and constituted barely 30 percent of the Nation’s children. Meanwhile, the number in “traditional” families fell from about 29 million (46 percent of all children) to fewer than 17 million (29 percent of children). (See table 1.) Children whose parents both work tend to be better off than other chil dren. For instance, in 1987, median family income for children in dual worker families ($41,000) was nearly 30 percent higher than for children in “traditional” families ($32,000) and more than four times that of children in single-parent families maintained by women. Single-parent versus two-parent fam ilies. The growth in the proportion of children living in single-parent fam ilies has not been as dramatic as the shift from “traditional” to dual-worker families. In 1975, 16 percent of chil dren under 18 lived in single-parent families; by 1988, the proportion was 22 percent. The overwhelming major ity of these children lived with their mothers, but a growing segment lived with their fathers. Though small, this shift has some important implications for the well being of children because of the em ployment situation of single parents, especially mothers. As a group, these women face many difficulties that in hibit labor market success.3 Conse quently, 45 percent of the children in single-parent families maintained by a woman lived with a mother who was either unemployed (7 percent) or not in the labor force (38 percent). Of the children in families maintained by un married men, 21 percent lived with a father who was not employed. In con trast, only 4 percent of the children in two-parent families had no employed parent. Thus, as might be expected, chil dren in families maintained by women tend to have very low incomes. In 1987, median family income for chil dren living with single mothers was only $9,000 ($15,400 if the mother worked); it was $20,800 for children living with single fathers. This com pares to $35,600 for children in twoparent families. Race and Hispanic origin. Black chil dren accounted for nearly 14 percent of all children in 1988, while the propor tion who were Hispanic totaled almost 11 percent. Both proportions were somewhat higher than in 1975. Typically, white and Hispanic chil dren live in two-parent families, whereas a little more than half of black children are in single-parent families (53 percent). For each group, the pro portion living in two-parent families has declined. The decline was least for whites (6 percentage points) and great est for black children (about 10 per centage points). Among Hispanics, the decline was also substantial (from 80 percent in 1975 to 72 percent in 1988). (See table 2.) For the children in these families, part of the significance of these shifts lies in the employment problems of single parents, the effects of which were discussed above. The majority of Table 1. Family characteristics of children under 18 years, March 1975-88 [In percent] Single-parent families Two-parent families Year Total children (thousands) Total Traditional tamiles1 Dual-worker families2 Total Maintained by women3 Maintained by men3 White families Black families Hispanicorigin families 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... 63,574 62,661 61,709 60,961 59,983 84.1 83.6 83.0 81.7 81.6 46.2 44.3 43.0 40.7 39.5 29.7 31.3 33.2 34.8 36.2 15.9 16.4 17.0 18.3 18.4 14.6 15.2 15.7 16.8 16.8 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 85.4 85.0 85.0 84.8 84.7 12.9 13.1 13.0 13.2 13.3 7.5 7.5 7.4 8.0 7.2 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... 59,714 59,148 58,312 58,034 58,233 80.6 80.4 79.4 79.4 79.1 37.1 36.3 35.0 34.0 33.2 36.5 36.8 35.7 35.4 37.8 19.4 19.6 20.6 20.6 20.9 17.7 17.8 18.8 18.7 18.8 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.1 84.2 83.8 83.6 83.6 83.3 13.2 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.4 7.8 8.3 8.4 8.8 9.6 1985 1986 1987 1988 .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... 58,189 58,546 58,438 58,441 78.3 78.3 77.8 77.6 31.5 31.1 28.8 28.6 39.5 39.5 41.9 42.6 21.7 21.7 22.2 22.4 19.3 19.3 19.7 19.6 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.7 83.2 82.9 83.2 82.9 13.5 13.6 13.6 13.6 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 1 Father employed (including Armed Forces), mother not employed. 2 Father and mother employed (including father in Armed Forces). 3 No spouse present. black and Hispanic children in such families (54 and 59 percent, respec tively) lived with a parent who was not employed, compared with 37 percent of white children in such families. At 28 percent for each group, the proportion of black and Hispanic chil dren who were in dual-worker families was somewhat higher in 1988 than in 1975, while for white children the pro portion rose sharply to reach 45 per cent. Part of this differential resulted from the rapid increase among blacks and Hispanics in the proportion of chil dren living in single-parent families. However, part was also because the labor force participation rate of white married mothers increased more rapidly than that of their black or His panic counterparts: note: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals because the data for the “other” groups are not presented and Hispanics are included in both the white and black population groups. stantially. In contrast, the difference between the participation rates of white and Hispanic mothers widened be tween 1975 and 1988. School- and preschool-age children. A higher proportion of school-age chil dren are in dual-worker families than children under 6. This is because the mothers are far more likely to be in the labor force than those of preschoolers.4 Nonetheless, both proportions have in creased sharply since 1975— from 32 percent to 45 percent of the schoolagers and from 23 percent to 39 percent Table 2. of the preschoolers. Over the same pe riod, of course, there were substantial declines in the proportions in “tradi tional” families among children in both age groups. (See table 3.) For both preschool- and school-age children in single-parent families, the proportions with an employed parent rose between 1975 and 1988— from 39 to 44 percent of children under 6 and from 53 to 62 percent of children 6 to 17 years old. Nonetheless, these per centages remained far below those of children of similar ages living in married-couple families. Family characteristics of children by race and Hispanic origin, selected years, March 1975-88 White ................ Black ................ Hispanic origin ............. M a rch 197 5 M a rch 1988 43.6 58.4 64.1 76.0 38.5 52.6 D ifferen ce 20.5 17.6 14.1 Because the increase in white moth ers’ labor force participation rate was more rapid than that of black mothers, the traditional gap in participation be tween the two groups narrowed sub https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Hispanic origin Black White L abor fo rce p a r tic ip a tio n ra te Family characteristics 1980 1988 1975 1980 1988 1975 1980 1988 Total children (thousands) ........ 54,292 Percent in: 88.1 Two-parent fam ilies............ 49.7 Traditional families1 ........ 30.6 Dual-worker families2 . . . . 50,301 48,449 8,210 7,902 7,937 4,751 4,646 6,311 85.4 40.4 38.3 82.4 31.3 45.1 56.9 23.5 23.2 49.5 17.3 24.6 47.3 13.1 27.7 80.3 45.7 22.7 77.4 39.2 27.4 71.7 32.2 28.4 11.9 10.7 1.2 14.6 13.0 1.6 17.6 14.9 2.7 43.1 41.6 1.5 50.5 48.6 2.0 52.7 49.5 3.2 19.8 18.7 1.1 22.6 21.1 1.6 28.3 25.4 2.9 1975 Single-parent families ........ Maintained by women3 .. Maintained by men3 ........ 1 Father employed (including Armed Forces), mother not employed. 2 Father and mother employed (including father in Armed Forces). 3 No spouse present. Note : Detail for the above race and Hispanicorigin groups will not sum to totals because the data for the “other” groups are not presented and Hispanics are included in both the white and black population groups. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 49 Research Summaries Table 3. Family characteristics of children by age, selected years, March 1975-88 Family characteristics Children 6 to 17 years old Children under 6 years old 1975 1980 1988 1975 1980 Total children (thousands) ............................. Percent in: Two-parent fam ilies................................. Traditional families1 ............................. Dual-worker families2 ........................... 45,208 41,788 38,554 18,366 17,927 19,887 83.1 42.5 32.2 79.0 32.9 39.1 75.8 24.5 44.6 86.8 55.3 23.3 84.4 46.8 30.6 81.0 36.5 38.5 Single-parent families ............................. Maintained by women3 ....................... Maintained by men3 ............................. 16.9 15.4 1.6 21.0 19.1 1.9 24.2 21.2 2.9 13.2 12.7 .5 15.6 14.6 1.0 19.0 16.6 2.3 White fam ilies.......................................... Black fam ilies.......................................... Hispanic-origin families ........................... 85.4 13.0 7.0 84.1 13.5 7.2 82.3 14.2 10.4 85.5 12.6 8.8 84.4 12.7 9.1 84.2 12.4 11.7 1 Father employed (including Armed Forces), mother not employed. 2 Father and mother employed (including father in Armed Forces). 3 No spouse present. Note : Detail for the above race and Hispanicorigin groups will not sum to totals because the data for the “other” groups are not presented and Hispanics are included in both the white and black popula tion groups. family income began rising so that by 1987 some groups of children were in families with median incomes that were equal to, or slightly above, their 1974 levels (in constant 1987 dollars5). However, other groups were in fam ilies in which the median was below its 1974 level. (See table 4.) In 1974, children’s real median fam ily income was about $29,600. From 1974 to 1979, the median edged up- Income trends: 1974-87 To the extent that income measures economic well-being, there has been little overall improvement in children’s welfare over the period from 1974 to 1987. In fact, family income trends in dicate that children’s well-being de clined, on average, in the early 1980’s. However, as the economy recovered from the recession of the early 1980’s, Table 4. 1988 ward. However, under the pressure of recession, the median fell to $26,800 between 1979 and 1983. Subse quently, as the Nation entered a pro tracted growth period, the median rose, reaching $30,000 in 1987— only a little above the 1974 level. For children in dual-worker fami lies, the trend in median family income was similar, with one important excep tion. During the period following 1983, as the economy rebounded, the family median for these children rose to reach about $40,900 in 1987, com pared with its 1974 level of $37,900. Children in “traditional” families ex perienced less variation in family in come over the period. In 1974, median real income for children in “tradi tional” families was $31,400; 13 years later, it was $31,700. In between, the median was lowest in 1983 ($28,900) and highest in 1979 ($32,600). Children in single-parent families maintained by women were not as for tunate as those in two-parent families. The families of these children— whose median income is far less than that of two-parent families anyway— did not participate in the post-1983 recovery experienced by children in two-parent families. Between 1974 and 1979, their median income was fairly stable Median family income in constant (1987) dollars1 for children under 18 years by family characteristics, 1974-87 In two-parent families Total children Year 1974 .............................................................. 1975 .............................................................. In families maintained by women4 In families maintained by men4 In white families In black families In Hispanicorigin families Total Traditional families2 Dual worker families3 $29,560 28,340 $32,675 31,639 $31,402 30,319 $37,860 36,482 $11,116 10,754 $23,702 23,248 $31,361 30,101 $17,051 16,505 $21,313 19,438 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 ........................................................ ................................................................... ............................................................ ..................................................................... ..................................................................... 29,554 29,724 30,566 30,442 29,152 32,823 33,274 34,165 34,508 33,045 31,308 31,959 32,109 32,558 30,746 37,020 37,309 38,570 38,808 38,258 11,243 11,257 10,927 11,346 10,567 25,550 24,632 24,322 23,665 19,676 31,377 31,587 32,328 32,389 30,815 16,546 16,062 16,478 16,147 16,409 20,426 21,523 20,479 20,842 19,523 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 ..................................................................... ............................................................. ..................................................................... .......................................................... ..................................................................... 28,196 27,346 26,800 28,003 28,519 32,595 30,927 31,444 32,966 33,440 29,909 29,847 28,865 30,065 30,500 38,136 37,140 36,620 37,969 38,811 10,439 9,400 9,065 9,206 8,993 23,850 20,878 21,628 23,102 21,343 29,727 29,154 28,681 30,174 32,656 15,347 13,862 14,028 13,853 15,341 18,907 17,555 17,844 18,536 17,910 1986 ................................................................. 1987 ..................................................................... 29,513 30,007 34,706 35,619 31,656 31,652 39,814 40,890 8,946 9,007 22,743 20,781 31,527 32,357 15,068 14,250 18,081 17,504 1 CPI-U-X1 used to adjust nominal values. See footnote 5 of research summary for explanation. 2 Father employed (including Armed Forces), mother not employed. 50 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 3 Father and mother employed (including father in Armed Forces). 4 No spouse present. at around $11,000 a year. However, from 1980 to 1983, the median fell to about $9,000, where it has remained since. Part of the reason why children in these families did not participate in the economic expansion of the 1980’s was attributable to changes in the composi tion of families maintained by women. Since 1975, the proportion of these families in which the householder was never married grew from about 13 per cent to 21 percent. These women are typically very young, have completed relatively few years of schooling, and hence are not likely to possess the skills and experience necessary to ob tain today’s jobs. In addition, the pro portion of such families that were black or Hispanic also rose, and black and Hispanic single mothers typically experienced labor market difficulties and consequently low median income. Black and Hispanic children’s me dian family income fell gradually over most of the 13-year period. In contrast, income for children in white families, which declined during the early 1980’s began to rise after 1983, returning to its 1979 level. The result was that in terms of economic well-being, black and Hispanic children fell further behind whites, as shown by the change in the ratios of black and Hispanic children’s median family income to that of white children: F a m ily in com e ra tio Black/white ........... Hispanic/white . . . . 1974 1987 54.4 68.0 44.0 54.1 The difference in income trends be tween white children, on the one hand, and black and Hispanic children, on the other, partly reflects the changes in their family composition shown in table 3. Families whose youngest children are 6 to 17 years old typically have higher median incomes than those with children under 6 years. This difference is partly because young children fre quently have young parents, and earn ings vary directly with the age of the earner.6 Also, the needs of very young children often restrict the ability of par ents—especially the mothers—to work or find work. (See table 5.) https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 5. Median family income in constant (1987) dollars1 for children by age and family characteristics, selected years, 1974-87 1974 Family characteristics 1977 1980 1983 1987 Children 6 to 17 years T o ta l................................................................................. $31,575 $31,438 $30,920 $28,416 $31,366 35,562 33,712 37,690 In two-parent families .................................................. 35,248 35,421 29,893 34,132 32,936 31,274 33,282 Traditional2 ............................................................... Dual-worker3 ............................................................ 39,543 39,296 40,317 38,310 42,432 10,517 10,736 12,231 In families maintained by women4 ............................... 12,487 12,458 In families maintained by men4 ..................................... 24,113 26,202 21,560 25,160 25,270 White ........................................................................... Black............................................................................. Hispanic o rig in ............................................................. 33,688 17,666 22,789 33,439 16,993 23,130 32,777 17,127 20,742 30,646 14,657 19,083 33,864 15,116 18,485 Children under 6 years T o ta l................................................................................. $25,800 $25,099 $25,663 $23,982 $27,503 27,440 32,396 In two-parent families .................................................. 27,917 28,820 28,731 Traditional2 ............................................................... 27,497 28,286 27,477 26,107 29,633 Dual-worker3 ............................................................ 31,962 31,605 32,883 32,658 37,623 6,207 6,397 6,968 8,193 7,353 In families maintained by women4 ............................... 14,543 15,506 14,158 16,780 20,086 In families maintained by men4 .................................... White ........................................................................... Black............................................................................. Hispanic o rig in ............................................................. 26,896 15,574 18,810 27,572 13,143 19,016 26,943 14,620 17,442 25,597 11,978 15,681 29,668 12,357 15,474 3 Father and mother employed (including father in Armed Forces). 1 CPI-U-X1 used to adjust nominal values. See footnote 5 at end of report for explanation. 2 Father employed (including Armed Forces), mother not employed. 4 No spouse present. W h a t a r e s o m e o f the implications of these income trends? In the short term, of course, children whose family in comes are declining or lagging may not be receiving adequate food, shelter, clothing, or health care. Moreover, participation in organized social and educational activities available outside the schools may prove difficult for children from these groups. The long-term impact of these in come trends is more problematic, espe cially for children in single-parent families. This group varies continu ously as parents remarry or divorce; the children may actually spend only a small part of their childhood in lowincome, single-parent households.7 However, to the degree that income affects educational and skill-training opportunities, children from single parent, black, or Hispanic families may not be able to compete effectively as adults in the labor market. Thus, to the extent that jobs requiring highly skilled, educated workers predominate in the future,8 these children may be more likely to be relegated to lower skilled, low-paying work when they enter the labor force. □ Footnotes 1 The Current Population Survey is a sample survey of about 55,800 households with cover age in each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, conducted by the Bureau o f the Cen sus for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Its pur pose is to collect information on the employment status of persons in the noninstitutional popula tion age 16 and over. Each March, additional questions are asked regarding household mem bers’ work experience in the prior year and the amount o f money income they received from all sources. 2 The measure of income used in this report is the median family income of children. This me dian is based on the frequency distribution of children by family income. Because many fami lies contain more than one child (in March 1988, 58.4 million children lived in 32.3 million families), the frequency distribution o f children by family income differs from that o f families with children. In the distribution of families, the income of each family unit is represented only once, whereas in a distribution of children by their families’ income, the income of family units can be represented more than once, de pending on the number of children in each fam ily. As a result, the dollar value o f children’s median family income (about $30,000 in 1987) M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 51 Research Summaries differs somewhat from that of families with chil dren (about $30,720). 3 See, for example, B. L. Johnson and E. Waldman, “Most women who head families re ceive poor job market returns,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1983, pp. 3 0-34. 4 See, for example, Bureau o f Labor Statis tics, “Labor Force Participation Unchanged Among Mothers with Young Children,” usdl news release 8 8 -4 3 1 , Sept. 7, 1988, table 1. 5 In this report, the cpi- u - xi (Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers experimental se ries) was used to convert nominal-dollar income to constant-dollar income. This is one o f several experimental price indices developed by the Bu reau o f Labor Statistics to incorporate a rental equivalence factor for home ownership into the cpi- u . The cpi- u presently includes the rental equivalency only from 1983 forward. The cpi-Uxi was used here to provide a deflator for years prior to 1983 that is consistent with current usage. See the appendix in M. W. Horrigan and S. E. Haugen, “The declining middle-class the sis: a sensitivity analysis,” Monthly Labor Re view, May 1988, pp. 3 -1 3 . 6 See, for example, Bureau o f Labor Statis tics, “Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers: First Quarter 1989,” usdl news release 8 9 -1 9 4 , Apr. 26, 1989, table 2. 7 For a discussion o f changes in family com position and its relation to family income, see J. N. Morgan, D. Dickinson, J. Dickinson, J. Benus, and G. Duncan, Five Thousand Fami lies—Patterns of Economic Progress, (Ann Arbor, University o f Michigan, Institute for So cial Science Research, 1974), pp. 99-1 2 2 . 8 See G. T. Silvestri and J. M. Lukasiewicz, “A look at occupational employment trends to the year 2000,” Monthly Labor Review, Septem ber 1987, pp. 4 6 -6 4 . Child care options of employed women Approximately $14 billion was spent on child care in 1986 by families with 52 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 children under age 15, according to provisional data from the Commerce Department’s Survey of Income and Program Participation. About 18.2 million working women with children took part in the survey conducted over the September to November 1986 pe riod. One-third of the respondents re ported making weekly payments for child care at an average cost of $45 a week. Thirty-three percent of women above the poverty line reported pay ments, compared with 21 percent of women who were below the poverty line. The average weekly payment for child care amounted to 6 percent of monthly family income. The average payment for women with family in come below the poverty level was $32, or 22 percent of their monthly income. Those with monthly family income of more than $3,750 spent $58 weekly, or 4 percent of monthly income. The following are the average month ly income of families with working mothers with children under age 15 and the average weekly expenditure for child care, by race and Hispanic origin: M o n th ly in com e T o ta l............. . $3,048 White .................. . 3,071 Black .................. . 2,259 Hispanic origin . . 2,448 W eek ly e x p en d itu re $45.20 45.60 36.80 43.90 Of the 9 million preschool children of working mothers, 41 percent were cared for in someone else’s home and 21 percent attended a group day care facility, nursery school, or preschool. The proportion of preschoolers cared for by their mothers at work was 6.7 percent. This proportion is usually highest before school commences. The following are the day care ar rangements reported in the fall of 1986 for both preschoolers and children 5 years or older: U n d er age 5 Total (thousands) . . . . 9,046 Arrangement (percent): . 100 Child’s h o m e .................. Another’s h o m e ............. Day/group care center . . Nursery school/pres c h o o l............................. Kindergarten/grade s c h o o l............................. Child cares for self . . . . Mother cares for child at w o r k ........................... A ges 5 -1 4 19,976 100 29.7 41.3 14.7 13.8 5.4 1.9 6.4 .9 1.2 — 69.9 4.9 6.7 3.2 As shown, about 70 percent of the 20 million children ages 5 to 14 were reported to be in school while thenmothers worked; only a little more than 7 percent were cared for outside their homes. Parental care for children in this age group accounted for one-fifth of all arrangements in the summer, compared with one-tenth in the fall. Moreover, 13 percent were left to their own supervision during the summer, compared with 5 percent in the fall. The Census Bureau cautions that the data come from two national samples of the Survey of Income and Program Participation and are subject to various errors, such as undercoverage of the population, processing errors, and re spondent reporting errors. A forthcom ing report will include final statistics for 1986 and 1987. □ — L a u rie B . L a n d e, O ffice o f P u b lic a tio n s. Major agreements expiring next month This list of selected collective bargain ing agreements expiring in January is based on information collected by the Bureau’s Office of Compensation and Working Conditions. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. Private industry is arranged in order of Standard Industrial Classifica tion. Labor organizations listed are af filiated with the afl- cio, except where noted as independent (Ind.). Private industry Union Oil Co. of California, Interstate; Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 2,400 workers Stone, clay and glass Coming Glass Works, Coming, NY; Flint Glass Workers, 3,400 workers Acme Food Stores, New Jersey; Food and Commercial Workers, 3,400 workers Real estate Midtown Realty Owners Assn., New York, NY; Service Employees, 2,500 workers Services Machinery, except electrical Fafnir Bearing C o., New Britain, CT; Auto Workers, 1,200 workers Electrical and electronic equipment Litton Industries, Sioux Falls, sd ; Elec Service Employers Assn, (route agree ment), New York, NY; Service Employees, 6,000 workers Phonograph Record Labor Agreement, Interstate; Musicians, 5,400 workers trical Workers (UE-Ind.), 1,000 workers Food products Bryan Foods, Inc., West Point, MS; Food and Commercial Workers, 1,300 workers Delmonte Corp., Midwest D iv., Illinois; Retail, Wholesale and Department Store, 1,200 workers Transportation equipment Chemicals Instruments and related products American Cyanamid C o., Pearl River, NY; Chemical Workers, 1,575 workers Petroleum Atlantic Richfield Co. and Arco Pipeline Co., Interstate; Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 4,800 workers American Oil C o., Interstate; Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 4,600 workers Ashland Oil C o., Interstate; Oil, Chemi cal and Atomic Workers, 1,200 workers Chevron USA. Inc., Interstate; Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 4,300 workers Mobil Oil Corp., Interstate; Oil, Chemi cal and Atomic Workers, 3,000 workers Shell Oil C o., Interstate; Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 4,000 workers Sun Oil of Pennsylvania C o., Interstate; Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 1,300 workers Texaco, Inc., Interstate; Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 4,200 workers https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis United Technologies, West Palm Beach, FL; Machinists, 1,300 workers Dana Corp., Spicer Axle D iv., Ft Wayne, in; Allied Industrial Workers, 1,850 workers Honeywell Inc., Minneapolis, Teamsters, 6,300 workers mn; Public activities General administration San Diego County mul tidepartmental, San Diego County, CA; independent union, 8,000 workers Albuquerque multidepartmental blue collar, Albuquerque, nm; State, County and Municipal Employees, 1,250 workers Airlines Education American Airlines, Interstate; Allied Pi lots, 6,100 workers Detroit public school custodians, De troit, Mi; State, County and Municipal Em ployees, 2,100 workers Utilities General Telephone Co. of Wisconsin, Wisconsin; Communications Workers, 1,500 workers Boston Gas Co., Boston, ma; Steelwork ers, 1,000 workers Utah Power and Light Co., Interstate; Electrical Workers (ibew), 3,500 workers Wholesale trade Associated Produce Dealers and Brokers of Los Angeles Inc., Los Angeles, CA; Teamsters, 1,500 workers Retail trade Acme Food Stores, Philadelphia, PA; Food and Commercial Workers, 6,400 workers Protective services Los Angeles County peace officers (lieu tenants and sergeants), Los Angeles County, CA; independent union, 1,000 workers Los Angeles County peace officers, Los Angeles County, CA; independent union, 5,800 workers San Diego County sheriffs, San Diego County, CA; independent union, 1,000 workers Transit Santa Clara Transit Authority, Santa Clara County, CA; Amalgamated Transit Union, 1,600 workers M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 53 Developments in industrial relations Newspaper accords In St. Paul, m n , the Pioneer Press Dis patch and Local 29C of the Graphic Communications union agreed on a 9^ year contract for 43 pressroom em ployees. The contract reportedly per mits the newspaper to reduce gradually the number of employees in particular positions. It also calls for wage in creases totaling $5.31 an hour (the pre vious rate was $19.29 an hour for em ployees on the day shift). The agreement was retroactive to the August 31, 1988, expiration date of the prior contract. Elsewhere, The Washington Post ( d c ) and The Newspaper Guild were optimistic about their future rela tionship after they agreed on a 5-year contract. The previous contract had expired in mid-1986, and after bar gaining collapsed a year later, the Post imposed some contract changes on the 1,400 employees. The Post’s chief bargainer said the new accord, reached after 120 bar gaining sessions, “deals with every conceivable issue, from video display terminals to adoption assistance. It’s 2 years longer than any contract we’ve ever had before and it has the first no strike and management-rights clauses we’ve ever had with the Guild.” The local union’s chief negotiator was pleased that the local had won large increases in starting salaries for reporters and photographers (up to $100 a week) and significant improve ments in health insurance benefits for all employees, although at a cost to employees. The contract provides for general wage increases of $18.20 to $38.30 a “Developments in Industrial Relations” is pre pared by George Ruben of the Division o f De velopments in Labor-Management Relations, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary sources. 54 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 week in the first year, $19.30 to $39.40 in the second, and $18.80 to $38.20 in the third. This will bring the top minimum rate— paid after 4 years of service— to $860.70 a week for re porters and employees in other key jobs. In each of the 3 years, the in creases averaged $30 a week. This is also true of the fourth and fifth years, but the allocation of the money among various jobs in those years will be de termined after the third year. Em ployees in the starting steps of some jobs will also receive increases under a new formula raising their rates to 80 percent of the top rates for their jobs. All employees will be eligible for possible automatic annual cost-ofliving pay adjustments in each of the final two years. The adjustments— each limited to 4 percent— will equal that portion of any rise in the b l s Con sumer Price Index in excess of 6 per cent during the preceding 12 months. The employee obligation for health insurance is now 10 percent of the pre mium cost for employees earning $30,000 or more a year and 5 percent for those earning less. Other terms included adoption of an accelerated grievance procedure for settling disputes over discharge and suspensions, provision for use of up to 10 days of vacation for paternity leave, testing of video display terminals for radiation emissions, and reimburse ment of 50 percent of adoption ex penses, to a maximum of $4,000 ($5,000 if the child has a disability). The union also agreed to exclude 100 employees from the bargaining unit, while the Post dropped its plan to petition the National Labor Relations Board to permit the exclusion of a larger number. There also is provision for continuing talks on union charges that the Post was not fully paying re porters for overtime work, and that it discriminated against women and minorities. Diamond-Star and Auto Workers A no-layoff provision was the feature of the initial contract between Dia mond-Star Motors Corp. and the Auto Workers, leading to speculation that the union would seek the same provi sion in 1990 bargaining with the Big Three auto producers— Chrysler Corp., General Motors Corp., and Ford Motor Co. The Diamond-Star plant, located in Normal, i l , is jointly owned by Chrysler and Mitsubishi Motors Corp. of Japan, and produces automobiles for both companies. The new provision permits layoffs only when the “long-term viability of the company is at stake.” An Auto Workers official stopped short of say ing that the new provision would figure prominently in the 1990 talks, how ever, contract provisions resulting from recent settlements in the auto in dustry have clearly reflected the union’s concern for protecting jobs. The current contracts at the Big Three permit layoffs when sales decline. During such layoffs, employees are covered by Supplemental Unemploy ment Benefit (SUB) plans which are de signed to give eligible employees nearly 95 percent of their normal takehome pay for up to 2 years when combined with State unemployment benefits. However, this does not al ways occur because of the sometimes severe drain on the company s u b funds. The 3-year Diamond-Star accord covers 2,400 employees. It provides for 80 percent protection of take-home pay for up to 1 year in the event of layoffs and for a range of contract pro visions that will bring employee com pensation to parity with Chrysler and other companies in 1992. Prior to the settlement, base pay for Diamond-Star employees reportedly averaged $12.75 an hour, compared with an expected $17.01 in 1991, according to the union. (The $17.01 expected rate includes a union estimate of future automatic cost-of-living adjustments under a new formula matching that at Chrysler and the other companies, but does not in clude the money workers could receive under a provision guaranteeing them the same wage increases and lump-sum payments that Chrysler workers might receive in 1990 and 1991.) A major gain for the company is a provision reducing the number of job classifications to three, compared with the dozens still prevailing at the other auto companies despite some consoli dations of duties as a result of settle ments in recent years. With the broad classifications, Diamond-Star man agers can use team production ap proaches, in which each employee or “associate” performs more than one task. Diamond-Star is the third Japanesemanaged domestic autombile plant in which the Auto Workers holds em ployee representation rights. The other two are New United Motor Manufac turing Inc. in Fremont, c a (jointly owned by Toyota Motor Corp. and General Motors) and Mazda Motor Manufacturing us a in Flat Rock, m i (partly owned by Ford). So far, the union has not succeeded in organizing a wholly Japanese-owned plant in the United States. Elsewhere in the automobile indus try, General Motors reported encour aging results of a new employee involvement plan at a plant in Okla homa City, o k , despite resistance from some employees represented by the Auto Workers and some supervisors. The Voluntary Input Program (VIP), covering 5,300 rank-and-file workers, was adopted in a supplement to the Auto Workers 1987 national accord for General Motors plants. In October 1989, 67 percent of the employees were participating in the program, compared with 46 percent at its incep tion in May 1989. One inducement is a “pay for knowledge” provision permit ting employees to earn an extra 20 cents to 70 cents an hour for taking on added responsibilities, such as aiding management in improving the quality of automobiles. An official of Local 1991 indicated that success of v ip is not assured be cause some workers give up on attain https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ing consensus with managers in meet ings on improving operations. This problem was heightened by the fact that the v ip plan began during a period when the plant was undergoing many production changes. The plant’s personnel director ad mitted that some supervisors resisted v i p , concerned that workers were as suming a supervisory role in produc tion. But, he contended that this view is unwarranted because only the roles and responsibilities of supervisors have changed, not their importance or value in the plant. Grocery store accords The United Food and Commercial Workers negotiated separate, but simi lar, agreements for 27,000 employees of Giant Food Inc. and Safeway Stores Inc. in the Washington, DC-Baltimore, m d , areas. The contracts cover 19,900 employees in the d c area (12,000 at Giant and 7,900 at Safeway) and 7,100 in the Baltimore area (6,000 at Giant and 1,100 at Safeway). Both sides agreed that the settle ments favored the union. An official of Local 400 in DC said the union’s bar gaining position was strengthened by the intense competition in the industry which discouraged management from risking a work stoppage. Giant and Safeway representatives said that they conceded on some bargaining issues in order to ease employee hiring and retention problems in a tight labor market. The 3-year agreements provide for an immediate $1 an hour wage increase for all employees. Those hired prior to the adoption of a two-tier pay schedule in 1983 will receive 45-cent-an-hour wage increases and $200-$500 lump sum payments in March of 1990 and 1991. Employees in the second tier will receive larger wage increases— 50 cents an hour— in March of 1990 and 1991, which will narrow the differen tial between the tiers to 90 cents. Some narrowing also occurred in the 1986 settlements. Giant and Safeway will continue to pay the full cost of health insurance premiums. Initially, they had pressed for employees to assume part of the cost. The settlement also provided for im proved pensions, including extra pay ments to retirees at the end of 1990 and 1991. Meat processing settlements About 1,400 employees of Oscar Mayer Food Corp.’s Madison, wi, plant were covered by a 3-year contract that provides for a 25-cent-an-hour wage increase, and establishes a “goal bonus” plan that could result in annual distributions up to $1,500, according to an official of Local 538 of the United Food and Commercial Work ers. He said that a larger wage increase was not possible because of the intense competition Oscar Mayer is encounter ing from nonunion companies, which hold a large share of the market. The 25-cent immediate hike brought the plant’s base scale to $10.95 an hour. Payments under the goal bonus plan will depend on the degree of success in attaining productivity, safety, and cost-saving goals to be set by union and management representatives. The first possible payout is to be made in 1991. Other provisions include new educa tional assistance and mail order prescription drug programs, and im provements in paid vacations and the long-term disability plan. In Fremont, n e , Geo. A Hormel & Co. canceled plans to close the “kill and cut” unit of its plant after em ployees accepted a 3-year contract that includes a new two-tier pay schedule. Under the schedule, new employees will start at $7.25 an hour, move to $7.50 after 6 months, to $7.75 after the first year, $8 after \ \ years, and $8.50 after 2\ years. Previously, new work ers started at $9.25 and progressed to $10.75. Employees on the payroll at the time of settlement will not be affected by the reduced rates. Instead, they will re ceive 15-cent-an-hour wage increases in each contract year. Other terms negotiated by Local 22 of the United Food and Commercial Workers included employee payment of 20 percent of health insurance pre mium costs, which had been fully paid by Hormel; $10,000 life insurance coverage, instead of $5,000; and a fifth M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 55 Developments in Industrial Relations week of vacation for employees with 30 years of service. The contract, ne gotiated a week before the scheduled expiration of the preceding contract, covers 670 employees. Hotel workers settle A scheduled strike by 3,000 employees was averted when the Hotel Associa tion of Washington, d c , and Hotel Em ployees and Restaurant Employees Local 25 agreed on a 3-year contract. A major issue in the talks was manage ment’s demand that employees begin paying part of health insurance pre mium costs. Under the settlement, the 15 hotels will continue to pay full premium costs, but the two health in surance plans were replaced by pre ferred provider type plans. Other terms included 5-percent annual increases in wage rates. As usual, the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees accord with the Hotel Association set a pattern for set tlements for 2,500 workers the union represents at independent hotels. In San Francisco, c a , Local 2 of the union settled with 38 hotels on longerthan-usual contracts to enable union officials to devote more time to orga nizing nonunion employees at five ho tels. At the time of the settlements, the local reportedly represented about 7,000 hotel employees in the city, or 82 percent of the total. The new 5-year contracts, which succeeded 3-year contracts, provided for nontipped employees to receive a 30-cent-an-hour wage increase in the first year and 35-cent increases in the other years. Wages for tipped em ployees were frozen for the contract term, but these employees will be paid at double time for vacations. An ex ception to the wage freeze was bellpersons, who received an immediate 20-cent increase in the $1.30 “per bag” rate for handling the luggage of tour groups, followed by a 10-cent increase in 1990. Mine Workers rejoins AFL-CIO Labor unions’ efforts to attain a unified front in dealing with management and government were enhanced when the 150,000-member United Mine Work 56 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 ers returned to the a f l - c i o , ending a half century of self-imposed exile. The reaffiliation culminated increasingly close cooperation between the federa tion and the Mine Workers in recent years, most notably the a f l - c io ’ s aid in the union’s efforts to reach a settle ment with the Pittston Co. and end the bitter work stoppage against the soft coal producer. Mine Workers President Richard L. Trumka called the reaffiliation a for malization of “our ever-closer working relationship with the a f l - c io and its member unions” and said that the move was “in the best interests of our membership.” The reaffiliation triggered a resump tion of the Mine Workers and the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers negoti ations to strengthen their bargaining front with energy producers by merg ing. In 1988, the Mine Workers had approved a merger plan, but the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers re jected it; reportedly, one reason was because the Mine Workers was not then an a f l - c io member. The reaffiliation also was a step in fulfilling a f l - c io President Lane Kirkland’s vow to unify labor. Other unions brought into the federation since his inauguration in 1979 include the Auto Workers, the United Trans portation Union, the Locomotive Engineers, the Teamsters, and the Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union. Labor organizations still out side the a f l - c io include the United Electrical Workers, the National Edu cation Association, and the American Nurses Association. Utility pledges equal opportunity Following discussions with a coalition of consumer, business, minority, dis abled, and women’s organizations, Southern California Edison Co. made a comprehensive equal opportunity pledge. The company’s chairman called the goals in the pledge “appro priate for a responsible public utility serving this demographically diverse and changing region,” and main tained that the commitment is part of the company’s long-term strategy to aid its customers, including small businesses. The pledge binds Southern California Edison to make good faith efforts to: • Continue to have minorities and women represented on its board of directors. • By the year 2000, raise the propor tion of minorities to 30 percent (from 13 percent) of its top 500 management jobs and women to 20 percent (from 6 percent) of its top 100 management jobs. This will be accomplished through advancement of qualified minorities and women into jobs that open through normal attrition, with out resorting to quotas or ratios. • Appoint a multicultural advisory council to report quarterly to the company’s chief officer. • Award 30 percent of its $1 billion a year in business contracts to minor ity-owned and women-owned busi nesses, at usual costs and without compromising quality. • Increase its contributions to non profit organizations serving lowincome people, minorities, women, and the disabled. • Double its low-income energy assis tance program. The coalition of organizations par ticipating in the development of the pledge included the California Council of Urban Leagues, the League of United Latin American Citizens, Latino Issues Forum, the Black Busi ness Association of Los Angeles, the American GI Forum, the FilipinoAmerican Political Association, the Coalition of Bay Area Women-Owned Businesses, and the World Institute on Disability. Legal counsel was provided by public advocates. Pan Am settles sex bias case Pan American World Airways has agreed to modify its limits on em ployee weight, and pay $2.35 million to 116 current and former female atten dants the carrier had declared over weight. The court-approved settlement ended a 5-year court case in which the attendants contended they were disci plined and, in some cases, fired in vio lation of the sex discrimination provi sions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Previously, Pan Am classified all fe male attendants as having “medium” frames in determining if they fell within the limits of a height-weight chart, while classifying all male at tendants as having “large” frames. According to the Independent Union of Flight Attendants, which repre sents Pan Am’s 5,400 attendants, this classification amounted to discrim ination against women because it gave the men more leeway in meeting the requirements. The union also ob jected to periodic visual inspections of appearance, contending that the in spection of male attendants was less rigorous. Under the new policy, both male and female employees will be classi fied as having medium frames, except for those employees subject to less stringent weight limits because a physician determines they have large bones. The settlement also ended the visual inspection of employees. Chrysler, UAW start child care The automobile industry’s first jointly operated onsite child care center will be built at Chrysler Motors Corp. Elec tronics Division plant in Huntsville, a l . The program will be operated by the UAW-Chrysler National Training Center through a contract with a pro fessional child care company. The cost to participating employees has not yet been determined. The center will have https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis an initial capacity of 100 to 200 chil dren, and will care for children ages 6 weeks to 5 years. It will operate from 5 a.m. to 1 a.m., Monday through Friday. The electronics plant was selected for the pilot project because its 3,400 employees are predominantly young and are from a large geographic area around the plant, and because existing child care facilities in the area were deemed to be inadequate. Earlier in 1989, Chrysler began child care referral programs at its car assembly plant in Sterling Heights, mi, and at its Dodge truck assembly plant in Warren, m i . Employee stock ownership plans Employee stock ownership plans added 865,000 employees to new and existing plans last year, according to an estimate by the National Center for Employee Ownership. An estimated 775 new plans were created in what the Center sees as a continuing strong growth rate. About half of the new plans were stock “bonus” plans and half were employee stock ownership plans. The Center estimates that 90 percent of existing plans are in private compa nies, of which half are used to provide a market for the shares of retiring own ers. The remaining 10 percent are in public companies and are often used to restructure employee benefits in ways that provide tax benefits to the com pany or as a defense against a hostile corporate takeover. Currently, there are about 10,000 plans covering more than 10 million employees, according to the Center’s estimates. At the end of 1988, there were 9,500 plans, covering more than 9.7 million employees. □ Hail and Farewell With this month’s “Developments in Industrial Relations,” George Ruben of the Division of Develop ments in Labor-Management Rela tions, Bureau of Labor Statistics, retires. For 10 years, George has prepared or supervised the prepara tion of the Monthly Labor Review department as well as written the annual report and analysis of labormanagement developments which appears in the January issue each year. He has been cited for his ex pertise and knowledge and received a special Lawrence R. Klein Award for sustained excellence of output. We will miss him and wish him well in his retirement. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w — The Editors D ecem ber 1989 57 Book reviews Perceptions of reality The Social Foundations o f Industrial Power: A Comparison o f France and Germany. By Marc Maurice, Francois Sellier, and Jean-Jacques Silvestre. Cambridge, m a , The m it Press, 1986. 292 pp. The German Worker: Working Class Autobiographies from the Age of Industrialization. By Alfred Kelly. Berkeley, c a , University of Cali fornia Press, 1987. 438 pp. $45, cloth; $12.95, paper. In the early 1970’s, a group of scholars at the Laboratory of Economics and So ciology of Work, University of Aix-enProvence, France, set up a monumental field research project comparing work organization, wage structure, and labor in French and German firms. The main results were published in French in 1982 and are now available in English. As the Introduction indicates, the aim was to identify difference in the work structure of the two countries and ascertain how work relations were structured in relation to the domains of education, business organization, and industrial relations. The authors attempt to link macrosociological and microsocial (firm level) phenomena. The team found substantial struc tural differences between the French and German firms. Their research cov ered pay scales, skill development, job mobility, authority structure, labormanagement cooperation, and the res olution of conflict. Many interesting differences emerged. Thus, say the au thors, German education encourages close attention to technical training, so that skill is an important criterion both for promotions and wage determin ation. French education encourages on-the-job training. French work orga nization appears more bureaucratic and less performance-oriented than in Ger man firms. French employers have a freer hand in defining jobs. Wages are found to be more closely linked to pro ductivity in Germany. There is a 58 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 higher proportion of blue-collar work ers in German firms, regardless of the technology involved. Wage differen tials between white- and blue-collar workers are higher in France. The roles of supervisors vary considerably be tween the two countries. Time study is more readily accepted by German workers. French trade unions are likely to act on the assumption that manage ment will not make concessions with out a strike. German works councils head off strikes. German employers recognize the legitimacy of union val ues and also accept the authority of industry associations and business groups more than the French. The authors conclude that their work gives no support to the convergence hypothesis. Rather, national specifi cities in work relations exist and are maintained, influenced by educational, training, and promotion systems. Differences between workplace characteristics in the two countries are indeed interesting. There is a rich vari ety of detail and the theoretical reason ing is accomplished in a professional manner. Nevertheless, the book is likely to appeal to a rather limited read ership of specialists in industrial rela tions theory and the sociology of work. It is too academic to attract many man agers, trade unionists, or government officials; even advanced students are likely to find it heavy going. But it certainly makes a useful contribution to our understanding of work organiza tion and relations in the workplace. The postwar success of the German economy owes much to the solidly crafted German industrial relations system and to the attitudes that man agers, workers, and officials of trade unions and employers’ associations bring to it. The significance of atti tudes is one of the under-studied as pects of industrial relations and (al though other surveys do exist) of comparative industrial relations. And, over time, relatively little attention has been given to shifts in attitudes. In his very readable book, Alfred Kelly has given us something of a benchmark from the past to enhance our knowledge of German workers. His approach has been to draw on the autobiographies of 19 workers from different occupations and parts of Ger many and some neighboring countries. Obviously, such an approach has drawbacks. The few workers who committed their stories to paper were scarcely typical; their writings rarely satisfied academic niceties and were often written years following the events they described. Their writing styles were rarely elegant. A good pro portion became active in what was often a risky business for a worker of the time, trade unions or Social Demo cratic politics. But the abstracts read with much of the freshness and honesty of the interviews in Studs Terkel’s Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do (New York, Pan theon Books, 1974). The vicissitudes of the worker’s life appear very clearly in the abstracts— the demanding employer; the long hours; miserable working conditions; the low level of social protection (even though Germany was a forerunner in this re spect); and the commonly harsh attitude of the authorities not only toward trade unionism but also to any form of worker “misbehavior.” Harsh authority and poor conditions, although common, were not of course the fate of all workers in Ger many or elsewhere. There were many who had steady work and— for the time— satisfactory living standards. Wages and working conditions im proved fairly steadily over the period covered by these accounts, as did the extent of social protection. But hardship existed, as the abstracts demonstrate, and one is shuck by the fortitude with which these workers bore misfortune and by their unfailing positive attitude to ward work. — O l iv e r C l a r k e Department of Industrial Relations University of Western Australia, Perth Current labor statistics B ig W fW H H H tH H tH W I Notes on Current Labor Statistics .............. 60 Comparative indicators 1. Labor market indicators............................................................... 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity ........................................................... 3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes 70 71 . 71 Labor force data 4. Employment status o f the total population, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................... 5. Employment status of the civilian population, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................... 6. Selected employment indicators, data seasonally adjusted . 7. Selected unemployment indicators, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................... 8. Unemployment rates by sex and age, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................... 9. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................... 10. 11. 12. 13. Duration o f unemployment, data seasonally adjusted ......... Unemployment rates of civilian workers, by State .............. Employment o f workers, by State ........................................... Employment o f workers, by industry, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................... 14. Average weekly hours, by industry, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................... 15. Average hourly earnings, by industry, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................... 16. Average hourly earnings, by industry .................................... 17. Average weekly earnings, by industry .................................... 18. Diffusion indexes of employment change, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................... 19. Annual data: Employment status o f the noninstitutional population ........................................... 20. Annual data: Employment levels, by industry .................... 21. Annual data: Average hours and earnings levels, by industry .................................................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 27. Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more . . . 28. Average effective wage adjustments, bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or m o r e ............................................. 29. Specified compensation and wage adjustments, State and local government bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or m o r e ............................................. 30. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more .............. 89 90 90 90 Price data 72 73 74 75 76 76 76 77 77 78 31. Consumer Price Index: U .S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity and service groups ...................... 32. Consumer Price Index: U .S. city average and local data, all items ........................................................................................ 33. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items and major g r o u p s......................................................................... 34. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of p rocessin g .................... 35. Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ................ 36. Producer Price Indexes for the net output o f major industry groups ........................................................................... 37. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of p ro cessin g ............................................................... 38. U .S. export price indexes, by Standard International Trade C lassification .................................................................... 39. U .S. import price indexes, by Standard International Trade C lassification .................................................................... 91 94 95 96 96 97 97 98 99 79 80 80 81 40. U .S. export price indexes by end-use category ..................... 41. U .S. import price indexes by end-use ca teg o ry ..................... 42. U .S. export price indexes, by Standard Industrial Classification ............................................................................... 43. U .S. import price indexes, by Standard Industrial Classification ............................................................................... 100 100 100 101 82 83 83 84 Labor compensation and collective bargaining data 22. Employment Cost Index, compensation, by occupation and industry g ro u p ........................................... 23. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry g ro u p ........................................... 24. Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry workers, by occupation and industry g r o u p ......................... 25. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size ......................... 26. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, situations covering 1,000 workers or more ......................... Labor compensation and collective bargaining data—Continued Productivity data 44. Indexes o f productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, data seasonally a d ju sted ................................ 45. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity ........................... 46. Annual indexes o f productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and p r ic e s .................................................................. 47. Annual productivity indexes for selected industries.............. 101 102 103 104 International comparisons data 85 86 87 88 89 48. Unemployment rates in nine countries, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................... 106 49. Annual data: Employment status of civilian working-age population, 10 countries ........................................................... 107 50. Annual indexes of productivity and related measures, 12 countries .................................................................................. 108 Injury and illness data 51. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness incidence rates ............................................................................. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 109 59 N o te s o n C u r r e n t L a b o r S ta tis tic s This section of the R e v ie w presents the principal statistical series collected and cal culated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: series on labor force; employment; unemployment; collective bargaining set tlements; consumer, producer, and interna tional prices; productivity; international comparisons; and injury and illness statis tics. In the notes that follow; the data in each group of tables are briefly described; key definitions are given; notes on the data are set forth; and sources of additional in formation are cited. adjustments are made by dividing currentdollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given a current hourly wage rate o f $3 and a current price index number o f 150, where 1977 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1977 dollars is $2 ($3/150 x 100 = $2). The $2 (or any other resulting values) are described as “real,” “constant,” or “ 1977” dollars. General notes Data that supplement the tables in this sec tion are published by the Bureau in a vari ety of sources. News releases provide the latest statistical information published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published according to the schedule pre ceding these general notes. More informa tion about labor force, employment, and unemployment data and the household and establishment surveys underlying the data are available in E m p lo y m en t a n d E a rn in g s, a monthly publication of the Bureau. More data from the household survey are pub lished in the data books— R e v is e d S e a The following notes apply to several tables in this section: Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate the effect on the data o f such factors as climatic conditions, industry production schedules, opening and closing o f schools, holiday buying periods, and vacation prac tices, which might prevent short-term eval uation of the statistical series. Tables containing data that have been adjusted are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” (All other data are not seasonally adjusted.) Seasonal effects are estimated on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal fac tors are computed each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for several preceding years. Seasonally adjusted data appear in tables 1 -3 , 4 -1 0 , 13-15, 17-18, 44, and 48.) Seasonally adjusted labor force data in ta bles 12 and 4 -1 0 were revised in the Febru ary 1989 issue of the R e v ie w and reflect the experience through 1988. Seasonally ad justed establishment survey data shown in tables 13-15 and 17-18 were revised in the July 1989 R e v ie w and reflect the experience through March 1989. A brief explanation of the seasonal adjustment methodology appears in “Notes on the data.” Revisions in the productivity data in table 44 are usually introduced in the Sep tember issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent changes from month-to-month and quarter-to-quarter are published for nu merous Consumer and Producer Price In dex series. However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U .S. aver age All Items cpi. Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are available for this series. Adjustments for price changes. Some data— such as the “real” earnings shown in table 15— are adjusted to elimi nate the effect of changes in price. These 60 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 n.e.s. = not elsewhere specified. p = preliminary. To increase the timeliness of some series, preliminary figures are is sued based on representa tive but incomplete returns. r = revised. Generally, this re vision reflects the avail ability of later data but may also reflect other adjustments. Additional information so n a lly A d ju s te d L a b o r F o rc e S ta tis tic s , Bulletin 2306, and L a b o r F o rc e S ta tis tic s D e r iv e d F ro m th e C u rre n t P o p u la tio n S u r vey , Bulletin 2307. More data from the es tablishment survey appear in two data books— E m p lo ym en t, H o u rs, a n d E a rn in gs, U n ite d S ta te s , and E m p lo ym en t, H o u rs, a n d E a rn in g s, S ta te s a n d A r e a s , and the supplements to these data books. More detailed information on employee compensation and collective bargaining settlements is published in the monthly pe riodical, C u rre n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts. More detailed data on consumer and pro ducer prices are published in the monthly periodicals, The c p i D e ta ile d R e p o rt, and P r o d u c e r P r ic e In d ex es. Detailed data on all of the series in this section are provided in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , which is published biennally by the Bureau, bls bulletins are issued covering productivity, injury and illness, and other data in this section. Finally, the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w carries analytical articles on annual and longer term developments in labor force, employment, and unemployment; em ployee compensation and collective bar gaining; prices; productivity; international comparisons; and injury and illness data. Symbols n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified. Comparative Indicators (Tables 1-3) Comparative indicators tables provide an overview and comparison of major bls statistical series. Consequently, although many of the included series are available monthly, all measures in these comparative tables are presented quarterly and annually. Labor market indicators include em ployment measures from two major sur veys and information on rates of change in compensation provided by the Employment Cost Index (eci) program. The labor force participation rate, the employment-topopulation ratio, and unemployment rates for major demographic groups based on the Current Population (“household ”) Survey are presented, while measures of employ ment and average weekly hours by major industry sector are given using nonagricultural payroll data. The Employment Cost Index (compensation), by major sector and by bargaining status, is chosen from a vari ety of bls compensation and wage mea sures because it provides a comprehensive measure of employer costs for hiring labor, not just outlays for wages, and it is not affected by employment shifts among oc cupations and industries. Data on changes in compensation, prices, and productivity are presented in table 2. Measures o f rates of change of compensation and wages from the Employ ment Cost Index program are provided for all civilian nonfarm workers (excluding Federal and household workers) and for all private nonfarm workers. Measures of changes in: consumer prices for all urban consumers; producer prices by stage of processing; and the overall export and im port price indexes are given. Measures of productivity (output per hour of all persons) are provided for major sectors. Alternative measures of wage and compensation rates of change, which reflect the overall trend in labor costs, are summarized in table 3. Differences in concepts and scope, related to the specific purposes of the series, contribute to the variation in changes among the individual measures. Notes on the data Definitions of each series and notes on the data are contained in later sections o f these notes describing each set o f data. For de tailed descriptions of each data series, see b l s H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988), as well as the additional bulletins, articles, and other publications noted in the separate sec tions of the R e v ie w 's “Current Labor Statistics N otes.” Users may also wish to consult M a jo r P ro g ra m s, B u reau o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s, Report 718 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). Employment and Unemployment Data (Tables 1; 4 -2 1 ) Household survey data Description of the series employment data in this section are ob tained from the Current Population Survey, a program o f personal interviews con ducted monthly by the Bureau of the Cen sus for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The sample consists of about 60,000 house holds selected to represent the U .S. popula tion 16 years of age and older. Households are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months. Definitions Employed persons include (1) all civil ians who worked for pay any time during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because o f illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar rea sons. Members of the Armed Forces sta tioned in the United States are also included in the employed total. A person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at which he or she worked the greatest number of hours. Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey week, but were https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis available for work except for temporary ill ness and had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unem ployed. The overall unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The civilian un employment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent o f the civilian labor force. The labor force consists of all employed or unemployed civilians plus members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Persons not in the labor force are those not classified as employed or unem ployed; this group includes persons who are retired, those engaged in their own house work, those not working while attending school, those unable to work because of long-term illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of personal or jobmarket factors, and those who are voluntar ily idle. The noninstitutional population comprises all persons 16 years of age and older who are not inmates of penal or men tal institutions, sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy, and members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. The labor force participation rate is the proportion o f the noninstitutional population that is in the labor force. The employment-population ratio is total em ployment (including the resident Armed Forces) as a percent of the noninstitutional population. Notes on the data Labor force data in tables 1 and 4 -1 0 are seasonally adjusted based on the experi ence through December 1988. Since Janu ary 1980, national labor force data have been seasonally adjusted with a procedure called X - ll ARIMA which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of the standard X - ll method previously used by bls. A detailed description of the proce dure appears in the X - l l ARIMA S e a so n a l A d ju stm en t M e th o d , by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 1 2 564E, February 1980). Additional sources of information For detailed explanations of the data, see Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988). Histori cal unadjusted data from 1948 to 1987 are available in L a b o r F o rc e S ta tis tic s D e r iv e d f r o m th e C u rre n t P o p u la tio n S u rvey, Bul letin 2307 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988). Historical seasonally adjusted data appear in L a b o r F o rc e S ta tis tic s D e r iv e d BLS H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , f r o m th e C u rren t P o p u la tio n S u rvey: A D a ta b o o k , Vol. II, Bulletin 2096 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), and R e v is e d S e a so n a lly A d ju s te d L a b o r F o rc e S ta tis tic s , 1 9 7 8 - 8 7 , Bulletin 2306 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988). A comprehensive discussion of the dif ferences between household and establish ment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “Comparing employment esti mates from household and payroll sur veys,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 . Establishment survey data Description of the series EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA From time to time, and especially after a decennial census, adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating errors during the intercensal years. These adjustments affect the comparability o f historical data. A de scription of these adjustments and their ef fect on the various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s. At the end of each calendar year, season ally adjusted data for the previous 5 years are revised, and projected seasonal adjust ment factors are calculated for use during the January-June period. In July, new seasonal adjustment factors, which incor porate the experience through June, are produced for the July-December period but no révisons are made in the historical data. in this section are compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by more than 300,000 establishments representing all in dustries except agriculture. In most indus tries, the sampling probabilities are based on the size o f the establishment; most large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An establishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or warehouse.) Self-employed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope o f the survey because they are excluded from establishment records. This largely accounts for the dif ference in employment figures between the household and establishment surveys. D ébilitions An establishment is an economic unit which produces goods or services (such as a factory or store) at a single location and is M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 61 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tistic s engaged in one type of economic activity. Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period in cluding 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 re ports them. Production workers in manufacturing include working supervisors and nonsupervisory workers closely associated with production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 12-17 include produc tion workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in the following industries: transportation and public utili ties; wholesale and retail trade; finance, in surance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime or late-shift work but exclud ing irregular bonuses and other special pay ments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects of changes in con sumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers for which pay was received, and are different from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the por tion of average weekly hours which was in excess of regular hours and for which over time premiums were paid. The Diffusion Index represents the per cent of industries in which employment was rising over the indicated period, plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment; 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. In line with Bureau practice, data for the 1-, 3-, and 6-month spans are seasonally adjusted, while those for the 12-month span are un adjusted. Data are centered within the span. The March 1989 R e v ie w introduced an ex panded index on private nonagricultural employment based on 349 industries, and a new manufacturing index based on 141 in dustries. These indexes are useful for mea suring the dispersion of economic gains or losses and are also economic indicators. ment (called “benchmarks”). The latest ad justment, which incorporated March 1988 benchmarks, was made with the release of May 1989 data, published in the July 1989 issue of the R e view . Coincident with the benchmark adjustments, seasonally ad justed data were revised to reflect the expe rience through March 1989. Unadjusted data have been revised back to April 1987; seasonally adjusted data back to January 1984. These revisions were published in the S u p p lem en t to E m p lo y m en t a n d E a rn in g s (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1989). Unadjusted data from April 1988 forward and seasonally adjusted data from January 1985 forward are subject to revision in fu ture benchmarks. The BLS also uses the X - l l ARIMA methodology to seasonally adjust establish ment survey data. Beginning in June 1989, projected seasonal adjustment factors are calculated only for the first 6 months after benchmarking, rather than for 12 months (April-March) as was previously done. A second set of projected factors, which in corporate the experience though October, will be produced for the subsequent period and introduced with the publication o f data for October. The change makes the proce dure used for the establishment survey data more parallel to that used in adjusting the household survey data. Revisions o f histor ical data will continue to be made once a year coincident with the benchmark revi sions. In the establishment survey, estimates for the 2 most recent months are based on incomplete returns and are published as preliminary in the tables (13 to 18 in the R e v ie w ). When all returns have been re ceived, the estimates are revised and pub lished as “final” (prior to any benchmark revisions) in the third month of their ap pearance. Thus, December data are pub lished as preliminary in January and Febru ary and as final in March. For the same reasons, quarterly establishment data (table 1) are preliminary for the first 2 months of publication and final in the third month. Thus, fourth-quarter data are published as preliminary in January and February and final in March. Additional sources of information Detailed national data from the establish ment survey are published monthly in the BLS periodical, E m p lo y m en t a n d E a rn in g s. Earlier comparable unadjusted and season ally adjusted data are published in E m p lo y m en t, H o u rs, a n d E a rn in g s, U n ite d S ta tes, Notes on the data 1 9 0 9 -8 4 , Bulletin 131 2 -1 2 (Bureau of Establishment survey data are annually ad justed to comprehensive counts of employ- Labor Statistics, 1985) and its annual sup plement. For a detailed discussion of the methodology of the survey, see b l s H a n d - 62 M onthly L abor R eview https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 b o o k o f M e th o d s, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988). A comprehensive discussion o f the dif ferences between household and establish ment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “Comparing employment esti mates from household and payroll sur veys,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 . Unemployment data by State Description of the series Data presented in this section are obtained from two major sources— the Current Pop ulation Survey (cps) and the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (laus) program, which is conducted in cooperation with State employment security agencies. Monthly estimates of the labor force, employment, and unemployment for States and sub-State areas are a key indicator of local economic conditions and form the ba sis for determining the eligibility of an area for benefits under Federal economic assis tance programs such as the Job Training Partnership Act and the Public Works and Economic Development Act. Insofar as possible, the concepts and definitions un derlying these data are those used in the national estimates obtained from the CPS. Notes on the data Data refer to State of residence. Monthly data for 11 States— California, Florida, Il lin ois, M assachusetts, M ichigan, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas— are obtained di rectly from the CPS, because the size of the sample is large enough to meet bls stand ards of reliability. Data for the remaining 39 States and the District of Columbia are derived using standardized procedures es tablished by bls. Once a year, estimates for the 11 States are revised to new population controls. For the remaining States and the District o f Columbia, data are benchmarked to annual average cps levels. Additional sources of information Information on the concepts, definitions, and technical procedures used to develop labor force data for States and sub-State areas as well as additional data on subStates are provided in the monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics periodical, E m p lo ym en t a n d E a rn in g s, and the annual report, G e o g ra p h ic P ro file o f E m p lo y m en t a n d U n em p lo y m e n t (Bureau of Labor Statistics). See also b l s H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988). Compensation and Wage Data (Tables 1-3; 22-30) compensation and wage data are gath ered by the Bureau from business establish ments, State and local governments, labor unions, collective bargaining agreements on file with the Bureau, and secondary sources. Employment Cost Index Description of the series The Employment Cost Index (eci) is a quarterly measure of the rate o f change in compensation per hour worked and in cludes wages, salaries, and employer costs of employee benefits. It uses a fixed market basket of labor— similar in concept to the Consumer Price Index’s fixed market bas ket of goods and services— to measure change over time in employer costs o f em ploying labor. The index is not seasonally adjusted. Statistical series on total compensation costs, on wages and salaries, and on benefit costs are available for private nonfarm workers excluding proprietors, the selfemployed, and household workers. The total compensation costs and wages and salaries series are also available for State and local government workers and for the civilian nonfarm economy, which consists of private industry and State and local gov ernment workers combined. Federal work ers are excluded. The Employment Cost Index probability sample consists of about 4,200 private non farm establishments providing about 22,000 occupational observations and 800 State and local government establishments providing 4,200 occupational observations selected to represent total employment in each sector. On average, each reporting unit provides wage and compensation in formation on five well-specified occupa tions. Data are collected each quarter for the pay period including the 12th day of March, June, September, and December. Beginning with June 1986 data, fixed employment weights from the 1980 Census of Population are used each quarter to cal culate the civilian and private indexes and the index for State and local governments. (Prior to June 1986, the employment weights are from the 1970 Census of Popu lation.) These fixed weights, also used to derive all of the industry and occupation series indexes, ensure that changes in these indexes reflect only changes in compensa tion, not employment shifts among indus tries or occupations with different levels of wages and compensation. For the bargain- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ing status, region, and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan area series, however, employ ment data by industry and occupation are not available from the census. Instead, the 1980 employment weights are reallocated within these series each quarter based on the current sample. Therefore, these in dexes are not strictly comparable to those for the aggregate, industry, and occupation series. Definitions Total compensation costs include wages, salaries, and the employer’s costs for em ployee benefits. Wages and salaries consist of earnings before payroll deductions, including pro duction bonuses, incentive earnings, com missions, and cost-of-living adjustments. Benefits include the cost to employers for paid leave, supplemental pay (including nonproduction bonuses), insurance, retire ment and savings plans, and legally required benefits (such as Social Secur ity, workers’ compensation, and unem ployment insurance). Excluded from wages and salaries and employee benefits are such items as payment-in-kind, free room and board, and tips. Notes on the data The Employment Cost Index for changes in wages and salaries in the private nonfarm economy was published beginning in 1975. Changes in total compensation cost— wages and salaries and benefits com bined— were published beginning in 1980. The series of changes in wages and salaries and for total compensation in the State and local government sector and in the civilian nonfarm economy (excluding Federal em ployees) were published beginning in 1981. Historical indexes (June 1981 = 100) of the quarterly rates o f change are pre sented in the March issue of the bls period ical, C u rre n t W age D e ve lo p m e n ts. Additional sources of information For a more detailed discussion of the Em ployment Cost Index, see the H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988), E m p lo y m en t C o st In dexes a n d L ev els, 1 9 7 5 -8 8 , Bulletin 2319 (Bu reau o f Labor Statistics, 1988), and the fol lowing M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w articles: “Estimation procedures for the Employ ment Cost Index,” May 1982; and “Introducing new weights for the Employ ment Cost Index,” June 1985. Data on the eci are also available in bls quarterly press releases issued in the month following the reference months of March, June, September, and December; and from the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tistic s, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). Collective bargaining settlements Description of the series Collective bargaining settlements data provide statistical measures of negotiated adjustments (increases, decreases, and freezes) in compensation (wage and benefit costs) and wages alone, quarterly for pri vate industry and semiannually for State and local government. Compensation mea sures cover all collective bargaining situa tions involving 5,000 workers or more and wage measures cover all situations involv ing 1,000 workers or more. These data, covering private nonagricultural industries and State and local governments, are calcu lated using information obtained from bar gaining agreements on file with the Bureau, parties to the agreements, and secondary sources, such as newspaper accounts. The data are not seasonally adjusted. Settlement data are measured in terms of future specified adjustments: those that will occur within 12 months of the contract ef fective date— first-year— and all adjust ments that will occur over the life of the contract expressed as an average annual rate. Adjustments are worker weighted. Both first-year and over-the-life measures exclude wage changes that may occur under cost-of-living clauses that are trig gered by future movements in the Con sumer Price Index. Effective wage adjustments measure all adjustments occurring in the reference pe riod, regardless o f the settlement date. In cluded are changes from settlements reached during the period, changes de ferred from contracts negotiated in earlier periods, and changes under cost-of-living adjustment clauses. Each wage change is worker weighted. The changes are prorated over all workers under agreements during the reference period yielding the average adjustment. Definitions Wage rate changes are calculated by di viding newly negotiated wages by the aver age straight-time hourly wage rate plus shift premium at the time the agreement is reached. Compensation changes are calcu lated by dividing the change in the value of the newly negotiated wage and benefit package by existing average hourly com pensation, which includes the cost of previ ously negotiated benefits, legally required M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 63 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tistic s social insurance programs, and average hourly earnings. Compensation changes are calculated by placing a value on the benefit portion of the settlements at the time they are reached. The cost estimates are based on the as sumption that conditions existing at the time of settlement (for example, methods of financing pensions or composition of labor force) will remain constant. The data, therefore, are measures o f negotiated changes and not of total changes of em ployer cost. Contract duration runs from the effec tive date of the agreement to the expiration date or first wage reopening date, if appli cable. Average annual percent changes over the contract term take account o f the compounding of successive changes. amount of time lost because of stoppage. Data are largely from newspaper ac counts and cover only establishments di rectly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect of stoppages on other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material short ages or lack o f service. sional, technical, maintenance, toolroom, powerplant, material movement, and custodial occupations common to a wide variety o f industries in the areas (labor mar kets) surveyed. Reports are issued through out the year as the surveys are completed. Summaries of the data and special analyses also appear in the R e view . Definitions The N a tio n a l S u rvey o f P ro fe ssio n a l, A d m in istra tiv e, T ech n ica l, a n d C le r ic a l P a y provides detailed information annually Number of stoppages: The number of strikes and lockouts involving 1,000 work ers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Workers involved: The number of workers directly involved in the stoppage. Number of days idle: The aggregate number of workdays lost by workers in volved in the stoppages. Days of idleness as a percent of esti mated working time: Aggregate work Notes on the data Comparisons of major collective bargain ing settlements for State and local govern ment with those for private industry should note differences in occupational mix, bargaining practices, and settlement char acteristics. Professional and white-collar employees, for example, make up a much larger proportion of the workers covered by government than by private industry settle ments. Lump-sum payments and cost-ofliving adjustments (cola) clauses, on the other hand, are rare in government but common in private industry settlements. Also, State and local government bar gaining frequently excludes items such as pension benefits and holidays, that are pre scribed by law, while these items are typi cal bargaining issues in private industry. Additional sources of information For a more detailed discussion on the se ries, see the b l s H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988). Comprehensive data are published in press releases issued quarterly (in Janu ary, April, July, and October) for private industry, and semiannually (in February and August) for State and local govern ment. Historical data and additional de tailed tabulations for the prior calendar year appear in the April issue of the bls period ical, C u rre n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts . Work stoppages Description of the series Data on work stoppages measure the num ber and duration of major strikes or lock outs (involving 1,000 workers or more) occurring during the month (or year), the number of workers involved, and the 64 M onthly L abor R eview https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 days lost as a percent o f the aggregate number of standard workdays in the period multiplied by total employment in the period. Notes on the data This series is not comparable with the one terminated in 1981 that covered strikes in volving six workers or more. Additional sources of information Data for each calendar year are reported in a bls press release issued in the first quarter of the following year. Monthly and histori cal data appear in the bls periodical, C u r ren t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts . Historical data appear in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). Other compensation data Other bls data on pay and benefits, not included in the Current Labor Statistics sec tion of the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , appear in and consist of the following: In d u stry W a g e S u rveys provide data for specific occupations selected to represent an industry’s wage structure and the types of activities performed by its workers. The Bureau collects information on weekly work schedules, shift operations and pay differentials, paid holiday and vacation practices, and information on incidence of health, insurance, and retirement plans. Reports are issued throughout the year as the surveys are completed. Summaries of the data and special analyses also appear in the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w . A re a W a g e S u rv ey s annually provide data for selected office, clerical, profes- on salary levels and distributions for the types of jobs mentioned in the survey’s title in private employment. Although the defi nitions of the jobs surveyed reflect the du ties and responsibilities in private industry, they are designed to match specific pay grades of Federal white-collar employees under the General Schedule pay system. Accordingly, this survey provides the le gally required information for comparing the pay of salaried employees in the Federal civil service with pay in private industry. (See Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970, 5 U .S.C . 5305.) Data are published in a bls news release issued in the summer and in a bulletin each fall; summaries and analytical articles also appear in the R e view . E m p lo y e e B en efits S u rvey provides na tionwide information on the incidence and characteristics of employee benefit plans in medium and large establishments in the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii. Data are published in an annual bls news release and bulletin, as well as in special articles appearing in the R e view . Price Data (Tables 2; 31-43) Price data 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 (1982 = 100 for many Producer Price In dexes or 1982-84 = 100 for many Con sumer Price Indexes, unless otherwise noted). Consumer Price Indexes Description of the series The Consumer Price Index (cpi) is a mea sure of the average change in the prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed market basket of goods and services. The CPI is calculated monthly for two population groups, one consisting only of urban households whose primary source of in come is derived from the employment of wage earners and clerical workers, and the other consisting of all urban households. The wage earner index (CPI-W) is a contin uation of the historic index that was intro duced well over a half-century ago for use in wage negotiations. As new uses were developed for the CPI in recent years, the need for a broader and more representative index became apparent. The all urban con sumer index (CPI-U), introduced in 1978, is representative of the 1982-84 buying habits of about 80 percent of the noninstitutional population of the United States at that time, compared with 32 percent repre sented in the CPI-W. In addition to wage earners and clerical workers, the cpi- u cov ers professional, managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force. The CPI is based on prices o f food, cloth ing, shelter, fuel, drugs, transportation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and services that people buy for dayto-day living. The quantity and quality of these items are kept essentially unchanged between major revisions so that only price changes will be measured. All taxes di rectly associated with the purchase and use of items are included in the index. Data collected from more than 21,000 retail establishments and 60,000 housing units in 91 urban areas across the country are used to develop the “U .S. city aver age.” Separate estimates for 27 major urban centers are presented in table 32. The areas listed are as indicated in footnote 1 to the table. The area indexes measure only the average change in prices for each area since the base period, and do not indicate differ ences in the level of prices among cities. Notes on the data In January 1983, the Bureau changed the way in which homeownership costs are measured for the CPI-U. A rental equiva lence method replaced the asset-price ap proach to homeownership costs for that series. In January 1985, the same change was made in the CPI-W. The central purpose of the change was to separate shelter costs from the investment component of homeownership so that the index would reflect only the cost of shelter services provided by owner-occupied homes. An updated CPI-U and CPI-W were introduced with release of the January 1987 data. Additional sources of information For a discussion of the general method for computing the CPI, see bls H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1988). The recent change in the measurement of homeownership costs is https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis discussed in Robert Gillingham and Walter Lane, “Changing the treatment of shelter costs for homeowners in the CPI,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , July 1982, pp. 9 -1 4 . An overview of the recently introduced revised CPI, reflecting 1982-84 expenditure pat terns, is contained in The C o n su m er P r ic e In dex: 1 9 8 7 R e v is io n , Report 736 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1987). Additional detailed CPI data and regular analyses o f consumer price changes are provided in the C P I D e ta ile d R e p o rt, a monthly publication of the Bureau. Histori cal data for the overall CPI and for selected groupings may be found in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985). Producer Price Indexes Description of the series Producer Price Indexes (ppi) measure av erage changes in prices received by domes tic producers o f commodities in all stages o f processing. The sample used for calcu lating these indexes currently contains about 3,100 commodities and about 75,000 quotations per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all commodities produced in the manufacturing, agricul ture, forestry, fishing, mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The stage o f processing structure of Producer Price Indexes organizes products by class of buyer and degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate goods, and crude materials). The traditional commod ity structure of ppi organizes products by similarity o f end use or material composi tion. The industry and product structure of ppi organizes data in accordance with the Standard Industrial Classification (sic) and the product code extension of the sic devel oped by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. 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 gen erally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire. Most prices are obtained di rectly from producing companies on a vol untary and confidential basis. Prices gener ally are reported for the Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month. Since January 1987, price changes for the various commodities have been aver aged together with implicit quantity weights representing their importance in the total net selling value o f all com modities as of 1982. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage-ofprocessing groupings, commodity group ings, durability-of-product groupings, and a number of special composite groups. All Producer Price Index data are subject to revision 4 months after original publica tion. Notes on the data Beginning with the January 1986 issue, the R e v ie w is no longer presenting tables of Producer Price Indexes for commodity groupings or special composite groups. However, these data will continue to be presented in the Bureau’s monthly publica tion P ro d u c e r P r ic e I n d e x e s . The Bureau has completed the first major stage o f its comprehensive overhaul of the theory, methods, and procedures used to construct the Producer Price Indexes. Changes include the replacement of judg ment sampling with probability sampling techniques; expansion to systematic cover age o f the net output of virtually all in dustries in the mining and manufacturing sectors; a shift from a commodity to an industry orientation; the exclusion of im ports from, and the inclusion of exports in, the survey universe; and the respecification o f commodities priced to conform to Bu reau of the Census definitions. These and other changes have been phased in gradu ally since 1978. The result is a system of indexes that is easier to use in conjunction with data on wages, productivity, and em ployment and other series that are orga nized in terms o f the Standard Industrial Classification and the Census product class designations. Additional sources of information For a discussion of the methodology for computing Producer Price Indexes, see b l s H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s, Bulletin 2285 (Bu reau of Labor Statistics, 1988). Additional detailed data and analyses of price changes are provided monthly in P r o d u c e r P r ic e In d ex es. Selected historical data may be found in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tistic s, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). International Price Indexes Description of the series The bls International Price Program produces quarterly export and import price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded be tween the United States and the rest of the world. The export price index provides a measure of price change for all products sold by U .S. residents to foreign buyers. (“Residents” is defined as in the national M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 65 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tistic s income accounts: it includes corporations, businesses, and individuals but does not require the organizations to be U .S. owned nor the individuals to have U .S. citizen ship.) The import price index provides a measure of price change for goods pur chased from other countries by U .S. resi dents. With publication o f an all-import index in February 1983 and an all-export index in February 1984, all U .S. merchan dise imports and exports now are repre sented in these indexes. The reference period for the indexes is 1985 = 100, un less otherwise indicated. The product universe for both the import and export indexes includes raw materials, agricultural products, semifinished manu factures, and finished manufactures, in cluding both capital and consumer goods. Price data for these items are collected quarterly by mail questionnaire. In nearly all cases, the data are collected directly from the exporter or importer, although in a few cases, prices are obtained from other sources. To the extent possible, the data gathered refer to prices at the U .S. border for exports and at either the foreign border or the U.S. border for imports. For nearly all products, the prices refer to transactions completed during the first 2 weeks o f the third month of each calendar quarter— March, June, September, and December. Survey respon dents are asked to indicate all discounts, allowances, and rebates applicable to the reported prices, so that the price used in the calculation of the indexes is the actual price for which the product was bought or sold. In addition to general indexes of prices for U.S. exports and imports, indexes are also published for detailed product cate gories of exports and imports. These cate gories are defined by the 4- and 5-digit level of detail of the Standard Industrial Trade Classification System (sitc). The calculation of indexes by sitc category fa cilitates the comparison o f U .S. price trends and sector production with similar data for other countries. Detailed indexes are also computed and published on a Standard Industrial Classification (sicbased) basis, as well as by end-use class. Notes on the data The export and import price indexes are weighted indexes of the Laspeyres type. Price relatives are assigned equal impor tance within each weight category and are then aggregated to the sitc level. The val ues assigned to each weight category are based on trade value figures compiled by the Bureau of the Census. The trade weights currently used to compute both in dexes relate to 1985. 66 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 Because a price index depends on the same items being priced from period to pe riod, it is necessary to recognize when a product’s specifications or terms of trans action have been modified. For this reason, the Bureau’s quarterly questionnaire re quests detailed descriptions of the physical and functional characteristics of the prod ucts being priced, as well as information on the number o f units bought or sold, dis counts, credit terms, packaging, class of buyer or seller, and so forth. When there are changes in either the specifications or terms o f transaction of a product, the dollar value of each change is deleted from the total price change to obtain the “pure” change. Once this value is determined, a linking procedure is employed which al lows for the continued repricing of the item. For the export price indexes, the pre ferred pricing basis is f.a.s. (free alongside ship) U .S. port of exportation. When firms report export prices f.o.b. (free on board), production point information is collected which enables the Bureau to calculate a shipment cost to the port of exportation. An attempt is made to collect two prices for imports. The first is the import price f.o.b. at the foreign port of exportation, which is consistent with the basis for valuation of imports in the national accounts. The sec ond is the import price c .i.f. (cost, in surance, and freight) at the U .S. port of importation, which also includes the other costs associated with bringing the product to the U .S. border. It does not, however, include duty charges. For a given product, only one price basis series is used in the construction of an index. Beginning in 1988, the Bureau has also been publishing a series of indexes which represent the price o f U .S. exports and im ports in foreign currency terms. Additional sources of information For a discussion of the general method of computing International Price Indexes, see BLS H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988). Additional detailed data and analyses of international price developments are pre sented in the Bureau’s quarterly publication U .S . Im p o rt a n d E x p o rt P r ic e In d ex es and in occasional M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w arti cles prepared by bls analysts. Selected his torical data may be found in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). For further in formation on the foreign currency indexes, see “bls publishes average exchange rate and foreign currency price indexes,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e view , December 1987, pp. 47 -4 9 . Productivity Data (Tables 2; 4 4-47) Business sector and major sectors Description of the series The productivity measures relate real phys ical output to real input. As such, they en compass a family of measures which include single factor input measures, such as output per unit of labor input (output per hour) or output per unit of capital input, as well as measures of multifactor productiv ity (output per unit of labor and capital in puts combined). The Bureau indexes show the change in output relative to changes in the various inputs. The measures cover the business, nonfarm business, manufactur ing, and nonfinancial corporate sectors. Corresponding indexes of hourly com pensation, unit labor costs, unit nonlabor payments, and prices are also provided. Definitions Output per hour of all persons (labor pro ductivity) is the value of goods and services in constant prices produced per hour of labor input. Output per unit of capital services (capital productivity) is the value of goods and services in constant dollars produced per unit of capital services input. Multifactor productivity is the ratio of output per unit of labor and capital inputs combined. Changes in this measure reflect changes in a number of factors which affect the production process such as changes in technology, shifts in the composition of the labor force, changes in capacity utilization, research and development, skill and efforts of the work force, management, and so forth. Changes in the output per hour meas ures reflect the impact of these factors as well as the substitution of capital for labor. Compensation per hour is the wages and salaries of employees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and pri vate benefit plans, and the wages, salaries, and supplementary payments for the selfemployed (except for nonfinancial corpora tions in which there are no self-employed)— the sum divided by hours paid for. Real compensation per hour is compensation per hour deflated by the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Unit labor costs are the labor compensa tion costs expended in the production of a unit of output and are derived by dividing compensation by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, in terest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by subtracting compen sation of all persons from current dollar value of output and dividing by output. Unit nonlabor costs contain all the compo nents of unit nonlabor payments e x c e p t unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital con sumption adjustments per unit of output. Hours of all persons are the total hours at work of payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers. Capital services is the flow of services from the capital stock used in production. It is developed from measures of the net stock of physical assets— equipment, structures, land, and inventories— weighted by rental prices for each type of asset. Labor and capital inputs combined are derived by combining changes in labor and capital inputs with weights which represent each component’s share of total output. The indexes for capital services and com bined units of labor and capital are based on changing weights which are averages of the shares in the current and preceding year (the Tomquist index-number formula). Notes on the data Output measures for the business sector is equal to constant-dollar gross national product but excludes the rental value of owner-occupied dwellings, the rest-ofworld sector, the output o f nonprofit insti tutions, the output of paid employees of private households, general government, and the statistical discrepancy. Output of the nonfarm business sector is equal to business sector output less farming. The measures are derived from data supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. U .S. Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to annual estimates of manufacturing output (gross product origi nating) from the Bureau of Economic Anal ysis. Compensation and hours data are de veloped from data of the Bureau o f Labor Statistics and the Bureau o f Economic Analysis. The productivity and associated cost measures in tables 44-4 7 describe the rela tionship between output in real terms and the labor time and capital services involved in its production. They show the changes from period to period in the amount of goods and services produced per unit of input. Although these measures relate out put to hours and capital services, they do not measure the contributions of labor, cap- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ital, or any other specific factor of produc tion. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of many influences, including changes in technology; capital investment; level of output; utilization of capacity, energy, and materials; the organization o f production; managerial skill; and the characteristics and efforts of the work force. Additional sources of information Descriptions of methodology underlying the measurement o f output per hour and multifactor productivity are found in the BLS H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988), chapter 11. Historical data are provided in H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985). Industry productivity measures Description of the series The bls industry productivity data supple ment the measures for the business econ omy and major sectors with annual meas ures o f labor productivity for selected industries at the 3- and 4-digit levels of the Standard Industrial Classification system. The industry measures differ in methodol ogy and data sources from the productivity measures for the major sectors because the industry measures are developed independ ently of the National Income and Product Accounts framework used for the major sector measures. Definitions Output per employee hour is derived by dividing an index of industry output by an index of aggregate hours of all employees. Output indexes are based on quantifiable units of products or services, or both, com bined with fixed-period weights. Whenever possible, physical quantities are used as the unit o f measurement for output. If quantity data are not available for a given industry, data on the constant-dollar value of produc tion are used. The labor input series consist of the hours o f all employees (production and nonproduction workers), the hours of all persons (paid employees, partners, propri etors, and unpaid family workers), or the number of employees, depending upon the industry. Notes on the data The industry measures are compiled from data produced by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, the Departments of Commerce, Interior, and Agriculture, the Federal Re serve Board, regulatory agencies, trade as sociations, and other sources. For most industries, the productivity in dexes refer to the output per hour of all employees. For some transportation indus tries, only indexes of output per employee are prepared. For some trade and service industries, indexes of output per hour of all persons (including the self-employed) are constructed. Additional sources of information For a complete listing of available industry productivity indexes and their components, see P ro d u c tiv ity M e a su re s f o r S e le c te d In d u stries a n d G o v ern m e n t S e rv ic e s (1 9 8 5 ) , Bulletin 2322 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1989). For additional information about the methodology for computing the industry productivity measures see H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988), chapter 11. International Comparisons (Tables 4 8 -50) Labor force and unemployment Description of the series Tables 48 and 49 present comparative measures of the labor force, employment, and unemployment— approximating U.S. concepts— for the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and several European countries. The unemployment statistics (and, to a lesser extent, employment statis tics) published by other industrial countries are not, in most cases, comparable to U.S. unemployment statistics. Therefore, the Bureau adjusts the figures for selected countries, where necessary, for all known major definitional differences. Although precise comparability may not be achieved, these adjusted figures provide a better basis for international comparisons than the fig ures regularly published by each country. Definitions For the principal U .S. definitions of the labor force, employment, and unemploy ment, see the Notes section on EMPLOY MENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT DATA: Household Survey Data. Notes on the data The adjusted statistics have been adapted to the age at which compulsory schooling ends in each country, rather than to the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 67 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tis tic s U .S. standard of 16 years of age and over. Therefore, the adjusted statistics relate to the population age 16 and over in France, Sweden, and from 1973 onward, the United Kingdom; 15 and over in Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, the Nether lands, and prior to 1973, the United King dom; and 14 and over in Italy. The institu tional population is included in the denominator of the labor force participation rates and employment-population ratios for Japan and Germany; it is excluded for the United States and the other countries. In the U .S. labor force survey, persons on layoff who are awaiting recall to their job are classified as unemployed. European and Japanese layoff practices are quite dif ferent in nature from those in the United States; therefore, strict application of the U .S. definition has not been made on this point. For further information, see M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , December 1981, pp. 8 -1 1 . The figures for one or more recent years for France, Germany, Italy, the Nether lands, and the United Kingdom are calcu lated using adjustment factors based on labor force surveys for earlier years and are considered preliminary. The recent-year measures for these countries are, therefore, subject to revision whenever data from more current labor force surveys become available. There are breaks in the data series for Germany (1983 and 1987), Italy (1986), the Netherlands (1983), and Sweden (1987). For both Germany and the Nether lands, the 1983 breaks reflect the replace ment of labor force survey results tabulated by the national statistical offices with those tabulated by the European Community Statistical Office (EUROSTAT). The Dutch figures for 1983 onward also reflect the replacement of man-year employment data with data from the Dutch Survey of Em ployed Persons. The impact o f the changes was to lower the adjusted unemployment rate by 0.3 percentage point for Germany and by about 2 percentage points for the Netherlands. The 1987 break for Germany reflects the incorporation o f employment statistics based on the 1987 Population Census, which indicated that the level of employment was about one million higher than previously estimated. The impact of this change was to lower the adjusted un employment rate by 0.3 percentage point. When historical data benchmarked to the 1987 Census became available, bls will revise its comparative measures for Germany. For Italy, the break in series reflects more accurate enumeration of time o f last job search. This resulted in a significant increase in the number of people reported as seeking work in the last 30 days. The 68 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 impact was to increase the Italian unem ployment rates approximating U .S. con cepts by about 1 percentage point. Sweden introduced a new questionnaire. Questions regarding current availability were added and the period of active work seeking was reduced from 60 days to 4 weeks. These changes result in lowering Sweden’s unemployment rate by 0.5 per centage point. important characteristics and the least vari able; therefore, it requires the smallest sam ple size. The survey is based on stratified random sampling with a Neyman allocation and a ratio estimator. The characteristics used to stratify the establishments are the Standard Industrial Classification (sic) code and size of employment. Additional sources of information Definitions For further information, see In tern a tio n a l C o m p a riso n s o f U n em p lo ym e n t, Bulletin 1979 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1978), Appendix B, and Supplements to Appendix B. The statistics are also analyzed periodi cally in the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w . Addi tional historical data, generally beginning with 1959, are published in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s and are available in statistical supplements to Bulletin 1979. Recordable occupational injuries and ill nesses are: (1) occupational deaths, regard Occupational Injury and Illness Data (Table 51) Description of the series The Annual Survey of Occupational In juries and Illnesses is designed to collect data on injuries and illnesses based on records which employers in the following industries maintain under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: agriculture, forestry, and fishing; oil and gas extraction; construction; manufacturing; transportation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. Excluded from the survey are self-employed individuals, farmers with fewer than 11 employees, employers regu lated by other Federal safety and health laws, and Federal, State, and local govern ment agencies. Because the survey is a Federal-State co operative program and the data must meet the needs of participating State agencies, an independent sample is selected for each State. The sample is selected to represent all private industries in the States and terri tories. The sample size for the survey is dependent upon (1) the characteristics for which estimates are needed; (2) the indus tries for which estimates are desired; (3) the characteristics of the population being sam pled; (4) the target reliability of the esti mates; and (5) the survey design employed. While there are many characteristics upon which the sample design could be based, the total recorded case incidence rate is used because it is one of the most less of the time between injury and death, or the length of the illness; or (2) nonfatal occupational illnesses; or (3) nonfatal occu pational injuries which involve one or more of the following: loss of consciousness, re striction of work or motion, transfer to an other job, or medical treatment (other than first aid). Occupational injury is any injury such as a cut, fracture, sprain, amputation, and so forth, which results from a work acci dent or from exposure involving a single incident in the work environment. Occupational illness is an abnormal condition or disorder, other than one result ing from an occupational injury, caused by exposure to environmental factors associ ated with employment. It includes acute and chronic illnesses or disease which may be caused by inhalation, absorption, inges tion, or direct contact. Lost workday cases are cases which in volve days away from work, or days of restricted work activity, or both. Lost workday cases involving re stricted work activity are those cases which result in restricted work activity only. Lost workdays away from work are the number of workdays (consecutive or not) on which the employee would have worked but could not because of occupational in jury or illness. Lost workdays— restricted work ac tivity are the number of workdays (consec utive or not) on which, because of injury or illness: (1) the employee was assigned to another job on a temporary basis; or (2) the employee worked at a permanent job less than full time; or (3) the employee worked at a permanently assigned job but could not perform all duties normally connected with it. The number of days away from work or days of restricted work activity does not include the day of injury or onset of illness or any days on which the employee would not have worked even though able to work. Incidence rates represent the number of injuries and/or illnesses or lost workdays per 100 full-time workers. Notes on the data Estimates are made for industries and employment-size classes and for severity classification: fatalities, lost workday cases, and nonfatal cases without lost workdays. Lost workday cases are separated into those where the employee would have worked but could not and those in which work activity was restricted. Estimates of the number of cases and the number of days lost are made for both categories. Most of the estimates are in the form of incidence rates, defined as the number of injuries and illnesses, or lost workdays, per 100 full-time employees. For this purpose, 200,000 employee hours represent 100 em ployee years (2,000 hours per employee). Only a few of the available measures are included in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s . Full detail is presented in the annual bulletin, O c cu p a tio n a l In ju ries a n d I ll n e sses in th e U n ite d S ta tes, b y I n d u s tr y . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Comparable data for individual States are available from the BLS Office o f Safety, Health, and Working Conditions. Mining and railroad data are furnished to BLS by the Mine Safety and Health Admin istration and the Federal Railroad Adminis tration, respectively. Data from these organizations are included in BLS and State publications. Federal employee experience is compiled and published by the Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration. Data on State and local government em ployees are collected by about half of the States and territories; these data are not compiled nationally. e m p lo y e rs to State workers’ compensation agencies. The Work Injury Report program examines selected types of accidents through an employee survey which focuses on the circumstances surrounding the in jury. These data are not included in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s but are avail able from the BLS Office of Safety, Health, and Working Conditions. The definitions of occupational injuries and illnesses and lost workdays are from Additional sources of information R e co rd k ee p in g R e q u ire m e n ts u n d er th e O c cupational Safely an d H ealth A ct o f 1970. For additional data, see O c c u p a tio n a l In ju r ie s a n d Illn e sse s in th e U n ited S ta tes, by I n d u s tr y , annual Bureau of Labor Statistics bulletin; BLS H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s , Bul The Supplementary Data System pro vides detailed information describing vari ous factors associated with work-related injuries and illnesses. These data are ob tained from information reported by letin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988); H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , Bul letin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985), pp. 411-14; annual reports in the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , and annual U .S. Department of Labor press releases. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 69 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tis tic s: 1. C o m p a ra tiv e In d ic a to rs L a b o r m a rk e t in d ic a to rs 1987 Selected Indicators 1987 1988 1989 1988 IV I II III IV I II III Employment data Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population (household survey):1 Labor force participation r a te .............................................................. Employment-population r a tio ............................................................... Unemployment rate .............................................................................. M e n ....................................................................................................... 16 to 24 years ................................................................................. 25 years and o v e r ........................................................................... Women ................................................................................................. 16 to 24 years ................................................................................. 25 years and o v e r ........................................................................... Unemployment rate, 15 weeks and o v e r....................................... 65.6 61.5 6.2 6.2 12.6 4.8 6.2 11.7 4.8 1.7 65.9 62.3 5.5 5.5 11.4 4.2 5.6 10.6 4.3 1.3 65.7 61.9 5.9 5.8 11.9 4.4 6.0 11.2 4.6 1.5 65.8 62.1 5.7 5.6 11.8 4.3 5.8 11.0 4.5 1.4 65.8 62.2 5.5 5.4 11.2 4.2 5.6 10.7 4.3 1.3 65.9 62.3 5.5 5.4 11.4 4.1 5.6 10.5 4.4 1.3 66.1 62.5 5.3 5.4 11.3 4.1 5.3 10.3 4.2 1.2 66.4 62.9 5.2 5.2 11.2 4.0 5.2 10.2 4.0 1.1 66.5 63.0 5.3 5.1 11.1 3.9 5.4 10.4 4.3 1.1 66.5 63.0 5.2 5.1 11.3 3.9 5.4 10.5 4.2 1.1 Total ........................................................................................................... Private sector ......................................................................................... G oods-producing.................................................................................... Manufacturing ...................................................................................... Service-producing ................................................................................. 102,200 85,190 24,708 19,024 77,492 105,584 88,212 25,249 19,403 80,335 103,491 86,336 24,961 19,199 78,530 104,355 87,111 25,022 19,271 79,333 105,184 87,851 25,202 19,360 79,983 105,976 88,577 25,313 19,435 80,663 106,799 89,288 25,452 19,550 81,346 107,680 90,104 25,634 19,659 82,047 108,339 90,661 25,664 19,663 82,676 108,914 91,095 25,657 19,616 83,257 Average hours: Private sector ......................................................................................... Manufacturing .................................................................................. O vertim e.......................................................................................... 34.8 41.0 3.7 34.7 41.1 3.9 34.8 41.2 3.9 34.7 41.0 3.8 34.7 41.1 3.9 34.7 41.1 3.9 34.7 41.1 3.9 34.7 41.1 3.9 34.7 41.1 3.8 34.7 41.0 3.8 Percent change in the ECI, compensation: All workers (excluding farm, household, and Federal workers) ...... Private industry workers ..................................................................... Goods-producing2 ............................................................................ Service-producing2 .......................................................................... State and local government w o rk e rs ............................................... 3.6 3.3 3.1 3.7 4.4 5.0 4.9 4.4 5.1 5.6 .8 .7 1.0 .5 .9 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.4 .3 1.3 1.0 .6 1.2 2.7 1.0 1.0 .8 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 .6 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.3 3.3 Workers by bargaining status (private industry): U n io n ...................................................................................................... Nonunion ............................................................................................... 2.8 3.6 3.9 5.1 1.1 .6 1.6 1.5 1.0 1.3 .7 1.1 .5 1.2 .8 1.5 1.0 1.2 .9 1.4 Employment, nonagricultural (payroll data), in thousands:1 Employment Cost Index ' Quarterly data seasonally adjusted. 2 Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Service- 70 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 producing industries include all other private sector industries. 2. A n n u al an d q u a rte rly p e rc e n t c h a n g e s in c o m p e n s a tio n , p rices, and p ro d u c tiv ity 1987 1989 1988 1987 Selected measures 1988 IV II I III I IV III II Compensation data 1, 2 Employment Cost Index-compensation (wages, salaries, benefits): Civilian nonfarm .......................................................................... Private nonfarm ......................................................................... Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries Civilian nonfarm .......................................................................... Private nonfarm ......................................................................... 3.6 3.3 5.0 4.9 0.8 .7 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.2 3.5 3.3 4.3 4.1 .7 .6 1.0 1.0 .9 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 .8 1.0 1.6 1.2 Price data1 Consumer Price Index (All urban consumers): All ite m s ...... 4.4 4.4 .3 1.0 1.3 1.5 .6 1.5 1.5 .7 Producer Price Index: Finished g o o d s ............................................................................ Finished consumer g o o d s ........................................................ Capital equipment....................................................................... Intermediate materials, supplies, components ...................... Crude m ate rials........................................................................... 2.2 2.6 1.3 5.4 8.9 4.0 4.0 3.6 5.6 3.1 .1 -.2 1.1 .9 -1.4 .5 .4 .7 1.1 -.3 1.3 1.4 .6 2.6 4.0 .8 1.0 .4 1.2 -1.2 1.3 1.1 1.8 .6 .6 1.9 2.2 .9 1.9 6.1 2.0 2.3 1.1 1.1 .9 -.7 -.9 .0 -.3 -2.0 Productivity data3 Output per hour of all persons: Business s e c to r......................................................................... Nonfarm business sector ......................................................... Nonfinancial corporations 4 ...................................................... 1.7 2.0 2.3 1.2 1.1 2.2 -2.1 -1.6 .4 .2 1.9 -.4 3.1 3.3 1.3 1.1 -1.3 -1.7 1.2 2.1 1.6 1.1 .1 ” Quarterly percent changes reflect annual rates of change in quarterly in dexes. The data are seasonally adjusted. 4 Output per hour of all employees. - Data not available. 1 Annual changes are December-to-December change. Quarterly changes are calculated using the last month of each quarter. Compensation and price data are not seasonally adjusted and the price data are not compounded. 2 Excludes Federal and private household workers. 3 Annual rates of change are computed by comparing annual averages. 3. 2.5 2.8 3.9 2.8 2.5 1.6 A lte rn a tiv e m e a s u re s o f w a g e a n d c o m p e n s a tio n c h a n g e s Quarterly average 1988 Components II Average hourly compensation:1 All persons, business s e c to r........................................................................ All persons, nonfarm business s e c to r........................................................ Employment Cost Index-compensation: Civilian nonfarm 2 ........................................................................................... Private nonfarm ........................................................................................... U n io n .......................................................................................................... N o nunion.................................................................................................... State and local governm ents.................................................................... Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries: Civilian nonfarm2 ............................................................................................ Private nonfarm ........................................................................................... U n io n .......................................................................................................... N onunion.................................................................................................... State and local gove rnm ents..................................................................... Total effective wage adjustments3 ..................................................................... From current settlem ents............................................................................. From prior se ttle m e n ts ................................................................................. From cost-of-living provision........................................................................ Negotiated wage adjustments from settlements:3 First-year adjustments .................................................................................. Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t................................................................. Negotiated wage and benefit adjustments from settlements:4 First-year adju stm e n t.................................................................................... Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t................................................................. III 1989 IV I II 1988 III II III 1989 IV I II III 5.7 5.4 5.8 5.4 5.2 5.9 4.8 4.9 6.8 5.6 4.8 5.3 5.1 4.9 5.3 5.1 4.8 4.8 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.3 .3 1.3 1.0 .7 1.1 2.7 1.0 1.0 .5 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 .8 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 .6 1.6 1.2 .9 1.4 3.3 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.5 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.4 5.0 4.9 3.9 5.1 5.6 4.8 4.6 3.0 5.1 5.5 4.8 4.5 3.1 5.0 5.8 5.1 4.7 3.2 5.3 6.4 .9 1.1 .8 1.2 .3 .9 .3 .5 .1 1.3 1.0 .7 1.0 2.6 .8 .2 .4 .2 1.0 1.0 .4 1.1 1.0 .5 .1 .2 .2 1.1 1.1 .7 1.3 .8 .5 .1 .3 .1 .8 1.0 .8 1.0 .5 1.0 .3 .5 .2 1.6 1.2 .6 1.3 3.1 1.0 .4 .4 .2 3.9 3.7 2.9 4.0 4.4 3.0 1.0 1.6 .5 3.9 3.7 2.9 3.9 4.7 2.9 1.0 1.4 .5 4.3 4.1 2.2 4.5 4.8 2.6 .7 1.3 .6 4.4 4.2 2.5 4.8 4.8 2.7 .7 1.3 .6 4.3 4.1 2.6 4.6 5.0 2.8 .7 1.3 .8 4.6 4.4 2.5 4.9 5.5 3.0 .9 1.3 .8 2.6 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.2 3.2 3.1 3.9 3.4 3.6 3.0 2.4 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.5 3.2 2.9 3.5 3.0 3.1 2.4 3.4 3.2 3.5 2.1 3.2 3.4 5.0 3.4 3.9 2.7 3.0 2.3 3.1 2.5 3.1 2.5 3.3 2.6 3.8 3.0 4.0 2.8 1 Seasonally adjusted. 2 Excludes Federal and household workers. 3 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 1,000 workers or more. The https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Four quarters end ed- most recent data are preliminary. 4 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more. The most recent data are preliminary. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 71 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tis tic s: 4. E m p lo y m en t D a ta E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s o f th e to ta l p o p u la tio n , by s ex, m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1988 1989 Employment status 1987 1988 184,490 121,602 65.9 114,177 186,322 123,378 66.2 116,677 61.9 1,737 112,440 3,208 109,232 7,425 6.1 62,888 Oct. Nov. Dec. 186,801 123,778 66.3 117,260 186,949 124,215 66.4 117,652 187,098 124,259 66.4 117,705 62.6 1,709 114,968 3,169 111,800 6,701 5.4 62,944 62.8 1,687 115,573 3,238 112,335 6,518 5.3 63,023 62.9 1,705 115,947 3,238 112,709 6,563 5.3 62,734 88,476 67,784 76.6 63,684 89,404 68,474 76.6 64,820 89,637 68,569 76.5 64,976 72.0 1,577 62,107 4,101 6.1 72.5 1,547 63,273 3,655 5.3 96,013 53,818 56.1 50,494 52.6 160 50,334 3,324 6.2 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 187,340 125,124 66.8 118,407 187,461 124,865 66.6 118,537 187,581 124,948 66.6 118,820 187,708 125,343 66.8 118,797 187,854 125,283 66.7 118,888 187,995 125,768 66.9 119,207 188,149 125,622 66.8 119,125 188,286 125,706 66.8 119,285 188,428 125,742 66.7 119,158 188,580 125,814 66.7 119,254 62.9 1,696 116,009 3,193 112,816 6,554 5.3 62,839 63.2 1,696 116,711 3,300 113,411 6,716 5.4 62,216 63.2 1,684 116,853 3,223 113,630 6,328 5.1 62,596 63.3 1,684 117,136 3,206 113,930 6,128 4.9 62,633 63.3 1,684 117,113 3,104 114,009 6,546 5.2 62,365 63.3 1,673 117,215 3,112 114,102 6,395 5.1 62,571 63.4 1,666 117,541 3,096 114,445 6,561 5.2 62,228 63.3 1,666 117,459 3,219 114,240 6,497 5.2 62,527 63.4 1,688 117,597 3,307 114,290 6,421 5.1 62,580 63.2 1,702 117,456 3,257 114,199 6,584 5.2 62,686 63.2 1,709 117,545 3,217 114,327 6,561 5.2 62,766 89,716 68,686 76.6 65,074 89,792 68,638 76.4 65,055 89,914 69,032 76.8 65,322 89,973 69,113 76.8 65,572 90,032 69,190 76.9 65,920 90,094 69,360 77.0 65,767 90,167 69,114 76.7 65,713 90,237 69,507 77.0 66,110 90,315 69,245 76.7 65,961 90,384 69,337 76.7 65,934 90,456 69,272 76.6 65,601 90,535 69,606 76.9 66,030 72.5 1,526 63,450 3,593 5.2 72.5 1,542 63,532 3,612 5.3 72.5 1,534 63,521 3,583 5.2 72.6 1,532 63,790 3,710 5.4 72.9 1,521 64,051 3,540 5.1 73.2 1,521 64,399 3,270 4.7 73.0 1,521 64,246 3,593 5.2 72.9 1,511 64,202 3,401 4.9 73.3 1,501 64,609 3,397 4.9 73.0 1,499 64,462 3,284 4.7 72.9 1,519 64,415 3,403 4.9 72.5 1,531 64,070 3,672 5.3 72.9 1,533 64,497 3,576 5.1 96,918 54,904 56.6 51,858 97,164 55,209 56.8 52,284 97,234 55,529 57.1 52,578 97,306 55,621 57.2 52,650 97,427 56,091 57.6 53,085 97,488 55,752 57.2 52,965 97,550 55,758 57.2 52,900 97,614 55,983 57.4 53,029 97,687 56,169 57.5 53,175 97,758 56,261 57.6 53,097 97,834 56,377 57.6 53,164 97,902 56,370 57.6 53,352 97,972 56,470 57.6 53,557 98,045 56,208 57.3 53,224 53.5 162 51,696 3,046 5.5 53.8 161 52,123 2,925 5.3 54.1 163 52,415 2,951 5.3 54.1 162 52,488 2,971 5.3 54.5 164 52,921 3,006 5.4 54.3 163 52,802 2,787 5.0 54.2 163 52,737 2,858 5.1 54.3 163 52,866 2,953 5.3 54.4 162 53,013 2,994 5.3 54.3 165 52,932 3,164 5.6 54.3 167 52,997 3,213 5.7 54.5 169 53,183 3,018 5.4 54.7 171 53,386 2,912 5.2 54.3 176 53,048 2,985 5.3 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. TOTAL Noninstitutional population 1, 2 .... . Labor force2 ..................................... Participation rate 3 .................. Total employed 2 .......................... Employment-population ratio 4 ...................................... Resident Armed Forces 1 ....... Civilian employed ...................... Agriculture ............................... Nonagricultural in dustries..... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment rate 5 ............ Not in labor force ........................... Men, 16 years and over Noninstitutional population \ 2 ....... Labor force2 ..................................... Participation rate 3 .................. Total employed 2 .......................... Employment-population ratio 4 ...................................... Resident Armed Forces 1 ....... Civilian employed ...................... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment rate 5 ............ Women, 16 years and over Noninstitutional population ', 2 ....... Labor force2 ..................................... Participation rate 3 .................. Total employed2 ........................... Employment-population ratio 4 ...................................... Resident Armed Forces 1 ....... Civilian employed ...................... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment rate 5 ............ 1 The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation. 2 Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. 3 Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population. 72 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 4 Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population. 5 Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (including the resident Armed Forces). 5. E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s o f th e civilian p o p u la tio n , by sex, ag e, ra c e an d H is p a n ic o rig in , m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d (Numbers in thousands) 1989 1988 Annual average Employment status 1987 1988 Oct. Nov. Mar. Dec. June May Apr. Sept. Aug. July Oct. TOTAL Civilian noninstitutional p o p u la tio n '....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... E m ployed...................................... Employment-population ratio2 ....................................... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment ra te ............... Not in labor fo r c e ........................... 182,753 119,865 65.6 112,440 184,613 121,669 65.9 114,968 185,114 122,091 66.0 115,573 185,244 122,510 66.1 115,947 185,402 122,563 66.1 116,009 185,644 123,428 66.5 116,711 185,777 123,181 66.3 116,853 185,897 123,264 66.3 117,136 186,024 123,659 66.5 117,113 186,181 123,610 66.4 117,215 186,329 124,102 66.6 117,541 186,483 123,956 66.5 117,459 186,598 124,018 66.5 117,597 186,726 124,040 66.4 117,456 186,871 124,105 66.4 117,545 61.5 7,425 6.2 62,888 62.3 6,701 5.5 62,944 62.4 6,518 5.3 63,023 62.6 6,563 5.4 62,734 62.6 6,554 5.3 62,839 62.9 6,716 5.4 62,216 62.9 6,328 5.1 62,596 63.0 6,128 5.0 62,633 63.0 6,546 5.3 62,365 63.0 6,395 5.2 62,571 63.1 6,561 5.3 62,228 63.0 6,497 5.2 62,527 63.0 6,421 5.2 62,580 62.9 6,584 5.3 62,686 62.9 6,561 5.3 62,766 79,565 62,095 78.0 58,726 80,553 62,768 77.9 59,781 80,851 62,915 77.8 60,004 80,924 62,995 77.8 59,999 81,001 63,002 77.8 60,049 81,162 63,358 78.1 60,420 81,256 63,490 78.1 60,636 81,333 63,557 78.1 60,869 81,413 63,709 78.3 60,757 81,524 63,503 77.9 60,798 81,592 63,831 78.2 61,093 81,679 63,656 77.9 60,921 81,754 63,643 77.8 60,853 81,790 63,721 77.9 60,683 81,905 63,883 78.0 60,981 73.8 2,329 56,397 3,369 5.4 74.2 2,271 57,510 2,987 4.8 74.2 2,315 57,689 2,911 4.6 74.1 2,313 57,686 2,996 4.8 74.1 2,292 57,757 2,953 4.7 74.4 2,277 58,143 2,938 4.6 74.6 2,320 58,316 2,853 4.5 74.8 2,317 58,552 2,688 4.2 74.6 2,252 58,505 2,952 4.6 74.6 2,284 58,514 2,705 4.3 74.9 2,256 58,837 2,737 4.3 74.6 2,342 58,579 2,734 4.3 74.4 2,364 58,489 2,790 4.4 74.2 2,339 58,344 3,038 4.8 74.5 2,309 58,673 2,902 4.5 88,583 49,783 56.2 47,074 89,532 50,870 56.8 48,383 89,807 51,201 57.0 48,788 89,887 51,558 57.4 49,113 89,954 51,587 57.3 49,165 90,072 51,998 57.7 49,543 90,153 51,821 57.5 49,514 90,242 51,851 57.5 49,484 90,318 51,992 57.6 49,544 90,432 52,171 57.7 49,690 90,526 52,231 57.7 49,661 90,607 52,463 57.9 49,850 90,684 52,373 57.8 49,905 90,771 52,443 57.8 50,089 90,860 52,239 57.5 49,767 53.1 622 46,453 2,709 5.4 54.0 625 47,757 2,487 4.9 54.3 640 48,148 2,413 4.7 54.6 640 48.473 2,445 4.7 54.7 646 48,519 2,422 4.7 55.0 715 48,827 2,455 4.7 54.9 666 48,849 2,306 4.5 54.8 664 48,819 2,367 4.6 54.9 615 48,929 2,448 4.7 54.9 628 49,062 2,480 4.8 54.9 610 49,051 2,570 4.9 55.0 627 49,223 2,613 5.0 55.0 644 49,261 2,468 4.7 55.2 701 49,388 2,353 4.5 54.8 648 49,119 2,472 4.7 14,606 7,988 54.7 6,640 14,527 8,031 55.3 6,805 14,456 7,975 55.2 6,781 14,433 7,957 55.1 6,835 14,447 7,974 55.2 6,795 14,410 8,071 56.0 6,748 14,367 7,871 54.8 6,703 14,323 7,856 54.9 6,783 14,293 7,958 55.7 6,812 14,224 7,936 55.8 6,726 14,211 8,040 56.6 6,786 14,196 7,837 55.2 6,687 14,160 8,003 56.5 6,840 14,166 7,876 55.6 6,683 14,107 7,983 56.6 6,796 45.5 258 6,382 1,347 16.9 46.8 273 6,532 1,226 15.3 46.9 283 6,498 1,194 15.0 47.4 285 6,550 1,122 14.1 47.0 255 6,540 1,179 14.8 46.8 307 6,441 1,323 16.4 46.7 237 6,466 1,168 14.8 47.4 224 6,559 1,073 13.7 47.7 237 6,575 1,146 14.4 47.3 200 6,526 15.2 47.8 230 6,556 1,254 15.6 47.1 249 6,438 1,150 14.7 48.3 300 6,540 1,163 14.5 47.2 216 6,467 1,193 15.1 48.2 260 6,536 1,187 14.9 156,958 103,290 65.8 97,789 158,194 104,756 66.2 99,812 158,524 105,051 66.3 100,199 158,603 105,395 66.5 100,543 158,705 105,411 66.4 100,567 158,865 106,106 66.8 101,183 158,947 105,798 66.6 101,278 159,020 105,988 66.7 101,554 159,098 106,312 66.8 101,458 159,200 106,164 66.7 101,465 159,297 106,455 66.8 101,693 159,400 106,424 66.8 101,581 159,470 106,446 66.8 101,670 159,549 106,325 66.6 101,535 159,644 106,544 66.7 101,816 62.3 5,501 5.3 63.1 4,944 4.7 63.2 4,852 4.6 63.4 4,852 4.6 63.4 4,844 4.6 63.7 4,923 4.6 63.7 4,521 4.3 63.9 4,434 4.2 63.8 4,854 4.6 63.7 4,699 4.4 63.8 4,762 4.5 63.7 4,843 4.6 63.8 4,777 4.5 63.6 4,791 4.5 63.8 4,728 4.4 20,352 12,99: 63.8 11,30S 20,692 13,20£ 63.8 11,656 20,786 13.29C 63.9 11,807 20,811 13.33C 64.1 11,831 20,842 13,405 64.3 11,856 20,877 13,477 64 11,860 20,905 13,476 64 11,873 20,930 13,425 64 11,961 20,956 13,287 63 11,846 20,986 13,444 64.1 11,968 21,012 21,038 13,555 64. 12,082 21,060 13,448 63 11,958 21,085 13,515 64.1 11,940 21,108 13,491 63.9 11,902 55.6 1,684 13.C 56.C 1,54“ 11.’ 56.6 1,48C 11.2 56.£ 1,492 11.2 56.9 1,549 11.6 56.8 1,617 56.8 1,603 57.1 1,464 1,442 57.0 1,476 57 1,473 56.8 1,490 56.6 1,574 12 11 57.0 1,618 11.9 11.1 11.6 56.4 1,589 11.8 Men, 20 years and over Civilian noninstitutional p o p u la tio n '....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 ....................................... A g riculture.................................. Nonagricultural industries........ Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ............... Women, 20 years ond over Civilian noninstitutional p o p u la tio n '....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... E m ployed...................................... Employment-population ratio2 ....................................... A g riculture.................................. Nonagricultural industries........ Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ............... Both sexes, 16 to 19 years Civilian noninstitutional p o p u la tio n '....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... E m ployed...................................... Employment-population ratio2 ....................................... A g riculture.................................. Nonagricultural industries........ Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ............... 1,210 White Civilian noninstitutional p o p u la tio n '....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... E m ployed...................................... Employment-population ratio2 ...................................... Unem ployed................................. Unemployment ra te .............. Black Civilian noninstitutional p o p u la tio n '...................................... Participation rate ................... E m ployed..................................... Employment-population Unem ployed................................. Unemployment r a te .............. See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 10 56 . 10.8 11.0 13,600 64.7 11,982 10 .' M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 73 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tistic s: E m p lo y m en t D a ta 5. C o n tin u e d — E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s o f th e civilian p o p u la tio n , b y sex, a g e , ra c e an d H isp an ic o rig in , m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d ’ (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1988 1989 Employment status 1987 1988 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. 12,867 8,541 66.4 7,790 13,325 8,982 67.4 8,250 13,458 9,075 67.4 8,368 13,495 9,148 67.8 8,419 13,533 9,133 67.5 8,441 13,564 9,205 67.9 8,434 13,606 9,219 67.8 8,596 13,649 9,210 67.5 8,607 13,690 9,262 67.7 8,495 13,731 9,428 68.7 8,686 13,772 9,272 67.3 8,524 13,813 9,433 68.3 8,587 13,853 9,364 67.6 8,521 13 894 9,326 67.1 8,550 13 936 9 311 66 8 8,580 60.5 751 8.8 61.9 732 8.2 62.2 707 7.8 62.4 729 8.0 62.4 692 7.6 62.2 771 8.4 63.2 624 6.8 63.1 603 6.5 62.1 767 8.3 63.3 742 7.9 61.9 748 8.1 62.2 846 9.0 61.5 843 9.0 61 5 776 8.3 61 6 Hispanic origin Civilian noninstitutional population1 ....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate ................... Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 ....................................... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment ra te ............... 2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals 6. 7.9 in both the white and black population groups. S e le c te d e m p lo y m e n t in d ic a to rs , m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d (In thousands) Annual average Selected categories 1987 1988 Oct. Nov. 112,440 62.107 50,334 40,265 114,968 63,273 51,696 40,472 115,573 63,450 52,123 40,504 115,947 63,532 52,415 40,407 116,009 63,521 52,488 40,483 116,711 63,790 52,921 40,925 116,853 64,051 52,802 40,928 28.107 6,060 28,756 6,211 28,890 6,344 28,995 6,375 29,053 6,399 29,589 6,416 1,632 1,423 153 1,621 1,398 150 1,661 1,405 177 1,672 1,450 125 1,698 1,349 149 100,771 16,800 83,970 1,208 82,762 103,733 17,240 86,493 1,152 85,341 8,479 232 103,770 17,387 86,383 1,209 85,174 8,619 300 103,904 17,423 86,481 260 103,021 17,114 85,907 1,153 84,754 8,519 260 5,401 2,385 2,672 14,395 5,206 2,350 2,487 14,963 4,963 2,220 2,399 15,161 5,122 4,965 2,199 2,408 14,509 4,727 2,095 2,319 14,679 Jan. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. 117,136 64,399 52,737 41,083 117,113 64,246 52,866 40,890 117,215 64,202 53,013 40,902 117,541 64,609 52,932 41,102 117,459 64,462 52,997 41,089 117,597 64,415 53,183 40,636 117,456 64,070 53,386 40,572 117,545 64,497 53,048 40,775 29,412 6,385 29,569 6,256 29,656 6,243 29,739 6,331 29,481 6,403 29,552 6,456 29,220 6,342 29,461 6,437 29,475 6,348 1,684 1,387 189 1,645 1,419 150 1,656 1,403 138 1,554 1,419 124 1,610 1,358 127 1,550 1,412 126 1,695 1,434 126 1,803 1,420 137 1,671 1,441 135 1,680 1,413 121 85,271 8,602 266 104,510 17,393 87,117 1,196 85,921 8,718 298 104,797 17,311 87,486 1,135 86,350 8,517 285 104,982 17,382 87,600 1,163 86,437 8,645 332 104,985 17,180 87,806 1,117 86,689 8,671 281 105,245 17,230 88,015 1,128 86,887 8,516 322 105,519 17,261 88,259 1,140 87,118 8,570 241 105,321 17,519 87,803 1,093 86,710 8,606 239 105,259 17,591 87,668 1,146 86,522 8,625 264 105,355 17,619 87,737 1,054 86,682 8,569 296 105,413 17,582 87,830 968 86,862 8,680 285 5,061 2,279 2,375 15,446 5,321 2,549 2,410 15,363 5,097 2,302 2,352 15,401 4,981 2,303 2,333 15,126 4,968 2,232 2,393 15,561 5,143 2,373 2,425 15,498 4,837 2,296 2,343 15,316 4,957 2,318 2,289 15,416 4,750 2,311 2,138 15,652 4,785 2,282 2,107 15,614 4,882 2,330 2,171 15,542 4,728 2,336 2,037 15,303 4,819 2,116 2,288 14,986 5,033 2,377 2,307 14,928 4,837 2,144 2,283 14,970 4,697 2,105 2,272 14,688 4,709 2,048 2,317 15,127 4,930 2,243 2,369 15,060 4,609 4,801 2,190 2,236 14,977 4,505 2,185 2,057 15,219 4,553 2,129 2,024 15,094 4,612 2,174 2,090 15,109 4,466 2,178 1,975 14,865 CHARACTERISTIC Civilian employed, 16 years and o v e r............................................. M e n .......................................... Women ..................................... Married men, spouse present Married women, spouse p re s e n t.................................... Women who maintain families . MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS OF WORKER Agriculture: Wage and salary workers ....... Self-employed w o rk e rs ............ Unpaid family w o rk e rs ............. Nonagricultural industries: Wage and salary w o rk e rs ....... G o vernm e nt............................ Private in dustries.................... Private households............. O th e r ...................................... Self-employed w o rke rs............. Unpaid family w o rk e rs .............. 8,201 1,210 PERSONS AT WORK PART TIME1 All industries: Part time for economic reasons Slack work ................................ Could only find part-time work Voluntary part t im e ..................... Nonagricultural industries: Part time for economic reasons Slack work ................................ Could only find part-time work Voluntary part t im e .................... 2,201 2,587 13,928 2,102 2,301 14,976 Excludes persons with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w Digitized for 74 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 7. S e le c te d u n e m p lo y m e n t in d ic a to rs , m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d (Unemployment rates) 1989 1988 Annual average Selected categories 1987 1988 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Total, all civilian w o rke rs............................................. Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs ................................... Men, 20 years and o v e r ........................................ Women, 20 years and o v e r................................... 6.2 16.9 5.4 5.4 5.5 15.3 4.8 4.9 5.3 15.0 4.6 4.7 5.4 14.1 4.8 4.7 5.3 14.8 4.7 4.7 5.4 16.4 4.6 4.7 5.1 14.8 4.5 4.5 5.0 13.7 4.2 4.6 5.3 14.4 4.6 4.7 5.2 15.2 4.3 4.8 5.3 15.6 4.3 4.9 5.2 14.7 4.3 5.0 5.2 14.5 4.4 4.7 5.3 15.1 4.8 4.5 5.3 14.9 4.5 4.7 White, total ............................................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs ................................ Men, 16 to 19 years ...................................... Women, 16 to 19 y e a rs................................. Men, 20 years and over ..................................... Women, 20 years and o v e r................................ 5.3 14.4 15.5 13.4 4.8 4.6 4.7 13.1 13.9 12.3 4.1 4.1 4.6 12.9 14.4 11.3 4.1 4.0 4.6 11.9 12.6 11.3 4.2 4.0 4.6 12.6 13.4 11.8 4.1 3.9 4.6 14.1 16.4 11.7 4.0 3.9 4.3 12.1 14.0 10.2 3.8 3.6 4.2 11.3 12.3 10.2 3.6 3.8 4.6 12.3 13.1 11.5 4.0 4.1 4.4 13.1 14.8 11.2 3.6 4.1 4.5 13.0 13.4 12.6 3.7 4.1 4.6 12.8 12.4 13.4 3.8 4.3 4.5 12.8 12.9 12.7 3.8 4.1 4.5 12.1 13.3 10.8 4.2 3.8 4.4 12.2 13.9 10.4 3.8 4.0 Black, total ............................................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs ................................ Men, 16 to 19 years ...................................... Women, 16 to 19 y e a rs ................................. Men, 20 years and over ..................................... Women, 20 years and o v e r ................................ 13.0 34.7 34.4 34.9 11.1 11.6 11.7 32.4 32.7 32.0 10.1 10.4 11.2 30.9 32.8 28.6 9.6 9.8 11.2 31.1 32.1 29.9 9.8 9.8 11.6 29.6 2S° 29.3 10.0 10.5 12.0 34.5 36.7 32.0 10.4 10.4 11.9 32.4 33.1 31.6 10.5 10.3 10.9 31.6 28.6 34.8 9.8 9.1 10.8 30.8 35.5 26.2 10.0 8.8 11.0 32.4 36.9 28.4 9.4 9.5 11.9 36.5 33.5 40.2 9.4 10.5 10.9 27.4 22.1 33.1 9.3 9.9 11.1 31.6 30.0 33.4 9.8 9.4 11.6 37.3 34.1 40.3 10.0 9.6 11.8 34.2 32.4 36.1 10.3 10.0 Hispanic origin, to ta l............................................... 8.8 8.2 7.8 8.0 7.6 8.4 6.8 6.5 8.3 7.9 8.1 9.0 9.0 8.3 7.9 Married men, spouse p re se n t............................... Married women, spouse p re s e n t.......................... Women who maintain fa m ilie s.............................. Full-time workers ..................................................... Part-time workers ................................................... Unemployed 15 weeks and o v e r.......................... Labor force time lost1 ............................................ 3.9 4.3 9.2 5.8 8.4 1.7 7.1 3.3 3.9 8.1 5.2 7.6 1.3 6.3 3.1 3.7 7.9 5.0 7.4 1.3 6.1 3.3 3.8 7.7 5.0 7.1 1.2 6.2 3.1 3.7 8.2 5.1 7.0 1.2 6.3 3.1 3.6 8.0 5.0 7.9 1.2 6.2 3.1 3.4 8.0 4.8 7.3 1.1 5.9 2.9 3.5 7.9 4.8 6.2 1.1 5.8 3.2 4.0 7.6 5.0 7.2 1.2 6.0 2.9 3.8 8.3 4.8 6.9 1.1 5.9 2.8 3.8 7.9 4.8 7.7 1.0 6.1 2.9 3.8 8.7 4.9 7.2 1.2 6.0 3.1 3.9 8.0 4.9 6.9 1.1 5.9 3.4 3.8 7.6 5.0 7.3 1.1 5.9 3.0 4.0 7.6 4.9 7.1 1.1 5.8 6.2 10.0 11.6 6.0 5.8 6.3 4.5 6.9 4.9 3.5 10.5 5.5 7.9 10.6 5.3 5.0 5.7 3.9 6.2 4.5 2.8 10.6 5.4 8.8 10.0 5.3 5.0 5.7 3.5 6.0 4.5 2.6 10.2 5.5 8.9 10.6 5.1 4.9 5.3 4.0 6.2 4.6 2.5 9.3 5.4 7.7 10.4 5.2 5.0 5.5 3.8 6.3 4.1 2.7 8.8 5.6 6.1 10.4 5.3 5.0 5.7 3.8 6.3 4.7 2.7 9.5 5.1 8.0 10.0 4.9 4.4 5.5 3.9 5.6 4.3 2.7 8.9 5.0 7.0 9.4 4.8 4.7 4.9 3.9 5.6 4.1 2.6 8.9 5.4 5.6 9.7 4.9 4.7 5.2 4.0 5.9 4.8 2.7 10.5 5.2 4.5 9.3 4.9 4.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.7 2.9 10.3 5.3 3.7 10.0 5.2 4.6 6.1 4.4 6.0 4.3 3.0 11.0 5.4 b.b 10.5 5.0 4.7 5.5 4.2 6.2 4.4 2.8 8.5 5.4 6.5 10.3 5.2 4.8 5.9 3.6 6.0 4.4 2.7 8.6 5.4 8.5 10.4 5.1 4.7 5.5 4.7 5.8 4.5 2.8 7.7 5.3 5.1 9.0 5.4 5.2 5.6 3.9 5.8 4.4 2.7 10.0 CHARACTERISTIC INDUSTRY Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers .... M ining........................................................................ Construction ............................................................. Manufacturing .......................................................... Durable g o o d s ....................................................... Nondurable goods ............................................... Transportation and public utilities ........................ Wholesale and retail tra d e .................................... Finance and service in dustries............................. Government workers ................................................... Agricultural wage and salary workers ....................... 1 Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force hours. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M o n t h ly L a b o r R e v i e w D ecem ber 1989 75 C u rren t L a b o r S ta tis tic s: 8. E m p lo y m en t D a ta U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te s by s e x a n d ag e, m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d (Civilian workers) Annual average Sex and age 1987 1988 1988 Oct. 1989 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Total, 16 years and over ............................................................... 16 to 24 y e a rs ........................................................................................ 16 to 19 years .................................................................................... 16 to 17 years ................................................................................. 18 to 19 years ................................................................................. 20 to 24 years .................................................................................... 25 years and o v e r................................................................................. 25 to 54 years ................................................................................. 55 years and o v e r ........................................................................... 6.2 12.2 16.9 19.1 15.2 9.7 4.8 5.0 3.3 5.5 11.0 15.3 17.4 13.8 8.7 4.3 4.5 3.1 5.3 10.9 15.0 17.2 13.3 8.6 4.1 4.3 2.8 5.4 10.6 14.1 15.8 12.9 8.7 4.2 4.4 2.8 5.3 10.9 14.8 16.6 13.3 8.7 4.1 4.3 3.0 5.4 11.9 16.4 18.3 15.4 9.3 4.1 4.2 3.1 5.1 10.5 14.8 18.2 12.7 8.1 4.0 4.2 3.1 5.0 9.8 13.7 15.3 12.5 7.7 3.9 4.1 2.6 5.3 10.5 14.4 14.9 13.8 8.4 4.1 4.4 2.9 5.2 10.4 15.2 16.2 14.5 7.7 4.0 4.2 2.9 5.3 11.3 15.6 17.5 14.9 8.9 4.0 4.1 3.3 5.2 10.7 14.7 17.8 12.4 8.6 4.0 4.2 3.1 5.2 10.9 14.5 18.1 12.5 8.8 4.0 4.1 3.1 5.3 11.2 15.1 16.8 14.2 8.9 4.1 4.3 3.0 5.3 11.1 14.9 16.8 13.5 8.9 4.0 4.2 3.0 Men, 16 years and o v e r .................................................................... 16 to 24 years ................................................................................. 16 to 19 y e a rs ............................................................................... 16 to 17 y e a rs ............................................................................ 18 to 19 y e a rs ............................................................................ 20 to 24 y e a rs ............................................................................... 25 years and o v e r ........................................................................... 25 to 54 y e a rs ............................................................................ 55 years and o v e r...................................................................... 6.2 12.6 17.8 20.2 16.0 9.9 4.8 5.0 3.5 5.5 11.4 16.0 18.2 14.6 8.9 4.2 4.4 3.3 5.4 11.8 16.5 18.5 15.0 9.2 4.0 4.2 3.0 5.4 10.9 14.8 17.3 13.0 8.8 4.2 4.4 3.2 5.3 11.1 15.4 17.3 13.5 8.7 4.1 4.3 3.3 5.5 12.8 18.6 20.6 17.9 9.6 4.0 4.2 3.0 5.2 11.1 16.7 19.6 15.1 8.1 4.0 4.1 3.4 4.8 9.7 14.2 15.8 13.2 7.2 3.8 4.0 2.8 5.3 10.7 15.5 17.0 14.6 8.0 4.2 4.4 3.2 5.0 11.0 17.0 18.8 15.7 7.7 3.7 3.9 2.9 5.0 11.5 15.8 20.0 13.6 9.2 3.7 3.7 3.0 4.8 10.4 13.4 17.4 10.7 8.7 3.7 3.9 3.1 5.0 11.4 14.7 17.4 12.7 9.6 3.7 3.8 3.3 5.4 12.1 15.8 19.8 13.5 10.1 4.1 4.2 3.6 5.3 11.8 16.1 18.6 14.4 9.3 3.9 4.0 3.1 Women, 16 years and o v e r ............................................................. 16 to 24 y e a rs ................................................................................ 16 to 19 years ............................................................................. 16 to 17 years .......................................................................... 18 to 19 years .......................................................................... 20 to 24 years ............................................................................. 25 years and o v e r.......................................................................... 25 to 54 years .......................................................................... 55 years and o v e r .................................................................... 6.2 11.7 15.9 18.0 14.3 9.4 4.8 5.1 3.0 5.6 10.6 14.4 16.6 12.9 8.5 4.3 4.6 2.8 5.3 9.9 13.3 15.8 11.6 7.9 4.2 4.5 2.4 5.3 10.3 13.3 14.1 12.8 8.6 4.2 4.4 2.4 5.4 10.7 14.2 15.8 13.1 8.7 4.1 4.4 2.6 5.4 10.9 14.0 15.9 12.7 9.1 4.1 4.3 3.1 5.0 9.7 12.8 16.8 10.0 8.0 3.9 4.2 2.5 5.1 10.0 13.1 14.8 11.7 8.3 4.0 4.3 2.3 5.3 10.4 13.2 12.7 12.8 8.9 4.1 4.4 2.6 5.3 9.8 13.4 13.4 13.3 7.7 4.4 4.6 3.0 5.6 11.0 15.4 14.7 16.2 8.6 4.4 4.5 3.8 5.7 11.1 16.0 18.3 14.4 8.4 4.4 4.6 3.2 5.4 10.2 14.4 18.8 12.4 7.9 4.2 4.5 2.7 5.2 10.1 14.5 13.7 14.8 7.6 4.1 4.3 2.2 5.3 10.3 13.5 14.7 12.5 8.4 4.2 4.4 2.8 9. U n e m p lo y e d p e rs o n s by re a s o n fo r u n e m p lo y m e n t, m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1988 1989 Reason for unemployment 1987 Job losers ...................................................................... On la y o ff...................................................................... Other job lo s e rs .......................................................... Job leavers .................................................................... Reentrants ..................................................................... New entrants ................................................................. 1988 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. 3,566 943 2,623 965 1,974 920 3,092 851 2,241 983 1,809 816 2,951 844 2,107 984 1,747 747 3,031 814 2,217 963 1,766 799 3,066 819 2,247 998 1,725 799 3,121 827 2,294 985 1,835 780 2,876 774 2,102 985 1,740 765 2,831 808 2,023 885 1,730 713 2,984 847 2,137 978 1,894 671 2,724 790 1,934 1,114 1,852 683 2,765 806 1,958 1,023 2,051 742 2,920 822 2,097 1,010 1,934 724 2,984 873 2,111 1,040 1,768 628 2,915 828 2,087 1,039 1,946 629 2,917 753 2,163 979 1,891 685 48.0 12.7 35.3 13.0 26.6 12.4 46.1 12.7 33.4 14.7 27.0 12.2 45.9 13.1 32.8 15.3 27.2 11.6 46.2 12.4 33.8 14.7 26.9 12.2 46.5 12.4 34.1 15.1 26.2 12.1 46.4 12.3 34.1 14.7 27.3 11.6 45.2 12.2 33.0 15.5 27.3 12.0 46.0 13.1 32.8 14.4 28.1 11.6 45.7 13.0 32.7 15.0 29.0 10.3 42.7 12.4 30.3 17.5 29.1 10.7 42.0 12.3 29.8 15.5 31.2 11.3 44.3 12.5 31.8 15.3 29.4 11.0 46.5 13.6 32.9 16.2 27.5 9.8 44.6 12.7 32.0 15.9 29.8 9.6 45.1 11.6 33.4 15.1 29.2 10.6 3.0 .8 1.6 .8 2.5 .8 1.5 .7 2.4 .8 1.4 .6 2.5 .8 1.4 .7 2.5 .8 1.4 .7 2.5 .8 1.5 .6 2.3 .8 1.4 .6 2.3 .7 1.4 .6 2.4 .8 1.5 .5 2.2 .9 1.5 .6 2.2 .8 1.7 .6 2.4 .8 1.6 .6 2.4 .8 1.4 .5 2.4 .8 1.6 .5 2.4 .8 1.5 .6 PERCENT OF UNEMPLOYED Job lo s e rs .................................................................... On la y o ff................................................................... Other job lo s e rs ....................................................... Job le avers.................................................................. Reentrants................................................................... New entrants .............................................................. PERCENT OF CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE Job losers ...................................................................... Job leavers .................................................................... Reentrants ..................................................................... New entrants ................................................................. 10. D u ra tio n o f u n e m p lo y m e n t, m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1988 1989 Weeks of unemployment 1987 1988 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Less than 5 weeks ............................................... 5 to 14 weeks ........................................................ 15 weeks and o v e r ............................................... 15 to 26 weeks .................................................. 27 weeks and o v e r ............................................ 3,246 2,196 1,983 943 1,040 3,084 2,007 1,610 801 809 3,059 1,835 1,554 788 766 3,117 1,935 1,502 787 715 3,029 2,039 1,495 758 737 3,181 2,081 1,512 757 755 3,247 1,865 1,304 665 639 3,055 1,821 1,310 648 663 3,090 2,034 1,426 689 737 3,041 2,017 1,313 702 611 3,309 1,999 1,258 659 599 3,149 1,927 1,472 846 626 3,071 2,011 1,305 737 567 3,156 2,036 1,370 789 581 3,138 1,972 1,374 728 646 Mean duration in w e e k s ....................................... Median duration in w e e k s .................................... 14.5 6.5 13.5 5.9 13.4 5.7 12.6 5.6 12.8 5.8 12.7 5.7 12.1 5.3 12.4 5.4 12.7 5.4 11.8 5.3 11.1 5.5 12.0 5.6 11.3 5.0 11.4 5.0 11.8 4.9 76 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 11. U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te s o f civilian w o rk e rs by S ta te , d a ta n o t s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d Sept. 1988 Sept. 1989 Alaska ................................................................ A riz o n a ............................................................... Arkansas ............................................................ C a lifornia............................................................ 6.9 8.7 7.0 6.9 5.0 6.9 7.3 5.8 5.5 5.0 Florida ................................................................ 5.2 2.7 3.0 5.5 5.1 4.3 3.4 3.2 4.9 5.7 Indiana ............................................................... 5.7 2.8 4.3 5.4 5.3 6.2 2.2 4.0 5.5 4.7 State Iowa V M a in e .................................................................. M ississippi.......................................................... 3.8 4.7 6.5 10 4 2.6 3.9 4.3 5.4 7.6 3.1 4.5 3.0 6.6 3.6 9.5 5.2 4.1 4.3 7.5 4.1 7.1 5.1 NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the 12. Sept. 1988 Sept. 1989 Montana ........................................................... N e bra ska.......................................................... Nevada ............................................................. New H am pshire.............................................. 5.7 3.2 4.3 2.5 5.1 2.9 5.0 4.0 New J e rs e y ...................................................... New Mexico ..................................................... New Y o rk .......................................................... North Carolina ................................................. North Dakota ................................................... 3.4 7.3 4.2 3.1 4.3 4.3 6.1 5.2 3.5 4.2 Ohio .................................................................. 5.7 6.2 5.2 5.1 3.4 4.9 5.1 4.7 4.0 4.0 South C a ro lin a ................................................ South D a k o ta ................................................... 4.4 3.8 5.8 7.1 4.5 5.0 3.9 3.8 6.3 3.6 V e rm o n t............................................................ 2.2 4.1 5.7 9.6 3.5 3.3 3.7 5.2 8.1 4.1 5.6 5.6 State O re g o n .............................................................. Rhode Isla n d .................................................... Washington ...................................................... West V irg inia.................................................... database, E m p lo y m e n t o f w o rk e rs on n o n a g ric u ltu ra l p ay ro lls b y S ta te , d a ta n o t s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d (In thousands) State A riz o n a ............................................................... Arkansas ............................................................ f'o n n i District of C o lum bia ......................................... Idaho Illinois ................................................................. K e n tu cky............................................................ Louisiana............................................................ M inn e so ta .......................................................... M issouri.............................................................. p Data not available. _ preliminary https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Sept. 1988 Aug. 1989 1,551.6 224.2 1,406.4 872.3 12,167.5 1,576.1 239.4 1,403.9 886.4 12,342.0 1,429.8 1,676.6 332.3 671.0 5,083.6 1,441.3 1,682.0 344.5 694.0 5,201.7 2,903.8 473.1 360.1 5.123.5 2,441.2 2,933.8 493.4 366.2 5,161.5 2,463.9 1.172.5 1,041.0 1,382.8 1,506.7 533.0 1,183.3 1,044.1 T396.8 1,511.0 535.4 2 110.8 3J26.0 3,812.1 2,050.8 905.4 2,261.8 285.1 2,117.7 3,118.2 3,839.6 2,091.9 903.0 2,264.3 283.1 Sept. 1989'’ Sept. 1988 State Aug. 1989 Sept. 1989p N e bra ska.......................................................... Nevada ............................................................. New H am pshire .............................................. 693.6 552.4 538.0 710.8 579.1 534.6 715.5 584.6 535.7 New Jersey ...................................................... New Mexico ..................................................... 1,451.0 New Y o rk .......................................................... 1,696.9 North Carolina ................................................. 341.9 North Dakota ................................................... 688.7 5,264.7 Ohio .................................................................. O kla h o m a ......................................................... 2,940.0 O re g o n .............................................................. 488.9 Pennsylvania.................................................... 375.0 Rhode Is la n d .................................................... 5,189.2 2,499.1 South C a ro lin a ................................................ South D a k o ta ................................................... 1,201.2 Tennessee ....................................................... 1,062.5 Texas ................................................................ 1,402.7 Utah .................................................................. 1,520.8 536.3 V e rm o n t............................................................ V irg in ia .............................................................. 2,134.1 Washington ...................................................... 3,118.8 West V irg inia.................................................... 3,876.0 W iscon sin......................................................... 2,106.8 922.2 W yom ing........................................................... 2,290.7 Puerto R ic o ...................................................... 286.7 Virgin Islands ................................................... 3,662.9 546.5 8,212.1 2,992.5 260.4 3,705.6 554.4 8,237.4 3,005.7 259.2 3,690.6 561.6 8,236.3 3,051.1 263.6 4,731.7 1,141.1 1,174.2 5,072.1 460.5 4,807.2 1,131.4 1,202.7 5,084.7 455.9 4,848.5 1,143.5 1,215.1 5,121.3 459.3 1,462.1 267.5 2,080.3 6,682.3 674.9 1,505.9 269.6 2,082.2 6,776.4 690.0 1,520.1 269.4 2,099.3 6,808.1 704.5 253.7 2,813.6 1,972.3 613.8 2,182.0 253.6 2.893.0 2.048.1 613.6 2,214.9 255.2 2,923.7 2,072.3 619.8 2,222.9 189.4 815.7 40.3 191.2 812.8 42.0 1,584.1 233.7 1,443.3 898.2 12,499.4 195.6 818.2 - NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the database. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 77 C u rren t L a b o r S ta tis tic s: 13. E m p lo y m en t D a ta E m p lo y m e n t o f w o rk e rs on n o n a g ric u ltu ra l p a y ro lls by in d u s try , m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d (In thousands) Annua average 1988 1989 Industry 1987 1988 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. SeptT Oct.p TOTAL ......................................... PRIVATE SECTOR ....................... 102,200 85,190 105,584 88,212 106,475 88,991 106,824 89,299 107,097 89,574 107,442 89,897 107,711 90,124 107,888 90,291 108,101 90,475 108,310 90,623 108,607 90,884 108,767 91,016 108,887 91,083 109,088 91,185 109,321 91,324 GOODS-PRODUCING ..................... Mining .............................................. Oil and gas extraction ................ 24,708 717 402 25,249 721 406 25,384 717 400 25,460 712 396 25,513 711 394 25,626 711 393 25,629 711 394 25,646 714 397 25,671 720 400 25,672 722 401 25,648 715 402 25,669 706 404 25,694 729 405 25,607 730 408 25,604 732 410 Construction .................................. General building contractors...... 4,967 1,320 5,125 1,368 5,162 1,363 5,191 1,375 5,213 1,380 5,267 1,404 5,270 1,398 5,252 1,380 5,279 1,377 5,283 1,388 5,283 1,384 5,314 1,391 5,321 1,403 5,321 l ’396 5 329 1J386 M anufacturing................................ Production workers ....................... 19,024 12,970 19,403 13,254 19,505 13,324 19,557 13,365 19,589 13,385 19,648 13,423 19,648 13,426 19,680 13,442 19,672 13,430 19,667 13,426 19,650 13,400 19,649 13,410 19,644 13,401 19,556 13,321 19,543 13,311 Durable g o o d s ............................... Production workers ....................... 11,194 7,439 11,437 7,635 11,509 7,690 11,545 7,717 11,565 7,730 11,605 7,758 11,594 7,749 11,604 7,749 11,600 7,744 11,594 7,735 11,567 7,706 11,549 7,697 11,551 7,696 11,477 7,631 11,449 7^613 Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ......... Furniture and fix tu re s ..................... Stone, clay, and glass products ... Primary metal industries ............... Blast furnaces and basic steel products.......................................... Fabricated metal products............ 741 516 586 747 765 530 600 774 770 531 603 783 775 532 605 784 780 532 607 785 784 532 607 786 778 534 608 786 777 535 607 788 772 537 606 788 771 534 604 787 769 534 603 787 767 536 602 785 763 529 601 786 759 528 596 776 763 525 599 775 268 1,401 277 1,431 277 1,442 277 1,445 276 1,449 276 1,458 276 1,458 276 1,457 275 1,454 276 1,452 276 1,449 277 1,446 276 1,443 273 1,438 272 1,433 Machinery, except electrica l......... Electrical and electronic equipm ent....................................... Transportation equipm ent............. Motor vehicles and equipment .... Instruments and related products Miscellaneous manufacturing industries ........................................ 2,008 2,082 2,110 2,120 2,126 2,134 2,138 2,143 2,144 2,150 2,151 2,154 2,152 2,148 2,140 2,069 2,051 867 706 2,070 2,051 857 749 2,073 2,055 865 758 2,075 2,060 867 762 2,067 2,063 867 767 2,065 2,079 882 770 2,062 2,067 871 772 2,060 2,071 869 776 2,058 2,073 875 777 2,050 2,076 876 778 2,041 2,062 861 779 2,040 2,046 844 781 2,034 2,068 873 782 2,024 2,036 844 780 2,017 2 024 830 781 371 386 384 387 389 390 391 390 391 392 392 392 393 392 392 Nondurable g o o d s ......................... Production w o rke rs......................... 7,830 5,531 7,967 5,619 7,996 5,634 8,012 5,648 8,024 5,655 8,043 5,665 8,054 5,677 8,076 5,693 8,072 5,686 8,073 5,691 8,083 5,694 8,100 5,713 8,093 5,705 8,079 5^690 8 094 5,698 Food and kindred pro d u cts .......... Tobacco manufactures .................. Textile mill p ro d u c ts ....................... Apparel and other textile products.......................................... Paper and allied products ............ 1,620 55 726 1,636 56 729 1,644 55 726 1,648 56 725 1,646 56 724 1,650 56 728 1,650 56 728 1,655 56 729 1,657 54 728 1,656 53 728 1,663 52 729 1,678 53 730 1,667 52 727 1,677 51 723 1 684 51 726 1,099 680 1,092 693 1,083 695 1,088 695 1,090 696 1,092 696 1,096 696 1,101 697 1,098 696 1,095 697 1,093 697 1,094 701 1,095 700 1,085 697 1,083 699 Printing and publishing................... Chemicals and allied products..... Petroleum and coal p roducts....... Rubber and mise, plastics products.......................................... Leather and leather products ...... 1,506 1,026 164 1,561 1,065 162 1,577 1,074 162 1,581 1,075 162 1,588 1,079 162 1,595 1,084 160 1,595 1,085 161 1,600 1,088 161 1,601 1,090 162 1,603 1,094 162 1,607 1,096 163 1,609 1,091 163 1,611 1,097 163 1,612 1,095 163 1 614 1 096 164 811 143 829 144 836 144 839 143 840 143 839 143 843 144 845 144 843 143 843 142 841 142 841 140 841 140 837 139 838 139 SERVICE-PRODUCING .................. Transportation and public utilities....................................... Transportation................................. Communication and public u tilitie s ............................................. 77,492 80,335 81,091 81,364 81,584 81,816 82,082 82,242 82,430 82,638 82,959 83,098 83,193 83,481 83,717 5,372 3,164 5,548 3,334 5,596 3,381 5,616 3,402 5,634 3,421 5,654 3,439 5,667 3,453 5,666 3,452 5,682 3,467 5,700 3,484 5,716 3,500 5,736 3,524 5,618 3,539 5,711 3^548 5 738 3^573 2,208 2,214 2,215 2,214 2,213 2,215 2,214 2,214 2,215 2,216 2,216 2,212 2,079 2,163 2,165 Wholesale trade ............................. Durable g o o d s ................................. Nondurable g o o d s .......................... 5,844 3,427 2,417 6,029 3,561 2,467 6,086 3,599 2,487 6,104 3,612 2,492 6,125 3,626 2,499 6,146 3,638 2,508 6,171 3,657 2,514 6,197 3,676 2,521 6,206 3,676 2,530 6,222 3,685 2,537 6,230 3,693 2,537 6,237 3,700 2,537 6,256 3,708 2,548 6,264 3,717 2^547 6 270 3 717 2,553 Retail t r a d e ...................................... General merchandise s to re s ........ Food s to re s ..................................... Automotive dealers and service s ta tio n s ........................................... Eating and drinking p la c e s ........... 18,483 2,412 2,962 19,110 2,461 3,098 19,229 2,447 3,149 19,282 2,452 3,165 19,328 2,460 3,182 19,407 2,472 3,200 19,460 2,481 3,212 19,488 2,490 3,223 19,489 2,492 3,233 19,528 2,491 3,245 19,551 2,493 3,262 19,586 2,482 3,274 19,621 2,484 3,293 19 629 2,484 3,294 19,653 2,465 3^317 2,004 6,106 2,090 6,282 2,124 6,314 2,131 6,322 2,136 6,328 2,143 6,323 2,150 6,332 2,155 6,322 2,159 6,335 2,159 6,348 2,155 6,362 2,155 6,370 2,152 6^385 2,156 6^397 2 169 6^403 Finance, insurance, and real estate ......................................... Finance ............................................ Insurance......................................... Real e s ta te ...................................... 6,547 3,270 2,024 1,253 6,676 3,290 2,082 1,304 6,710 3,293 2,098 1,319 6,726 3,299 2,102 1,325 6,744 3,307 2,110 1,327 6,746 3,308 2,109 1,329 6,763 3,311 2,116 1,336 6,774 3,316 2,117 1,341 6,776 3,312 2,119 1,345 6,790 3,320 2,123 1,347 6,808 3,320 2,129 1,359 6,815 3,324 2,131 1,360 6,836 3,336 2,137 1,363 6,851 3,343 2,138 1,370 6 852 3,340 2,140 T372 S ervices............................................ Business se rvice s........................... Health s e rv ic e s ............................... 24,236 5,195 6,805 25,600 5,571 7,144 25,986 5,667 7,267 26,111 5,682 7,313 26,230 5,715 7,359 26,318 5,707 7,396 26,434 5,729 7,442 26,520 5,736 7,488 26,651 5,760 7,528 26,711 5,776 7,570 26,931 5,799 7,616 26,973 5,786 7,648 27,058 5,800 7,695 27,123 5,830 7,734 27,207 5,831 Government .................................... F e d e ra l............................................. S ta te ................................................. L o c a l................................................. 17,010 2,943 3,967 10,100 17,372 2,971 4,063 10,339 17,484 2,986 4,081 10,417 17,525 2,983 4,085 10,457 17,523 2,981 4,085 10,457 17,545 2,978 4,084 10,483 17,587 2,982 4,095 10,510 17,597 2,982 4,102 10,513 17,626 2,982 4,111 10,533 17,687 2,999 4,119 10,569 17,723 2,995 4,136 10,592 17,751 3,000 4,145 10,606 17,804 2,999 4,154 10,651 17,903 3,016 4,214 10,673 17,997 3,004 4,224 10,769 p = preliminary NOTE: See notes on the data for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 78 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 7,767 14. A v e ra g e w e e k ly h o u rs o f p ro d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e rv is o ry w o rk e rs on p riv a te n o n a g ric u ltu ra l p a y ro lls by in d u s try , m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d Annual average 1989 1988 Industry 1987 1988 Oct. Nov. Jan. Dec. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept.p Oct.? PRIVATE SECTOR .............................................. 34.8 34.7 34.8 34.7 34.7 34.8 34.6 34.7 34.9 34.6 34.6 34.8 34.6 34.7 34.8 M ANUFACTURING..................................................... Overtime h o u rs ................................................... 41.0 3.7 41.1 3.9 41.2 4.0 41.2 3.9 41.0 3.9 41.1 3.9 41.1 3.9 41.0 4.0 41.3 3.9 41.0 3.8 41.0 3.8 41.0 3.9 41.0 3.8 41.1 3.8 40.8 3.8 Durable g o o d s .......................................................... Overtime h o u rs ................................................... Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ................................... Furniture and fix tu re s .............................................. Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ............................ Primary metal industries ......................................... Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts .......... Fabricated metal products ..................................... 41.5 3.8 40.6 40.0 42.3 43.1 43.4 41.6 41.8 4.1 40.3 39.4 42.3 43.6 44.0 41.9 41.9 4.2 40.7 39.4 42.5 43.7 44.2 41.9 41.9 4.2 40.3 39.5 42.6 43.7 44.0 42.1 41.7 4.1 40.3 39.4 42.4 43.5 43.8 41.8 41.8 4.1 40.3 39.8 42.5 43.6 44.0 41.9 41.8 4.1 39.6 39.7 42.2 43.4 43.8 41.9 41.7 4.1 40.0 39.8 42.2 43.5 44.1 41.8 41.9 4.1 40.5 39.9 42.5 43.3 43.5 41.9 41.5 3.9 39.7 39.4 41.9 43.2 43.6 41.7 41.5 3.9 39.8 39.4 42.2 43.3 43.7 41.5 41.5 4.0 39.6 39.5 42.3 43.0 43.2 41.5 41.6 3.9 40.2 39.6 42.5 42.9 43.4 41.5 41.6 3.9 40.2 39.6 42.2 42.8 42.9 41.7 41.4 3.8 40.4 39.4 42.3 42.7 43.2 41.7 Machinery except electrical ................................... Electrical and electronic equipm ent..................... Transportation equipm ent....................................... Motor vehicles and equipm ent............................ Instruments and related p ro d u c ts ......................... Miscellaneous manufacturing................................. 42.2 40.9 42.0 42.2 41.4 39.4 42.6 41.0 42.7 43.5 41.5 39.2 42.7 41.0 43.1 43.9 41.8 39.1 42.5 41.0 43.1 44.1 41.6 39.3 42.5 40.8 42.8 43.7 41.1 39.0 42.5 40.9 42.8 43.6 41.5 39.4 42.6 40.9 43.1 43.9 41.5 39.5 42.5 40.6 43.1 43.9 41.1 39.5 42.7 41.0 42.8 43.3 41.5 39.8 42.5 40.7 42.5 42.8 41.1 39.6 42.5 40.7 42.5 42.7 41.3 39.4 42.4 40.6 42.6 42.6 41.4 39.3 42.2 40.9 42.7 43.0 41.1 39.4 42.3 41.1 42.8 43.4 41.0 39.0 42.0 41.0 41.5 43.3 41.1 39.0 Nondurable g o o d s .................................................. Overtime h o u rs ................................................... Food and kindred pro d u c ts.................................... Textile mill p ro d u c ts ................................................ Apparel and other textile products........................ Paper and allied p ro d u c ts ...................................... 40.2 3.6 40.2 41.8 37.0 43.4 40.1 3.7 40.3 41.1 37.0 43.2 40.2 3.7 40.4 41.0 36.9 43.2 40.2 3.6 40.6 41.0 37.0 43.1 40.0 3.6 40.2 40.5 36.8 43.2 40.1 3.6 40.1 40.9 37.0 43.1 40.2 3.7 40.3 40.8 37.1 43.2 40.1 3.8 40.4 41.1 36.9 43.3 40.4 3.8 40.7 41.7 37.6 43.4 40.2 3.7 40.5 41.4 37.1 43.3 40.3 3.6 40.7 41.4 37.1 43.3 40.2 3.8 41.0 41.2 37.0 43.2 40.2 3.6 40.8 41.0 37.0 43.5 40.3 3.7 41.1 40.7 37.0 43.2 40.1 3.7 40.8 40.6 36.9 43.3 Printing and publishing............................................ Chemicals and allied products............................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics p ro d u c ts ..... Leather and leather products ................................ 38.0 42.3 41.6 38.2 38.0 42.3 41.7 37.5 38.0 42.5 41.6 37.8 37.9 42.3 41.7 37.3 37.8 42.3 41.4 37.7 38.0 42.3 41.7 38.0 38.0 42.3 41.7 38.6 37.9 42.3 41.6 38.0 37.9 42.6 41.6 38.3 37.7 42.1 41.5 37.4 37.8 42.5 41.5 37.9 37.6 42.5 41.4 37.7 37.7 42.4 41.5 38.1 37.9 42.5 41.6 38.2 37.6 42.2 41.5 37.7 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC U T IL IT IE S .... 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.3 39.4 39.6 39.4 39.4 40.1 39.5 39.4 39.4 39.0 39.4 39.7 WHOLESALE T R A D E ............................................... 37.5 37.4 38.1 38.0 38.1 38.1 38.1 38.1 38.3 37.9 38.0 38.1 38.0 38.1 38.2 28.9 29.1 28.9 28.9 29.2 28.8 28.8 29.0 32.6 32.8 32.5 32.5 32.8 32.6 32.7 32.8 RETAIL TRADE .......................................................... 29.2 29.1 29.2 29.0 29.1 29.1 28.9 SERVICES ................................................................... 32.5 32.6 32.7 32.5 32.7 32.7 32.5 _ preliminary NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent p https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis benchmark adjustment. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 79 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tistic s: E m p lo y m en t D a ta 15. A v e ra g e h o u rly e a rn in g s o f p ro d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e rv is o ry w o rk e rs on p riv a te n o n a g ric u ltu ra l p a y ro lls by in d u s try , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d Annual average 1988 1989 Industry 1987 1988 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. $8.98 $9.29 $9.43 $9.42 $9.45 $9.49 $9.52 $9.54 $9.61 $9.60 $9.62 $9.69 $9.69 $9.74 $9.81 C o nstruction............................................................... 12.71 Manufacturing ............................................................ 9.91 Excluding overtime ................................................ 9.48 Transportation and public utilities .......................... 12.03 Wholesale tra d e ......................................................... 9.60 Retail tra d e ................................................................. 6.12 Finance, insurance, and real estate ...................... 8.73 S e rv ic e s ...................................................................... 8.49 13.01 10.18 9.72 12.32 9.94 6.31 9.09 8.91 13.08 10.29 9.80 12.41 10.14 6.38 9.35 9.07 13.10 10.30 9.83 12.39 10.06 6.40 9.26 9.05 13.15 10.31 9.85 12.36 10.11 6.43 9.35 9.10 13.18 10.33 9.87 12.45 10.19 6.44 9.40 9.15 13.22 10.37 9.89 12.48 10.18 6.45 9.35 9.19 13.26 10.40 9.92 12.50 10.21 6.47 9.36 9.24 13.33 10.40 9.92 12.52 10.36 6.51 9.54 9.32 13.32 10.42 9.97 12.54 10.28 6.49 9.45 9.33 13.32 10.45 9.99 12.54 10.33 6.52 9.53 9.34 13.42 10.48 10.01 12.61 10.44 6.54 9.68 9.46 13.37 10.52 10.05 12.57 10.39 6.57 9.57 9.43 13.38 10.55 10.08 12.66 10.46 6.58 9.66 9.49 13.43 10.57 10.10 12.76 10.56 6.62 9.83 9.59 4.84 4.84 4.82 4.82 4.81 4.81 4.80 4.80 4.77 4.77 4.79 4.79 4.81 PRIVATE SECTOR (in current dollars)1 ............. PRIVATE SECTOR (in constant (1977) dollars)1 4.86 1 Includes mining, not shown separately - Data not available. p = preliminary S e p t.p Oct.p - NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 16. A v e ra g e h o u rly e a rn in g s o f p ro d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e rv is o ry w o rk e rs on p riv a te n o n a g ric u ltu ra l p a y ro lls by in d u s try Annual average 1988 1989 Industry 1987 1988 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. PRIVATE SE C TO R .................................................... $8.98 $9.29 $9.45 $9.46 $9.46 $9.54 $9.55 $9.56 $9.62 $9.59 $9.58 $9.63 $9.61 $9.77 $9.83 M IN IN G ......................................................................... 12.54 12.75 12.79 12.89 13.03 13.20 13.22 13.15 13.19 13.13 13.03 12.95 13.11 13.17 13.14 CO NSTRUCTIO N........................................................ 12.71 13.01 13.17 13.08 13.19 13.26 13.21 13.26 13.30 13.28 13.24 13.33 13.33 13.47 13.51 MANUFACTURING.................................................... 9.91 10.18 10.25 10.31 10.37 10.37 10.38 10.41 10.41 10.42 10.44 10.47 10.44 10.55 10.54 Durable goods ........................................................... Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ................................... Furniture and fix tu re s .............................................. Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts............................ Primary metal industries ......................................... Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts .......... Fabricated metal products ..................................... 10.44 8.40 7.67 10.25 11.94 13.77 10.00 10.71 8.61 7.94 10.47 12.15 13.97 10.26 10.79 8.77 8.06 10.57 12.19 14.03 10.34 10.85 8.69 8.02 10.60 12.22 14.01 10.36 10.90 8.76 8.06 10.57 12.26 14.07 10.44 10.90 8.71 8.10 10.59 12.27 14.04 10.45 10.91 8.69 8.08 10.62 12.27 14.13 10.46 10.93 8.68 8.13 10.62 12.27 14.13 10.47 10.93 8.76 8.12 10.71 12.26 14.06 10.48 10.94 8.79 8.16 10.69 12.25 14.06 10.49 10.98 8.85 8.23 10.73 12.32 14.18 10.51 10.99 8.92 8.26 10.75 12.40 14.33 10.53 10.98 8.93 8.29 10.77 12.36 14.27 10.50 11.10 8.97 8.40 10.79 12.45 14.36 10.64 11.08 9.00 8.39 10.84 12.50 14.50 10.59 Machinery, except electrical .................................. 10.72 Electrical and electronic equipm ent...................... 9.88 Transportation equipm ent....................................... 12.94 Motor vehicles and equipm ent............................ 13.53 Instruments and related products ......................... 9.72 Miscellaneous m anufacturing................................. 7.76 11.01 10.13 13.31 14.00 9.98 8.01 11.11 10.16 13.45 14.09 10.08 8.10 11.22 10.24 13.56 14.18 10.07 8.12 11.24 10.29 13.59 14.23 10.13 8.20 11.21 10.27 13.58 14.20 10.12 8.22 11.23 10.26 13.59 14.19 10.14 8.23 11.25 10.30 13.65 14.28 10.17 8.23 11.26 10.31 13.60 14.20 10.17 8.21 11.29 10.33 13.58 14.17 10.17 8.24 11.32 10.37 13.65 14.22 10.25 8.24 11.35 10.41 13.61 14.07 10.31 8.29 11.32 10.40 13.70 14.18 10.29 8.20 11.41 10.48 13.89 14.48 10.31 8.39 11.44 10.47 13.86 14.48 10.35 8.42 Nondurable goods ................................................... 9.18 Food and kindred pro d u c ts.................................... 8.93 Tobacco m anufactures........................................... 14.07 Textile mill p ro d u c ts ................................................ 7.17 Apparel and other textile products........................ 5.94 Paper and allied products ...................................... 11.43 9.43 9.10 14.68 7.37 6.12 11.65 9.49 9.03 14.01 7.45 6.22 11.68 9.54 9.15 14.56 7.47 6.25 11.74 9.61 9.25 14.31 7.52 6.29 11.81 9.62 9.27 14.39 7.60 6.32 11.78 9.62 9.26 14.75 7.59 6.32 11.80 9.66 9.33 15.34 7.59 6.34 11.84 9.65 9.32 15.87 7.60 6.32 11.83 9.68 9.34 16.13 7.62 6.32 11.89 9.70 9.37 16.48 7.65 6.33 11.91 9.77 9.35 16.34 7.66 6.28 12.04 9.71 9.28 15.72 7.69 6.32 11.90 9.80 9.31 14.76 7.76 6.41 11.99 9.80 9.28 15.33 7.77 6.40 11.93 10.28 12.37 14.58 8.92 6.08 10.52 12.67 14.98 9.14 6.27 10.68 12.78 15.14 9.23 6.33 10.67 12.86 15.18 9.26 6.41 10.70 12.90 15.21 9.31 6.44 10.73 12.85 15.24 9.32 6.48 10.74 12.88 15.45 9.31 6.49 10.79 12.91 15.46 9.33 6.54 10.73 12.92 15.50 9.35 6.55 10.76 12.98 15.34 9.40 6.58 10.75 12.98 15.23 9.41 6.59 10.83 13.12 15.34 9.45 6.54 10.89 13.08 15.23 9.44 6.53 11.05 13.18 15.50 9.48 6.60 11.06 13.21 15.69 9.47 6.62 12.03 12.32 12.42 12.46 12.42 12.47 12.50 12.46 12.51 12.49 12.48 12.58 12.56 12.69 12.77 WHOLESALE T R A D E ............................................... 9.60 9.94 10.10 10.07 10.14 10.23 10.23 10.21 10.36 10.28 10.31 10.40 10.35 10.46 10.52 RETAIL TRADE .......................................................... 6.12 6.31 6.39 6.43 6.43 6.48 6.47 6.48 6.52 6.49 6.49 6.49 6.50 6.61 6.63 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE 8.73 9.09 9.29 9.27 9.32 9.46 9.47 9.43 9.59 9.48 9.48 9.59 9.50 9.62 9.77 SERVICES ................................................................... 8.49 8.91 9.09 9.11 9.16 9.25 9.28 9.29 9.34 9.30 9.26 9.33 9.29 9.49 9.60 Printing and publishing............................................ Chemicals and allied products............................... Petroleum and coal products................................. Rubber and miscellaneous plastics p ro d u c ts ..... Leather and leather products ................................ TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES p = preliminary NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent 80 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 benchmark revision. Sept.13 Oct.P 17. A v e ra g e w e e k ly e a rn in g s o f p ro d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e rv is o ry w o rk e rs on p riv a te n o n a g ric u ltu ra l p a y ro lls b y in d u s try 1989 1988 Annual average Industry 1987 PRIVATE SECTOR Seasonally adjusted........................................... Constant (1977) dollars ....................................... M IN IN G ......................................................................... 1988 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept.p Oct.P $312.50 $322.36 $329.81 $328.26 $330.15 $329.13 $327.57 $328.86 $334.78 $330.86 $333.38 $338.01 $335.39 $340.00 $343.07 328.16 326.87 327.92 330.25 329.39 331.04 335.39 332.16 332.85 337.21 335.27 337.98 341.39 ” 169.28 167.81 168.96 167.99 168.70 167.41 165.94 165.76 167.39 164.53 165.37 167.08 165.79 167.49 _ _ 531.70 539.33 544.85 540.09 557.68 557.04 551.27 552.30 564.53 551.46 555.08 550.38 566.35 578.16 586.04 495.92 504.07 500.66 503.12 518.54 519.87 519.94 529.59 480.44 493.08 514.95 494.42 491.99 483.99 478.20 406.31 220.10 418.40 217.80 423.33 216.87 427.87 218.97 432.43 220.97 425.17 216.26 423.50 214.54 426.81 215.13 426.81 213.41 426.18 211.92 429.08 212.84 424.04 209.61 425.95 210.55 434.66 214.12 432.14 " Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ............................ Primary metal in d u strie s......................................... Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts .......... Fabricated metal products ..................................... 433.26 341.04 306.80 433.58 514.61 597.62 416.00 447.68 346.98 312.84 442.88 529.74 614.68 429.89 453.18 359.57 323.21 454.51 531.48 615.92 434.28 457.87 347.60 320.00 452.62 536.46 616.44 441.34 463.25 353.90 326.43 446.05 540.67 621.89 445.79 455.62 345.79 319.14 439.49 536.20 617.76 438.90 452.77 338.91 315.93 436.48 532.52 617.48 435.14 455.78 345.46 321.95 444.98 533.75 621.72 436.60 455.78 354.78 319.12 456.25 529.63 613.02 437.02 454.01 352.48 318.24 453.26 527.98 613.02 435.34 457.87 357.54 324.26 457.10 533.46 622.50 438.27 449.49 352.34 320.49 456.88 528.24 619.06 428.57 453.47 360.77 329.94 460.96 525.30 613.61 432.60 462.87 362.39 336.84 459.65 534.11 618.92 444.75 459.82 365.40 336.44 463.95 532.50 622.05 442.66 Machinery, except electrical .................................. Electrical and electronic equ ipm ent...................... Transportation equipm ent....................................... Motor vehicles and equipm ent............................ Instruments and related products ......................... Miscellaneous m anufacturing................................. 452.38 404.09 543.48 570.97 402.41 305.74 469.03 415.33 568.34 609.00 414.17 313.99 473.29 416.56 579.70 619.96 420.34 320.76 480.22 423.94 591.22 632.43 422.94 323.18 488.94 430.12 591.17 633.24 425.46 325.54 477.55 422.10 582.58 619.12 420.99 323.05 477.28 416.56 584.37 621.52 420.81 322.62 479.25 417.15 591.05 631.18 419.00 324.26 478.55 419.62 584.80 620.54 420.02 325.12 477.57 417.33 579.87 613.56 414.94 324.66 482.23 423.10 581.49 611.46 423.33 324.66 475.57 416.40 566.18 582.50 420.65 319.99 472.04 423.28 572.66 589.89 419.83 321.44 482.64 430.73 594.49 628.43 422.71 328.05 480.48 430.32 576.58 628.43 425.39 331.75 Nondurable goods ................................................... Food and kindred p ro d u cts.................................... 369.04 358.99 548.73 299.71 219.78 496.06 378.14 366.73 584.26 302.91 226.44 503.28 382.45 367.52 578.61 306.94 230.76 505.74 386.37 374.24 586.77 309.26 233.13 509.52 389.21 377.40 570.97 308.32 233.99 519.64 383.84 369.87 546.82 309.32 232.58 508.90 382.88 366.70 557.55 307.40 233.21 506.22 385.43 372.27 556.84 311.19 233.95 509.12 386.97 372.80 604.65 313.12 234.47 509.87 387.20 377.34 637.14 313.94 233.84 512.46 390.91 381.36 660.85 318.24 236.74 514.51 390.80 382.42 619.29 311.00 230.48 516.52 391.31 382.34 586.36 317.60 234.47 514.08 397.88 387.30 591.88 318.94 237.17 523.96 394.94 381.41 627.00 317.02 237.44 517.76 390.64 523.25 641.52 399.76 535.94 665.11 406.91 540.59 676.76 406.53 547.84 670.96 410.88 553.41 673.80 404.52 544.84 662.94 404.90 544.82 679.80 408.94 546.09 667.87 405.59 549.10 686.65 402.42 546.46 673.43 402.05 551.65 679.26 405.04 553.66 679.56 411.64 550.67 665.55 423.22 560.15 689.75 416.96 556.14 693.50 371.07 232.26 381.14 235.13 384.89 239.91 388.92 239.73 391.95 246.65 390.51 244.94 387.30 245.32 387.20 244.60 388.03 247.59 390.10 247.41 391.46 255.03 385.56 247.21 388.93 250.75 394.37 252.12 393.95 250.90 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC U T IL IT IE S ................................................................... 471.58 484.18 490.59 489.68 490.59 490.07 488.75 488.43 497.90 490.86 494.21 500.68 494.86 501.26 508.25 WHOLESALE T R A D E ............................................... 365.76 378.71 385.82 382.66 387.35 387.72 386.69 386.96 395.75 389.61 392.81 398.32 394.34 398.53 403.97 189.51 194.05 192.40 191.03 191.61 CO NSTRUCTIO N........................................................ MANUFACTURING Constant (1977) d o lla rs ......................................... Durable goods ........................................................... Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ................................... Textile mill p ro d u c ts ................................................ Apparel and other textile products........................ Paper and allied p ro d u c ts ...................................... Printing and publishing............................................ Chemicals and allied products............................... Petroleum and coal p roducts................................. Rubber and miscellaneous plastics p ro d u cts.................................................... Leather and leather p ro d u c ts ................................ RETAIL TRADE .......................................................... 178.70 183.62 185.95 185.18 190.33 184.03 183.10 184.68 188.43 186.91 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE ...................................................................... 316.90 326.33 334.44 330.94 333.66 341.51 339.03 337.59 348.12 337.49 339.38 348.12 340.10 343.43 353.67 SERVICES ................................................................... 275.93 290.47 297.24 296.08 298.62 301.55 300.67 301.00 306.35 301.32 302.80 308.82 305.64 309.37 314.88 p Data not available. = 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. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 81 C u rren t L a b o r S ta tis tic s: 18. E m p lo y m en t D a ta D iffu s io n in d e x e s o f e m p lo y m e n t c h a n g e , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d (In percent) Jan. Time span and year Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Private nonagricultural payrolls, 349 industries Over 1-month span: 1987 ................................................ 1988 ............................................ 1989 ......................................... 55.6 60.7 68.3 59.3 63.5 60.5 61.0 63.0 61.0 61.9 62.8 58.2 58.6 61.3 55.6 59.7 67.2 59.7 65.3 63.6 55.6 60.6 58.0 57.4 63.0 55.4 47.4 67.8 63.9 58.2 64.5 68.2 60.7 64.6 Over 3-month span: 1987 ........................................................ 1988 ......................................................... 1989 .................................................. 60.7 64.8 71.6 62.0 65.6 70.1 66.6 69.5 64.5 65.2 70.2 61.9 65.8 71.1 61.6 65.9 71.9 60.7 67.8 71.2 61.6 71.1 64.2 53.0 71.2 65.3 55.0 72.3 70.1 70.9 73.4 65.9 74.6 Over 6-month span: 1987 .......................................... 1988 ..................................................... 1989 ................................................ 67.3 69.9 75.1 65.8 70.2 69.5 64.8 71.5 68.2 66.8 73.9 66.0 67.6 73.9 63.0 69.5 69.1 58.5 71.3 70.2 60.9 73.5 74.6 - 73.2 73.5 - 71.5 73.9 71.8 74.5 72.2 75.8 Over 12-month span: 1987 .......................................... 1988 ................................................ 1989 ................................................... 66.6 76.2 73.2 68.2 76.1 73.6 68.2 74.8 69.3 71.8 74.6 67.9 71.9 75.8 72.5 74.9 72.2 78.1 74.1 75.5 - 75.4 75.5 - 72.5 74.8 - 73.8 74.9 76.9 74.1 “ - - Manufacturing payrolls, 141 industries Over 1-month span: 1987 ....................... 1988 ....................... 1989 ....................... 44.3 58.5 62.4 53.9 56.0 53.5 54.3 55.0 53.2 55.7 59.9 49.6 55.3 58.5 46.8 54.3 61.7 48.6 62.8 59.6 49.6 59.9 51.1 45.4 63.8 49.3 33.3 59.9 62.8 55.3 65.6 64.9 56.4 58.5 Over 3-month span: 1987 ........................ 1988 ........................ 1989 ........................ 52.1 63.1 67.4 51.4 61.0 63.8 59.6 62.4 55.7 61.3 64.9 51.8 58.5 67.4 49.3 62.8 67.0 48.6 67.0 64.5 47.9 71.6 58.2 32.6 68.4 62.1 42.2 70.6 66.7 67.7 71.3 64.5 70.9 Over 6-month span: 1987 ........................ 1988 ........................ 1989 ........................ 57.4 66.3 69.5 56.7 66.3 58.5 55.3 67.7 55.7 62.4 69.5 52.8 64.9 66.7 48.9 67.0 64.2 39.7 67.4 66.0 43.3 70.6 70.9 71.3 68.8 69.5 69.9 69.5 71.6 68.1 74.1 “ Over 12-month span 1987 ........................ 1988 ........................ 1989 ........ ............... 55.3 73.8 63.1 58.5 70.2 63.8 58.5 70.9 56.0 63.5 71.6 54.3 66.3 72.0 - 67.4 69.9 - 71.6 70.9 - 71.6 71.6 69.1 70.2 68.4 69.9 72.3 67.0 - Data not available. NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing 82 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 72.7 69.1 - employment. Data for the 2 most recent months shown in each span are preliminary. See the “ Definitions” in this section. See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 19. A n nu al d ata: E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s o f th e n o n in s titu tio n a l p o p u la tio n (Numbers in thousands) Employment status 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Noninstitutional pop ulation........................................ 169,349 171,775 173,939 175,891 178,080 179,912 182,293 184,490 186,322 Labor force: Total (num ber)........................................................ Percent of pop ulation........................................... 108,544 64.1 110,315 64.2 111,872 64.3 113,226 64.4 115,241 64.7 117,167 65.1 119,540 65.6 121,602 65.9 123,378 66.2 Employed: Total (number) .................................................. Percent of population ..................................... Resident Armed F o rce s............................... Civilian 100,907 59.6 1,604 102,042 59.4 1,645 101,194 58.2 1,668 102,510 58.3 1,676 106,702 59.9 1,697 108,856 60.5 1,706 111,303 61.1 1,706 114,177 61.9 1,737 116,677 62.6 1,709 Nonagricultural industries....................... 99,303 3,364 95,938 100,397 3,368 97,030 99,526 3,401 96,125 100,834 3,383 97,450 105,005 3,321 101,685 107,150 3,179 103,971 109,597 3,163 106,434 112,440 3,208 109,232 114,968 3,169 111,800 Unemployed: Total (num ber)................................................ Percent of labor fo r c e ................................... 7,637 7.0 8,273 7.5 10,678 9.5 10,717 9.5 8,539 7.4 8,312 7.1 8,237 6.9 7,425 6.1 6,701 5.4 Not in labor force (number) ................................... 60,806 61,460 62,067 62,665 62,839 62,744 62,752 62,888 62,944 20. A n n u al d ata: E m p lo y m e n t le v els b y in d u s try (Numbers in thousands) Industry 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Total em plo ym en t........................................................................... Private se c to r................................................................................ G oods-producing....................................................................... M in in g .................................................................................... Construction ......................................................................... M anufacturing....................................................................... 90,406 74,166 25,658 1,027 4,346 20,285 91,156 75,126 25,497 1,139 4,188 20,170 89,566 73,729 23,813 1,128 3,905 18,781 90,200 74,330 23,334 952 3,948 18,434 94,496 78,472 24,727 966 4,383 19,378 97,519 81,125 24,859 927 4,673 19,260 99,525 82,832 24,558 777 4,816 18,965 102,200 85,190 24,708 717 4,967 19,024 105,584 88,212 25,249 721 5,125 19,403 Service-producing...................................................................... Transportation and public u tilitie s ...................................... Wholesale tr a d e .................................................................... Retail trade ............................................................................ Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te .................................. S e rvices.................................................................................. 64,748 5,146 5,275 15,035 5,160 17,890 65,659 5,165 5,358 15,189 5,298 18,619 65,753 5,082 5,278 15,179 5,341 19,036 66,866 4,954 5,268 15,613 5,468 19,694 69,769 5,159 5,555 16,545 5,689 20,797 72,660 5,238 5,717 17,356 5,955 22,000 74,967 5,255 5,753 17,930 6,283 23,053 77,492 5,372 5,844 18,483 6,547 24,236 80,335 5,548 6,029 19,110 6,676 25,600 G overnm ent.......................................................................... F ed era l............................................................................. State .................................................................................. Local ................................................................................ 16,241 2,866 3,610 9,765 16,031 2,772 3,640 9,619 15,837 2,739 3,640 9,458 15,869 2,774 3,662 9,434 16,024 2,807 3,734 9,482 16,394 2,875 3,832 9,687 16,693 2,899 3,893 9,901 17,010 2,943 3,967 10,100 17,372 2,971 4,063 10,339 NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis recent benchmark revision. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 83 Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data 21. A n n u al d ata: A v e ra g e h o u rs a n d e a rn in g s o f p ro d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e rv is o ry w o rk e rs on n o n a g ric u ltu ra l p ay ro lls , by in d u s try Industry 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Private sector: Average weekly h o u rs ................................................................. Average hourly earnings (in d o lla rs )......................................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars) ....................................... 35.3 6.66 235.10 35.2 7.25 255.20 34.8 7.68 267.26 35.0 8.02 280.70 35.2 8.32 292.86 34.9 8.57 299.09 34.8 8.76 304.85 34.8 8.98 312.50 34.7 9.29 322.36 Mining: Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................... Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs ).................................. 43.3 9.17 397.06 43.7 10.04 438.75 42.7 10.77 459.88 42.5 11.28 479.40 43.3 11.63 503.58 43.4 11.98 519.93 42.2 12.46 525.81 42.4 12.54 531.70 42.3 12.75 539.33 Construction: Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................... Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs ).................................. 37.0 9.94 367.78 36.9 10.82 399.26 36.7 11.63 426.82 37.1 11.94 442.97 37.8 12.13 458.51 37.7 12.32 464.46 37.4 12.48 466.75 37.8 12.71 480.44 37.9 13.01 493.08 Manufacturing: Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................... Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs ).................................. 39.7 7.27 288.62 39.8 7.99 318.00 38.9 8.49 330.26 40.1 8.83 354.08 40.7 9.19 374.03 40.5 9.54 386.37 40.7 9.73 396.01 41.0 9.91 406.31 41.1 10.18 418.40 Transportation and public utilities: Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................... Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs ).................................. 39.6 8.87 351.25 39.4 9.70 382.18 39.0 10.32 402.48 39.0 10.79 420.81 39.4 11.12 438.13 39.5 11.40 450.30 39.2 11.70 458.64 39.2 12.03 471.58 39.3 12.32 484.18 Wholesale trade: 84 A verage w e ekly h ours .................................................................. 38.5 38.5 38.3 38.5 38.5 38.4 38.3 38.1 38.1 Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................... Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs ).................................. 6.96 267.96 7.56 291.06 8.09 309.85 8.55 329.18 8.89 342.27 9.16 351.74 9.35 358.11 9.60 365.76 9.94 378.71 Retail trade: Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................... Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs ).................................. 30.2 4.88 147.38 30.1 5.25 158.03 29.9 5.48 163.85 29.8 5.74 171.05 29.8 5.85 174.33 29.4 5.94 174.64 29.2 6.03 176.08 29.2 6.12 178.70 29.1 6.31 183.62 Finance, insurance, and real estate: Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................... Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs ).................................. 36.2 5.79 209.60 36.3 6.31 229.05 36.2 6.78 245.44 36.2 7.29 263.90 36.5 7.63 278.50 36.4 7.94 289.02 36.4 8.36 304.30 36.3 8.73 316.90 35.9 9.09 326.33 Services: Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings (in d o lla rs )................................... Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs ).................................. 32.6 5.85 190.71 32.6 6.41 208.97 32.6 6.92 225.59 32.7 7.31 239.04 32.6 7.59 247.43 32.5 7.90 256.75 32.5 8.18 265.85 32.5 8.49 275.93 32.6 8.91 290.47 Monthly Labor Review December 1989 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 22. E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x , c o m p e n s a tio n ,1 b y o c c u p a tio n a n d in d u s try g ro u p (June 1981=100) 1989 1988 1987 Percent change Series Sept. 3 months ended 12 months ended Dec. Mar. June 144.0 145.5 147.3 148.9 151.3 1.6 5.1 145.7 136.2 144.3 147.9 137.2 147.2 149.7 138.2 148.5 151.9 139.6 150.0 153.4 141.3 151.2 156.4 142.9 153.7 2.0 1.1 1.7 5.7 4.2 4.4 135.8 136.8 143.6 152.8 150.3 142.3 137.3 138.1 145.1 153.8 151.2 143.9 138.2 139.0 147.6 157.7 154.0 146.1 139.3 140.1 149.2 159.7 154.4 147.7 140.7 141.9 151.4 161.8 156.7 149.7 142.3 143.5 152.9 163.1 157.9 151.2 143.9 145.1 155.9 167.5 161.8 154.0 1.1 1.1 2.0 2.7 2.2 2.3 2.5 1.9 4.1 4.4 5.6 6.2 6.7 7.0 5.1 5.4 136.0 136.6 138.1 138.7 139.8 140.2 141.2 141.7 142.6 142.9 144.4 144.7 146.1 146.2 147.9 147.9 1.2 1.2 4.7 4.4 138.5 140.0 - 139.3 141.1 - 141.2 143.0 - 143.0 144.6 - 144.6 146.4 - 146.3 147.6 - 148.6 149.9 - 150.3 151.4 - 152.4 153.3 - 1.4 1.3 1.8 .9 1.9 5.4 4.7 5.0 4.5 8.4 - - - - - - - “ - 1.2 4.7 Blue-collar w o rke rs ................................................................. Precision production, craft, and repair o ccup ations....... Machine operators, assemblers, and Inspectors............ Transportation and material moving occupations........... Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers .... Service occup ations............................................................... 130.6 135.9 131.8 136.7 134.1 138.6 135.6 140.1 136.5 142.2 137.6 143.9 138.9 145.4 140.6 146.5 142.2 148.1 1.1 1.2 .9 1.2 1.3 1.1 4.2 4.0 4.5 3.3 4.4 4.1 Workers, by industry division: G oods-producing...................................................................... Excluding sales occup ations............................................. Construction ............................................................................ M anufacturing.......................................................................... Durables ................................................................................. Nondurables........................................................................... 131.9 131.6 132.7 - 133.2 132.9 134.1 - 135.6 135.2 136.8 - 137.1 136.8 138.1 - 137.9 137.6 139.0 - 139.0 138.7 140.1 - - - - - - - 140.4 140.2 141.9 - 142.0 141.7 143.5 - 143.6 143.3 145.1 “ 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.4 4.1 4.9 Service-producing .................................................................... Excluding sales o ccup ations............................................. Transportation and public utilities........................................ Transportation........................................................................ Public u tilitie s ......................................................................... C om m unications................................................................. Electric, gas, and sanitary services ................................ Wholesale and retail tra d e ................................................... Excluding sales occupations .......................................... Wholesale tra d e ................................................................... Excluding sales occupations........................................ Retail tra d e ........................................................................... Food s to re s ...................................................................... Finance, Insurance, and real e s ta te .................................... Excluding sales occu p a tio n s.......................................... Banking, savings and loan, and other credit age n cie s .................................................................. Insurance .............................................................................. S e rv ic e ..................................................................................... Business s e rv ic e s ................................................................ Health se rvices...................................................................... H o s p ita ls ............................................................................... 137.7 139.1 - 138.4 140.0 - 142.1 143.5 - 143.8 145.4 - 145.5 146.7 “ - 147.7 148.8 - 149.5 150.4 - 151.5 152.2 “ - 1.3 1.2 .7 .5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.3 2.6 1.8 1.1 .8 .4 .1 5.4 4.7 3.3 3.0 3.8 4.9 4.1 7.3 4.8 3.9 8.0 4.8 - “ - - " - “ - 3.7 5.6 4.7 6.6 7.1 Dec. Mar. June Civilian workers 2 .......................................................................... 137.5 138.6 140.6 142.1 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers ................................................................. Blue-collar w o rkers.................................................................... Service occupations.................................................................. 141.2 131.3 139.9 142.2 132.5 140.8 144.2 134.7 142.9 Workers, by Industry division: G oods-producing......................................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................................ Service-producing....................................................................... Services..................................................................................... Health se rvice s...................................................................... H ospitals................................................................................. Public administration 3 ............................................................. Nonmanufacturing....................................................................... 132.2 132.7 140.8 149.2 146.4 139.6 133.5 134.1 141.7 150.6 148.1 140.5 Private industry w o rk e rs .......................................................... Excluding sales occup ations................................................ 135.1 135.5 Sept. Sept. Sept. 1989 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar w o rkers............................................................... Excluding sales occupations............................................ Professional specialty and technical occu p a tio n s.......... Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations Sales occupations................................................................. Administrative support occupations, including cle ric a l.................................................................................. - - - - - - 140.2 141.9 - - - - - - - - - - - “ .6 -.1 1.8 .7 1.9 1.9 Nonmanufacturing .................................................................. 136.4 137.1 138.9 140.8 142.4 143.9 145.9 147.6 149.5 1.3 5.0 State and local government workers .................................. 149.7 151.1 153.1 153.6 157.8 159.6 161.5 162.5 167.9 3.3 6.4 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar w o rke rs............................................................... Blue-collar w o rke rs ................................................................. 151.2 143.3 152.7 144.3 154.8 145.9 155.2 145.9 159.6 148.4 161.8 149.1 163.7 151.9 164.6 153.0 170.5 156.2 3.6 2.1 6.8 5.3 - See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 85 C u rren t L a b o r S ta tistic s: C o m p en sa tio n & In d u stria l R e la tio n s 22. C o n tin u e d — E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x , c o m p e n s a tio n ,1 b y o c c u p a tio n an d in d u s try g ro u p (June 1981=100) 1987 1988 1989 Percent change Series Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. 3 months ended 12 months ended Sept. 1989 Workers, by industry division: S e rvice s........................................................................ Hospitals and other services4 ........................................... Health s e rv ic e s ........................................................ Schools ............................................................... Elementary and secondary............................................. Public administration3 ............................................. 151.8 145.1 153.1 146.3 155.2 150.3 155.6 150.4 160.5 153.2 - - _ _ _ 154.1 156.5 146.4 155.5 157.8 148.1 156.8 158.9 150.3 157.3 159.4 151.2 163.1 165.4 154.0 Cost (cents per hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index consists of wages, salaries, and employer cost of employee benefits. 2 Consist of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. 23. 163.0 155.2 164.6 157.2 165.5 158.7 171.8 162.6 167.8 169.9 157.9 175.1 177.7 161.8 3.8 2.5 31 4.4 4.6 2.5 7.0 6.1 68 7.4 7.4 5.1 3 Consist of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory 4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services. - Data not available, activities _ 165.7 168.3 154.4 _ 167.2 169.3 156.7 E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x , w a g e s an d salarie s , by o c c u p a tio n and in d u s try g ro u p (June 1981=100) 1987 1988 1989 Percent change Series Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. 3 months ended 12 months ended Sept 1989 Civilian workers 1 .................................................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers ...................................................... Blue-collar w o rkers..................................................... Service occupations.................................................................. 135.2 136.1 137.4 138.7 140.5 141.9 143.4 144.6 146.9 1.6 4.6 139.4 128.3 136.0 140.2 129.4 136.6 141.5 130.4 138.0 143.0 131.6 139.3 145.2 132.5 141.8 146.8 133.4 142.9 148.6 134.6 143.9 149.8 136.0 144.8 152.6 137.4 146.8 1.9 1.0 1.4 5.1 3.7 3.5 129.8 130.8 138.5 146.8 131.0 132.2 139.2 148.2 132.2 133.3 140.5 149.5 133.4 134.4 141.9 150.4 134.1 135.1 144.2 154.0 _ 135.1 136.2 145.8 155.7 _ 136.3 137.4 147.5 157.4 137.7 138.8 148.7 158.4 139.0 140.0 151.4 162.4 3.7 3.6 5.0 5.5 6.1 6 F> 4.1 4.8 Workers, by industry division: G oods-producing......................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................ Service-producing....................................................................... Services ........................................................... Health se rvice s...................................................................... H ospitals........................................................ Public administration 2 ........................................................... Nonmanufacturing .......................................... 142.6 137.1 143.8 137.8 145.5 139.0 146.4 140.5 148.9 142.7 149.4 144.1 150.9 145.8 151.8 147.0 155.0 149.6 .9 .9 1.8 2.5 2.0 22 2.1 1.8 Private industry w o rk e rs .................................. Excluding sales o ccup ations.......................................... 133.0 133.6 133.8 134.7 135.1 135.9 136.6 137.2 137.9 138.6 139.3 139.7 140.8 141.2 142.2 142.5 143.9 144.0 1.2 1.1 4.4 3.9 137.0 139.1 141.2 137.6 140.1 142.6 139.0 141.5 144.0 140.8 142.9 145.8 142.4 144.7 148.1 144.0 146.0 148.9 145.9 147.8 151.0 147.3 149.0 152.1 149.3 150.8 154.6 1.4 1.2 1.6 4.8 42 4.4 138.6 127.0 139.2 126.1 139.9 127.5 141.3 130.8 142.5 131.5 144.4 134.4 146.2 136.7 147.3 138.7 148.5 141.6 .8 2.1 4.2 137.1 138.1 140.2 141.2 143.2 144.1 146.0 147.4 149.0 1.1 4.1 127.7 128.9 129.9 131.1 131.9 132.9 134.0 135.4 136.7 1.0 3.6 130.2 127.5 122.3 131.1 129.2 122.9 132.1 129.9 123.7 133.4 131.2 125.4 134.0 131.9 126.7 134.9 133.3 126.9 136.1 134.5 127.8 137.8 135.9 128.7 139.2 136.7 130.2 1.0 .6 1.2 3.9 3.6 2.8 123.7 132.6 125.0 133.2 126.7 134.5 127.5 135.8 128.4 137.6 129.3 139.1 130.4 140.0 131.6 140.9 133.0 142.1 1.1 .9 3.6 3.3 129.6 129.5 123.8 130.8 130.8 124.7 132.0 131.8 125.9 133.2 133.2 127.6 133.9 133.8 128.6 134.9 134.9 129.4 136.1 136.1 130.4 137.4 137.4 131.6 138.8 138.8 133.01 1.0 1.0 1.1 37 3.7 3.4 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar w o rke rs........................................ Excluding sales occupations........................................ Professional specialty and technical occup ations...... Executive, administrative, and managerial occu p a tio n s............................................... Sales occupations..................................................... Administrative support occupations, including c le ric a l.................................................. Blue-collar w o rk e rs ...................................... Precision production, craft, and repair occupations............................................... Machine operators, assemblers, and Inspectors........ Transportation and material moving occupations....... Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and la b o re rs................................................. Service occupations ..................................... Workers, by industry division: G oods-producing.............................................. Excluding sales occup ations........................... Construction ........................................ See footnotes at end of table. 86 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ in 23. C o n tin u e d — E m p lo y m e n t C o st In d e x , w a g e s and s a la rie s , b y o c c u p a tio n and in d u s try g ro u p (June 1981=100) 1987 1989 1988 Percent change 3 months ended Series Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. 12 months ended Sept. 1989 M anufacturing....................................................................... D u rab les............................................................................. Nondurables....................................................................... 130.8 129.7 132.8 132.2 131.1 134.1 133.3 132.1 135.6 134.4 133.1 136.7 135.1 133.7 137.6 136.2 134.6 139.1 137.4 135.9 140.2 138.8 137.3 141.6 140.0 138.3 143.1 0.9 .7 1.1 3.6 3.4 4.0 Service-producing.................................................................. Excluding sales occup ations......................................... Transportation and public u tilitie s .................................. Transportation.................................................................. Public utilitie s.................................................................... Comm unications............................................................ Electric, gas, and sanitary se rvice s........................... Wholesale and retail tra d e .............................................. Excluding sales occupations..................................... Wholesale trade ............................................................. Excluding sales occupations ................................... Retail tra d e ...................................................................... Food s to re s .................................................................. Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te .............................. Excluding sales occupations ................................... Banking, savings and loan, and other credit agencies............................................................. Insurance......................................................................... S e rvices ...................................................................................................................... Business se rvic e s .......................................................................................... Health services ................................................................................................ H o spitals ............................................................................................................... Nonmanufacturing ................................................................................................ 135.7 137.3 130.0 - 136.2 138.1 130.2 - 137.5 139.4 131.3 - 139.3 140.8 132.5 - 141.0 142.7 133.5 - 142.6 143.9 133.4 - 144.5 145.7 134.6 - 145.8 146.9 135.3 - 147.8 148.6 136.3 142.1 141.6 153.2 145.3 137.7 146.0 146.0 1.4 1.2 .7 .6 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.6 1.1 2.8 1.7 1.0 .4 4.8 4.1 2.1 1.5 2.8 134.2 134.8 136.0 137.8 139.4 140.8 142.6 143.9 145.9 1.1 -.4 1.6 .9 1.9 1.9 1.4 State and local government w o rk e rs ................................................ 146.1 147.4 148.7 149.1 153.0 154.5 155.8 156.6 161.4 3.1 5.5 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar w o rk e rs ............................................................ Blue-collar w o rk e rs .............................................................. 147.7 139.0 149.3 139.6 150.5 141.1 150.8 141.1 154.9 143.5 156.8 144.1 158.0 146.1 158.7 146.8 164.1 149.6 3.4 1.9 5.9 4.3 148.2 141.2 149.5 142.2 150.7 144.5 151.1 144.7 155.6 147.4 157.6 148.7 158.6 150.2 159.3 151.5 165.0 155.3 3.6 2.5 2.7 4.0 4.2 2.1 6.0 5.4 6.3 6.4 6.6 4.1 Workers, by industry division: Services ................................................................................ Hospitals and other services 3 ........................................................... Health services ................................................................................................ S ch ools ....................................................................................................................... Elementary and seco n d a ry.......................................... Public administration 2 ..................................................................................... - - - 130.6 131.7 137.8 134.9 127.8 131.8 131.8 - 130.7 132.3 138.5 136.0 127.7 131.6 131.6 - - - 145.9 - 147.1 - - - - - - - 131.9 133.4 139.0 136.8 129.2 132.9 132.9 - 148.6 - - 136.0 136.5 143.2 139.6 133.2 134.9 134.9 - - - 149.8 - 152.9 - - - - - - - 136.9 137.8 143.6 140.4 134.3 139.9 139.9 - 138.6 139.2 147.5 141.8 135.1 142.7 142.7 - - - 154.4 - 156.4 - 139.9 140.0 149.0 142.9 136.3 145.2 145.2 - 157.8 - - 160.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 150.3 152.0 142.6 151.8 153.4 143.8 - 152.6 154.0 145.5 1 Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. 2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 24. 134.6 135.2 141.7 138.2 131.7 134.9 134.9 - - 153.0 154.3 146.4 158.0 159.7 148.9 - 160.3 162.1 149.4 - 161.2 162.8 150.9 - 161.7 163.3 151.8 - 168.1 170.2 155.0 4.5 3.7 7.0 4.1 3.4 8.2 8.2 .6 .6 4.3 - 4.9 4.6 6.1 6 .6 4.7 3 Includes, for example, library, social and health services, - Data not available. E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x , b e n e fits , p riv a te in d u s try w o rk e rs b y o c c u p a tio n a n d in d u s try g ro u p (June 1981 = 100) 1987 1988 1989 Percent change 3 months ended Series Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. 12 months ended Sept. 1989 Private industry workers ............................................................ 140.3 141.7 146.1 148.2 149.7 151.3 154.0 156.5 158.7 1.4 6.0 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers ................................................................. Blue-collar w o rkers.................................................................... 142.4 137.3 143.7 138.7 147.3 144.1 149.3 146.3 150.9 147.5 152.7 148.9 156.1 150.7 158.8 152.9 161.1 155.1 1.4 1.4 6.8 5.2 Workers, by industry group: Goods-producing ....................................................................... Service-producing...................................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................................ Nonm anufacturing..................................................................... 137.4 143.1 136.9 142.6 138.8 144.4 138.4 143.8 144.1 148.1 144.5 147.2 146.1 150.1 146.4 149.3 147.3 151.9 147.8 150.9 148.6 153.9 149.0 152.9 150.7 157.2 152.3 155.2 152.7 160.1 154.2 158.0 155.0 162.3 156.6 160.2 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.4 5.2 6.8 6.0 6.2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 87 C u rren t L a b o r S ta tistic s: 25. C o m p en sa tio n & In d u stria l R e la tio n s E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x , p riv a te n o n fa rm w o rk e rs , b y b arg a in in g s ta tu s , re g io n , an d a re a size (June 1981 = 100) 1987 1988 1989 Percent change Series Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. 3 months ended 12 months ended Sept. 1989 COMPENSATION Workers, by bargaining status1 Union .............................................................................................. Goods-producing ....................................................................... Service-producing...................................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................................ Nonm anufacturing..................................................................... 132.0 129.5 135.9 129.5 134.3 133.4 131.3 136.7 131.5 135.1 135.6 134.1 138.0 135.0 136.2 136.9 135.3 139.4 136.2 137.5 137.9 136.2 140.5 137.0 138.6 138.6 137.2 140.9 138.2 138.9 139.7 137.9 142.6 139.9 139.5 141.1 139.4 143.9 141.3 141.0 142.3 140.6 145.1 142.5 142.1 0.9 .9 .8 .8 .8 3.2 3.2 3.3 4.0 2.5 N o nunion........................................................................................ G oods-producing....................................................................... Service-producing...................................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................................ Nonmanufacturing ..................................................................... 136.1 133.1 137.9 134.6 136.8 136.9 134.1 138.6 135.6 137.5 138.9 136.2 140.5 137.8 139.4 140.7 137.8 142.5 139.2 141.5 142.2 138.7 144.4 140.1 143.2 143.9 139.9 146.3 141.3 145.0 146.0 141.6 148.6 143.1 147.3 147.7 143.2 150.5 144.8 149.1 149.8 145.0 152.7 146.5 151.2 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.4 5.3 4.5 5.7 4.6 5.6 Workers, by region 1 N ortheast........................................................................................ South .............................................................................................. Midwest (formerly North C e ntral).............................................. W e s t................................................................................................ 140.3 134.2 131.2 135.8 141.9 135.4 131.7 136.3 143.7 137.1 134.4 138.3 145.9 139.3 135.5 139.5 147.8 140.4 136.7 140.6 150.4 141.3 138.0 141.5 153.5 142.7 139.3 143.2 155.5 144.1 140.9 144.9 158.3 145.8 142.3 146.4 1.8 1.2 1.0 1.0 7.1 3.8 4.1 4.1 Workers, by area size 1 Metropolitan a re a s ....................................................................... Other a re a s ................................................................................... 135.8 131.3 136.7 132.0 138.9 133.6 140.5 135.5 142.0 136.2 143.6 136.8 145.6 137.5 147.4 138.3 149.4 139.4 1.4 .8 5.2 2.3 Workers, by bargaining status 1 Union .............................................................................................. Goods-producing ....................................................................... Service-producing...................................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................................ Nonmanufacturing ..................................................................... 129.1 126.5 132.9 127.0 130.8 130.5 128.5 133.6 129.3 131.5 131.0 128.7 134.4 129.6 132.1 132.0 129.7 135.4 130.4 133.3 132.9 130.4 136.7 131.0 134.5 133.4 131.2 136.8 132.1 134.6 134.3 132.0 137.8 133.0 135.4 135.4 133.4 138.4 134.4 136.2 136.2 134.2 139.3 135.1 137.1 .6 .6 .7 .5 .7 2.5 2.9 1.9 3.1 1.9 N o nunion ....................................................................................... Goods-producing ....................................................................... Service-producing...................................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................................ Nonmanufacturing ..................................................................... 134.3 131.1 136.2 133.0 134.9 135.0 132.1 136.7 133.9 135.4 136.4 133.6 138.0 135.5 136.8 138.1 135.0 140.0 136.7 138.8 139.5 135.7 141.8 137.4 140.4 141.1 136.8 143.6 138.6 142.2 142.9 138.2 145.6 139.9 144.1 144.4 139.5 147.2 141.4 145.6 146.3 141.1 149.3 142.8 147.7 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.4 4.9 4.0 5.3 3.9 5.2 Workers, by region 1 N ortheast....................................................................................... South .............................................................................................. Midwest (formerly North C e ntral).............................................. W e s t................................................................................................ 138.3 132.1 129.6 133.1 139.7 133.0 129.9 133.5 140.9 134.0 131.3 134.9 142.9 136.1 132.1 136.0 144.6 137.1 133.3 137.4 147.3 137.8 134.5 138.1 150.1 138.9 135.6 139.4 152.0 140.0 136.9 140.7 154.7 141.7 138.0 141.8 1.8 1.2 .8 .8 7.0 3.4 3.5 3.2 Workers, by area size1 Metropolitan a re a s ....................................................................... Other a re a s ................................................................................... 133.7 129.1 134.6 129.8 135.8 130.9 137.3 133.0 138.7 133.5 140.2 133.7 141.9 134.6 143.4 135.2 145.2 136.1 1.3 .7 4.7 1.9 WAGES AND SALARIES 1 The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the 88 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w Technical Employment Cost Index,” May 1982. Note, “ Estimation procedures for the 26. S p e c ifie d c o m p e n s a tio n and w a g e a d ju s tm e n ts fro m c o n tra c t s e ttle m e n ts , and e ffe c tiv e w a g e a d ju s tm e n ts , p riv a te in d u s try c o lle c tiv e b arg a in in g s itu a tio n s c o v e rin g 1,000 w o rk e rs o r m o re (in p e rc e n t) Annual average Quarterly average Measure 1987 1987 1988 1989 1988 IV I II III IV F IF MF Specified adjustments: Total compensation 1 adjustments, 2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more: First year of contract ................................................ Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t............................ 3.0 2.6 3.1 2.5 3.4 2.4 1.8 1.8 3.1 2.4 3.4 3.2 3.5 2.1 3.2 3.4 5.0 3.4 3.9 2.7 Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: First year of contract ............................................... Annual rate over life of contract ............................ 2.2 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.2 3.2 3.1 3.9 3.4 3.6 3.0 3.1 .7 2.6 .7 .8 .3 .4 .1 .9 .3 .8 .2 .5 .1 .5 .1 1.0 .3 1.0 .4 1.8 .5 1.3 .6 .3 .2 .3 .1 .5 .1 .4 .2 .2 .2 .3 .1 .5 .2 .4 .2 Effective adjustments: Total effective wage adjustment 3 ............................ From settlements reached in period ..................... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier perio ds....................................................................... From cost-of-living-adjustments c la u s e s .............. ' Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers’ cost of employee benefits when contract is negotiated. 2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases, and no changes in compensation or wages, 3 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts. p = preliminary. 27. A v e ra g e s p e c ifie d c o m p e n s a tio n and w a g e a d ju s tm e n ts , m a jo r c o lle c tiv e b arg a in in g s e ttle m e n ts in p riv a te in d u s try s itu a tio n s c o v e rin g 1,000 w o rk e rs o r m o re d u rin g 4 -q u a rte r p e rio d s (in p e rc e n t) Average for four quarters endingMeasure 1987 1988 IV I II 1989 III IV F IF IIP Specified total compensation adjustments, settlements covering 5,000 workers or more, all industries: First year of c o n tra c t.............................................................................. ..... Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t................................................................ 3.0 2.6 3.1 2.5 3.0 2.3 3.1 2.5 3.1 2.5 3.3 2.6 3.8 3.0 4.0 2.8 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.2 1.4 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.2 1.5 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.4 1.8 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.9 2.5 1.8 2.9 3.2 2.2 3.4 2.9 1.8 3.2 3.5 2.6 3.7 3.0 2.0 3.2 2.1 2.4 1.3 1.3 1.0 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.5 1.0 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.3 2.5 2.6 2.4 3.0 1.9 1.4 3.1 2.2 2.1 2.5 2.1 1.8 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.1 1.8 2.7 2.6 2.1 3.1 2.4 1.7 3.1 2.6 2.1 2.8 2.5 1.7 2.9 2.3 1.9 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.3 1.6 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.4 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 1.8 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.5 1.7 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.7 1.7 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.2 2.5 3.3 3.8 3.0 3.9 3.1 2.1 3.3 Specified wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: All industries: First year of contract ................................................................................ Contracts with COLA cla u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t............................................................. Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Manufacturing: First year of contract ................................................................................ Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Annual rate over life of contract ............................................................. Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Nonmanufacturing: First year of contract ................................................................................ Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Annual rate over life of contract ............................................................. Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Construction: First year of contract ................................................................................ Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t............................................................. Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... 1 Data do not meet publication standards. 2 Between -0.05 and 0.05 percent. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2.9 ( 1) 2.9 (’) 2.6 (2) O 2.6 2.7 ( ') 3.1 3.1 (’) (1) ( ’) ( ') (2) 2.2 (2) 2.1 2.4 (2) 2.7 p 2.1 (2) 2.2 2.6 (2) 2.4 2.4 (2) 2.4 2.7 (2) 2.6 2.4 (2) 2.4 2.9 (2) 2.7 2.6 (1) O 2.9 ( ') 2.9 (’) = preliminary. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 89 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tistic s: C o m p en sa tio n & In d u stria l R e la tio n s 28. A v e ra g e e ffe c tiv e w a g e a d ju s tm e n ts , p riv a te in d u s try c o lle c tiv e b arg a in in g s itu a tio n s c o v e rin g 1,000 w o rk e rs o r m o re d u rin g 4 -q u a rte r p e rio d s (in p e rc e n t) Average for four quarters ending1989 1988 Effective wage adjustment 1 II III IV lp llp lllp For all workers:1 T o ta l................................................................................................................ From settlements reached in period ...................................................... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period .......................... From cost-of-living-adjustments c la u s e s ................................................ 3.2 .8 1.8 .5 3.0 1.0 1.6 .5 2.9 1.0 1.4 .5 2.6 .7 1.3 .6 2.7 .7 1.3 .6 2.8 .7 1.3 .8 3.0 .9 1.3 .8 For workers receiving changes: T o ta l................................................................................................................ From settlements reached in period ..................................................... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period .......................... From cost-of-living-adjustments c la u s e s ................................................ 3.8 2.9 3.3 2.7 3.7 2.9 3.3 2.3 3.5 2.9 3.0 2.5 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.7 3.5 3.2 3.2 2.9 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.2 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.8 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts. p = preliminary. 29. S p e c ifie d c o m p e n s a tio n and w a g e a d ju s tm e n ts fro m c o n tra c t s e ttle m e n ts , and e ffe c tiv e w a g e a d ju s tm e n ts , S ta te and local g o v e rn m e n t c o lle c tiv e b arg a in in g s itu a tio n s c o v e rin g 1,000 w o rk e rs o r m o re (in p e rc e n t) Annual average Measure 1987 1988 First 6 months 1989 4.9 4.8 5.4 5.3 4.3 4.4 4.9 5.1 5.1 5.3 4.7 4.7 4.9 2.7 2.2 (4) 4.7 2.3 2.4 n 1.6 .5 1.1 Specified adjustments: Total compensation 1 adjustments, 2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more: First year of contract ............................................ ........................................................... Annual rate over life of contract ..................................................................................... Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: First year of contract ......................................................................... Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t...................................................... Effective adjustments: Total effective wage adjustm ent3 ................................... From settlements reached in p e rio d ............................. Deferred from settlements reached in earlier periods From cost-of-living-adjustment c la u s e s ........................ 3 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts. 4 Less than 0.05 percent. - Data not available. 1 Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers’ cost of employee benefits when contract is negotiated. 2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases, and no changes in compensation or wages. 30. (4) W o rk s to p p a g e s in vo lvin g 1,000 w o rk e rs o r m o re 1989 1988 Annual totals Measure 1987 1988 Nov. Oct. Jan. Dec. Mar. Feb. Number of stoppages: Beginning in p e rio d ....................... In effect during p e rio d ................. 46 51 Workers involved: Beginning in period (in thousands).................................... In effect during period (in thousands).................................... 174.4 118.0 8.6 2.3 .0 7.4 .0 377.7 121.4 25.9 10.6 2.5 9.9 7.7 4,468.8 4,364.3 293.2 77.9 52.5 152.7 137.8 .02 .02 .01 .04 .02 .01 .01 Days idle: Number (in thousands)................ Percent of estimated working tim e1 .............................................. 40 43 3 9 1 5 0 1 ' Agricultural and government employees are included in the total employed and total working time: private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An expla nation of the measurement of idleness as a percentage of the total time worked is found 90 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 3 4 0 2 Apr. Mayp Junep Julyp 4 9 7 11 Sept.p Oct.p 4 8 7 13 30.3 6.6 54.7 .0 43.3 235.6 14.5 59.9 37.0 43.6 94.3 44.7 100.0 204.0 107.1 160.5 949.6 1,064.2 1,227.1 938.2 1,370.7 3,480.2 1,909.4 3,097.9 .04 .05 .05 .04 .06 .14 .08 .01 2 4 0 5 Aug.p 6 13 4 7 in ‘“ Total economy’ measure of strike idleness,” M o n th ly L a b o r Review, October 1968, pp. 54-56. p = preliminary. 31. C o n s u m e r P rice In d e x e s fo r All U rban C o n s u m e rs and fo r U rb an W a g e E a rn e rs and C le ric a l W o rk e rs : U.S. c ity a v e ra g e , by e x p e n d itu re c a te g o ry and c o m m o d ity o r s e rv ic e g ro u p (1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated) Annual 1988 1989 Series Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. 118.3 354.3 120.2 360.1 120.3 360.5 120.5 360.9 121.1 362.7 121.6 364.1 122.3 366.2 123.1 368.8 123.8 370.8 124.1 371.7 124.4 372.7 124.6 373.1 125.0 374.6 125.6 376.2 113.5 113.5 111.9 114.8 110.5 105.9 119.1 110.5 111.0 108.1 107.5 113.8 117.0 114.1 118.2 118.2 116.6 122.1 114.3 108.4 128.1 113.1 114.0 113.1 107.5 118.0 121.8 118.6 120.3 120.3 119.0 125.6 116.8 109.9 131.7 114.8 116.0 117.1 108.1 119.9 123.4 119.8 120.2 120.2 118.7 125.9 116.4 110.6 129.5 114.9 115.9 117.1 108.2 120.1 123.7 119.9 120.6 120.7 119.1 126.6 116.1 111.4 131.0 115.3 116.7 118.5 107.8 120.7 124.1 119.9 122.0 122.2 121.2 127.9 118.5 112.6 134.8 116.6 117.2 119.6 109.6 121.9 124.7 120.3 122.7 122.9 122.0 128.9 118.2 113.4 137.1 117.8 117.8 120.5 111.3 123.0 125.2 121.1 123.3 123.5 122.7 129.7 120.5 113.8 135.7 118.1 118.0 120.4 111.3 123.7 125.7 121.8 124.0 124.2 123.5 130.4 120.6 114.1 138.0 119.0 117.9 121.6 111.8 125.2 126.2 122.3 124.7 124.9 124.4 131.5 120.7 113.8 142.7 118.9 118.1 121.6 111.5 125.2 126.7 123.1 124.9 125.0 124.3 132.1 121.4 113.6 140.2 119.2 119.2 121.6 111.6 125.5 127.1 123.5 125.4 125.5 124.8 133.3 121.6 114.1 140.1 119.7 120.1 121.6 112.3 125.9 127.8 124.0 125.6 125.8 124.9 134.1 122.3 114.5 138.8 119.7 120.6 121.7 111.2 126.7 128.1 124.5 125.9 126.1 125.0 134.6 122.9 116.1 136.6 119.7 120.8 121.3 111.0 126.7 128.8 124.8 126.3 126.5 125.4 135.0 122.4 118.2 137.1 120.3 121.3 121.6 111.8 127.2 129.1 125.2 Housing ................................................................................................... Shelter ....................................................................................... Renters’ costs ( 1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ....................................................... Rent, reside ntial......................................................................... Other renters' costs ..................................................................... Homeowners' costs (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 )............................................... Owners’ equivalent rent (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 )..................................... Household insurance (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ).......................................... Maintenance and re p a irs................................................................ Maintenance and repair services .............................................. Maintenance and repair com m odities....................................... Fuel and other u tilitie s.................................................................. Fuels .............................................................................. Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas ................................................... Gas (piped) and electricity .......................................................... Other utilities and public s e rv ic e s ................................................ Household furnishings and ope ratio ns...................................... H ousefurnishings.............................................................. Housekeeping supp lie s.......................................................... Housekeeping services............................................................... 114.2 121.3 128.1 123.1 127.4 124.8 124.8 124.0 111.8 114.8 107.8 103.0 97.3 77.9 103.8 120.1 107.1 103.6 111.5 110.6 118.5 127.1 133.6 127.8 134.8 131.1 131.1 129.0 114.7 117.9 110.4 104.4 98.0 78.1 104.6 122.9 109.4 105.1 114.7 114.3 119.9 128.8 134.8 129.4 134.8 133.1 133.1 130.4 115.0 117.6 111.6 105.4 98.6 74.6 105.8 124.5 110.3 105.9 115.6 115.5 119.9 129.1 134.2 129.8 131.1 133.8 133.9 130.2 115.4 118.2 111.7 104.3 96.8 75.0 103.7 124.4 110.6 106.1 116.5 115.7 120.2 129.3 134.1 130.1 130.0 134.0 134.1 130.6 115.8 118.4 112.4 105.0 97.4 76.8 104.1 125.5 110.6 105.9 117.0 115.9 120.7 129.8 135.2 130.5 132.7 134.4 134.5 130.9 116.1 118.7 112.8 106.0 98.7 80.5 105.1 125.9 110.9 106.0 117.5 116.6 121.1 130.3 136.3 130.9 136.2 134.7 134.8 131.2 117.1 119.9 113.4 105.9 98.6 81.4 104.9 126.0 110.9 105.9 117.7 116.8 121.5 131.2 138.6 131.1 144.7 135.0 135.1 131.3 117.1 119.6 113.8 105.9 98.5 81.5 104.8 125.9 110.5 105.1 118.5 116.9 121.6 131.2 137.9 131.4 140.7 135.4 135.5 131.4 117.3 119.8 114.1 106.2 98.8 82.5 105.0 126.2 110.7 105.0 119.6 117.1 122.1 131.8 137.8 131.7 139.7 136.2 136.3 132.1 117.4 120.2 113.8 107.0 99.6 81.5 106.1 127.0 110.8 104.7 120.9 117.3 122.9 132.3 138.7 132.3 141.5 136.5 136.6 132.8 118.3 121.0 114.7 109.2 103.2 80.2 110.5 127.1 111.1 105.1 121.2 117.4 123.9 133.6 141.5 133.0 150.5 137.3 137.4 133.1 118.4 121.1 115.0 109.7 103.7 79.7 111.1 127.7 111.4 105.5 121.7 117.3 124.2 134.1 141.5 133.5 148.8 138.1 138.2 133.3 118.5 121.3 114.8 109.7 103.7 78.9 111.3 127.8 111.4 105.2 122.3 117.5 124.3 134.1 139.4 133.9 139.1 138.9 139.0 133.6 118.6 120.9 115.6 109.7 103.5 79.3 111.0 128.1 111.7 105.7 122.3 117.5 124.4 134.8 140.0 134.7 139.2 139.7 139.9 133.7 118.6 121.0 115.5 108.0 101.0 82.0 107.6 127.6 111.9 106.1 122.5 117.4 Apparel and upkeep .............................................................. Apparel com m o dities......................................................... Men’s and boys’ a p p a re l.............................................................. Women’s and girls’ apparel .................................................. Infants’ and toddlers’ a p p a re l........................................................ Footw ear............................................................................... Other apparel com m odities................................................ Apparel services................................................................ 110.6 108.9 109.1 110.4 112.1 105.1 108.0 119.6 115.4 113.7 113.4 114.9 116.4 109.9 116.0 123.7 120.7 119.3 117.6 121.9 118.1 115.9 119.4 125.5 119.9 118.4 118.2 120.2 117.2 114.5 119.5 126.3 118.0 116.3 117.3 116.5 117.3 113.5 119.1 126.7 115.3 113.3 115.1 111.6 115.6 112.2 119.2 127.3 115.3 113.3 114.2 111.4 118.8 112.7 120.4 127.8 119.3 117.5 115.9 119.4 118.5 114.1 120.4 128.5 120.9 119.3 117.2 121.5 123.6 115.3 121.5 128.9 120.4 118.6 117.8 119.5 125.4 114.9 121.7 129.9 117.8 115.8 115.9 114.8 123.9 114.0 121.6 130.0 115.0 112.9 114.7 109.6 117.9 113.4 122.5 129.4 115.0 112.8 114.7 109.5 116.7 112.6 124.1 129.5 120.0 118.2 117.7 119.0 118.0 114.1 124.5 129.7 122.7 121.1 120.3 123.1 118.3 117.6 123.0 129.8 Transportation .................................................................................... Private transportation.......................................................... New ve h icle s.................................................................................... New c a rs ......................................................................................... Used c a r s .......................................................................................... Motor fuel .......................................................................................... G asoline.......................................................................................... Maintenance and repair..................................................... Other private transportation................................................ Other private transportation com m o dities................................ Other private transportation services........................................ Public tran sportation.................................................................... 105.4 104.2 114.4 114.6 113.1 80.2 80.1 114.8 120.8 96.9 125.6 121.1 108.7 107.6 116.5 116.9 118.0 80.9 80.8 119.7 127.9 98.9 133.9 123.3 110.0 109.0 117.2 117.7 119.9 81.6 81.6 121.1 131.0 99.3 137.7 124.2 110.7 109.6 118.4 118.7 119.7 81.5 81.4 121.5 132.1 99.4 139.1 125.3 110.8 109.6 119.0 119.1 120.2 80.3 80.3 121.5 132.5 100.3 139.3 126.5 111.1 109.8 119.4 119.5 120.5 79.6 79.4 122.4 133.5 101.0 140.4 127.5 111.6 110.3 119.5 119.6 120.5 80.3 80.1 123.3 134.3 101.2 141.4 128.1 111.9 110.7 119.4 119.6 120.5 81.5 81.3 123.5 134.5 100.1 141.9 128.2 114.6 113.6 119.2 119.4 120.7 92.1 92.1 123.8 134.7 100.8 142.0 128.4 116.0 115.0 119.2 119.5 121.0 96.6 96.7 124.3 135.6 101.5 142.9 128.9 115.9 114.9 118.9 119.1 121.3 96.0 96.2 124.5 135.9 101.9 143.2 129.6 115.4 114.3 118.5 118.6 121.1 94.4 94.6 124.8 135.6 101.3 143.0 129.7 114.3 113.1 117.7 117.7 120.3 91.0 91.1 125.4 135.7 102.0 142.9 130.1 113.7 112.4 117.1 117.0 119.8 88.8 88.8 126.2 135.7 102.0 142.9 130.1 114.5 113.3 118.5 118.6 119.7 88.9 88.8 126.7 137.1 101.9 144.8 130.6 Medical c a r e ...................................................................... Medical care com m o dities................................................................ Medical care se rvices................................................................... Professional s e rv ic e s .................................................. Hospital and related services ........................................................ 130.1 131.0 130.0 128.8 131.6 138.6 139.9 138.3 137.5 143.9 141.2 143.2 140.8 139.8 148.5 141.8 143.3 141.5 140.4 149.7 142.3 144.2 141.9 140.8 150.8 143.8 145.0 143.5 142.2 152.9 145.2 145.8 145.1 143.5 155.1 146.1 147.2 145.9 144.4 155.8 146.8 148.4 146.4 144.9 156.6 147.5 150.0 146.9 145.2 157.3 148.5 151.0 147.9 146.1 158.5 149.7 151.4 149.3 147.0 160.8 150.7 152.1 150.4 147.5 162.7 151.7 153.3 151.3 148.0 164.3 152.7 154.1 152.3 148.6 166.0 E n tertainm ent..................................................... Entertainment commodities ............................................................. Entertainment se rvice s.......................................... 115.3 110.5 122.0 120.3 115.0 127.7 121.8 116.3 129.4 122.2 117.2 129.3 122.8 117.5 130.0 123.8 118.1 131.6 124.3 118.4 132.3 124.7 118.5 132.9 125.4 119.0 134.0 125.5 119.3 133.9 126.2 119.5 135.0 126.9 119.9 136.1 127.3 120.0 136.7 127.8 120.5 137.2 128.4 121.2 137.8 Other goods and services ............................................................... Tobacco products .............................................................. Personal c a re .............................................................................. Toilet goods and personal care appliances................................ Personal care services ................................................................... Personal and educational expenses............................................... School books and supp lie s............................................... Personal and educational services .............................................. 128.5 133.6 115.1 113.9 116.2 138.5 138.1 138.7 137.0 145.8 119.4 118.1 120.7 147.9 148.1 148.0 140.6 149.3 121.0 119.8 122.0 152.4 152.0 152.7 141.0 149.7 121.8 120.7 122.7 152.7 152.1 152.9 141.3 149.9 122.4 121.6 123.1 153.0 152.2 153.2 143.4 157.0 122.8 121.7 123.8 154.0 153.3 154.2 144.1 158.5 123.2 121.9 124.4 154.4 155.0 154.6 144.4 159.2 123.6 122.4 124.8 154.6 155.1 154.7 144.7 159.5 124.1 122.6 125.4 154.9 155.2 155.1 145.4 161.1 124.8 122.7 126.8 155.2 155.2 155.4 146.3 164.2 124.5 122.2 127.0 155.8 155.6 156.0 147.3 167.5 124.8 122.8 126.9 156.3 155.8 156.5 148.7 168.8 125.6 123.8 127.3 158.1 156.6 158.4 151.2 168.2 125.9 124.0 127.7 162.9 163.0 163.1 151.8 168.8 126.4 124.4 128.5 163.5 163.6 163.7 1987 1988 All ite m s .................................................................................................... All items (1967 = 100) ............................................................................ 113.6 340.4 Food and beverages ............................................................................ F o o d ...................................................................................................... Food at home .................................................................................. Cereals and bakery pro d u cts ...................................................... Meats, poultry, fish, and e g g s .................................................... Dairy p ro d u cts ............................................................................... Fruits and vegetables................................................................... Other foods at h o m e .................................................................... Sugar and sw e e ts ...................................................................... Fats and o ils ............................................................................. Nonalcoholic beverages............................................................ Other prepared fo o d s ................................................................ Food away from home ................................................................... Alcoholic beverages........................................................................... CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 91 C u rren t L a b o r S ta tistic s: P r ic e D a ta 31. C o n tin u e d — C o n s u m e r P rice In d e x e s fo r All U rban C o n s u m e rs and fo r U rban W a g e E a rn e rs a n d C lerical W o rk e rs : U.S. c ity a v e ra g e , by e x p e n d itu re c a te g o ry and c o m m o d ity o r s e rv ic e g ro u p (1982-84=100, unless otherwise Indicated) 1989 1988 Annual Series Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 118.3 111.5 118.2 107.3 105.2 113.7 103.2 110.4 120.2 113.5 120.3 109.2 107.8 119.3 104.5 111.1 120.3 113.5 120.2 109.4 107.7 118.4 104.6 111.8 120.5 113.5 120.6 109.0 106.9 116.3 104.5 112.2 121.1 113.9 122.0 108.9 106.4 113.3 105.3 112.5 121.6 114.3 122.7 109.1 106.9 113.3 106.1 112.4 122.3 115.2 123.3 110.1 108.9 117.5 106.9 111.9 123.1 116.7 124.0 112.2 112.5 119.3 111.5 111.8 123.8 117.5 124.7 112.9 113.6 118.6 113.6 111.9 120.2 125.9 113.1 121.9 130.0 125.7 125.7 132.0 115.3 128.0 138.3 132.6 127.6 133.8 116.6 130.6 140.8 135.5 127.8 134.1 115.6 131.6 141.5 135.7 128.1 134.3 116.2 132.1 141.9 136.2 128.9 134.8 117.0 133.0 143.5 137.3 129.4 135.4 116.9 133.9 145.1 137.8 130.0 136.3 116.9 134.3 145.9 138.2 130.2 136.3 117.2 134.5 146.4 138.8 Special Indexes: All items less food ............................................................................. All Items less shelter ......................................................................... All items less homeowners’ costs (12/82 —1 0 0 ).......................... All items less medical c a re ............................................................... Commodities less fo o d ...................................................................... Nondurables less food ...................................................................... Nondurables less food and apparel ............................................... Nondurables......................................................................................... Services less rent of’ shelter (12/82 —1 0 0 ).................................. Services less medical c a r e ............................................................... Energy................................................................................................... All items less energy ......................................................................... All items less food and energy ........................................................ Commodities less food and e n e rg y ................................................ Energy commodities .......................................................................... Services less ene rgy.......................................................................... 113.6 111.6 115.1 112.6 104.3 101.8 100.3 107.5 123.1 119.1 88.6 117.2 118.2 111.8 80.2 122.0 118.3 115.9 119.5 117.0 107.7 105.8 104.0 111.8 128.3 124.3 89.3 122.3 123.4 115.8 80.8 127.9 120.2 117.9 121.5 118.9 109.5 108.3 105.2 114.2 130.5 126.2 89.9 124.4 125.5 118.0 81.0 129.9 120.3 118.0 121.5 119.0 109.7 108.2 105.4 114.1 130.6 126.3 88.9 124.7 125.8 118.2 80.9 130.3 120.4 118.1 121.6 119.1 109.4 107.5 105.3 113.9 131.1 126.6 88.7 124.8 126.0 118.0 80.1 130.6 120.8 118.7 122.3 119.7 109.2 107.1 106.0 114.3 132.1 127.3 89.0 125.5 126.4 117.9 79.9 131.4 121.3 119.2 122.9 120.1 109.5 107.6 106.8 114.9 132.7 127.8 89.3 126.0 126.9 118.1 80.6 132.0 122.0 119.9 123.7 120.8 110.5 109.4 107.6 116.2 133.0 128.3 89.8 126.7 127.6 119.0 81.7 132.7 Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 1982-8 4-$1 ,00 .................................................................................. 1967 —$ 1 .0 0 ......................................................................................... 88.0 29.4 84.6 28.2 83.2 27.8 83.1 27.7 83.0 27.7 82.6 27.6 82.3 27.5 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS: All Items .................................................................................................. All items (1 9 6 7 -1 0 0 ) ............................................................................. 112.5 335.0 117.0 348.4 118.9 354.2 119.0 354.6 119.2 355.0 119.7 356.7 Food and beverages ............................................................................ F o o d ...................................................................................................... Food at h o m e .................................................................................. Cereals and bakery p ro d u c ts ...................................................... Meats, poultry, fish, and e g g s .................................................... Dairy p ro d u cts............................................................................... Fruits and vegetables................................................................... Other foods at h o m e .................................................................... Sugar and s w e e ts ...................................................................... Fats and o ils ............................................................................... Nonalcoholic beverages............................................................ Other prepared fo o d s ................................................................ Food away from home ................................................................... Alcoholic beverages........................................................................... 113.3 113.3 111.7 114.8 110.4 105.7 118.8 110.4 110.9 107.9 107.5 113.6 116.9 113.9 117.9 117.9 116.2 122.2 114.1 108.1 127.6 113.0 113.9 113.0 107.7 117.8 121.6 118.3 120.0 120.1 118.7 125.7 116.6 109.7 131.4 114.7 115.9 117.0 108.3 119.7 123.2 119.5 119.9 119.9 118.4 126.0 116.1 110.4 129.1 114.8 115.7 117.0 108.4 119.9 123.5 119.5 120.3 120.4 118.8 126.7 115.8 111.2 130.8 115.1 116.7 118.3 107.8 120.5 124.0 119.5 Housing ................................................................................................... Shelter .................................................................................................. Renters' costs (12/84 = 1 0 0 )....................................................... Rent, reside ntial............................................................................ Other renters’ costs ..................................................................... Homeowners’ costs (12/84 = 1 0 0 )............................................... Owners’ equivalent rent (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 )..................................... Household insurance (12/84 = 1 0 0 ).......................................... Maintenance and re p a irs................................................................ Maintenance and repair services .............................................. Maintenance and repair com m odities....................................... Fuel and other u tilitie s ....................................................................... Fuels .................................................................................................. Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas ................................................... Gas (piped) and electricity .......................................................... Other utilities and public services ................................................ Household furnishings and ope ratio ns........................................... H ousefurnishings............................................................................. Housekeeping supp lie s................................................................... Housekeeping services................................................................... 112.8 118.8 114.6 122.9 128.2 113.8 113.7 114.1 111.3 114.7 106.0 102.7 97.1 77.6 103.6 120.1 106.7 103.1 111.8 110.9 116.8 124.3 119.2 127.5 135.2 119.5 119.5 118.2 114.0 117.7 108.3 104.1 97.7 77.9 104.4 122.9 108.9 104.5 115.1 115.0 118.2 126.0 120.4 129.0 135.1 121.3 121.4 119.3 114.1 117.0 109.2 105.1 98.3 74.6 105.5 124.7 109.9 105.4 116.1 116.3 118.3 126.4 120.1 129.4 131.4 122.0 122.1 119.2 114.6 117.6 109.7 104.1 96.6 75.0 103.5 124.6 110.2 105.6 116.9 116.4 Apparel and upkeep ............................................................................. 110.4 114.9 120.1 119.5 1987 1988 All ite m s ..................................................................................................... C om m odities........................................................................................... Food and beverages .......................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages.......................................... Nondurables less food and beverages ....................................... Apparel com m odities.................................................................... Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel .................... D urables............................................................................................. 113.6 107.7 113.5 104.0 101.1 108.9 99.5 108.2 S e rvices................................................................................................... Rent of shelter (1 2 /8 2 —1 0 0 )........................................................... Household services less rent of’ shelter (1 2 /8 2 —1 0 0 ).............. Transportation se rvice s..................................................................... Medical care se rvice s........................................................................ Other services .................................................................................... 92 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 June Sept. Oct. July Aug. 124.1 117.2 124.9 112.4 112.7 115.8 113.7 112.1 124.4 117.0 125.4 111.7 111.6 112.9 113.6 111.9 124.6 116.7 125.6 111.1 110.9 112.8 112.5 111.4 125.0 117.3 125.9 111.9 112.4 118.2 112.0 111.3 125.6 118.1 126.3 113.0 113.6 121.1 112.4 112.1 130.8 136.9 118.0 135.2 146.9 139.2 131.6 137.4 120.1 135.6 147.9 139.8 132.5 138.8 120.6 135.5 149.3 140.4 133.1 139.3 120.7 135.7 150.4 141.5 133.4 139.3 120.7 135.9 151.3 143.8 133.7 140.1 119.0 137.1 152.3 144.3 122.9 121.0 124.7 121.7 112.5 112.8 111.7 118.4 133.4 128.5 94.9 127.1 128.0 119.6 91.2 132.9 123.5 121.7 125.3 122.3 113.2 113.9 113.6 119.3 134.0 129.1 97.4 127.6 128.3 119.7 95.0 133.4 123.9 122.0 125.6 122.6 112.8 113.1 113.8 119.0 135.2 129.9 99.0 127.7 128.5 119.3 94.4 133.9 124.2 122.0 125.9 122.9 112.1 112.2 113.7 118.7 135.8 130.8 98.5 128.2 129.0 118.8 92.9 134.8 124.3 122.0 125.9 123.0 111.6 111.5 112.8 118.4 136.3 131.3 97.0 128.5 129.3 118.8 89.8 135.4 124.8 122.6 126.3 123.4 112.4 112.9 112.4 119.3 137.0 131.6 95.9 129.1 130.0 120.1 88.0 135.8 125.4 123.1 126.8 124.0 113.4 114.1 112.8 120.1 137.0 131.8 94.6 129.9 130.9 121.2 88.3 136.5 81.8 27.3 81.2 27.1 80.8 27.0 80.6 26.9 80.4 26.8 80.3 26.8 80.0 26.7 79.6 26.6 120.2 358.0 120.8 360.0 121.8 362.9 122.5 364.9 122.8 365.9 123.2 366.8 123.2 367.0 123.6 368.3 124.2 369.8 121.7 121.9 120.8 128.0 118.3 112.4 134.3 116.5 117.3 119.5 109.8 121.7 124.6 119.8 122.4 122.6 121.7 129.0 118.0 113.3 136.8 117.7 117.8 120.4 111.4 122.8 125.1 120.8 123.1 123.3 122.4 129.7 120.3 113.6 135.4 118.0 118.0 120.3 111.4 123.6 125.5 121.4 123.7 123.9 123.2 130.5 120.4 114.0 137.7 118.9 118.1 121.5 111.9 125.0 126.1 122.0 124.4 124.6 124.0 131.5 120.5 113.6 142.5 118.8 118.4 121.5 111.5 125.0 126.5 122.8 124.6 124.8 123.9 132.0 121.2 113.3 140.0 119.0 119.2 121.5 111.6 125.3 127.0 123.2 125.1 125.3 124.4 133.3 121.5 113.8 139.9 119.6 120.1 121.5 112.2 125.7 127.6 123.6 125.3 125.5 124.6 134.1 122.1 114.2 138.6 119.6 120.6 121.6 111.1 126.5 128.0 124.0 125.6 125.8 124.6 134.6 122.7 115.9 136.1 119.6 120.9 121.2 111.0 126.6 128.6 124.4 126.0 126.2 125.0 135.1 122.2 118.0 136.5 120.2 121.4 121.5 112.0 127.0 129.0 124.7 118.5 126.5 120.0 129.7 129.2 122.2 122.2 119.6 115.2 117.8 110.6 104.8 97.2 76.7 103.9 125.6 110.2 105.4 117.4 116.5 119.0 126.9 120.7 130.1 131.8 122.5 122.5 119.9 115.6 118.3 110.9 105.7 98.4 80.3 104.8 126.2 110.4 105.5 117.9 116.9 119.3 127.4 121.5 130.4 135.2 122.8 122.8 120.0 116.7 119.5 111.8 105.7 98.3 81.0 104.6 126.3 110.4 105.4 118.1 117.0 119.6 128.1 123.0 130.7 144.2 123.0 123.1 120.1 116.7 119.2 112.1 105.7 98.2 81.2 104.6 126.2 110.0 104.5 118.9 117.1 119.8 128.3 122.7 131.0 140.9 123.4 123.5 120.2 116.7 119.3 112.1 105.9 98.5 82.1 104.8 126.5 110.1 104.3 120.0 117.2 120.3 128.8 122.8 131.2 139.9 124.1 124.2 120.9 116.9 119.8 112.0 106.7 99.2 81.2 105.8 127.2 110.1 104.0 121.2 117.4 121.1 129.3 123.6 131.8 142.3 124.4 124.5 121.5 117.9 121.0 112.7 109.0 103.0 80.1 110.3 127.4 110.4 104.4 121.6 117.6 122.1 130.5 125.7 132.5 153.7 125.2 125.2 121.8 118.2 121.2 113.2 109.4 103.4 79.6 110.8 127.9 110.8 104.8 122.0 117.4 122.4 131.0 125.9 133.0 152.0 125.8 125.9 122.0 117.9 121.3 112.5 109.5 103.5 78.8 111.0 128.0 110.8 104.6 122.6 117.6 122.5 131.1 124.6 133.4 140.9 126.6 126.7 122.4 118.0 120.7 113.3 109.5 103.3 79.2 110.7 128.3 111.0 105.0 122.6 117.6 122.5 131.8 125.1 134.2 140.4 127.3 127.4 122.5 118.1 120.9 113.4 107.6 100.6 81.8 107.2 127.8 111.2 105.3 122.7 117.5 117.6 114.8 114.7 118.4 120.0 119.4 116.9 114.4 114.5 119.3 122.0 31. C o n tin u e d — C o n s u m e r P rice In d e x e s fo r All U rban C o n s u m e rs an d fo r U rb an W a g e E a rn e rs an d C le ric a l W o rk e rs : U.S. c ity a v e ra g e , by e x p e n d itu re c a te g o ry an d c o m m o d ity o r s e rv ic e g ro u p (1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated) Series Annual average 1988 1989 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. 113.4 112.8 114.5 118.6 110.4 114.9 123.0 118.9 116.9 121.5 120.6 116.3 117.9 124.7 118.1 117.5 119.9 120.1 115.0 118.2 125.4 116.0 116.5 116.2 120.3 114.0 117.8 125.8 113.0 114.4 111.3 118.5 112.8 117.8 126.4 112.8 113.4 110.7 121.8 113.1 119.0 126.8 116.7 115.1 118.3 121.7 114.1 118.5 127.7 118.4 116.4 120.2 126.7 115.2 119.6 128.1 117.7 116.9 118.1 128.3 115.0 119.8 128.9 115.0 115.0 113.5 126.7 114.1 119.8 129.0 112.3 113.7 108.7 121.9 113.9 120.7 128.6 112.4 113.9 108.9 120.4 113.1 122.4 128.7 117.6 116.9 118.1 122.0 114.5 122.5 128.8 120.5 119.6 122.0 122.2 118.0 121.9 129.0 105.1 104.1 114.0 114.3 113.1 80.3 80.2 115.1 119.0 96.7 123.4 120.4 108.3 107.5 116.2 116.6 117.9 80.9 80.8 119.8 125.8 98.6 131.7 122.5 109.8 109.0 116.9 117.5 119.8 81.6 81.6 121.3 128.9 98.8 135.5 123.5 110.3 109.5 118.1 118.5 119.5 81.5 81.5 121.5 130.0 99.0 136.8 124.3 110.4 109.5 118.8 118.9 120.1 80.4 80.4 121.5 130.4 99.9 137.1 125.4 110.7 109.7 119.2 119.3 120.3 79.6 79.5 122.4 131.4 100.5 138.2 126.1 111.2 110.3 119.3 119.5 120.4 80.3 80.2 123.3 132.2 100.7 139.2 126.8 111.6 110.6 119.2 119.4 120.3 81.5 81.4 123.5 132.5 99.8 139.8 126.9 114.5 113.7 118.9 119.2 120.5 92.3 92.3 123.9 132.7 100.4 139.8 127.1 116.0 115.3 119.0 119.3 120.9 96.7 96.9 124.4 133.5 101.1 140.7 127.5 116.0 115.2 118.7 118.9 121.1 96.1 96.3 124.6 133.9 101.5 141.2 128.2 115.4 114.6 118.3 118.4 120.9 94.5 94.7 124.8 133.7 101.0 141.0 128.3 114.2 113.3 117.6 117.6 120.1 91.0 91.2 125.4 133.7 101.6 140.8 129.1 113.5 112.6 117.1 116.9 119.6 89.0 89.0 126.2 133.6 101.6 140.6 129.1 114.3 113.3 118.4 118.4 119.5 89.1 89.0 126.7 134.9 101.5 142.5 129.4 Medical c a r e ........................................................................................... Medical care com m o dities................................................................ Medical care se rvice s........................................................................ Professional se rvice s...................................................................... Hospital and related services ........................................................ 130.2 130.2 130.3 129.0 131.1 139.0 139.0 139.0 137.7 143.3 141.7 142.1 141.6 139.9 147.8 142.2 142.2 142.2 140.6 148.9 142.8 143.1 142.7 141.0 150.0 144.2 143.9 144.2 142.4 151.9 145.6 144.7 145.8 143.7 154.2 146.5 146.0 146.7 144.7 154.8 147.2 147.4 147.2 145.1 155.6 147.9 148.9 147.6 145.5 156.2 148.8 149.9 148.6 146.4 157.3 150.1 150.3 150.0 147.3 159.7 151.1 150.9 151.1 147.8 161.6 152.1 152.2 152.1 148.4 163.3 153.0 153.1 153.0 149.0 164.7 Entertainm ent......................................................................................... Entertainment commodities .............................................................. Entertainment se rvice s...................................................................... 114.8 110.6 121.8 119.7 115.1 127.2 121.2 116.5 128.9 121.7 117.3 129.0 122.2 117.6 129.7 123.1 118.1 131.3 123.6 118.4 131.9 124.1 118.7 132.7 124.8 119.1 133.8 124.9 119.5 133.6 125.5 119.7 134.6 126.1 120.1 135.7 126.5 120.1 136.4 127.0 120.6 137.1 127.7 121.3 137.6 Other goods and services ................................................................... Tobacco p ro d u c ts .............................................................................. Personal c a re ....................................................................................... Toilet goods and personal care appliances................................ Personal care s e rv ic e s ................................................................... Personal and educational expenses............................................... School books and supp lie s............................................................ Personal and educational s e rv ic e s .............................................. 127.8 133.7 115.0 113.9 116.1 138.2 137.9 138.4 136.5 146.0 119.3 118.0 120.5 147.4 147.1 147.7 139.9 149.5 120.9 119.9 122.0 151.7 150.8 152.0 140.3 149.9 121.7 120.6 122.7 152.0 150.9 152.3 140.6 150.2 122.3 121.5 123.0 152.3 151.1 152.7 143.0 156.9 122.7 121.7 123.6 153.3 152.0 153.7 143.7 158.2 123.0 121.9 124.2 153.7 153.9 154.0 144.0 158.9 123.5 122.3 124.6 153.9 154.0 154.1 144.4 159.2 123.9 122.7 125.2 154.3 154.1 154.6 145.2 160.7 124.7 122.9 126.7 154.6 154.1 154.9 146.3 163.8 124.4 122.4 126.9 155.3 154.5 155.7 147.5 167.3 124.6 122.8 126.8 155.7 154.7 156.1 148.8 168.5 125.4 123.8 127.1 157.3 155.6 157.8 150.8 168.0 125.7 124.1 127.5 161.8 161.7 162.1 151.4 168.6 126.3 124.6 128.2 162.5 162.8 162.7 All items ..................................................................................................... C om m odities........................................................................................... Food and beverages.......................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages.......................................... Nondurables less food and beverages ....................................... Apparel com m odities.................................................................... Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel .................... D urables............................................................................................. 112.5 107.3 113.3 103.6 100.8 108.8 99.2 106.6 117.0 111.0 117.9 106.8 104.6 113.4 102.9 108.9 118.9 113.0 120.0 108.7 107.2 118.9 104.1 109.7 119.0 113.1 119.9 108.9 107.1 118.1 104.3 110.4 119.2 113.0 120.3 108.6 106.3 116.0 104.1 110.7 119.7 113.5 121.7 108.4 105.9 113.0 104.9 111.0 120.2 113.9 122.4 108.7 106.3 112.8 105.6 111.0 120.8 114.7 123.1 109.5 108.1 116.7 106.5 110.6 121.8 116.4 123.7 111.8 112.1 118.4 111.6 110.5 122.5 117.1 124.4 112.6 113.4 117.7 113.9 110.6 122.8 116.9 124.6 112.2 112.6 115.0 114.0 110.7 123.2 116.8 125.1 111.6 111.7 112.3 113.9 110.6 123.2 116.4 125.3 110.9 110.8 112.4 112.6 110.1 123.6 116.9 125.6 111.6 112.0 117.6 112.0 110.0 124.2 117.7 126.0 112.5 113.2 120.5 112.3 110.6 Services................................................................................................... Rent of shelter (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 )........................................................... Household services less rent of shelter (12/84 = 1 0 0 )............... Transportation s e rv ic e s ..................................................................... Medical care se rvice s........................................................................ Other services ................................................................................... 119.4 114.0 104.0 120.8 130.3 124.7 124.7 119.4 105.9 127.1 139.0 131.4 126.7 121.1 107.2 129.9 141.6 134.2 126.9 121.4 106.2 130.9 142.2 134.5 127.2 121.5 106.8 131.2 142.7 135.0 127.9 121.9 107.5 132.2 144.2 136.1 128.4 122.4 107.4 133.1 145.8 136.5 128.9 123.1 107.4 133.5 146.7 137.0 129.1 123.2 107.6 133.7 147.2 137.6 129.7 123.7 108.3 134.4 147.6 137.9 130.6 124.2 110.5 134.8 148.6 138.6 131.5 125.4 110.9 134.8 150.0 139.1 132.0 125.9 111.0 134.9 151.1 140.1 132.3 126.0 111.0 135.0 152.1 142.3 132.6 126.7 109.3 136.3 153.0 142.9 Special indexes: All items less food ................................................... All items less shelter ......................................................................... All items less homeowners’ costs (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ).......................... All items less medical c a re ............................................................... Commodities less fo o d ...................................................................... Nondurables less food ...................................................................... Nondurables less food and apparel ............................................... Nondurables......................................................................................... Services less rent of shelter (1 2 /8 4 —1 0 0 )................................... Services less medical c a r e ............................................................... E nergy.................................................................................................. All items less energy ......................................................................... All items less food and energy ........................................................ Commodities less food and e n e rg y ................................................ Energy commodities .......................................................................... Services less ene rgy.......................................................................... 112.2 111.0 106.4 111.5 103.9 101.4 100.0 107.2 110.8 118.2 88.0 116.0 116.8 110.8 80.3 121.2 116.7 115.2 110.4 115.8 107.2 105.3 103.7 111.5 115.6 123.3 88.6 121.0 121.9 114.7 80.9 127.0 118.6 117.2 112.2 117.7 109.0 107.8 104.9 113.8 117.6 125.2 89.3 123.1 124.0 116.9 81.2 129.1 118.8 117.3 112.3 117.8 109.2 107.6 105.1 113.7 117.6 125.3 88.4 123.4 124.3 117.1 81.2 129.5 118.8 117.4 112.4 117.9 108.9 106.9 104.9 113.5 118.1 125.6 88.1 123.6 124.4 117.0 80.3 129.8 119.2 118.0 113.0 118.5 108.8 106.5 105.6 114.0 119.0 126.3 88.3 124.2 124.8 116.9 79.9 130.5 119.6 118.5 113.4 118.9 109.0 107.0 106.4 114.6 119.5 126.7 88.6 124.7 125.3 117.1 80.6 131.1 120.2 119.1 114.1 119.5 109.9 108.7 107.2 115.8 119.8 127.2 89.2 125.3 125.9 117.9 81.7 131.6 121.3 120.4 115.2 120.5 112.1 112.4 111.7 118.1 120.1 127.4 94.8 125.8 126.3 118.4 91.6 131.9 122.0 121.1 115.8 121.2 112.9 113.6 113.8 119.1 120.7 128.0 97.4 126.2 126.6 118.5 95.6 132.4 122.3 121.3 116.1 121.5 112.5 113.0 114.0 118.8 121.9 128.9 98.9 126.4 126.8 118.2 94.9 132.9 122.6 121.4 116.3 121.8 112.0 112.1 113.9 118.6 122.3 129.7 98.3 126.8 127.3 117.9 93.5 133.8 122.6 121.3 116.3 121.8 111.4 111.4 112.8 118.3 122.7 130.1 96.6 127.1 127.6 117.9 90.2 134.4 123.1 121.8 116.6 122.2 112.0 112.5 112.3 119.1 123.3 130.4 95.5 127.7 128.3 119.0 88.4 134.8 123.6 122.3 117.1 122.7 112.9 113.6 112.7 119.8 123.2 130.6 94.2 128.5 129.1 120.1 88.7 135.5 89.0 29.9 85.5 28.7 84.1 28.2 84.0 28.2 83.9 28.2 83.5 28.0 83.2 27.9 82.8 27.8 82.1 27.6 81.6 27.4 81.4 27.3 81.2 27.3 81.2 27.2 80.9 27.2 80.5 27.0 1987 1988 Apparel com m odities......................................................................... Men’s and boys’ a p p a re l................................................................ Women's and girls’ apparel ........................................................... Infants’ and toddlers’ a p p a re l........................................................ F oo tw ear............................................................................................ Other apparel com m odities............................................................ Apparel se rvice s................................................................................. 108.8 108.5 110.3 114.0 105.5 107.4 119.2 Transportation ....................................................................................... Private transportation......................................................................... New ve h icle s.................................................................................... New c a rs ......................................................................................... Used cars .......................................................................................... Motor fuel .......................................................................................... G a soline.......................................................................................... Maintenance and re p a ir.................................................................. Other private transportation........................................................... Other private transportation com m odities................................ Other private transportation services........................................ Public transportation.......................................................................... Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 1982-84 = $ 1 .0 0 ..................................................................... 1967 = $ 1 .0 0 ......................................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 93 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tis tic s: 32. P r ic e D a ta C o n s u m e r P rice Ind ex: U.S. c ity a v e ra g e and a v a ila b le local a re a d ata: all item s (1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated) Urban Wage Earners All Urban Consumers Pricing schedule2 Area1 U.S. city a verage..................... Region and area size3 Northeast u rb a n ........................ Size A - More than 1,200,000 ................................ Size B - 500,000 to 1,200,000 ................................ Size C - 50,000 to 500,000 ................................... North Central urban ................ Size A - More than 1,200,000 ................................ Size B - 360,000 to 1,200,000 ................................ Size C - 50,000 to 360,000 ................................... Size D - Nonmetro politan (less than 50,0000 .......................... South urb a n ............................... Size A - More than 1,200,000 ................................ Size B - 450,000 to 1,200,000 ................................ Size C - 50,000 to 450,000 ................................... Size D - Nonmetro politan (less than 50,000) ........................... West u rb a n ................................ Size A - More than 1,250,000 ................................ Size C - 50,000 to 330,000 ................................... Size classes: A ( 1 2 / 8 6 - 1 0 0 ) ...................... B ............................................... C .............................................. D .............................................. Selected local areas Chicago, ILNorthwestern IN ...................... Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, C A ............ New York, NYNortheastern N J ...................... Philadelphia, P A -N J.................. San FranciscoOakland, C A ............................. Baltimore, MD ........................... Boston, MA ............................... Cleveland, O H ........................... Miami, F L ................................... St. Louis, M O -IL........................ Washington, D C -M D -V A ......... Dallas-Ft. Worth, T X ................ Detroit, M l.................................. Houston, TX .............................. Pittsburgh, PA ........................... M Sept. Nov. June July Aug. 120.2 120.3 124.1 124.4 124.6 125.0 Oct. Oct. Nov. 125.6 118.9 119.0 June 122.8 July Aug. 123.2 123.2 Sept. 123.6 Oct. 124.2 M 124.1 124.4 128.5 129.0 129.1 130.0 130.6 122.9 123.2 127.4 127.9 128.0 128.8 129.4 M 124.9 125.1 129.1 129.3 129.5 130.6 131.1 122.9 123.1 127.1 127.3 127.5 128.7 129.1 M 122.5 122.9 127.0 128.8 129.1 128.9 130.0 121.2 121.6 125.9 127.8 127.9 127.6 128.6 M M 121.7 118.1 122.7 118.1 127.6 121.8 127.9 122.0 127.8 122.0 128.1 122.5 128.9 123.0 124.2 116.1 125.1 116.2 130.3 119.9 130.3 120.1 130.2 120.0 130.8 120.4 131.5 120.9 M 119.1 119.1 123.0 123.5 123.5 124.1 124.3 116.4 116.5 120.3 120.7 120.7 121.2 121.4 M 118.2 118.0 120.9 120.7 120.9 121.0 122.5 115.7 115.7 118.5 118.5 118.6 118.6 120.0 M 117.7 118.4 122.1 122.0 122.1 122.2 122.9 116.5 117.3 121.0 120.8 120.8 120.9 121.6 M M 114.2 118.2 114.1 118.3 117.4 121.7 117.5 122.0 117.1 122.1 117.8 122.5 118.2 123.0 113.9 117.7 113.9 117.8 117.2 121.3 117.4 121.5 116.9 121.6 117.7 121.9 118.1 122.4 M 118.9 118.9 122.4 122.6 122.8 123.5 123.9 118.1 118.0 121.7 121.9 122.0 122.5 122.9 122.1 M 119.5 119.6 123.0 123.5 123.4 123.9 124.5 117.5 117.7 121.0 121.4 121.2 121.7 M 117.1 117.4 120.4 120.5 121.0 120.9 121.7 117.7 117.9 121.1 121.2 121.6 121.5 122.2 M M 116.0 120.7 116.3 120.7 120.4 124.6 120.1 125.1 120.0 125.3 120.2 125.6 120.7 126.1 116.8 119.4 117.0 119.4 121.3 123.3 120.9 123.8 121.1 123.9 121.0 124.2 121.6 124.6 M 122.2 122.3 126.3 126.9 127.1 127.5 127.8 119.6 119.6 123.6 124.2 124.3 124.6 124.9 M 119.4 119.0 122.4 122.7 122.6 122.8 123.7 118.7 118.4 121.7 122.0 121.9 122.1 123.0 M M M M 109.2 119.7 118.5 116.8 109.2 119.7 118.9 117.0 112.7 123.3 122.5 120.5 113.1 123.9 122.7 120.5 113.2 124.0 122.9 120.5 113.8 124.2 122.9 120.8 114.2 125.2 123.7 121.3 109.1 118.3 118.9 117.1 109.1 118.4 119.3 117.3 112.7 122.0 123.0 120.8 113.0 122.6 123.0 120.9 113.1 122.6 123.1 120.9 113.7 122.8 123.3 121.2 114.0 123.6 124.0 121.7 M 121.6 121.0 125.7 126.4 126.4 127.1 126.8 117.8 117.4 121.8 122.6 122.5 123.1 122.9 M 124.0 124.1 128.7 129.0 128.9 130.1 130.0 121.0 120.9 125.3 125.7 125.5 126.5 126.5 125.9 125.3 130.5 128.8 130.6 129.3 130.9 129.1 132.2 130.2 132.8 130.5 124.3 124.4 124.1 125.0 128.7 128.9 128.7 129.3 128.9 129.3 130.3 130.4 130.8 130.6 122.2 126.2 127.4 128.1 126.8 127.5 121.3 121.1 125.6 126.4 127.0 126.1 126.7 125.9 132.2 123.7 122.9 123.9 130.1 _ - _ - - - - 120.8 127.4 113.0 117.2 117.8 122.6 124.6 130.8 118.8 120.6 122.8 127.3 - 125.4 132.6 118.2 121.4 123.5 129.5 - - 120.0 119.3 114.5 115.9 - 119.8 119.2 114.9 116.0 - 121.1 121.5 115.8 116.8 M M 126.2 124.6 M 122.3 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 _ 117.9 118.6 111.1 116.3 121.2 127.4 118.0 118.3 118.3 123.2 _ - _ 120.0 122.1 114.1 120.4 124.9 130.3 124.4 121.6 123.1 127.8 _ “ 1 Area is the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA), ex clusive of farms and military. Area definitions are those established by the Office of Management and Budget in 1983, except for BostonLawrence-Salem, MA-NH Area (excludes Monroe County); and Milwau kee, Wl Area (includes only the Milwaukee MSA). Definitions do not in clude revisions made since 1983. 2 Foods, fuels, and several other items priced every month in all areas; most other goods and services priced as indicated:. M - Every month. 1 - January, March, May, July, September, and November. 2 - February, April, June, August, October, and December. 94 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1989 1988 1989 1988 Oct. D ecem ber 1989 _ 120.0 122.2 114.4 120.8 _ “ 121.4 124.6 115.7 121.7 117.7 115.6 111.4 111.7 - - ” “ 3 Regions are defined as the four Census regions. - Data not available. NOTE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts of the national CPI program. Because each local index is a small subset of the national in dex, it has a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substan tially more sampling and other measurement error than the national in dex. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the na tional index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. Therefore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI for use in escalator clauses. 33. A n n u a l d ata: C o n s u m e r P rice In d e x , U.S. c ity a v e ra g e , all ite m s and m a jo r g ro u p s (1982-84 = 100) Series 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All items: 82.4 13.5 90.9 10.3 96.5 6.2 99.6 3.2 103.9 4.3 107.6 3.6 109.6 1.9 1136 3.6 118 3 4.1 86.7 8.5 93.5 7.8 97.3 4.1 99.5 2.3 103.2 3.7 105.6 2.3 109.1 3.3 113.5 4.0 118 2 4.1 81.1 15.7 90.4 11.5 96.9 7.2 99.5 2.7 103.6 4.1 107.7 4.0 110.9 3.0 114.2 3.0 118 5 3.8 90.9 7.1 95.3 4.8 97.8 2.6 100.2 2.5 102.1 1.9 105.0 2.8 105 9 .9 110.6 4.4 115.4 4.3 83.1 17.9 93.2 12.2 97.0 4.1 99.3 2.4 103.7 4.4 106 4 2.6 102 3 -3.9 105 4 3.0 108.7 3.1 74.9 11.0 82.9 10.7 92.5 11.6 100.6 8.8 106.8 6.2 113.5 6.3 122.0 7.5 130 1 6.6 138.6 6.5 83.6 9.0 90.1 7.8 96.0 6.5 100.1 4.3 103.8 3.7 107.9 3.9 111.6 3.4 115.3 3.3 120.3 4.3 75.2 9.1 82.6 9.8 91.1 10.3 101.1 11.0 107.9 6.7 114.5 6.1 121.4 6.0 128.5 5.8 137.0 6.6 82.9 13.4 91.4 10.3 96.9 6.0 99.8 3.0 103.3 3.5 106.9 3.5 108.6 1.6 112.5 3.6 117.0 4.0 Food and beverages: Housing: Apparel and upkeep: Transportation: Medical care: Entertainment: Other goods and services: Percent ch a n g e .................................................................... Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: All Items: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 95 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tistic s: 34. P r ic e D a ta P ro d u c e r P rice In d e x e s , by s ta g e o f p ro ce s s in g (1982 = 100) 1989 1988 Annual average Grouping 114.3 113.1 118.6 114.0 112.8 119.0 113.3 111.8 118.7 113.5 112.1 118.5 114.8 113.3 119.5 110.3 106.0 117.1 118.3 110.4 106.0 117.5 118.8 109.7 105.3 116.7 118.6 108.4 103.5 116.8 118.8 109.0 104.4 116.7 118.8 110.3 104.8 120.1 120.3 112.4 112.7 112.7 112.6 112.1 112.4 112.3 118.7 111.4 119.8 125.7 115.7 118.9 111.1 120.3 125.9 115.8 118.9 112.5 120.3 125.0 116.1 118.4 112.4 119.5 123.6 116.4 118.2 112.9 118.9 123.0 116.5 117.9 113.2 118.1 122.2 116.7 117.8 114.0 117.4 122.7 116.9 117.9 113.3 117.1 122.9 117.1 119.9 72.1 123.9 117.4 120.5 73.2 124.4 118.0 121.1 76.7 125.1 118.0 121.5 78.1 125.3 118.2 121.5 79.3 125.6 118.1 121.5 78.7 126.0 118.4 121.4 77.3 126.0 118.2 121.8 78.6 126.5 118.4 122.2 77.8 126.9 118.3 101.4 112.5 90.0 101.2 111.0 90.7 103.2 113.7 92.2 104.4 111.6 95.3 106.1 114.9 96.0 104.1 111.7 94.7 103.7 109.7 95.3 101.0 109.5 91.2 102.0 108.3 93.5 101.8 107.2 93.9 108.3 59.2 118.2 118.9 119.4 109.2 60.8 119.2 ( 120.0 120.1 109.9 61.8 119.8 120.6 120.7 110.0 62.3 120.1 121.1 120.7 111.4 68.4 120.0 120.9 120.8 112.6 71.8 120.8 121.8 121.4 112.8 70.2 121.2 122.1 122.1 112.3 68.4 121.2 122.1 121.9 111.5 63.6 121.3 122.3 122.3 111.9 65.7 121.2 122.1 122.2 113.3 65.7 122.7 123.5 123.9 121.2 121.9 122.6 122.6 122.7 123.3 124.1 123.9 124.4 124.2 126.0 129.2 129.9 129.7 130.4 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June 1988 105.4 103.6 109.5 108.0 106.2 112.6 109.8 108.0 114.9 110.0 108.2 115.1 111.1 109.4 116.7 111.7 110.1 117.2 112.1 110.6 118.3 113.0 111.8 117.7 114.2 113.2 119.1 100.7 94.9 111.5 111.7 103.1 97.3 113.8 114.3 104.6 98.4 116.1 116.1 104.8 98.7 116.1 116.4 105.8 100.0 116.6 117.1 106.6 100.9 117.0 117.5 106.8 101.3 116.6 117.5 108.8 104.2 116.4 117.6 101.5 107.1 108.9 109.4 110.6 111.0 111.5 105.3 100.8 102.2 106.2 108.8 113.2 106.0 112.9 118.7 112.3 116.2 107.7 116.8 123.2 113.8 116.8 108.6 117.5 124.3 114.1 118.0 110.4 119.2 125.5 114.9 118.3 110.1 119.7 125.3 115.3 Supplies........................................................... 109.8 73.3 114.5 107.7 116.1 71.2 120.1 113.7 118.1 69.0 122.6 116.2 118.7 69.8 122.7 116.2 119.4 71.6 123.1 117.2 Crude materials for further processing ... Foodstuffs and feedstuffs .......................... Crude nonfood m ate rials............................ 93.7 96.2 87.9 96.0 106.1 85.5 94.5 108.0 82.0 97.3 109.5 85.4 104.0 61.8 112.3 112.5 113.3 106.5 59.8 115.8 116.3 117.0 108.1 60.0 117.8 118.5 118.9 114.2 118.5 120.6 Nondurable goods less food ................ Durable goods ......................................... Capital equ ipm ent......................................... Intermediate materials, supplies, and com ponents................................................... Materials and components for Materials for food m anufacturing............ Materials for nondurable manufacturing . Materials for durable m anufacturing....... Components for m anufacturing............... Materials and components for Processed fuels and lubricants................... Special groupings: Finished goods, excluding fo o d s .................. Finished energy goods ................................... Finished goods less e n e rg y ........................... Finished consumer goods less e n e rg y........ Finished goods less food and energy ......... Finished consumer goods less food and e n e rg y ............................................................... Consumer nondurable goods less food and e n e rg y ............................................................... 116.3 122.0 123.9 125.0 125.9 126.8 127.1 127.4 127.9 129.0 101.7 99.2 73.0 107.3 106.9 109.5 70.9 114.6 108.7 113.4 68.7 117.3 109.2 113.0 69.5 117.8 110.4 115.6 71.2 118.9 110.8 114.0 71.8 119.1 111.4 115.2 72.9 119.6 112.3 113.7 76.4 119.9 112.6 114.2 77.7 120.0 112.7 112.9 78.9 119.7 112.5 114.3 78.3 119.7 112.0 113.1 76.9 119.4 112.3 114.0 78.2 119.5 112.3 112.4 77.4 119.6 107.8 115.2 118.0 118.6 119.6 119.9 120.3 120.7 120.8 120.5 120.3 120.0 120.1 120.3 75.0 100.9 115.7 67.7 112.6 133.0 62.9 114.7 135.6 66.6 116.1 136.9 71.2 119.3 140.3 72.0 118.1 140.3 73.5 120.4 141.3 77.3 118.8 141.2 78.3 121.0 140.3 77.5 118.0 137.9 78.9 115.8 134.9 73.6 116.0 136.5 76.2 115.4 137.2 76.6 114.6 137.4 Intermediate materials less foods and Intermediate foods and fe e d s ........................ Intermediate energy goods ............................ Intermediate goods less e n e rg y .................... Intermediate materials less foods and e n e rg y ............................................................... Crude energy m aterials................................... Crude materials less energy .......................... Crude nonfood materials less e n e rg y.......... 35. Oct. Aug. Jan. 1987 Finished goods .............................................. Finished consumer goods ........................... Finished consumer fo o d s .......................... Finished consumer goods excluding Sept. July Dec. Nov. P ro d u c e r P rice in d e x e s, by d u ra b ility o f p ro d u c t (1982 = 100) 1989 1988 Annual average G rouping 1987 1988 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Sept. Oct. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 118.9 108.6 119.0 108.2 118.7 108.0 118.8 106.7 119.1 107.2 120.0 107.2 Total durable g o o d s ........................................ Total nondurable g o o d s .................................. 109.9 97.5 114.7 101.1 116.8 102.0 117.2 102.8 118.1 104.8 118.3 105.2 118.5 106.1 118.7 107.4 Total m anufactures.......................................... 104.4 109.6 99 2 109.1 114.1 104.1 111.0 116.0 106.1 111.4 116.4 106.4 112.5 117.1 107.8 112.9 117.4 108.3 113.4 117.6 109.2 114.4 117.8 110.8 115.0 118.1 111.6 114.9 118.3 111.3 114.6 118.1 110.9 114.2 118.3 110.1 114.5 118.5 110.4 115.2 119.5 110.8 94.2 122.6 92.9 95.9 148.0 93.4 94.8 154.8 92.0 96.7 157.5 93.9 99.9 162.6 97.0 100.1 161.9 97.2 101.1 161.0 98.2 101.5 159.0 98.8 103.3 157.5 100.8 102.6 151.5 100.3 102.5 145.0 100.5 100.3 146.5 98.2 101.0 146.9 98.9 100.2 145.8 98.0 Nondurable .................................................. Total raw or slightly processed goods ........ Nondurable .................................................... 96 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 36. P ro d u c e r p ric e in d e x e s fo r th e n e t o u tp u t o f m a jo r in d u s try g ro u p s (December 1984 = 100, unless otherwise indicated) Total m ining in d u s trie s .................................. Metal m ining..................................................... Anthracite mining (12/85 —100) ................... Bituminous coal and lignite mining ( 1 2 / 8 5 - 1 0 0 ) .................................................. Oil and gas extraction (1 2 /8 5 —1 0 0 ).......... Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels ..................................... T otal m anufactu ring in d u s trie s .................... Food and kindred p ro d u c ts ........................... Tobacco manufactures .................................. Textile mill p ro d u c ts ....................................... Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics and similar materials ... Lumber and wood products, except furniture........................................................... Furniture and fix tu re s ..................................... Paper and allied products ............................. Printing, publishing, and allied Industries........................................................ Chemicals and allied products...................... Petroleum refining and related p ro d u c ts .... Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products Leather and leather products ....................... Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products .. Primary metal industries ................................ Fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment . Machinery, except e lectrica l.......................... Electrical and electronic machinery, equipment, and supplies............................... Transportation equipm ent.............................. Measuring and controlling instruments; photographic, medical, optical goods; watches, clo cks ............................................ Miscellaneous manufacturing industries ( 1 2 /8 5 - 1 0 0 ) ................................................... Service industries: Pipelines, except natural gas (12/86= 100 ) 37. 1989 1988 Annual Industry SIC Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 70.6 100.7 100.2 68.3 108.3 101.5 70.8 111.1 102.7 74.6 112.7 102.8 75.5 105.9 102.7 74.9 104.8 103.0 77.2 103.9 102.5 78.2 100.6 102.4 96.0 74.3 94.6 68.5 93.9 65.2 93.9 68.3 93.8 73.0 93.0 74.5 92.9 73.8 93.4 76.7 93.9 78.1 105.1 108.0 109.1 109.1 109.9 110.8 110.9 111.3 1987 1988 10 11 75.0 100.1 98.9 12 13 14 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. 77.4 96.0 102.4 78.1 92.1 102.4 74.1 96.4 102.6 76.4 98.2 102.6 76.0 99.8 103.0 94.0 77.2 94.9 78.2 94.8 72.9 94.7 75.7 94.9 75.1 111.6 112.1 111.6 111.5 111.0 111.2 110.1 112.2 155.1 108.8 110.1 112.1 163.5 109.4 109.9 112.5 163.6 109.1 109.5 112.4 164.9 109.7 109.8 112.4 164.9 109.9 110.7 112.4 165.8 109.8 20 21 22 100.9 102.6 126.5 102.6 104.4 107.1 141.8 106.8 106.1 109.6 145.1 107.6 106.4 109.5 153.1 107.8 107.5 110.8 154.9 108.3 107.9 110.9 155.0 108.3 108.5 111.9 155.0 108.6 109.4 111.6 155.1 108.8 23 103.9 107.2 108.2 108.5 108.9 109.3 109.3 109.5 109.6 109.8 110.1 110.5 110.9 111.1 24 25 26 105.3 106.4 104.9 109.2 111.4 113.7 109.7 112.9 117.0 109.6 113.3 117.5 110.7 113.6 118.2 112.3 114.0 119.7 113.1 114.4 120.4 114.4 114.7 120.6 115.4 115.2 121.1 115.9 115.5 121.2 117.1 115.8 121.2 116.6 116.1 121.2 116.6 116.3 121.2 117.9 116.8 121.7 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 112.2 103.6 70.5 100.9 106.6 104.5 101.0 118.2 113.0 67.7 106.7 113.4 105.8 113.0 120.1 117.2 67.2 108.5 114.9 106.2 117.5 120.5 117.8 66.8 108.7 115.1 106.3 118.5 122.6 119.6 68.5 109.3 115.8 106.5 119.7 123.2 119.9 69.3 109.6 116.6 106.7 119.4 123.6 120.6 71.5 110.2 117.0 107.2 120.1 124.0 121.0 79.9 110.5 117.2 107.9 120.1 124.2 120.9 82.9 110.5 117.4 107.9 119.8 124.6 120.6 80.4 110.4 117.3 108.1 118.9 124.8 120.4 77.6 110.2 117.8 108.4 118.4 125.2 119.5 73.0 110.2 118.7 108.3 117.9 125.6 119.1 75.6 110.2 119.5 108.3 118.5 125.9 118.8 77.3 110.2 119.4 108.3 118.7 34 102.1 107.4 109.6 110.0 110.6 111.1 111.5 112.0 112.5 112.5 112.6 112.7 113.2 113.8 35 103.2 106.4 107.8 108.1 108.9 109.3 109.7 109.8 110.2 110.3 111.0 111.2 111.5 111.6 107.5 111.0 107.6 111.1 107.6 110.7 107.8 114.6 36 37 103.3 105.9 104.6 107.8 105.2 110.3 105.3 110.9 106.0 111.4 106.4 111.7 106.4 111.2 106.6 110.9 106.8 111.6 107.1 111.8 38 105.1 107.0 107.5 107.5 108.8 109.1 109.7 110.1 110.6 110.9 110.9 111.1 111.2 111.8 39 103.8 107.5 108.6 108.9 110.1 110.6 110.9 111.2 111.5 111.7 112.1 112.4 112.6 112.7 46 97.9 94.8 94.7 94.7 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.4 94.4 94.4 94.4 94.4 94.4 94.4 A n nu al d ata: P ro d u c e r P rice In d e x e s , by s ta g e o f p ro ce s s in g (1982 = 100) Index Finished goods: Total ........................................................................... Consumer goods ................................................. Capital equipment ............................................... 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 88.0 88.6 85.8 96.1 96.6 94.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.6 101.3 102.8 103.7 103.3 105.2 104.7 103.8 107.5 103.2 101.4 109.7 105.4 103.6 111.7 108.0 106.2 114.3 Interm ediate m aterials, supplies, and com ponents: Total ........................................................................... Materials and components for m anufacturing..................................................... Materials and components for construction .... Processed fuels and lubricants ......................... Containers ............................................................. S u p p lie s................................................................. 90.3 98.6 100.0 100.6 103.1 102.7 99.1 101.5 107.1 91.7 91.3 85.0 89.1 89.9 98.7 97.9 100.6 96.7 96.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.2 102.8 95.4 100.4 101.8 104.1 105.6 95.7 105.9 104.1 103.3 107.3 92.8 109.0 104.4 102.2 108.1 72.7 110.3 105.6 105.3 109.8 73.3 114.5 107.7 113.2 116.1 71.2 120.1 113.7 Crude m aterials fo r fu rth e r processing: Total ........................................................................... Foodstuffs and feedstuffs .................................. Nonfood materials except fuel .......................... Fuel ........................................................................ 95.3 104.6 84.6 69.4 103.0 103.9 101.8 84.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.3 101.8 100.7 105.1 103.5 104.7 102.2 105.1 95.8 94.8 96.9 102.7 87.7 93.2 81.6 92.2 93.7 96.2 87.9 84.1 96.0 106.1 85.5 82.1 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 97 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tis tic s: 38. P r ic e D a ta U.S. e x p o rt p ric e in d e x e s by S ta n d a rd In te rn a tio n a l T ra d e C la s s ific a tio n (1985 = 100, unless otherwise indicated) 1974 SITO Category ALL COMMODITIES ............................................................................................ 1987 Mar. June 1989 1988 Mar. June Sept. Dec. 106.5 109.5 99.9 102.2 102.8 104.9 Dec. Mar. June Sept. 111.9 111.6 113.3 113.2 112.4 Sept. Food ....................................................................................................................... Meat and meat preparations............................................................................ Fish and crustaceans......................................................................................... Grain and grain preparations........................................................................... Vegetables and fr u it........................................................................................... Animal feeds, excluding unmilled c e re a ls ...................................................... Miscellaneous food pro d u cts........................................................................... 0 01 03 04 05 08 09 87.3 115.0 117.1 68.3 115.3 117.0 100.1 89.9 121.2 125.8 71.0 112.4 123.8 100.6 86.7 118.8 131.1 67.8 101.1 123.1 100.3 94.6 116.8 138.5 77.4 100.5 145.2 100.3 95.2 122.8 140.9 79.8 97.5 134.6 102.3 103.4 131.0 145.0 87.2 104.3 158.1 102.8 118.7 137.0 175.9 108.5 109.9 161.0 105.2 114.2 130.3 174.0 102.0 110.3 157.0 104.9 117.6 132.9 169.1 108.4 108.8 154.1 107.0 115.5 128.2 158.9 106.4 113.6 144.0 108.0 110.4 119.5 137.2 101.5 113.9 139.3 107.7 Beverages and tobacco ................................................................................... Tobacco and tobacco products....................................................................... 1 12 102.6 102.6 105.0 105.0 105.5 105.5 107.0 107.0 109.6 109.8 110.6 110.7 112.0 112.1 111.7 111.8 117.2 117.6 117.6 117.9 120.4 120.8 Crude materials ................................................................................................... Raw hides and s k in s .......................................................................................... O ilse e d s............................................................................................................... Crude ru b b e r....................................................................................................... W o o d .................................................................................................................... Pulp and waste p a p e r........................................................................................ Textile fib e rs ........................................................................................................ Crude m inerals.................................................................................................... Metal ores and metal s c ra p ............................................................................. 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 105.7 131.9 90.4 99.9 111.2 144.2 97.8 94.4 98.8 114.5 149.6 101.6 101.0 116.2 149.9 112.4 94.0 107.0 118.7 147.7 95.1 102.8 141.7 153.0 116.5 91.6 117.4 125.2 157.1 109.6 105.3 146.0 160.4 111.6 91.6 125.9 130.0 171.4 115.6 104.5 150.2 171.2 107.5 92.8 131.8 139.9 166.8 143.0 106.1 149.6 179.5 109.9 94.2 146.0 140.8 156.7 154.7 109.1 150.0 181.7 100.8 94.8 145.0 135.8 136.8 135.7 109.9 148.6 182.1 103.6 94.8 150.4 142.6 146.7 139.3 111.1 157.3 192.9 106.7 98.8 163.5 143.0 149.9 129.8 114.6 170.7 193.5 115.5 99.2 157.2 139.2 156.1 111.5 117.7 177.7 193.2 118.1 99.3 150.4 Fuels and related products ............................................................................. Coal and coke .................................................................................................... Crude petroleum and petroleum products ..................................................... 3 32 33 81.3 92.6 82.8 88.2 84.6 91.0 82.5 89.8 100.0 79.3 90.6 90.8 82.1 92.0 97.2 79.5 92.9 89.2 79.4 93.4 88.4 81.7 93.7 94.5 86.0 94.3 105.4 88.0 95.6 108.8 Fats and o ils ......................................................................................................... Animal oils and fats ........................................................................................... Fixed vegetable oils and fa ts ........................................................................... 4 41 42 73.9 81.1 67.3 78.8 86.7 71.9 78.5 86.7 71.2 81.6 88.7 75.4 92.7 101.3 85.7 97.3 101.6 93.7 101.5 104.3 99.1 91.5 95.7 87.1 90.3 91.8 88.2 87.3 89.6 84.4 83.8 84.6 81.6 Chemicals and related p ro d u c ts .................................................................... Organic chem ica ls.............................................................................................. Dyeinq, tanning, and coloring m a te ria ls ......................................................... Medicinal and pharmaceutical products (12/85 = 100) ............................... Essential oils, polish, and cleaning preparations......................................... Fertilizers, manufactured .................................................................................. Artificial resins, plastics and c e llu lo s e ............................................................ Chemical materials and products, n.e.s.......................................................... 5 51 53 54 55 56 57 58 99.6 101.9 103.6 101.0 105.5 85.6 104.8 97.5 106.7 118.4 104.2 101.4 105.7 91.6 111.9 97.7 107.7 116.1 105.5 102.2 107.3 100.9 116.4 97.1 112.9 123.5 108.5 105.4 108.4 106.5 124.8 98.2 117.9 135.1 109.1 109.3 111.2 110.6 129.4 100.3 121.6 144.6 110.1 106.3 113.6 109.8 137.5 101.7 124.9 153.3 111.5 105.9 120.2 116.4 138.2 104.1 125.5 150.8 113.0 107.5 122.4 119.9 132.5 105.4 125.5 149.6 115.5 109.0 125.3 119.4 125.8 108.4 121.9 145.0 116.5 108.9 124.7 108.0 118.6 109.4 117.7 134.0 120.5 109.4 122.4 108.9 111.4 109.4 Intermediate manufactured products ........................................................... Leather and furskins .......................................................................................... Rubber manufactures ........................................................................................ Paper and paperboard products ..................................................................... T extiles................................................................................................................. Non-metallic mineral manufactures (9 /8 5 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................... Iron and s te e l...................................................................................................... Nonferrous m e ta ls .............................................................................................. Metal manufactures, n.e.s.................................................................................. 6 61 62 64 65 66 67 68 69 106.4 123.6 102.0 114.7 103.3 106.8 102.9 106.6 101.5 107.9 126.9 102.5 117.0 103.7 108.7 102.9 113.0 101.3 110.3 128.7 103.9 120.1 104.1 110.4 100.7 123.0 102.3 111.2 118.0 104.1 122.4 105.2 111.3 102.9 124.4 103.4 114.4 125.7 105.2 126.2 106.5 113.4 106.1 134.0 104.5 117.7 125.1 108.8 129.0 107.9 114.1 110.8 143.5 107.6 119.6 128.6 109.4 130.2 108.6 115.6 111.4 149.1 109.9 120.6 125.0 110.4 131.1 111.6 116.8 112.1 150.0 110.9 122.6 118.3 113.0 132.5 113.9 120.4 116.0 151.7 112.6 123.1 120.7 112.9 133.7 115.4 122.4 117.2 145.8 113.9 122.8 121.5 113.4 132.8 115.7 123.9 116.7 140.4 114.3 7 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 101.7 104.6 100.0 105.8 104.2 96.0 101.9 101.7 103.1 101.8 103.7 100.1 106.7 104.5 96.1 101.4 102.1 103.5 102.1 104.8 100.5 107.8 104.6 95.7 101.4 102.5 103.8 102.4 105.2 100.9 108.2 105.4 95.5 101.9 101.8 104.6 103.2 107.0 102.1 109.3 106.7 95.8 102.8 103.1 104.5 104.0 108.4 103.6 110.8 108.1 95.7 104.6 103.4 104.9 104.8 108.5 104.7 111.0 109.3 96.8 104.1 105.3 105.4 105.8 109.3 106.0 114.4 110.3 96.4 105.1 105.7 106.8 106.7 111.8 107.3 115.7 112.7 95.8 106.7 106.1 107.2 107.2 112.8 108.8 117.3 113.3 94.8 107.5 106.5 107.8 107.9 114.1 109.8 117.9 114.0 94.8 108.5 107.4 108.8 79 104.5 105.5 105.8 106.6 107.4 109.6 109.7 111.9 113.5 114.7 114.8 8 82 104.6 106.7 105.2 107.6 105.4 107.6 105.6 110.0 106.9 111.2 108.1 111.4 108.9 111.7 110.5 114.2 111.4 114.3 112.8 117.3 113.5 117.5 87 104.4 105.5 106.3 107.1 110.0 111.1 112.5 113.9 115.5 118.2 119.4 88 102.7 102.5 99.0 97.9 97.6 100.1 99.4 99.9 98.5 99.2 99.5 89 105.2 104.8 105.9 105.8 105.4 106.5 106.5 108.7 110.2 110.1 110.2 Machinery and transport equipment, excluding military and commercial a irc ra ft...................................................................................... Power generating machinery and e qu ipm ent................................................ Machinery specialized for particular industries.............................................. Metalworking m achinery................................................................................... General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s................................................. Office machines and automatic data processing equipment ..................... Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing equ ipm ent........ Electrical machinery and equipm ent............................................................... Road vehicles and parts .................................................................................. Other transport equipment, excluding military and commercial a via tio n .............................................................................................................. Miscellaneous manufactured articles............................................................ Furniture and p a rts ............................................................................................. Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and app ara tus.......................................................................................................... Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and c lo c k s ................................................................................................................ Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s.................................................... - Data not available. 98 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 _ 39. U.S. im p o rt p rice in d e x e s by S ta n d a rd in te rn a tio n a l T ra d e C la s s ific a tio n (1985=100, unless otherwise indicated) Category 1974 SITC ALL COMMODITIES ............................................................................................ ALL COMMODITIES, EXCLUDING FU ELS................................................. Sept. 1989 1988 1987 Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. 119.8 128.5 118.2 127.7 110.9 117.5 112.5 120.8 113.8 123.7 116.8 126.7 115.3 126.1 117.6 129.1 119.7 129.6 Food and live an im als....................................................................................... Meat and meat preparations......................................................................... Dairy products and eggs ............................................................................... Fish and crustaceans...................................................................................... Bakery goods, pasta products, grain, and grain preparations................ Fruits and vegetables...................................................................................... Sugar, sugar preparations, and ho n e y......................................................... Coffee, tea, c o c o a ........................................................................................... 0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 109.1 114.4 121.7 130.4 124.8 110.0 109.0 85.1 112.5 113.4 125.1 131.0 130.7 116.2 107.0 90.6 114.1 111.5 125.6 132.5 135.8 115.4 109.6 94.3 114.0 107.0 125.0 129.3 139.8 120.3 110.0 93.3 112.7 111.2 122.2 125.9 136.9 123.7 112.1 87.4 114.3 108.7 125.8 126.7 142.2 127.7 110.8 90.6 114.1 111.2 124.0 127.0 140.4 123.4 109.8 91.2 111.3 109.7 120.2 122.7 140.2 123.2 111.8 85.3 106.1 124.1 119.7 121.6 141.6 119.1 114.5 62.4 Beverages and tobacco ................................................................................... Beverages......................................................................................................... 1 11 112.2 114.8 113.5 116.2 116.0 118.7 116.2 120.0 115.3 118.9 116.2 119.9 117.0 120.7 117.2 120.7 118.9 122.8 Crude materials ................................................................................................... Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaim ed)..................................... Cork and wood ................................................................................................ Pulp and waste p a p e r.................................................................................... Textile fib e rs ..................................................................................................... Crude fertilizers and crude minerals ............................................................ Metalliferous ores and metal s c ra p .............................................................. Crude animal and vegetable materials, n.e.s.............................................. 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 120.3 110.7 117.4 133.4 128.1 99.2 128.7 107.6 122.1 120.1 108.8 141.0 135.2 99.9 137.9 118.3 129.2 121.7 112.4 151.0 137.8 100.4 151.2 135.8 137.8 151.1 111.4 160.5 145.5 101.0 167.6 148.2 135.4 133.3 109.7 169.6 141.9 97.2 172.2 122.0 143.2 121.5 107.8 174.7 145.6 100.2 205.4 139.5 146.2 123.0 112.1 184.7 151.5 103.3 204.3 138.5 144.3 103.4 112.4 190.0 145.4 104.7 212.3 110.3 137.5 98.3 113.3 189.6 141.9 101.2 185.4 108.5 Fuels and related p ro d u cts............................................................................ Crude petroleum and petroleum p roducts................................................... 3 33 74.3 75.2 67.2 67.8 60.6 60.4 63.4 63.6 57.7 57.7 56.4 56.1 66.8 67.3 73.3 74.4 67.9 68.6 Fats and o ils ......................................................................................................... Fixed vegetable oils and fats (9 /8 7 —100) ................................................ 4 42 96.4 100.0 102.1 105.7 106.4 111.1 111.2 116.1 114.0 119.2 112.3 117.4 112.5 117.3 117.4 122.6 107.0 111.0 Chemicals and related p ro d u c ts .................................................................... Organic ch em ica ls........................................................................................... Inorganic chem icals......................................................................................... Medicinal and pharmaceutical p ro d u c ts ...................................................... Essential oils and perfum e s.......................................................................... Manufactured fertilizers.................................................................................. Artificial resins and plastics and cellulose ................................................. Chemical materials and products, n.e.s....................................................... 5 51 52 54 55 56 58 59 105.6 98.2 89.8 124.3 119.2 109.3 114.4 120.6 110.1 103.0 90.1 126.3 123.0 133.6 117.6 124.8 114.2 105.8 92.0 135.3 125.7 133.7 121.6 138.7 116.4 107.3 92.3 140.3 126.2 136.3 124.3 148.5 119.2 111.3 93.0 145.4 127.5 136.5 127.6 153.4 122.2 115.1 96.1 146.4 130.5 139.9 129.5 156.5 123.6 117.6 93.1 154.9 130.3 143.5 129.5 154.8 120.4 114.0 86.6 153.5 130.2 142.1 129.8 151.6 117.8 110.5 85.7 150.1 126.2 132.4 130.5 149.8 Intermediate manufactured p ro d u c ts ........................................................... Leather and furskins ...................................................................................... Rubber manufactures, n.e.s............................................................................ Cork and wood m anufactures....................................................................... Paper and paperboard p roducts................................................................... T e xtile s.............................................................................................................. Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s..................................................... Iron and s te e l................................................................................................... Nonferrous m e ta ls .......................................................................................... Metal m anufactures........................................................................................ 6 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 116.3 117.8 103.2 128.3 110.3 114.6 130.4 109.4 120.9 114.6 119.8 124.4 104.6 128.2 112.3 118.6 133.4 114.0 125.8 117.8 124.4 131.8 106.0 133.8 117.2 120.0 137.4 120.0 132.7 121.1 132.2 137.0 107.7 138.2 118.3 120.6 142.5 127.2 159.7 126.9 132.3 136.6 109.1 136.1 119.5 119.1 139.7 129.9 158.9 127.5 135.0 134.9 111.1 134.1 119.9 120.5 136.1 133.8 112.2 139.8 120.8 122.1 130.7 169.1 130.7 137.3 134.6 111.7 136.9 120.6 120.5 147.5 132.6 172.8 132.4 133.6 158.6 132.6 135.3 133.9 113.2 141.5 119.9 121.8 151.2 133.7 150.8 133.5 Machinery and transport equipment ........................................................... Machinery (including SITC 71-77) ................................................................ Machinery specialized for particular in dustries.......................................... Metalworking m achin ery................................................................................ General industrial machinery and parts, n.e.s............................................. Office machines and automatic data processing equipm ent.................. Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing app a ra tu s...... Electrical machinery and equ ipm ent............................................................ Road vehicles and p a rts ................................................................................ 7 7hyb 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 119.9 118.7 134.3 130.2 130.1 114.8 110.2 115.1 120.6 123.1 122.6 142.1 135.5 137.0 118.3 112.1 118.2 122.6 125.4 124.6 146.8 139.9 140.4 118.1 112.8 122.2 125.5 127.3 126.4 149.8 142.4 143.7 119.5 113.8 124.2 127.6 126.7 125.9 143.7 139.7 139.6 118.7 113.9 125.9 127.1 129.9 128.7 150.8 144.1 144.2 118.7 115.5 129.3 130.8 130.1 129.2 149.1 142.9 144.7 119.6 115.7 130.5 130.5 129.2 128.4 145.7 139.5 143.0 119.3 115.7 129.6 129.6 129.0 127.9 145.8 144.0 143.3 117.4 115.0 129.0 129.5 Miscellaneous manufactured articles............................................................ Plumbing, heating, and lighting fix tu re s ....................................................... Furniture and p a rts .......................................................................................... Travel goods, handbags, and similar goods (6/85 —100) ....................... Clothing ............................................................................................................. F oo tw ear........................................................................................................... Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and app ara tus....................................................................................................... Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and c lo c k s ............................................................................................................... Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s................................................. 8 81 82 83 84 85 118.5 116.2 119.0 98.2 111.9 119.0 121.8 121.0 124.3 103.0 112.3 124.3 124.2 123.4 125.4 105.8 115.6 125.4 125.7 126.9 129.6 107.3 114.9 129.6 124.2 124.5 128.0 111.3 116.7 128.0 126.6 127.2 129.1 115.1 117.2 129.1 126.6 130.0 127.2 117.6 118.5 127.2 126.6 131.5 127.9 114.0 119.9 127.9 127.2 132.8 128.7 110.5 120.9 128.7 87 132.7 138.7 140.0 142.5 135.8 141.9 141.1 136.5 136.5 88 89 122.1 122.3 127.3 127.3 129.2 129.2 129.3 132.1 125.4 128.2 130.6 131.4 130.2 131.7 127.9 131.4 126.4 131.5 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 141.9 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w 149.5 D ecem ber 1989 99 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tistic s: 40. P r ic e D a ta U.S. e x p o rt p rice in d e x e s by e n d -u s e c a te g o ry (1985 = 100 unless otherwise indicated) 1987 1988 1989 Category Sept. Foods, feeds, and beverages.......................................................................... Industrial supplies and m ate rials..................................................................... Capital g o o d s ...................................................................................................... Automotive .......................................................................................................... Consumer goods ................................................................................................ Consumer nondurables, manufactured, except r u g s ................................ Consumer durables, manufactured .............................................................. Agricultural (9 /8 8 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................................................ All exports, excluding agricultural (9/88 = 1 0 0 )............................................... 41. Mar. Dec. 88.0 109.1 101.8 104.0 106.9 104.6 107.3 92.1 104.9 96.6 111.8 102.1 104.5 108.0 106.3 107.9 99.3 106.2 June 98.5 114.2 103.4 104.3 110.1 107.4 110.4 101.1 107.7 Sept. 110.1 118.3 104.3 104.8 110.6 108.7 110.4 110.9 109.7 Mar. Dec. 124.5 118.7 104.9 106.5 111.3 109.3 110.7 120.6 110.8 117.4 118.6 105.7 107.7 112.9 110.0 112.6 114.0 111.6 June 120.8 120.7 106.7 108.1 115.3 111.4 115.4 117.7 112.9 Sept. 117.2 120.9 107.4 108.6 115.6 111.5 115.4 116.1 113.1 110.3 119.5 108.2 109.4 116.4 111.6 116.4 111.2 113.0 U.S. im p o rt p ric e in d e x e s b y e n d -u s e c a te g o ry (1985 = 100) 1987 1988 1989 Category Sept. Dec. 117.0 109.0 95.3 74.7 112.6 121.9 118.4 118.2 116.8 117.9 42. Mar. 120.3 112.1 93.7 67.6 115.6 126.6 120.6 121.4 120.2 121.0 June 123.2 113.7 92.7 60.3 119.6 128.6 123.7 124.2 123.3 123.5 Sept. 126.2 113.7 97.8 63.5 126.4 131.0 125.8 126.3 124.2 125.5 Mar. Dec. 125.4 112.7 95.2 57.5 126.4 129.0 126.0 125.0 123.8 124.5 128.3 114.2 96.4 56.2 129.6 132.3 129.2 127.4 125.4 127.4 June 129.0 113.8 102.1 67.2 131.2 132.4 129.1 128.7 126.5 127.9 Sept. 128.0 111.7 104.2 74.1 129.4 131.0 128.2 129.1 127.5 127.9 U.S. e x p o rt p ric e in d e x e s by S ta n d a rd In d u s tria l C la s s ific a tio n 1 (1985 = 100) 1987 1988 1989 Industry group Sept. Manufacturing: Food and kindred pro d u c ts ..................................................... Lumber and wood products, except furn itu re ...................... Furniture and fix tu re s ............................................................... Paper and allied products ....................................................... Chemicals and allied products............................................... Petroleum and coal p roducts................................................. Primary metal p roducts............................................................ Machinery, except electrical .................................................. Electrical m achin ery................................................................. Transportation equipm ent........................................................ Scientific instruments; optical goods; c lo c k s ....................... 1 SIC-based classification. 100 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 107.1 138.9 108.7 115.5 108.7 81.4 122.3 99.4 102.5 106.9 106.6 Dec. 116.3 142.5 111.2 119.3 113.8 78.8 126.6 99.7 102.2 107.8 107.1 Mar. 120.8 146.1 112.5 124.6 118.4 73.0 126.9 100.6 102.9 108.1 109.2 June 125.1 145.4 112.9 129.8 122.3 77.8 133.8 101.3 103.7 109.1 110.8 Sept. 128.9 146.1 112.9 133.1 125.4 73.7 133.5 102.2 104.9 109.4 112.0 Dec. 123.5 144.0 115.3 135.6 125.5 75.4 133.6 102.8 105.4 110.9 113.4 Mar. 124.5 151.7 115.2 139.9 125.9 79.8 130.8 103.4 106.3 111.8 114.5 June 122.7 164.4 116.0 141.4 122.5 86.9 125.7 103.7 106.8 112.7 116.7 Sept. 119.4 171.2 116.2 141.5 118.6 88.8 122.4 104.4 107.8 113.4 117.6 127.1 107.1 100.2 68.2 126.9 130.8 128.2 129.4 128.5 127.7 43. U.S. im p o rt p ric e in d e x e s by S ta n d a rd In d u s tria l C la s s ific a tio n 1 (1985 = 100) 1987 1988 1989 Industry group Sept. Manufacturing: Food and kindred p ro d u c ts ............................................................ Textile mill p ro d u c ts ........................................................................ Apparel and related products ........................................................ Lumber and wood products, except fu rn itu re ............................. Furniture and fix tu re s ...................................................................... Paper and allied products .............................................................. Chemicals and allied products....................................................... Petroleum refining and allied p ro d u c ts ........................................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics p ro d u c ts ............................. Leather and leather products ........................................................ Stone, clay, glass, and concrete p roducts.................................. Primary metal p ro d u cts................................................................... Fabricated metal products.............................................................. Machinery, except electrica l........................................................... Electrical machinery and s u pp lie s................................................ Transportation equipm ent............................................................... Scientific instruments; optical goods; c lo c k s .............................. Miscellaneous manufactured commodities ................................. Mar. Dec. 108.4 119.4 112.3 120.3 118.3 110.9 107.2 138.4 112.3 113.3 129.6 115.2 119.8 127.8 110.2 122.5 128.8 121.4 110.6 124.3 113.4 115.4 118.9 113.6 112.2 127.4 115.7 118.4 133.9 120.0 123.2 133.9 112.5 124.6 134.0 123.8 June 114.0 127.4 116.6 119.5 122.2 119.1 116.8 114.5 117.2 120.8 138.2 122.6 127.3 135.9 114.7 127.3 135.8 127.7 Sept. 114.4 128.9 115.8 120.3 124.0 121.3 121.3 119.2 119.0 124.6 141.5 137.0 133.3 138.2 116.1 129.5 137.0 133.1 115.0 127.0 117.0 118.6 124.8 123.8 123.5 110.8 117.7 123.7 140.5 136.2 133.0 135.0 116.7 129.3 132.2 130.6 Mar. Dec. 115.4 127.8 117.5 117.0 128.0 125.2 130.6 111.6 122.6 124.0 144.3 140.2 136.3 138.4 119.0 132.8 137.7 132.2 June 114.9 139.0 118.9 120.5 126.3 127.4 130.7 121.3 122.3 122.8 145.1 140.6 138.9 138.6 119.7 132.6 136.7 136.6 114.0 139.8 120.3 122.2 126.1 128.2 130.0 139.1 123.1 123.5 144.8 135.2 140.3 136.7 119.4 131.9 133.8 137.7 Sept. 114.8 137.6 121.3 123.6 128.7 127.4 123.8 127.3 124.1 124.6 147.4 132.1 141.2 135.8 119.0 132.0 133.0 138.1 1 SIC - based classification. 44. In d e x e s o f p ro d u c tiv ity , h o u rly c o m p e n s a tio n , and unit c o s ts , q u a rte rly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d (1977 = 100) Quarterly Indexes Item 1987 I IV 110.7 189.5 101.4 171.3 166.5 169.6 111.7 191.8 101.7 171.6 168.9 170.7 112.5 195.1 102.5 173.5 167.2 171.3 113.2 196.4 102.3 173.5 168.9 171.9 112.6 199.1 102.5 176.9 168.8 174.1 113.4 201.9 102.8 178.0 171.8 175.8 113.5 204.5 103.0 180.2 173.7 177.9 113.8 206.9 102.8 181.9 174.7 179.4 114.2 210.4 102.9 184.1 176.3 181.4 114.6 212.8 103.5 185.7 176.1 182.3 107.7 187.1 101.3 173.6 164.1 170.3 108.6 188.3 100.7 173.4 167.6 171.4 109.5 190.5 101.0 173.9 170.3 172.6 110.2 193.8 101.8 175.8 168.7 173.4 111.0 195.0 101.5 175.7 170.3 173.8 110.5 197.5 101.7 178.7 169.8 175.6 111.5 200.2 101.9 179.6 172.1 177.0 112.0 203.0 102.3 181.3 176.3 179.6 111.6 205.5 102.1 184.1 174.6 180.8 111.9 208.3 101.9 186.1 176.5 182.8 112.5 211.0 102.7 187.6 177.2 184.0 N onfinancial corp o ra tio n s: Output per hour of all em plo yees........................... Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Total unit c o s ts ........................................................... Unit labor costs ....................................................... Unit nonlabor c o s ts ................................................ Unit p ro fits ................................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ 110.4 183.7 99.4 171.0 166.3 185.0 118.1 161.6 164.7 111.6 184.8 98.9 170.8 165.5 186.3 122.5 163.9 165.0 113.0 186.9 99.1 170.8 165.3 186.9 129.3 166.7 165.8 113.5 189.5 99.6 172.1 167.0 187.2 122.0 164.4 166.1 114.6 190.9 99.4 171.9 166.6 187.8 127.0 166.5 166.5 114.7 193.1 99.5 173.6 168.4 188.9 129.1 168.0 168.2 115.1 195.5 99.5 175.2 169.9 191.0 127.5 168.8 169.5 114.9 197.8 99.6 177.5 172.1 193.3 131.6 171.7 172.0 114.5 200.2 99.5 180.4 174.9 196.9 119.6 169.8 173.1 114.5 202.8 99.3 182.9 177.1 200.1 116.6 170.9 175.0 - ‘ - M anufacturing: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor costs .......................................................... 131.5 188.8 102.2 143.5 133.3 189.0 101.1 141.8 134.3 190.4 100.9 141.8 134.7 191.7 100.7 142.3 135.5 194.3 101.2 143.4 136.3 195.3 100.6 143.3 137.8 197.4 100.5 143.2 138.6 200.2 100.8 144.4 139.4 201.9 100.3 144.8 140.7 203.2 99.4 144.4 141.2 206.2 100.3 146.0 110.0 188.3 101.9 171.2 162.6 168.2 Nonfarm business: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor c o s ts .......................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ - I II 1989 III Business; Output per hour of all p e rs o n s................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor costs .......................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ II 1988 III IV I II III - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w D ecem ber 1989 101 C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tis tic s: 45. P ro d u c tiv ity D a ta A n n u al in d e x e s o f m u ltifa c to r p ro d u c tiv ity an d re la te d m e a s u re s , s e le c te d y e a rs (1977 = 100) Item 1960 1970 1973 1978 1980 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Private business Productivity: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............................. Output per unit of capital s e rv ic e s ....................... Multifactor p roductivity........................................... O u tp u t.......................................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons............................................... Capital services ....................................................... Combined units of labor and capital in p u t......... Capital per hour of all persons................................ 67.3 103.7 78.5 55.3 88.4 102.7 93.1 80.2 95.9 105.6 99.2 93.0 100.8 101.9 101.2 105.8 99.2 94.1 97.4 106.6 100.3 86.6 95.2 105.4 103.0 88.3 97.6 109.9 105.6 92.7 100.9 119.2 107.9 92.9 102.4 124.3 110.3 93.0 103.9 128.7 111.2 93.7 104.7 133.4 82.2 53.3 70.5 64.9 90.8 78.1 86.1 86.1 96.9 88.0 93.7 90.8 105.0 103.8 104.6 98.9 107.5 113.3 109.4 105.4 105.2 121.8 110.7 115.8 106.7 124.4 112.6 116.6 112.9 128.6 118.1 113.9 115.2 133.8 121.4 116.1 116.7 138.5 123.9 118.7 120.0 142.4 127.4 118.6 70.7 104.9 81.2 54.4 89.2 103.5 93.8 79.9 96.4 106.3 99.7 92.9 100.8 101.9 101.2 106.0 98.7 93.3 96.9 106.6 99.1 85.1 94.1 104.8 102.5 87.3 97.0 110.1 104.7 91.3 99.9 119.3 106.2 91.0 100.7 124.0 108.3 90.8 102.0 128.3 109.1 91.5 102.7 133.2 77.0 51.9 67.1 67.4 89.6 77.2 85.2 86.2 96.3 87.3 93.2 90.7 105.1 104.0 104.7 99.0 108.0 114.2 110.0 105.7 105.7 123.3 111.4 116.6 107.4 126.1 113.5 117.4 114.0 130.6 119.4 114.6 116.8 136.3 123.1 116.7 118.5 141.3 125.8 119.3 122.0 145.5 129.6 119.2 62.2 103.0 72.0 52.5 80.8 99.1 85.3 78.6 93.4 112.0 98.0 96.3 101.5 102.0 101.6 106.0 101.4 91.0 98.6 103.2 105.9 81.6 99.2 98.4 112.0 86.7 105.0 104.7 118.1 95.5 112.1 117.5 123.6 97.3 116.4 122.0 127.7 98.4 119.5 124.7 131.9 102.0 123.6 130.1 84.4 51.0 72.9 60.4 97.3 79.3 92.1 81.5 103.1 86.0 98.3 83.4 104.4 103.9 104.2 99.5 101.7 113.4 104.6 111.5 92.9 120.5 99.2 129.8 93.5 120.8 99.7 129.3 99.5 123.0 104.8 123.7 98.7 125.4 104.8 127.1 97.7 126.8 104.4 129.8 98.6 127.6 105.3 129.4 Private nonfarm business Productivity: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............................. Output per unit of capital se rv ic e s ....................... Multifactor productivity........................................... O u tp u t.......................................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons................................................ Capital services ....................................................... Combined units of labor and capital in p u t......... Capital per hour of all persons................................ Manufacturing Productivity: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............................. Output per unit of capital s e rv ic e s ....................... Multifactor productivity........................................... O u tp u t.......................................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons............................................... Capital services ....................................................... Combined units of labor and capital in p u ts ....... Capital per hour of all persons................................ < 102 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis D ecem ber 1989 46. A n n u al in d e x e s o f p ro d u c tiv ity , h o u rly c o m p e n s a tio n , unit c o s ts , a n d p ric e s, s e le c te d y e a rs (1977 = 100) _________________________ l 1979 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1960 1970 Unit nonlabor payments ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ 66.1 32.9 67.3 49.7 46.4 48.5 87.6 57.2 89.4 65.3 59.4 63.2 95.2 70.3 96.0 73.8 72.6 73.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 119.3 99.5 119.6 112.3 117.0 101.0 144.1 96.1 142.7 134.4 139.8 100.2 154.9 97.3 154.5 136.3 148.1 102.6 160.8 97.8 156.7 146.2 153.0 105.2 167.4 97.6 159.1 156.4 158.2 107.3 174.8 98.4 162.8 160.9 162.2 109.8 183.8 101.7 167.5 162.1 165.6 111.1 191.0 101.9 171.9 166.3 170.0 113.0 200.2 102.5 177.1 170.9 174.9 Nonfarm business: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor costs .......................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ 69.5 34.5 70.7 49.7 46.3 48.5 88.4 57.6 90.0 65.2 60.0 63.4 95.8 70.7 96.4 73.8 69.4 72.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 119.0 99.3 119.8 110.3 116.5 100.0 144.0 96.0 144.0 133.2 140.3 99.1 154.7 97.1 156.1 136.1 149.2 102.0 160.8 97.8 157.6 148.1 154.3 104.2 167.2 97.5 160.4 156.3 159.0 105.6 174.0 98.0 164.9 161.9 163.8 107.7 182.9 101.1 169.8 163.3 167.6 108.9 189.8 101.2 174.2 167.7 172.0 111.1 198.7 101.8 178.8 172.2 176.5 N onfinancial corp o ra tio n s: Output per hour of all em plo yees........................... Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Total unit c o s ts ........................................................... Unit labor costs ....................................................... Unit nonlabor c o s ts ................................................ Unit p ro fits ................................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ........................................... Implicit price d e fla to r................................................ 71.9 36.1 74.0 49.4 50.2 47.0 59.8 51.5 50.7 90.2 58.6 91.6 64.8 65.0 64.2 52.3 60.1 63.3 96.8 71.0 96.9 72.7 73.4 70.7 65.6 68.9 71.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 118.9 99.3 118.2 119.0 115.8 94.5 108.4 115.4 99.9 143.7 95.8 147.7 143.8 159.1 98.1 137.8 141.7 100.2 154.1 96.8 159.5 153.8 176.4 78.5 142.1 149.8 103.0 159.1 96.8 159.5 154.5 174.3 110.9 152.1 153.7 105.5 165.0 96.3 160.8 156.5 173.6 136.5 160.6 157.9 107.2 171.6 96.7 164.1 160.2 175.8 133.0 160.8 160.4 109.6 179.9 99.5 168.5 164.1 181.7 123.1 161.2 163.1 112.1 186.1 99.3 171.2 166.1 186.4 123.0 164.2 165.4 114.7 194.1 99.4 174.6 169.3 190.3 128.8 168.8 169.1 M anufacturing: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s................................ Compensation per h o u r.......................................... i. Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor c o s ts .......................................................... Unit nonlabor p a ym e n ts ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ 60.7 35.6 73.0 58.7 60.0 59.1 80.2 57.0 89.0 71.0 64.1 69.0 92.6 68.2 93.1 73.7 70.8 72.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.6 118.9 99.2 117.0 98.9 111.7 104.0 145.7 97.1 140.1 111.7 131.8 106.6 158.7 99.6 148.8 113.7 138.6 112.2 162.7 99.0 145.1 128.3 140.2 118.2 168.1 98.1 142.3 138.5 141.2 123.5 176.3 99.3 142.7 130.3 139.1 128.2 184.3 101.9 143.8 135.2 141.3 132.9 189.2 100.9 142.3 137.6 . 141.0 136.5 196.0 100.4 143.6 Item Business: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per h o u r ................................... - 1973 1977 Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review December 1989 103 Current Labor Statistics: 47. Productivity Data A n nu al p ro d u c tiv ity in d e x e s fo r s e le c te d in d u s trie s (1977 = 100) Industry SIC 1970 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Iron mining, crude o r e .................................... Iron mining, usable ore .................................. Copper mining, crude o r e .............................. Copper mining, recoverable m e ta l............... Coal m in in g ....................................................... Bituminous coal and lignite mining ........... Nonmetallic minerals, except fu e ls .............. Crushed and broken s to n e .................... 1011 1011 1021 1021 111,121 121 14 142 99.9 111.1 84.8 85.5 141.1 142.3 89.7 83.1 113.2 122.6 92.0 85.8 125.5 126.3 97.2 94.0 112.7 117.8 87.2 77.2 105.3 105.2 90.6 91.4 122.7 122.8 109.1 98.2 99.4 99.6 102.7 106.9 124.7 123.2 99.5 91.6 112.5 112.6 96.5 101.3 132.8 130.6 102.0 97.7 122.2 122.7 94.7 96.7 100.9 98.2 106.4 116.2 119.2 120.0 89.3 94.1 139.0 138.6 129.9 130.9 136.1 136.9 98.2 103.9 173.3 171.7 140.3 155.4 151.3 152.3 105.5 105.8 187.9 187.9 164.2 193.1 154.0 154.6 107.5 104.5 200.3 197.8 195.4 228.9 167.3 168.2 108.2 104.9 267.5 262.0 193.1 209.8 179.7 180.6 107.9 102.7 Red meat p ro d u cts......................................... Meatpacking p la n ts ...................................... Sausages and other prepared m e a ts ....... Poultry dressing and processing........... ....... Fluid m ilk ........................................................... Preserved fruits and vegetables .................. Grain mill products.......................................... Flour and other grain mill p ro d u c ts .......... Rice m illin g ..................................................... Bakery p ro d u c ts .............................................. Sugar ................................................................. Raw and refined cane s u g a r...................... Beet suga r...................................................... Malt beverages................................................. Bottled and canned soft d rin k s ..................... Total tobacco p ro d u c ts ................................... Cigarettes, chewing and smoking tobacco C ig a rs............................................................... 2011,13 2011 2013 2016,17 2026 203 204 2041 2044 205 2061,62,63 2061,62 2063 2082 2086 2111,21,31 2111,31 2121 77.3 78.7 72.8 78.3 73.7 79.7 79.7 76.6 82.0 87.5 85.9 86.1 92.9 56.7 70.0 86.8 85.3 88.4 82.8 88.7 69.1 77.5 88.4 93.1 81.7 80.4 81.5 93.6 96.3 93.4 100.0 73.7 79.0 89.5 88.7 89.5 84.4 88.6 74.8 87.9 95.5 93.7 87.1 85.8 90.4 93.4 94.0 90.8 98.1 86.1 89.5 93.9 93.3 93.7 101.7 104.6 95.0 106.1 115.6 98.9 101.0 97.3 96.3 95.0 103.1 101.5 104.6 109.9 103.4 102.1 102.4 101.4 107.0 108.9 102.3 105.7 123.9 100.8 105.3 94.8 111.8 93.7 100.1 99.3 102.1 116.0 106.9 102.1 101.8 106.4 107.9 113.9 95.0 116.4 128.0 99.2 110.9 96.7 117.9 96.2 98.8 98.8 98.7 118.3 110.6 100.5 99.6 107.3 112.3 119.5 96.5 125.6 135.3 107.9 121.0 104.1 104.5 103.3 90.4 87.6 94.8 122.6 114.1 100.7 99.5 111.4 115.9 123.4 100.0 131.7 142.4 110.4 125.5 110.4 103.3 106.9 98.6 100.0 94.5 131.3 121.5 105.1 104.1 112.3 117.0 125.6 99.5 130.3 147.7 112.4 132.8 114.9 93.2 106.8 99.7 94.7 108.8 137.9 131.0 110.3 107.2 141.4 119.5 130.1 98.8 133.2 152.3 111.7 144.9 122.9 103.2 108.5 105.5 108.7 100.7 130.3 136.7 113.4 111.7 129.3 117.3 126.2 98.7 127.3 157.0 118.3 146.6 130.6 112.6 114.4 110.1 109.6 111.8 152.3 146.6 117.2 115.5 133.1 114.0 124.1 94.7 76.6 74.6 85.0 84.2 100.2 102.3 87.5 97.3 103.9 91.3 88.4 90.6 91.5 94.1 92.8 86.1 102.1 86.7 94.3 101.2 95.2 98.8 100.2 97.8 97.5 98.0 97.2 96.9 85.5 86.7 99.8 98.5 96.2 86.5 100.7 107.9 103.8 96.9 106.3 92.2 94.5 101.5 101.6 105.1 102.8 107.2 105.4 98.0 104.6 106.9 112.2 104.9 107.4 99.7 97.3 104.2 93.6 102.8 99.9 97.2 102.3 112.1 112.1 105.2 94.6 101.6 111.0 94.3 107.4 122.0 103.1 98.8 107.9 96.4 106.9 103.0 97.3 110.5 114.0 108.8 104.4 92.3 104.5 109.8 91.4 112.5 114.2 118.2 95.2 115.1 86.1 114.4 104.7 98.2 115.9 104.3 107.4 111.3 95.3 104.2 111.9 86.3 121.8 118.0 128.5 90.2 126.8 87.9 121.1 110.1 103.8 121.6 108.6 112.0 119.5 102.9 104.5 114.0 94.0 119.9 119.9 129.6 96.9 132.3 88.7 120.0 112.2 105.5 122.7 109.5 117.8 121.0 105.6 102.4 118.9 104.5 123.7 118.5 134.5 106.3 139.2 85.7 125.1 112.5 104.4 124.6 108.8 116.7 123.1 107.1 99.6 122.5 101.4 132.9 121.0 141.1 107.5 155.1 90.1 126.6 118.5 111.9 127.1 117.9 117.8 133.5 112.3 101.4 126.7 105.4 98.5 79.5 84.8 87.2 82.2 84.0 84.5 92.5 94.0 94.2 114.6 115.0 105.3 94.0 104.8 90.3 115.7 106.0 83.6 100.8 89.3 120.9 104.2 76.1 99.8 80.8 103.6 107.0 84.0 106.5 85.8 126.2 114.3 86.2 113.8 95.0 125.3 116.4 85.2 121.5 91.5 135.8 118.1 87.3 125.6 90.6 146.2 121.8 94.3 125.2 90.4 86.7 93.6 85.3 86.7 88.7 113.4 102.0 94.9 98.9 97.2 94.2 103.9 97.7 83.7 87.2 94.5 79.4 105.3 106.2 81.8 113.9 119.8 92.5 112.5 115.6 102.6 119.5 108.8 113.8 95.1 93.6 98.5 92.6 99.7 91.1 90.6 90.1 93.6 92.4 103.5 91.8 86.2 101.3 98.5 84.7 91.0 89.1 93.1 95.5 91.9 97.5 107.3 94.8 100.2 102.4 96.0 95.9 91.6 85.4 110.2 92.7 99.9 102.4 95.7 99.1 105.2 87.0 97.6 94.0 84.9 109.6 90.4 93.1 118.1 98.5 95.6 110.1 91.1 100.7 97.3 84.3 111.1 88.5 95.4 128.2 110.1 106.4 105.8 94.0 102.6 103.3 88.6 100.0 91.0 90.6 136.1 107.2 103.9 108.5 108.4 105.4 101.1 85.7 121.6 97.6 93.7 146.8 110.5 105.7 128.0 125.3 111.3 110.4 93.4 115.1 99.2 96.3 146.7 113.0 107.3 127.0 128.3 112.8 112.6 100.4 114.1 100.5 97.4 151.4 114.1 109.5 138.9 135.5 115.6 114.5 98.9 122.9 105.9 100.1 93.3 97.0 107.5 107.7 85.3 83.0 96.2 76.8 87.5 87.0 93.9 80.4 97.4 89.3 93.2 106.9 96.8 100.6 100.4 106.5 113.3 99.7 98.1 100.3 103.6 103.9 95.8 102.1 92.8 102.3 102.9 90.8 99.8 99.8 103.7 105.3 100.0 94.1 100.0 102.6 98.4 99.7 102.1 90.6 99.9 112.0 92.7 91.6 90.0 118.6 124.4 103.8 97.9 96.8 108.1 95.2 94.6 98.5 90.4 101.4 90.9 93.7 89.0 88.4 128.0 128.5 103.0 106.0 99.2 118.5 92.8 102.3 99.5 96.0 98.1 116.8 98.3 89.9 90.2 141.2 138.3 111.5 121.1 110.4 120.5 89.3 93.2 103.0 99.7 104.7 131.3 106.8 98.8 103.5 148.0 151.9 125.4 128.1 116.2 123.0 90.1 102.0 107.9 102.8 110.4 139.5 104.2 95.6 101.0 181.5 189.8 125.4 122.0 115.9 125.6 90.6 101.6 117.7 106.3 104.7 141.8 107.4 100.3 104.3 210.8 229.2 134.0 127.2 125.0 126.0 89.8 105.0 117.7 104.1 108.7 92.4 97.7 105.3 100.5 102.8 93.3 105.4 95.1 101.3 94.9 103.6 95.1 105.1 105.2 104.5 101.5 104.5 103.0 Cotton and synthetic broad woven fabrics ... Hosiery ............................................................... Nonwool yarn mills .......................................... Men’s and boys’ suits and c o a ts .......... ........ Sawmills and planing mills, general ............. Millwork ............................... .............................. Veneer and plyw ood........................................ Household furniture ......................................... Wood household furn iture............................ Upholstered household furn itu re ................. Mattresses and bedsprings.......................... Office furn iture................................................... Paper, paperboard, and pulp m ills ................ Paper and plastic bags ................................... Folding paperboard b o x e s .............................. Corrugated and solid fiber boxes ................. Industrial inorganic c h e m ica ls ........................ Industrial inorganic chemicals, not elsewhere cla ssified................................... Synthetic fib e rs ............................................. Pharmaceutical preparations.......................... Cosmetics and other toiletries ....................... Paints and allied p ro d u c ts .............................. Industrial organic chemicals, not elsewhere c la ssifie d ....................................... Agricultural chemicals ................................... v Petroleum refinin g............................................ 2211,21 2251,52 2281 2311 2421 2431 2435,36 251 2511,7 2512 2515 252 2611,21,31,61 2643 2651 2653 281 2819 pt. 2823,24 2834 2844 2851 2869 287 2911 _ 65.5 84.3 75.1 90.0 95.9 83.2 82.2 83.5 84.4 67.7 78.2 77.5 75.8 77.4 73.1 _ 53.8 74.8 65.9 74.9 65.5 - 73.8 1979 Tires and inner tubes ...................................... Miscellaneous plastic p ro d u c ts ...................... F o o tw e a r............................................................ Glass containers .............................................. Hydraulic cement ............................................. Structural clay products .................................. Clay construction p ro d u c ts ............................. Brick and structural clay tile ........................ Clay refractories............................................... Concrete products ........................................... Ready-mixed concrete .................................... 3011 3079 314 3221 3241 325 3251,53,59 3251 3255 3271,72 3273 Steel ................................................................... Gray iron fo u n d rie s.......................................... Steel fo u n d rie s.......... .................. .................... Steel foundries, not elsewhere classified .. Primary copper, lead, and zinc ...................... Primary copper .............................................. Primary alum inum ............................................. Copper rolling and drawing ............................ Aluminum rolling and drawing ........................ Metal c a n s ......................................................... Hand and edge to o ls ....................................... Heating equipment, except e le c tric ............... Fabricated structural m e ta l............................. Metal doors, sash, and trim ............................ Metal stam pings............................................... 331 3321 3324,25 3325 3331,32,33 3331 3334 3351 3353,54,55 3411 3423 3433 3441 3442 3465,66,69 102.2 82.1 86.4 106.6 94.5 101.9 100.9 94.8 90.6 99.4 93.2 94.0 81.6 101.8 85.0 113.0 92.0 97.1 Valves and pipe fittin g s ................................... Farm and garden m achin ery.......................... 3494 352 93.6 75.7 103.3 94.8 See footnotes at end of table. 104 Monthly Labor Review December 1989 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 87.6 - 100.3 87.2 84.8 78.2 77.4 81.1 82.1 82.3 91.1 87.6 79.8 90.6 - 78.1 79.8 92.5 76.8 66.0 78.8 91.0 - - 164.2 - 129.0 118.4 - 127.4 118.5 142.6 154.8 157.3 119.2 121.2 111.1 133.7 121.1 142.8 114.8 151.6 - 115.9 - 128.3 122.6 141.8 - 98.1 128.9 - _ 155.7 124.0 - 128.5 _ - 118.8 167.8 - 104.5 143.0 142.2 118.7 116.2 102.9 131.4 - 151.7 104.8 94.3 101.9 221.1 228.2 143.5 139.8 141.6 134.3 - _ - 47. C o n tin u e d — A n n u al p ro d u c tiv ity in d e x e s fo r s e le c te d in d u s trie s (1977 = 100) Industry SIC 1970 1973 1975 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 94.0 105.7 107.3 105.5 114.1 97.9 103.1 103.0 120.4 93.9 107.9 103.0 102.9 104.0 91.4 97.5 89.9 100.1 100.3 105.6 102.0 103.0 99.2 102.9 105.8 101.4 94.6 97.4 104.0 98.8 100.6 93.5 100.2 95.4 93.8 90.3 96.1 104.7 96.5 98.9 89.4 102.4 94.3 99.4 91.7 88.9 98.4 88.0 89.2 85.0 95.9 83.3 100.1 92.0 88.2 91.8 83.0 81.1 87.6 100.2 86.3 100.9 99.6 102.6 87.5 93.6 93.3 93.7 106.1 94.4 105.5 110.3 104.1 80.1 96.7 96.4 96.6 106.8 92.1 103.7 114.0 107.1 70.1 98.5 105.1 97.1 108.7 95.6 101.5 111.1 99.3 78.9 101.9 100.2 104.6 101.2 Construction machinery and equipment ........... Oilfield machinery and equipment ...................... Machine t o o ls ......................................................... Metal-cutting machine to o ls .............................. Metal-forming machine t o o ls ............................ Pumps and com pressors..................................... Ball and roller bea rings........................................ Refrigeration and heating equ ipm ent................. Carburetors, pistons, rings, and v a lv e s ............. 3531 3533 3541,42 3541 3542 3561,63 3562 3585 3592 83.4 86.4 91.7 89.5 98.5 85.8 85.5 88.4 Transformers .......................................................... Switchgear and switchboard app ara tus............ Motors and generators......................................... Major household appliances................................ 3612 3613 3621 3631,32,33,39 89.1 83.3 87.8 70.2 96.9 101.5 100.7 89.5 89.3 93.4 93.0 93.6 108.4 102.8 99.3 108.7 110.6 103.2 96.7 105.8 106.9 99.5 100.4 107.6 99.6 101.3 102.4 108.6 99.1 106.1 104.3 117.6 97.6 107.4 107.9 123.6 99.3 110.6 110.5 127.2 99.4 110.7 112.3 134.1 94.6 109.3 115.9 139.2 68.7 71.7 70.7 84.9 95.6 88.5 97.8 94.5 93.6 108.9 112.3 108.1 103.9 114.4 102.1 105.7 117.4 103.9 112.6 116.1 105.4 120.8 127.1 112.2 131.9 127.5 117.5 135.6 136.8 118.2 158.4 133.5 123.1 168.1 131.6 133.0 88.8 96.4 89.2 90.1 56.0 87.7 95.9 102.6 105.2 94.6 118.5 138.1 97.8 100.2 99.1 103.2 93.3 116.9 149.4 90.8 108.4 100.4 106.9 88.7 133.6 171.6 93.1 111.9 94.7 108.4 91.0 163.9 197.9 96.9 119.2 103.7 124.8 96.3 196.1 211.5 109.6 121.8 109.8 131.9 102.2 236.9 229.2 115.7 133.7 110.0 126.9 107.0 249.8 206.1 121.2 130.4 113.1 131.1 113.8 278.1 210.5 121.7 122.2 117.3 146.9 116.5 300.5 260.1 125.2 3631 3632 3633 - ” Household cooking equ ipm ent......................... Household refrigerators and free zers............. Household laundry equipm ent.......................... Household appliances, not elsewhere classified.............................................................. Electric la m p s ...................................................... Lighting fixtures ................................................... Radio and television receiving s e ts .................... Semiconductors and related d e v ic e s ................ Motor vehicles and equipm ent............................ instruments to measure e lectricity...................... 3639 3641 3645,46,47,48 3651 3674 371 3825 70.4 88.3 78.1 70.6 - 85.2 90.1 93.8 87.9 53.6 85.7 90.8 Railroad transportation, revenue tra ffic ............. Railroad transportation, car-m iles....................... Class 1 bus carriers.............................................. Intercity tru ckin g ..................................................... Intercity trucking, general freight ........................ Air transportation ................................................... Petroleum pipelines .............................................. Telephone com m unications................................. Gas and electric utilities....................................... Electric utilitie s..................................................... Gas utilities .......................................................... 401 Class I 401 Class I 411,13,14 pts. 4213 pt. 4213 pt. 4511,4521 pt. 4612,13 4811 491,92,93 491,493 pt. 492,493 pt. 77.7 89.1 107.3 83.5 76.8 71.4 79.5 62.1 84.6 77.1 102.1 96.4 101.4 106.2 96.6 91.7 85.5 97.8 74.6 93.6 88.4 104.5 89.5 98.3 97.0 89.2 88.4 87.6 95.7 85.9 95.7 92.9 101.4 104.7 102.9 98.3 116.7 116.4 113.1 101.7 110.8 97.6 95.4 103.4 107.3 107.9 100.9 107.7 107.5 106.2 93.0 118.1 96.2 94.0 102.1 111.5 107.6 90.7 116.3 117.2 104.9 86.0 124.4 94.4 93.0 98.1 115.8 110.1 98.8 108.0 107.8 114.9 89.2 129.1 89.3 89.5 89.0 141.9 128.9 95.4 130.7 136.0 126.8 94.3 145.1 88.1 90.9 81.1 152.6 137.7 90.9 135.1 137.6 131.7 104.5 143.0 91.4 94.4 83.6 162.1 138.9 87.4 130.2 131.7 136.5 104.9 149.8 90.5 93.5 82.1 178.6 148.2 86.8 134.5 140.9 138.2 107.0 161.3 89.1 96.2 73.0 208.3 166.8 146.4 106.6 166.1 92.7 101.0 74.8 97.8 89.7 122.9 98.8 98.6 93.1 95.0 85.3 105.0 102.3 106.5 109.5 95.1 114.8 104.4 102.1 98.3 99.0 98.6 97.7 107.4 112.9 108.6 116.0 108.2 112.8 111.6 103.8 107.3 100.3 100.1 102.5 99.6 105.1 117.9 107.1 117.9 123.7 110.3 107.5 109.9 118.4 97.1 97.9 97.9 98.1 106.7 123.9 116.4 127.8 132.4 114.2 109.2 112.4 112.5 95.5 97.9 90.6 100.4 111.8 126.4 116.6 142.0 140.7 110.2 111.4 119.5 119.7 95.5 98.6 93.0 109.4 122.5 132.9 120.6 151.3 149.2 107.6 121.1 126.6 123.7 96.1 100.1 87.2 110.4 129.1 141.0 127.4 158.3 145.8 110.1 124.6 129.2 114.3 96.6 98.4 81.6 109.7 134.3 146.5 135.0 162.8 138.5 117.4 137.4 135.3 101.2 94.6 96.3 85.5 110.7 143.9 153.7 139.5 176.4 136.0 125.8 149.5 137.2 86.1 74.6 81.3 82.7 76.5 75.2 95.3 98.7 86.6 121.2 102.3 100.8 110.3 96.3 86.2 99.5 103.4 94.2 109.1 100.5 5251 5311 5331 54 5411 546 5511 5541 56 5611 5621 5651 5661 - 70.5 _ - Hardware s to re s ..................................................... Department s to re s ................................................ Variety stores ......................................................... Retail food stores ................................................. Grocery s to re s .................................................... Retail bake ries.................................................... Franchised new car d e a le rs ................................ Gasoline service sta tio n s..................................... Apparel and accessory stores ............................ Men’s and boys’ clothing s to re s ...................... W omen’s ready-to-wear stores ........................ Family clothing s to re s ........................................ Shoe s to re s.......................................................... Furniture, home furnishings, and equipment s to re s...................................................................... Furniture and home furnishings stores .......... Appliance, radio, television, and music s to re s................................................................... Household appliance stores .......................... Radio, television, and music s to re s ............. 57 571 80.1 79.3 95.3 96.3 91.9 90.1 107.6 104.8 107.4 98.0 112.6 101.2 109.2 97.6 118.4 104.1 129.4 113.1 133.5 108.7 144.6 115.5 145.2 116.0 571,73 572 573 81.2 94.1 91.2 97.9 94.8 89.5 98.0 112.4 111.3 112.7 124.0 109.9 131.5 132.4 114.9 140.5 128.7 102.0 142.4 143.4 111.8 159.5 155.1 139.2 165.9 180.0 154.6 190.2 199.5 178.8 206.5 199.8 185.2 204.3 Eating and drinking places .................................. Drug and proprietary sto re s ................................. Liquor s to re s ........................................................... Commercial b a n kin g ............................................. Hotels, motels, and tourist c o u rts ....................... Laundry and cleaning services ........................... Beauty and barber shops .................................... Beauty s h o p s ...................................................... Automotive repair s h o p s ...................................... 58 5912 5921 602 7011 721 7231,41 7231 753 100.6 83.4 103.4 97.1 100.9 95.9 92.1 98.6 100.7 106.2 104.5 100.8 94.2 96.3 90.0 89.7 96.6 98.7 100.1 102.0 99.5 103.8 96.6 99.3 100.0 97.7 107.4 108.0 100.4 99.8 107.0 102.2 92.7 95.0 91.0 102.9 106.2 95.9 97.3 107.6 104.0 90.5 91.6 88.4 109.2 114.7 93.3 96.9 107.9 108.1 93.2 88.8 90.6 108.3 113.1 87.4 95.3 111.4 101.6 101.3 95.4 90.4 114.0 120.1 86.1 91.1 106.2 98.7 104.3 102.1 92.3 103.9 112.3 88.3 87.9 106.5 107.1 109.7 97.5 87.3 98.6 104.1 96.1 89.7 105.6 98.0 111.7 92.8 85.0 97.3 98.8 93.2 90.4 105.9 91.6 - 77.5 126.1 107.0 - - - - 85.5 85.1 94.7 - - 92.8 94.3 86.3 105.3 145.7 146.4 135.0 171.9 130.9 124.0 - 88.0 84.0 99.2 100.4 98.4 Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review December 1989 105 Current Labor Statistics: International Comparisons Data 48. U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te s , a p p ro x im a tin g U.S. c o n c e p ts , in n in e c o u n trie s , q u a rte rly d ata s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d Annual average 1988 1989 Country 1987 1988 I II III IV I II III Total labor force basis United S ta te s ........................................ Canada .................................................. Australia ................................................ Japan ...................................................... 6.1 8.8 8.0 2.9 5.4 7.7 7.2 2.5 5.6 7.8 7.5 2.7 5.4 7.6 7.4 2.5 5.4 7.8 6.9 2.6 5.3 7.7 6.8 2.4 5.1 7.5 6.6 2.4 5.2 7.6 6.1 2.3 France ................................................... G erm any................................................ Italy 2 ................................................... Sweden ................................................. United Kingdom .................................... 10.5 6.3 7.7 1.9 10.2 10.1 6.3 7.8 1.6 8.2 10.2 6.3 7.8 1.7 9.0 10.1 6.3 7.8 1.6 8.6 10.2 6.3 7.8 1.6 8.0 10.0 6.1 7.8 1.4 7.5 9.9 5.8 7.6 1.4 7.0 9.9 5.7 7.8 1.3 6.5 United S ta te s ........................................ Canada .................................................. Australia ................................................ Japan ...................................................... 6.2 8.8 8.1 2.9 5.5 7.8 7.2 2.5 5.7 7.8 7.6 2.7 5.5 7.7 7.5 2.5 5.5 7.8 7.0 2.6 5.3 7.7 6.8 2.4 5.2 7.6 6.6 2.4 5.3 7.6 6.1 2.3 France ................................................... G erm any................................................ Italy', 2 .................................................... Sweden ................................................. United Kingdom .................................... 10.8 6.4 7.9 1.9 10.2 10.4 6.4 7.9 1.6 8.3 10.4 6.4 7.9 1.7 9.0 10.4 6.4 7.9 1.6 8.6 10.4 6.4 8.0 1.6 8.0 10.2 6.2 7.9 1.4 7.6 10.1 5.9 7,7 1.4 7.0 10.1 5.8 8.0 1.3 6.6 5.2 7.3 6.0 9.9 5.6 _ 1.3 6.2 Civilian labor force basis 1 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter. 2 Many Italians reported as unemployed did not actively seek work in the past 30 days, and they have been ex cluded for comparability with U.S. concepts. Inclusion of such persons would about double the Italian unemployment rate in 1985 and earlier years and increase it to 11-12 per cent for 1986 onward. 106 Monthly Labor Review December 1989 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5.2 7.4 6.0 10.2 5.7 _ 1.3 6.2 - Data not available. NOTE: Quarterly figures for France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are calculated by applying annual adjust ment factors to current published data and therefore should be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts than the annual figures. 49. A n n u a l d ata: E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s o f th e civilian w o rk in g -a g e p o p u la tio n , a p p ro x im a tin g U.S. c o n c e p ts , 10 c o u n trie s (Numbers in thousands) 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 108,670 11,899 6,810 56,320 22,950 26,650 21,320 6,080 4,327 26,590 110,204 11,926 6,910 56,980 23,160 26,700 21,410 6,140 4,350 26,720 111,550 12,109 6,997 58,110 23,140 26,650 21,590 6,170 4,369 26,750 113,544 12,316 7,135 58,480 23,300 26,760 21,670 6,260 4,385 27,170 115,461 12,532 7,300 58,820 23,360 26,970 21,800 6,280 4,418 27,370 117,834 12,746 7,588 59,410 23,440 27,090 22,290 6,370 4,443 27,540 119,865 13,011 7,758 60,050 23,540 28,360 22,350 6,490 4,480 27,860 121,669 13,275 7,974 60,860 23,580 28,550 22,660 6,560 4,530 28,110 63.8 64.1 62.1 62.6 57.2 53.2 48.2 55.3 66.9 62.5 63.9 64.8 61.9 62.6 57.1 52.9 48.3 56.6 66.8 62.2 64.0 64.1 61.7 62.7 57.1 52.6 47.7 56.5 66.8 62.2 64.0 64.4 61.4 63.1 56.6 52.3 47.5 56.1 66.7 61.9 64.4 64.8 61.5 62.7 56.6 52.4 47.3 56.2 66.6 62.5 64.8 65.3 61.8 62.3 56.3 52.6 47.2 55.7 66.9 62.6 65.3 65.7 63.0 62.1 56.1 52.6 47.8 55.9 67.0 62.6 65.6 66.2 63.0 61.9 55.8 55.0 47.9 56.3 67.3 63.0 65.9 66.7 63.3 61.9 55.6 55.2 48.4 56.4 67.8 63.3 98,824 10,395 6,111 54,040 21,300 25,470 19,930 5,340 4,174 24,940 99,303 10,708 6,284 54,600 21,330 25,750 20,200 5,510 4,226 24,670 100,397 11,001 6,416 55,060 21,200 25,560 20,280 5,540 4,219 23,800 99,526 10,618 6,415 55,620 21,240 25,140 20,250 5,510 4,213 23,720 100,834 10,675 6,300 56,550 21,170 24,750 20,320 5,410 4,218 23,610 105,005 10,932 6,494 56,870 20,980 24,790 20,390 5,490 4,249 23,990 107,150 11,221 6,697 57,260 20,920 24,960 20,490 5,640 4,293 24,310 109,597 11,531 6,974 57,740 20,950 25,230 20,610 5,730 4,326 24,460 112,440 11,861 7,129 58,320 21,010 26,550 20,590 5,840 4,396 25,010 114,968 12,244 7,398 59,310 21,140 26,730 20,870 5,900 4,458 25,780 Employment-population ratio2 United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ........................................................................... F ra n ce .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. S w eden........................................................................ United K ingdo m .......................................................... 59.9 58.7 57.8 61.4 54.0 51.7 45.9 51.3 65.3 59.2 59.2 59.3 58.3 61.3 53.5 51.7 46.1 52.0 65.6 58.1 59.0 59.9 58.4 61.2 52.8 50.8 45.9 51.6 65.1 55.7 57.8 57.1 57.3 61.2 52.3 49.6 45.2 50.7 64.7 55.2 57.9 56.8 55.3 61.4 51.8 48.6 44.7 49.2 64.4 54.7 59.5 57.5 56.0 61.0 51.0 48.5 44.5 49.3 64.5 55.2 60.1 58.5 56.6 60.6 50.4 48.7 44.4 50.0 65.0 55.6 60.7 59.4 57.9 60.4 50.2 49.0 44.2 50.2 65.2 55.6 61.5 60.4 57.9 60.1 49.8 51.5 44.1 50.6 66.0 56.6 62.3 61.6 58.7 60.4 49.9 51.7 44.6 50.7 66.7 58.0 Unemployed United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ........................................................................... F ra n ce .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. S w e d e n ........................................................................ United K ingdo m .......................................................... 6,137 836 408 1,170 1,360 780 920 290 88 1,420 7,637 865 409 1,140 1,470 770 920 350 86 1,850 8,273 898 394 1,260 1,750 1,090 1,040 540 108 2,790 10,678 1,308 495 1,360 1,920 1,560 1,160 630 137 3,000 10,717 1,434 697 1,560 1,970 1,900 1,270 760 151 3,140 8,539 1,384 641 1,610 2,320 1,970 1,280 770 136 3,180 8,312 1,311 603 1,560 2,440 2,010 1,310 640 125 3,060 8,237 1,215 613 1,670 2,490 1,860 1,680 640 117 3,080 7,425 1,150 629 1,730 2,530 1,810 1,760 650 84 2,850 6,701 1,031 576 1,550 2,440 1,820 1,790 660 72 2,330 Unemployment rate United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ........................................................................... F ra n ce .......................................................................... G e rm any...................................................................... Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. S w e d e n ........................................................................ United K ingdo m .......................................................... 5.8 7.4 6.3 2.1 6.0 3.0 4.4 5.2 2.1 5.4 7.1 7.5 6.1 2.0 6.4 2.9 4.4 6.0 2.0 7.0 7.6 7.5 5.8 2.2 7.6 4.1 4.9 8.9 2.5 10.5 9.7 11.0 7.2 2.4 8.3 5.8 5.4 10.3 3.1 11.2 9.6 11.8 10.0 2.7 8.5 7.1 5.9 12.3 7.5 11.2 9.0 2.8 10.0 7.4 5.9 12.3 3.1 11.7 7.2 10.5 8.3 2.6 10.4 7.5 6.0 10.2 2.8 11.2 7.0 9.5 8.1 2.8 10.6 6.9 7.5 10.0 2.6 11.2 6.2 8.8 8.1 2.9 10.8 6.4 7.9 10.0 1.9 10.2 5.5 7.8 7.2 2.5 10.4 6.4 7.9 10.1 1.6 8.3 Employment status and country 1979 1980 Labor force United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ........................................................................... France .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. S w e d e n ........................................................................ United K ingdo m .......................................................... 104,962 11,231 6,519 55,210 22,660 26,250 20,850 5,630 4,262 26,350 106,940 11,573 6,693 55,740 22,800 26,520 21,120 5,860 4,312 26,520 Participation rate1 United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ........................................................................... F ra n ce .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. S w eden........................................................................ United K ingdo m .......................................................... 63.7 63.4 61.6 62.7 57.5 53.3 48.0 54.1 66.6 62.6 Employed United States .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ........................................................................... F ra n ce .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. S w eden........................................................................ United K ingdo m .......................................................... 1 Labor force as a percent of the civilian working-age population. 2 Employment as a percent of the civilian working-age population. - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1981 - 11.7 NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for information on breaks in series for Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Monthly Labor Review December 1989 107 Current Labor Statistics: 50. International Comparisons Data A n nu al in d e x e s o f m a n u fa c tu rin g p ro d u c tiv ity a n d re la te d m e a s u re s , 12 c o u n trie s (1977 = 100) 1960 1970 1973 1976 1977 1978 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Output per hour United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ Japan ........................................................................... B e lgium ........................................................................ Denmark ...................................................................... F ra n ce .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. N orw ay......................................................................... S w e d e n ........................................................................ United K ingdo m .......................................................... Item and country 62.2 50.7 23.2 33.0 37.2 37.4 40.3 37.2 32.4 54.3 42.3 55.9 80.8 75.6 64.8 60.4 65.6 71.4 71.2 69.8 64.3 81.3 80.7 80.3 93.4 90.3 83.1 78.8 83.3 83.8 84.0 83.4 81.5 94.4 94.8 95.4 97.1 94.8 94.3 95.3 98.2 94.4 96.4 97.9 95.8 100.4 101.7 99.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.5 101.1 108.0 106.1 101.5 104.6 103.1 106.5 106.4 101.2 102.8 101.4 101.4 98.2 122.7 119.2 112.3 110.6 108.6 122.1 113.9 107.5 112.7 101.9 103.6 102.9 127.2 127.6 114.2 113.9 111.0 125.4 116.9 108.0 113.2 107.1 105.9 98.3 135.0 135.2 114.6 122.0 112.6 128.5 119.4 109.2 116.5 113.5 112.0 105.4 142.3 148.1 120.2 125.1 119.2 135.3 127.9 117.2 125.5 123.1 118.1 114.4 152.5 155.0 119.6 127.5 123.7 148.8 139.2 124.1 131.0 129.9 123.6 117.3 161.1 158.6 120.3 132.7 128.4 156.8 145.1 126.8 136.1 134.1 127.7 117.7 163.7 164.5 116.2 135.2 128.3 158.3 144.8 125.9 136.0 138.6 132.0 120.5 176.5 170.5 117.2 136.8 129.9 162.3 145.9 132.2 141.8 147.6 136.2 124.3 190.0 Output United States .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ Japan ........................................................................... B e lgium ........................................................................ Denmark ...................................................................... France.......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. N o rw ay......................................................................... S w eden........................................................................ United K ingdo m .......................................................... 52.5 41.3 19.2 41.9 49.2 36.5 50.0 33.0 44.8 54.8 52.6 71.2 78.6 73.5 69.9 78.6 82.0 75.5 86.6 69.0 84.4 86.5 92.5 94.9 96.3 93.5 91.9 96.4 95.9 90.5 96.1 83.5 95.8 99.2 100.3 104.7 93.1 96.5 94.8 99.7 99.6 95.6 98.0 96.5 99.0 102.1 106.1 98.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 106.0 104.6 106.7 101.4 99.7 102.3 101.8 104.9 102.8 97.7 97.3 100.6 103.2 103.6 124.1 106.8 110.1 104.6 106.6 121.9 106.6 99.5 104.0 91.8 104.8 107.4 129.8 105.6 106.6 102.9 104.9 119.9 106.7 98.6 100.6 86.3 98.4 93.6 137.3 110.1 108.3 104.0 102.4 118.7 105.0 96.8 100.1 86.4 104.7 99.6 148.2 114.7 115.6 103.8 103.6 119.7 107.0 97.2 105.2 88.8 117.5 112.5 165.4 118.0 121.0 102.6 106.4 125.3 113.3 102.7 111.5 92.5 122.0 118.8 177.0 119.6 124.9 103.0 110.0 129.0 116.7 106.5 115.3 94.8 124.7 121.9 177.8 121.4 125.9 102.8 110.8 131.9 118.1 106.9 114.7 95.6 130.1 128.5 190.8 123.3 121.1 101.8 111.6 137.3 118.7 108.3 119.2 101.0 138.1 136.0 212.3 Total hours United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ Japan ........................................................................... B e lgium ........................................................................ D e n m a rk...................................................................... France .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. N orw ay......................................................................... S w eden........................................................................ United K ingdo m .......................................................... 84.4 81.4 82.7 127.1 132.4 97.6 123.8 88.9 138.4 101.1 124.4 127.3 97.3 97.2 107.9 130.2 125.1 105.7 121.7 98.9 131.2 106.4 114.6 118.1 103.1 103.6 110.7 122.3 115.2 107.9 114.4 100.1 117.6 105.1 105.7 109.8 95.9 101.8 100.6 104.6 101.4 101.3 101.6 98.6 103.3 101.7 104.3 99.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 104.4 103.4 98.8 95.5 98.3 97.8 98.7 98.5 96.6 96.5 94.6 99.1 101.7 105.5 101.2 89.6 98.0 94.6 98.1 99.8 93.6 92.6 92.3 90.1 101.1 104.3 102.0 82.8 93.4 90.3 94.6 95.6 91.2 91.3 88.9 80.6 92.9 95.2 101.7 81.4 94.5 85.2 91.0 92.4 88.0 88.6 85.9 76.2 93.5 94.5 104.2 77.5 96.2 83.0 86.9 88.5 83.6 82.9 83.9 72.2 99.5 98.3 108.5 76.1 101.2 80.4 86.1 84.2 81.4 82.8 85.1 71.2 98.7 101.2 109.8 75.4 103.8 77.6 85.7 82.3 80.5 84.0 84.7 70.7 97.7 103.6 108.6 73.8 108.4 76.1 86.4 83.3 81.5 84.9 84.3 69.0 98.6 106.6 108.1 72.3 103.3 74.4 85.9 84.6 81.3 81.9 84.0 68.5 101.4 109.4 111.7 Compensation per hour United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ Japan ........................................................................... B e lgium ........................................................................ D e nm a rk...................................................................... F ra n ce .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. N o rw ay......................................................................... S w e d e n ........................................................................ United K ingdo m .......................................................... 36.5 27.5 8.9 13.8 12.6 15.0 18.8 9.2 12.5 15.8 14.7 15.2 57.4 47.9 33.9 34.9 36.3 36.3 48.0 27.1 39.0 37.9 38.5 31.4 68.8 60.0 55.1 53.5 56.1 51.9 67.5 41.2 60.5 54.6 54.2 47.9 92.1 90.3 90.7 89.5 90.4 87.8 91.2 84.5 91.9 88.9 91.5 88.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 108.2 107.6 106.6 107.8 110.2 113.0 107.8 115.2 108.4 110.0 111.4 116.7 132.4 131.3 120.7 130.2 135.9 148.5 125.6 163.7 123.6 128.0 133.6 168.6 145.2 151.1 129.8 144.5 149.7 172.0 134.5 197.9 129.1 142.8 148.1 193.4 157.5 167.0 136.6 150.7 162.9 204.0 141.0 233.3 137.5 156.1 158.9 211.7 162.4 177.2 140.7 159.8 174.2 225.2 148.3 273.1 144.5 173.5 173.3 226.6 168.0 185.6 144.9 173.1 184.1 244.9 155.5 313.3 148.6 188.3 189.7 242.3 176.4 194.4 151.4 183.6 196.5 265.4 164.6 352.0 156.9 204.3 212.4 258.8 183.0 203.5 158.9 190.8 203.5 278.7 171.5 367.4 162.2 224.2 228.7 277.8 186.9 214.0 162.5 194.7 225.9 291.4 178.1 391.2 167.0 257.4 244.8 295.7 193.5 227.1 171.3 Unit labor costs: National currency basis United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ Japan ........................................................................... B e lgium ........................................................................ D e nm a rk...................................................................... France .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. N o rw ay......................................................................... S w e d e n ........................................................................ United K ingdo m .......................................................... 58.7 54.2 38.4 41.7 33.8 40.2 46.6 24.7 38.5 29.2 34.8 27.2 71.0 63.4 52.3 57.8 55.4 50.8 67.4 38.8 60.7 46.6 47.7 39.1 73.7 66.5 66.4 67.9 67.4 62.0 80.3 49.4 74.3 57.8 57.2 50.2 94.9 95.3 96.2 93.9 92.1 93.0 94.6 86.3 96.0 88.5 90.0 89.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 106.6 106.5 98.7 101.6 108.6 108.0 104.5 108.1 101.8 108.7 108.4 115.0 130.6 133.7 98.4 109.2 121.0 134.3 115.7 134.0 108.5 119.1 118.6 165.5 140.1 146.7 102.0 113.2 131.1 151.0 121.2 157.8 110.4 132.2 130.9 180.6 148.7 170.0 101.2 111.5 142.2 167.2 125.2 181.6 115.2 142.9 136.3 186.5 145.0 168.1 98.9 107.9 144.9 179.9 124.4 201.9 113.0 148.0 138.1 184.1 142.2 162.3 95.0 111.7 153.9 192.0 125.8 210.6 106.8 151.8 144.8 186.5 142.7 165.7 94.0 115.8 163.3 200.0 128.3 224.5 108.1 161.1 156.1 193.0 143.3 172.8 97.1 116.0 175.1 206.2 133.7 232.0 112.0 178.1 168.2 200.4 141.7 177.5 92.1 114.2 192.8 213.0 137.1 241.0 114.4 194.7 172.6 200.4 Unit labor costs: U S. dollar basis United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ Japan ........................................................................... B e lgium ........................................................................ D e nm a rk...................................................................... F ra n ce .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. N o rw ay......................................................................... S w e d e n ........................................................................ United K ingdo m .......................................................... 58.7 59.4 28.5 30.0 29.5 40.3 25.9 35.1 25.1 21.8 30.1 43.7 71.0 64.5 39.1 41.7 44.4 45.2 42.9 54.7 41.2 34.7 41.1 53.7 73.7 70.6 65.6 62.7 67.2 68.6 70.4 75.0 65.6 53.5 58.7 70.5 94.9 102.7 86.9 87.2 91.5 95.8 87.3 91.8 89.1 86.4 92.3 92.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 106.6 99.3 126.8 115.8 118.4 117.9 121.0 112.4 115.7 110.4 107.2 126.5 130.6 121.5 116.8 134.0 129.0 156.4 147.9 138.4 134.1 128.4 125.3 220.6 140.1 130.0 123.8 109.6 110.3 136.4 124.9 122.4 108.9 122.5 115.4 209.6 148.7 146.3 108.8 87.2 102.3 124.9 119.7 118.4 105.8 117.8 96.9 186.8 145.0 144.9 111.5 75.6 95.1 116.1 113.1 117.3 97.1 107.9 80.4 160.0 142.2 133.2 107.2 69.3 89.3 108.1 102.6 105.9 81.6 99.0 78.2 142.9 142.7 128.9 105.6 69.9 92.5 109.5 101.2 103.8 80.0 99.8 81.1 143.5 143.3 132.1 154.4 93.1 129.9 146.3 143.0 137.4 112.2 124.7 105.4 168.6 141.7 142.3 170.5 109.5 169.0 174.2 177.0 164.0 138.6 153.7 121.5 188.3 - Data not available. 108 Monthly Labor Review December 1989 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 117.2 144.1 135.9 167.1 153.2 145.0 154.9 - 118.4 105.7 116.3 145.3 123.8 - 124.0 108.2 - 101.0 73.4 85.5 87.0 80.8 - 85.5 69.8 - 230.1 301.9 185.5 416.3 172.8 - 261.1 319.3 142.1 182.7 90.2 - 196.3 209.6 136.4 249.1 112.8 - 180.0 206.2 142.1 157.8 188.4 - 174.8 172.9 180.3 168.8 139.9 - 131.1 210.5 51. O c c u p a tio n a l inju ry an d illness in c id e n c e ra te s by in d u s try , U n ite d S ta te s Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2 Industry and type of case1 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 PRIVATE SECTOR3 8.7 4.0 65.2 8.3 3.8 61.7 7.7 3.5 58.7 7.6 3.4 58.5 8.0 3.7 63.4 7.9 3.6 64.9 7.9 3.6 65.8 8.3 3.8 69.9 8.6 4.0 76.1 11.9 5.8 82.7 12.3 5.9 82.8 11.8 5.9 86.0 11.9 6.1 90.8 12.0 6.1 90.7 11.4 5.7 91.3 11.2 5.6 93.6 11.2 5.7 94.1 10.9 5.6 101.8 11.2 6.5 163.6 11.6 6.2 146.4 10.5 5.4 137.3 8.4 4.5 125.1 9.7 5.3 160.2 8.4 4.8 145.3 7.4 4.1 125.9 8.5 4.9 144.0 8.8 5.1 152.1 15.7 6.5 117.0 15.1 6.3 113.1 14.6 6.0 115.7 14.8 6.3 118.2 15.5 6.9 128.1 15.2 6.8 128.9 15.2 6.9 134.5 14.7 6.8 135.8 14.6 6.8 142.2 15.5 6.5 113.0 15.1 6.1 107.1 14.1 5.9 112.0 14.4 6.2 113.0 15.4 6.9 121.3 15.2 6.8 120.4 14.9 6.6 122.7 14.2 6.5 134.0 14.0 6.4 132.2 16.3 6.3 117.6 14.9 6.0 106.0 15.1 5.8 113.1 15.4 6.2 122.4 14.9 6.4 131.7 14.5 6.3 127.3 14.7 6.3 132.9 14.5 6.4 139.1 15.1 7.0 162.3 15.5 6.7 118.9 15.2 6.6 119.3 14.7 6.2 118.6 14.8 6.4 119.0 15.8 7.1 130.1 15.4 7.0 133.3 15.6 7.2 140.4 15.0 7.1 135.7 14.7 7.0 141.1 12.2 5.4 86.7 11.5 5.1 82.0 10.2 4.4 75.0 10.0 4.3 73.5 10.6 4.7 77.9 10.4 4.6 80.2 10.6 4.7 85.2 11.9 5.3 95.5 13.1 5.7 107.4 18.6 9.5 171.8 17.6 9.0 158.4 16.9 8.3 153.3 18.3 9.2 163.5 19.6 9.9 172.0 18.5 9.3 171.4 18.9 9.7 177.2 18.9 9.6 176.5 19.5 10.0 189.1 16.0 6.6 97.6 15.1 6.2 91.9 13.9 5.5 85.6 14.1 5.7 83.0 15.3 6.4 101.5 15.0 6.3 100.4 15.2 6.3 103.0 15.4 6.7 103.6 16.6 7.3 115.7 15.0 7.1 128.1 14.1 6.9 122.2 13.0 6.1 112.2 13.1 6.0 112.0 13.6 6.6 120.8 13.9 6.7 127.8 13.6 6.5 126.0 14.9 7.1 135.8 16.0 7.5 141.0 15.2 7.1 128.3 14.4 6.7 121.3 12.4 5.4 101.6 12.4 5.4 103.4 13.3 6.1 115.3 12.6 5.7 113.8 13.6 6.1 125.5 17.0 7.4 145.8 19.4 8.2 161.3 18.5 8.0 118.4 17.5 7.5 109.9 15.3 6.4 102.5 15.1 6.1 96.5 16.1 6.7 104.9 16.3 6.9 110.1 16.0 6.8 115.5 17.0 7.2 121.9 18.8 8.0 138.8 13.7 5.5 81.3 12.9 5.1 74.9 10.7 4.2 66.0 9.8 3.6 58.1 10.7 4.1 65.8 10.8 4.2 69.3 10.7 4.2 72.0 11.3 4.4 72.7 12.1 4.7 82.8 8.0 3.3 51.8 7.4 3.1 48.4 6.5 2.7 42.2 6.3 2.6 41.4 6.8 2.8 45.0 6.4 2.7 45.7 6.4 2.7 49.8 7.2 3.1 55.9 8.0 3.3 64.6 10.6 4.9 82.4 9.8 4.6 78.1 9.2 4.0 72.2 8.4 3.6 64.5 9.3 4.2 68.8 9.0 3.9 71.6 9.6 4.1 79.1 13.5 5.7 105.7 17.7 6.6 134.2 6.8 2.7 41.8 6.5 2.7 39.2 5.6 2.3 37.0 5.2 2.1 35.6 5.4 2.2 37.5 5.2 2.2 37.9 5.3 2.3 42.2 5.8 2.4 43.9 6.1 2.6 51.5 10.9 4.4 67.9 10.7 4.4 68.3 9.9 4.1 69.9 9.9 4.0 66.3 10.5 4.3 70.2 9.7 4.2 73.2 10.2 4.3 70.9 10.7 4.6 81.5 11.3 5.1 91.0 Agriculture, forestry, and fishing3 Mining Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Construction General building contractors: Heavy construction contractors: Special trade contractors: Manufacturing Durable goods Lumber and wood products: Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Furniture and fixtures: Stone, clay, and glass products: Primary metal industries: Fabricated metal products: Machinery, except electrical: Electric and electronic equipment: Transportation equipment: Instruments and related products: Miscellaneous manufacturing industries: See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review December 1989 109 Current Labor Statistics: 51. Injury & Illness Data Continued— Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2 Industry and type of case1 1980 Nondurable goods Food and kindred products: Total c a s e s ........................................................................................ Lost workday cases .................................................................. Lost w o rkda ys................................................................ Tobacco manufacturing: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Textile mill products: Total c a s e s ......................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ................................................................ Lost w o rkdays......................................................... Apparel and other textile products: Total c a s e s ........................................................................ Lost workday cases ......................................................... Lost w o rkda ys................................................................ Paper and allied products: Total c a s e s ........................................................................ Lost workday cases ..................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................... Printing and publishing: Total c a s e s .............................................................. Lost workday cases .............................................................. Lost w o rkda ys.............................................................................. Chemicals and allied products: Total c a s e s ....................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Petroleum and coal products: Total c a s e s .................................................................................... Lost workday cases ......................................................... Lost w o rkda ys................................................................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products: Total c a s e s ............................................................................ Lost workday cases ................................................................ Lost w o rkdays............................................................... Leather and leather products: Total c a s e s ............................................................................................. Lost workday cases ...................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys................................................................. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 18.7 9.0 136.8 17.8 8.6 130.7 16.7 8.0 129.3 16.5 7.9 131.2 16.7 8.1 131.6 16.7 8.1 138.0 16.5 8.0 137.8 17.7 8.6 153.7 18.5 9.2 169.7 8.1 3.8 45.8 8.2 3.9 56.8 7.2 3.2 44.6 6.5 3.0 42.8 7.7 3.2 51.7 7.3 3.0 51.7 6.7 2.5 45.6 8.6 2.5 46.4 9.3 2.9 53.0 9.1 3.3 62.8 8.8 3.2 59.2 7.6 2.8 53.8 7.4 2.8 51.4 8.0 3.0 54.0 7.5 3.0 57.4 7.8 3.1 59.3 9.0 3.6 65.9 9.6 4.0 78.8 6.4 2.2 34.9 6.3 2.2 35.0 6.0 2.1 36.4 6.4 2.4 40.6 6.7 2.5 40.9 6.7 2.6 44.1 6.7 2.7 49.4 7.4 3.1 59.5 8.1 3.5 68.2 12.7 5.8 112.3 11.6 5.4 103.6 10.6 4.9 99.1 10.0 4.5 90.3 10.4 4.7 93.8 10.2 4.7 94.6 10.5 4.7 99.5 12.8 5.8 122.3 13.1 5.9 124.3 6.9 3.1 46.5 6.7 3.0 47.4 6.6 2.8 45.7 6.6 2.9 44.6 6.5 2.9 46.0 6.3 2.9 49.2 6.5 2.9 50.8 6.7 3.1 55.1 6.6 3.2 59.8 6.8 3.1 50.3 6.6 3.0 48.1 5.7 2.5 39.4 5.5 2.5 42.3 5.3 2.4 40.8 5.1 2.3 38.8 6.3 2.7 49.4 7.0 3.1 58.8 7.0 3.3 59.0 7.2 3.5 59.1 6.7 2.9 51.2 5.3 2.5 46.4 5.5 2.4 46.8 5.1 2.4 53.5 5.1 2.4 49.9 7.1 3.2 67.5 7.3 3.1 65.9 7.0 3.2 68.4 15.5 7.4 118.6 14.6 7.2 117.4 12.7 6.0 100.9 13.0 6.2 101.4 13.6 6.4 104.3 13.4 6.3 107.4 14.0 6.6 118.2 15.9 7.6 130.8 16.3 8.1 142.9 11.7 5.0 82.7 11.5 5.1 82.6 9.9 4.5 86.5 10.0 4.4 87.3 10.5 4.7 94.4 10.3 4.6 88.3 10.5 4.8 83.4 12.4 5.8 114.5 11.4 5.6 128.2 9.4 5.5 104.5 9.0 5.3 100.6 8.5 4.9 96.7 8.2 4.7 94.9 8.8 5.2 105.1 8.6 5.0 107.1 8.2 4.8 102.1 8.4 4.9 108.1 8.9 5.1 118.6 7.4 3.2 48.7 7.3 3.1 45.3 7.2 3.1 45.5 7.2 3.1 47.8 7.4 3.3 50.5 7.4 3.2 50.7 7.7 3.3 54.0 7.7 3.4 56.1 7.8 3.5 60.9 8.2 3.9 58.2 7.7 3.6 54.7 7.1 3.4 52.1 7.0 3.2 50.6 7.2 3.5 55.5 7.2 3.5 59.8 7.2 3.6 62.5 7.4 3.7 64.0 7.6 3.8 69.2 7.1 2.9 44.5 7.1 2.9 41.1 7.2 2.9 42.6 7.3 3.0 46.7 7.5 3.2 48.4 7.5 3.1 47.0 7.8 3.2 50.5 7.8 3.3 52.9 7.9 3.4 57.6 Finance, insurance, and real estate Total c a s e s ............................................................................. Lost workday cases ...................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................... 2.0 .8 12.2 1.9 .8 11.6 2.0 .9 13.2 2.0 .9 12.8 1.9 .9 13.6 2.0 .9 15.4 2.0 .9 17.1 2.0 .9 14.3 2.0 .9 17.2 Services Total c a s e s ................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................ Lost w o rkda ys.......................................................... 5.2 2.3 35.8 5.0 2.3 35.9 4.9 2.3 35.8 5.1 2.4 37.0 5.2 2.5 41.1 5.4 2.6 45.4 5.3 2.5 43.0 5.5 2.7 45.8 5.4 2.6 47.7 Transportation and public utilities Total c a s e s .......................................................................... Lost workday cases .................................................................. Lost workdays ........................................................................... Wholesale and retail trade Total c a s e s ..................................................................................... Lost workday cases ..................................................... Lost w o rkda ys........................................................... Wholesale trade: Total c a s e s ........................................................................ Lost workday c a s e s ................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys.................................................................... Retail trade: Total c a s e s ................................................................. Lost workday cases .................................................. Lost w o rkda ys.................................................................. ' Total cases include fatalities. 2 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays per 100 full-time workers and were calculated as: (N/EH) X 200,000, where: N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays. 110 Monthly Labor Review December 1989 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis EH = total hours worked by all employees during calendar year. 200,000 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year.) 3 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Index of Volume 112 January 1989 through December 1989 Monthly Labor Review December 1989 111 Index to Volume 112 January 1989 through December 1989 Apprenticeship (See Education and Training.) Asia International comparisons of hourly com pensation costs. 1989 June. 10-12. Austria International developments in apprentice ship. 1989 July. 40-41. Unemployment insurance in the United States and Europe, 1973-83. 1989 Apr. 22-31. Auto Workers ( u a w ) United Auto Workers 29th constitutional convention. 1989 Oct. 34-36. Discrimination Consumer Expenditures Displaced Workers Consumer expenditures in different-size cities. 1989 Dec. 44-47. Families of working wives spending more on services and nondurables. 1989 Feb. 15-23. Spending differences across occupational fields. 1989 Dec. 33-43. Spending patterns and income of single and married parents. 1989 Mar. 37-41. Do more-educated workers fare better fol lowing job displacement? 1989 Aug. 43-46. Labor market changes and adjustments: how do the U.S. and Japan compare? 1989 Feb. 31-42. Consumer Price Index United Auto Workers 29th constitutional convention. 1989 Oct. 34-36. Board Representation Employee representation on U .S., German boards. 1989 Sept. 39-42. Canada International comparisons of hourly com pensation costs. 1989 June. 10-12. Child Care Experimental cost-of-living indexes: a summary of current research. 1989 July. 34-39. Price highlights of 1988: rising pressures on consumer prices. 1989 May. 3 10. Decisions, Court Civil Rights Act of 1964 Martin v. Wilks. Child care options of employed women. 1989 Dec. 52. Collective Bargaining Collective bargaining and labor-manage ment relations, 1988. 1989 Jan. 2539. Collective bargaining and private sector professionals. 1989 Sept. 24-33. Collective bargaining in 1989: negotiators will face diverse issues. 1989 Jan. 10-24. Major collective bargaining settlements in private industry in 1988. 1989 May. 34-43. 112 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1989 Nov. 76. Constitutional Issues Finnegan v. Leu. 1989 Nov. 76-77. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab. 1989 Nov. 75-76. Sheet Metal Workers v. Lynn. 1989 Nov. 76-77. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ As sociation. 1989 Nov. 75-76. Executive Order National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab. 1989 Nov. 75-76. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ As sociation. 1989 Nov. 75-76. Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act Conferences and Conventions American Statistical Association. Held in Washington, DC, August 6-10, 1989. Summaries of papers from. 1989 Oct. 29-33. First Industrial Relations Congress of the Americas. Held in Quebec City, Can ada, Aug. 23-25, 1988. 1989 May. 50-51. (See also Prices.) Finnegan v. Leu. 1989 Nov. 76-77. Sheet Metal Workers v. Lynn. 1989 Nov. 76-77. Disability Analyzing short-term disability benefits. 1989 June. 3-9. December 1989 (See Equal Employ ment Opportunity.) Earnings and Wages General Children in dual income families increase; real family income lags. 1989 Dec. 48-52. Families of working wives spending more on services and nondurables. 1989 Feb. 15-23. Sources of increasing inequality in wages and salaries, 1960-80. 1989 Apr. 3 13. Spending patterns and income of single and married parents. 1989 Mar. 37-41. Specified industries and occupations Pay in data processing services varies by occupation and area. 1989 May. 5254. Wages and benefits in pulp, paper, and pa perboard mills. 1989 June. 33-35. What temporary workers earn: findings from new bls survey. 1989 Mar. 3 12. Economic Development and Growth Aggregate structure of the economy, The. 1989 Nov. 13-24. Education and Training Do more-educated workers fare better fol lowing job displacement? 1989 Aug. 43-46. International developments in apprentice ship. 1989 July. 40-41. Need for training, The. 1989 June. 2. Employment Employment gains slow in the first half of 1989. 1989 Aug. 3-9. How many new jobs since 1982? data from two surveys differ. 1989 Aug. 1015. Industry output and employment: a slower trend for the nineties. 1989 Nov. 2541. Labor market completes sixth year of ex pansion in 1988. 1989 Feb. 3-14. More than wages at issue in job quality debate. 1989 Dec. 4-8. On the definition of “contingent work.” 1989 Dec. 9-16. Reasons for not working: poor and nonpoor householders. 1989 Aug. 16-21. Measuring the precision of the Employ ment Cost Index. 1989 Mar. 29-36. Equal Employment Opportunity Institutional barriers to employment of older workers. 1989 Apr. 14-21. (See Consumer Expendi tures.) Exports Health and Insurance Plans Analyzing short-term disability benefits. 1989 June. 3-9. Compensation for death and dismember ment. 1989 Sept. 13-17. Employer-sponsored life insurance: a new look. 1989 Oct. 25-28. Hours of Work Employment Cost Index Expenditures Profiles in safety and health: work hazards of mobile homes. 1989 July. 15-20. Employer provisions for parental leave. 1989 Oct. 20-24. Variations in holidays, vacations, and area pay levels. 1989 Feb. 24-30. What temporary workers earn: findings from new BLS survey. 1989 Mar. 3 - 12. Imports Income (See Foreign Trade.) (See Earnings and Wages.) Industrial Relations (See U.S. import and export prices continued to register sizable gains in 1988. 1989 May. 11-33. France International developments in apprentice ship. 1989 July. 40-41. Unemployment insurance in the United States and Europe, 1973-83. 1989 Apr. 22-31. Germany Employee representation on U .S ., German boards. 1989 Sept. 39-42. International developments in apprentice ship. 1989 July. 40-41. Unemployment insurance in the United States and Europe, 1973-83. 1989 Apr. 22-31. Labor- Injuries (See Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.) OECD social ministers focus on rising pen sion, health costs. 1989 Feb. 47-48. International comparisons of hourly com pensation costs. 1989 June. 10-12. Japan Adjusted Japanese unemployment rate re mains below 3 percent in 1987-88. 1989 June. 36-38. International comparisons of hourly com pensation costs. 1989 June. 10-12. Labor market changes and adjustments: how do the U.S. and Japan compare? 1989 Feb. 31-42. Job Quality (See Quality o f Jobs.) Job Tenure Great Britain Occupational change: pursuing a different kind of work. 1989 Sept. 3-12. Unemployment insurance in the United States and Europe, 1973-83. 1989 Apr. 22-31. Labor Costs Health and Safety Disabling injuries in longshore operations. 1989 Oct. 37-38. Job hazards underscored in woodworking study. 1989 Sept. 18-23. Profiles in safety and health: occupational hazards of meatpacking. 1989 Jan. 3-9. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Cyrus S. Ching: pioneer in industrial peacemaking. 1989 Aug. 22-35. Frances Perkins and the flowering of eco nomic and social policies. 1989 June. 28-32. Institutional setting. 1989 Aug. 2. John R. Commons: pioneer of labor eco nomics. 1989 May. 44-49. Samuel Gompers: a half century in labor’s front rank. 1989 July. 27-33. Changes in unemployment insurance legis lation during 1988. 1989 Jan. 5965. State labor legislation enacted in 1988. 1989 Jan. 40-58. State workers’ compensation: enactments in 1988. 1989 Jan. 66-71. International Comparisons (See Public Employees.) Labor History Labor Law Management Relations.) Foreign Trade Government Employees (See Foreign Trade.) New labor force projections spanning 1988 to 2000. 1989 Nov. 3-12. On the definition of “contingent work.” 1989 Dec. 9-16. What temporary workers earn: findings from new BLS survey. 1989 Mar. 3 12. (See Unit Labor Costs.) Labor Force A profile of the working poor. 1989 Oct. 3-13. Changing work force, The. 1989 Mar. Labor-Management Relations Collective bargaining and labor-manage ment relations, 1988. 1989 Jan. 2 5 39. Collective bargaining in 1989: negotiators will face diverse issues. 1989 Jan. 10-24. Cyrus S. Ching: pioneer in industrial peacemaking. 1989 Aug. 22-35. Employee representation on U .S ., German boards. 1989 Sept. 39-42. Labor Market Labor market changes and adjustments: how do the U.S. and Japan compare? 1989 Feb. 31-42. Labor market completes sixth year of ex pansion in 1988. 1989 Feb. 3-14. Labor Organizations Can employee associations negotiate new growth? 1989 July. 5-14. How Poland’s Solidarity won freedom of association. 1989 Sept. 34-38. Samuel Gompers: a half century in labor’s front rank. 1989 July. 27-33. 2. Employment gains slow in the first half of 1989. 1989 Aug. 3-9. Labor market completes sixth year of ex pansion in 1988. 1989 Feb. 3-14. Mobility Occupational change: pursuing a different kind of work. 1989 Sept. 3-12. Monthly Labor Review December 1989 113 Volume Index Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Job hazards underscored in woodworking study. 1989 Sept. 18-23. Productivity trends in agricultural chemi cals. 1989 Mar. 21-28. Producer Price Index Occupational change: pursuing a different kind of work. 1989 Sept. 3-12. Projections of occupational employment, 1988-2000. 1989 Nov. 42-65. Milestones in the Producer Price Index methodology and presentation. 1989 Aug. 41-42. Price highlights of 1988: rising pressures on consumer prices. 1989 May. 3 10. Older Workers Projections Institutional barriers to employment of older workers. 1989 Apr. 14-21. Older workers. 1989 Feb. 2. Aggregate structure of the economy, The. 1989 Nov. 13-24. Industry output and employment: a slower trend for the nineties. 1989 Nov. 2541. Labor force projections. 1989 Jan. 2. New labor force projections spanning 1988 to 2000. 1989 Nov. 3-12. Outlook 2000. An introduction. 1989 Nov. 2 Projections of occupational employment, 1988-2000. 1989 Nov. 42-65. Projections summary and emerging issues. 1989 Nov. 66-74. Occupations Poland How Poland’s Solidarity won freedom of association. 1989 Sept. 34-38. Poverty A profile of the working poor. 1989 Oct. 3-13. How much poverty is reduced by State in come transfers? 1989 July. 21-26. Poverty in the 1980’s: are the poor getting poorer? 1989 June. 13-18. Reasons for not working: poor and nonpoor householders. 1989 Aug. 16-21. Taking stock. 1989 May. 2. Prices Experimental cost-of-living indexes: a summary of current research. 1989 July. 34-39. Price highlights of 1988: rising pressures on consumer prices. 1989 May. 3 10. U.S. import and export prices continued to register sizable gains in 1988. 1989 May. 11-33. Public Employees Can public employee associations negotiate new growth? 1989 July. 5-14. Quality of Jobs Employer-provided benefits: employer cost versus employee value. 1989 Dec. 24-32. Flexible benefits plans: employees who have a choice. 1989 Dec. 17-23. On the definition of “contingent work.” 1989 Dec. 9-16. More than wages at issue in job quality debate. 1989 Dec. 4-8. Salaries (See Earnings and wages.) Productivity Social Security Industry output and employment: a slower trend for the nineties. 1989 Nov. 2541. Multifactor productivity advances in the tires and inner tubes industry. 1989 June. 19-27. Multifactor productivity slips in the non rubber footwear industry. 1989 Apr. 32-38. Productivity continued to rise in many in dustries during 1987. 1989 Mar. 1320 . Productivity in the carburetors, pistons, and valves industry. 1989 Feb. 4 3 46. Productivity in the retail auto and home supply store industry. 1989 Aug. 36-40. Institutional barriers to employment of older workers. 1989 Apr. 14-21. 114 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Social Welfare OECD social ministers focus on rising pen sion, health costs. 1989 Feb. 47-48. State Government Changes in unemployment insurance legis lation during 1988. 1989 Jan. 5965. How much poverty is reduced by State in come transfers? 1989 July. 21-26. State workers’ compensation: enactments in 1988. 1989 Jan. 66-71. State labor legislation enacted in 1988. 1989 Jan. 40-58. December 1989 Statistical Programs and Methods A comparative analysis of price indexes produced by National Governments for older consumers. 1989 Oct. 30. A Kalman filter approach to labor force estimation using survey data. 1989 Oct. 33. A survey on the temporary help supply in dustry. 1989 Oct. 29. Characteristics of commercial residential telephone lists and dual frame designs. 1989 Oct. 32. Comparison of variance estimators for Pro ducer Price Index data. 1989 Oct. 33. Controlling response error in an Establish ment Survey. 1989 Oct. 30-31. Developing a cost model for alternative collection methods: mail, CATI, and tde. 1989 Oct. 32. Developing statistics to meet society’s needs. 1989 Oct. 15-20. Effects of sample size on variances of the Producer Price Index, The. 1989 Oct. 30. Federal agencies seek improvement in quality in establishment surveys. 1989 Oct. 38-40. ' How many new jobs since 1982? data from two surveys differ. 1989 Aug. 1015. Improving comprehension and recall in the Consumer Expenditure Interview Sur vey. 1989 Oct. 31-32. Integrating the Employment Cost Index and the Employee Benefits Survey. 1989 Oct. 30. International system of labor statistics, The. 1989 Oct. 33. Pointing the way: data, analysis, and deci sionmaking. 1989 Oct. 29. Recent changes in the white-collar pay sur vey. 1989 Oct. 29-30. Reliability and validity of response cate gories for open-ended questions in the Current Population Survey. 1989 Oct. 31. Reliability of proxy response in the Current Population Survey. 1989 Oct. 31. Respondent understanding of key labor force concepts used in the CPS. 1989 Oct. 31. Statistics and public policy. 1989 Sept. 2. Weighting and imputation methods for nonresponse in CPS gross flows estima tion. 1989 Oct. 32. Supplemental Benefits Analyzing short-term disability benefits. 1989 June. 3-9. Compensation for death and dismember ment. 1989 Sept. 13-17. Employer-provided benefits: employer cost versus employee value. 1989 Dec. 24-32. Employer provisions for parental leave. 1989 Oct. 20-24. Employer-sponsored life insurance: a new look. 1989 Oct. 25-28. Flexible benefits plans: employees who have a choice. 1989 Dec. 17-23. Variations in holidays, vacations, and area pay levels. 1989 Feb. 24-30. Survey Methods (See also Statistical Programs and Methods.) Developing statistics to meet society’s needs. 1989 Oct. 14-19. Federal agencies seek improvement in quality in establishment surveys. 1989 Oct. 38-40. How many new jobs since 1982? data from two surveys differ. 1989 Aug. 1015. Milestones in Producer Price Index meth odology and presentation. 1989 Aug. 41-42. ship. 1989 July. 40-41. Women Families of working wives spending more on services and nondurables. 1989 Feb. 15-23. Workers’ Compensation State workers’ compensation: enactments in 1988. 1989 Jan. 66-71. Work Injuries and Illnesses Disabling injuries in longshore operations. 1989 Oct. 37-38. Profiles in safety and health: occupational hazards of meatpacking. 1989 Jan. 3-9. Profiles in safety and health: work hazards of mobile homes. 1989 July. 15-20. Sweden Book Reviews. Each issue except Janu ary and February. Unemployment insurance in the United States and Europe, 1973-83. 1989 Apr. 22-31. Conference Papers. Tenure Current Labor Statistics. (See Job Tenure.) Unemployment Adjusted Japanese unemployment rate re mains below 3 percent in 1987-88. 1989 June. 36-38. Employment gains slow in the first half of 1989. 1989 Aug. 3-9. Unemployment Insurance Changes in unemployment insurance legis lation during 1988. 1989 Jan. 5965. Unemployment insurance in the United States and Europe, 1973-83. 1989 Apr. 22-31. Unions (See Labor Organizations.) October issue. May and October Each issue. Developments in Industrial Relations. Each issue except January. Foreign Labor Developments. February, June, July, September, and October issues. Labor Month in Review. Each issue. Major Agreements Expiring Next Month. Each issue. Research Summaries. March, May, June, August, October, and December issues. Significant Decisions in Labor Cases. November and December issues. Technical Notes. gust issues. March, July, and Au Union Membership Can employee associations negotiate new growth? 1989 July. 5-14. Collective bargaining and private sector professionals. 1989 Sept. 24-33. Unit Labor Costs International comparisons of hourly com pensation costs. 1989 June. 10-12. United Kingdom International developments in apprentice https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES (Listed by author of book.) Alonso, William, ed. Interacting World. Fuchs, Victor R. Women’s Quest fo r Economic Equality. 1989 Aug. 5 3 54. Gallo, Frank, Sar A. Levitan, and Richard S. Belous. What’s Happening to the American Family? Tensions, Hopes, Realities. 1989 June. 44. Hoerr, John P. And the Wolf Finally Came: The Decline o f the Ameri can Steel Industry. 1989 May. 6162. Kelly, Alfred. The German Worker: Working Class Autobiographies from the Age o f Industrialization. 1989 Dec. 58. Krugman, Paul R., ed. Strategic Policy and the New International Economics. 1989 Mar. 46-47. DEPARTMENTS Convention Reports. issues. Blau, Lucie R. and Albert T. Sommers. The U.S. Economy Demystified: What the Major Economic Statistics Mean and Their Significance fo r Business. 1989 Apr. 44-45. Population in an 1989 Oct. 45. Bean, Frank D. and Marta Tienda. The Hispanic Population o f the United States. 1989 Sept. 48. Belous, Richard S., Sar A. Levitan, and Frank Gallo. What’s Happening to the American Family? Tensions, Hopes, Realities. 1989 June. 44. Levitan, Sar A., Richard S. Belous, and Frank Gallo. What’s Happening to the American Family? Tensions, Hopes, Realities. 1989 June. 44. Maurice, Marc, Francois Sellier, and JeanJacques Silvestre. The Social Foun dations o f Industrial Power: A Com parison o f France and Germany. 1989 Dec. 58. Osterman, Paul. Employment Futures: Reorganization, Dislocation, and Pub lic Policy. 1989 July. 46-47. Schwartz, Rosalind M. Women at Work. 1989 Aug. 53-54. Sellier, Francois, Jean-Jacques Silvestre, and Marc Maurice. The Social Foun dations o f Industrial Power: A Com parison o f France and Germany. 1989 Dec. 58. Silvestre, Jean-Jacques, Maurice Marc, and Francois Sellier. The Social Foundations o f Industrial Power: A Comparison o f France and Germany. 1989 Dec. 58. Sommers, Albert T. with Lucie R. Blau. The U.S. Economy Demystified: What the Major Economic Statistics Mean and Their Significance fo r Business. 1989 Apr. 44-45. Spyropoulos, George, ed. Trade Unions Today and Tomorrow: Vol. 1, Trade Unions in a Changing Europe; Vol. 2, Trade Unions in a Changing Work place. 1989 June. 45. Stigler, Stephen M . The History o f Statis tics: The Measurement o f Uncertainty Before 1900. 1989 May. 62. Monthly Labor Review December 1989 115 Volum e Index Tienda, Marta and Frank D. Bean. The Hispanic Population o f the United States. 1989 Sept. 48. AUTHORS Amble Nathan, Charles C. Mason, Robin Duncan, and Mary Lynn Schmidt. A comparative analysis of price indexes produced by National Governments for older consumers. 1989 Oct. 30. Asbury, Penny L. A survey on the tem porary help supply industry. 1989 Oct. 29. Banta, Susan M. Consumer expenditures in different-size cities. 1989 Dec. 44-47. Barbash, Jack. Book review. 1989 June. 45. ------ John R. Commons: pioneer of labor economics. 1989 May. 44-49. Bednarzik, Robert W. and Clinton R. Shiells. Labor market changes and adjustments: how do the U.S. and Japan compare? 1989 Feb. 31-42. Bellet, Adam Z. Employer-sponsored life insurance: a new look. 1989 Oct. 25-28. Berg, Gordon. Frances Perkins and the flowering of economic and social poli cies. 1989 June. 28-32. Biddle, Elyce and Martin E. Personick. Job hazards underscored in woodwork ing study. 1989 Sept. 18-23. Boehm, Lawrence. Reliability of proxy response in the Current Population Sur vey. 1989 Oct. 31. Boyle, Maureen. Spending patterns and income of single and married parents. 1989 Mar. 37-41. Brand, Horst. A prescription for solving the crisis in the workplace (a review essay). 1989 Nov. 82-86. ------ and Kelly Bryant. Productivity trends in agricultural chemicals. 1989 Mar. 21-28. Brodsky, Melvin. International develop ments in apprenticeship. 1989 July. 40-41. ------ OECD social ministers focus on rising pension, health costs. 1989 Feb. 4 7 48. Brown, Gregory, Eva Jacobs, and Ste phanie Shipp. Families of working wives spending more on services and nondurables. 1989 Feb. 15-23. Bryant, Kelly and Horst Brand. Produc tivity trends in agricultural chemicals. 1989 Mar. 21-28. Buckley, John E. Variations in holidays, vacations, and area pay levels. 1989 Feb. 24-30. 116 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Burdette, Terry M., Steve Cohen, and C. Joseph Cooper. Recent changes in the white-collar pay survey. 1989 Oct. 29-30. Cage, Robert. Spending differences across occupational fields. 1989 Dec. 33-43. Capdevielle, Patricia. International com parisons of hourly compensation costs. 1989 June. 10-12. Cattan, Peter. Book review. 1989 Sept. 48. Clarke, Oliver. Book review. 1989 Dec. 58. Clayton, Richard and Louis Har rell. Developing a cost model for al ternative collection methods: mail, cati, and tde. 1989 Oct. 32. Clem, Andrew. Milestones in Producer Price Index methodology and presenta tion. 1989 Aug. 41-42. ------ Craig Howell, and Thomas J. Mosimann. Price highlights of 1988: ris ing pressures on consumer prices. 1989 May. 3-10. Cohen, Steve, Terry M. Burdette, and C. Joseph Cooper. Recent changes in the white-collar pay survey. 1989 Oct. 29-30. Cooper, C. Joseph, Terry M. Burdette, and Steve Cohen. Recent changes in the white-collar pay survey. 1989 Oct. 29-30. Daley, Judy R. and Martin E. Personick. Profiles in safety and health: work haz ards of mobile homes. 1989 July. 15- 20 . Davis, William M. Major collective bar gaining settlements in private industry in 1988. 1989 May. 34-43. ------ and Fehmida Sleemi. Collective bargaining in 1989: negotiators will face diverse issues. 1989 Jan. 1024. Devens, Richard M., Jr. Book reviews. 1989 Mar. 46-47; July. 46-47. Duke, John and Lisa Usher. Multifactor productivity slips in the nonrubber foot wear industry. 1989 Apr. 32-38. Duncan, Robin, Charles C. Mason, Mary Lynn Schmidt, and Nathan Amble. A comparative analysis of price indexes produced by National Governments for older consumers. 1989 Oct. 30. Famulari, Melissa and Marilyn E. Manser. Employer-provided benefits: employer cost versus employee value. 1989 Dec. 24-32. Ferris, John W. and Virginia L. Klarquist. Productivity in the carburetors, pistons, and valves industry. 1989 Feb. 4 3 46. December 1989 Fischer, Ben. Book review. 1989 May. 61-62. Flaim, Paul O. How many new jobs since 1982? data from two surveys differ. 1989 Aug. 10-15. Fracasso, Maria P. Reliability and valid ity of response categories for openended questions in the Current Popula tion Survey. 1989 Oct. 31. Fullerton, Howard N, Jr. New labor force projections spanning 1988 to 2000. 1989 Nov. 3-12. Gallo, Frank and Sar A. Levitan. Can employee associations negotiate new growth? 1989 July. 5-14. ------ and Sar A. Levitan. Collective bar gaining and private sector profession als. 1989 Sept. 24-33. Grubb, W. Norton and Robert H. Wilson. Sources of increasing inequality in wages and salaries, 1960-80. 1989 Apr. 3-13. Guzda, Henry P. First Industrial Rela tions Congress of the Americas. 1989 May. 50-51. ------ United Auto Workers 29th constitu tional convention. 1989 Oct. 34-36. Harrell, Louis and Richard Clay ton. Developing a cost model for al ternative collection methods: mail, CATI, and tde. 1989 Oct. 32. Herman, Arthur S. Productivity contin ued to rise in many industries during 1987. 1989 Mar. 13-20. Haugen, Steven E. Employment gains slow in the first half of 1989. 1989 Aug. 3-9. Hayghe, Howard V. Children in dual in come families increase; real family in come lags. 1989 Dec. 48-52. Hellerstein, Judith. The effects of sample size on variances of the Producer Price Index. 1989 Oct. 30. Herz, Diane E. and Philip L. Rones. In stitutional barriers to employment of older workers. 1989 Apr. 14-21. Houff, James N. and William J. Wiatrowski. Analyzing short-term disability benefits. 1989 June. 3-9. Howe, Wayne J. and William Parks II. Labor market completes sixth year of expansion in 1988. 1989 Feb. 3-14. Howell, Craig, Andrew Clem, and Thomas J. Mosimann. Price highlights of 1988: rising pressures on consumer prices. 1989 May. 3-10. Hughes, Arthur L. and Flora K. Peitzmeier. Weighting and imputa tion methods for nonresponse in cps gross flows estimation. 1989 Oct. 32. Jacobs, Eva, Stephanie Shipp, and Gregory Brown. Families of working wives spending more on services and non durables. 1989 Feb. 15-23. Jain, Rita S. Book review. 1989 Aug. 53-54. Kassalow, Everett M. Employee repre sentation on U .S., German boards. 1989 Sept. 39-42. Klarquist, Virginia L. and John W. Ferris. Productivity in the carburetors, pistons, and valves industry. 1989 Feb. 4 3 46. Klein, Bruce W. and Philip L. Rones. A profile of the working poor. 1989 Oct. 3-13. Klein, Deborah P. and Janet L. Norwood. Developing statistics to meet society’s needs. 1989 Oct. 14-19. Kokoski, Mary F. Experimental cost-ofliving indexes: a summary of current research. 1989 July. 34-39. Kutscher, Ronald E. Projections sum mary and emerging issues. 1989 Nov. 66-74. Lettman, Amy. Disabling injuries in longshore operations. 1989 Oct. 3740. Levitan, Sar A. and Frank Gallo. Can employee associations negotiate new growth? 1989 July. 5-14. ------ and Frank Gallo. Collective bar gaining and private sector profession als. 1989 Sept. 24-33. Littman, Mark S. Poverty in the 1980’s: are the poor getting poorer? 1989 June. 13-18. ------ Reasons for not working: poor and nonpoor householders. 1989 Aug. 16-21. Litz, Diane and Linda Moore. Multifac tor productivity in the tires and inner tubes industry. 1989 June. 19-27. Livingston, Lori A. and Steven Richards. U.S. import and export prices contin ued to register sizable gains in 1988. 1989 May. 11-33. Lukasiewicz, John and George Silvestri. Projections of occupational employ ment, 1988-2000. 1989 Nov. 42 65. Manser, Marilyn E. and Melissa Famulari. Employer-provided benfits: em ployer cost versus employee value. 1989 Dec. 24-32. Markey, James P. and William Parks D. Occupational change: pursuing a different kind of work. 1989 Sept. 3-12. Mason, Charles C., Mary Schmidt, Robin Duncan, and Nathan Amble. A com parative analysis of price indexes pro duced by National Governments for older consumers. 1989 Oct. 30. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis McCracken, John T. The international system of labor statistics. 1989 Oct. 33. McDermott, Dave. Book review. 1989 May 62. Meily, Sue A. and Chester H. Ponikowski. Controlling response er ror in an establishment survey. 1989 Oct. 30-31. Meisenheimer, Joseph R. II. Employer provision for parental leave. 1989 Oct. 20-24. ------ and William J. Wiatrowski. Flexible benefits plans: employees who have a choice. 1989 Dec. 17-23. Miller, Leslie A. Improving comprehen sion and recall in the Consumer Expen diture Interview Survey. 1989 Oct. 31-32. Moore, Linda and Diane Litz. Multifactor productivity in the tires and inner tubes industry. 1989 June. 1927. Mosimann, Thomas J., Craig Howell, and Andrew Clem. Price highlights of 1988: rising pressures on consumer prices. 1989 May. 3-10. Nardone, Thomas and Anne E. Polivka. On the definition of “contingent work.” 1989 Dec. 9-16. Nelson, Richard R. State labor legisla tion enacted in 1988. 1989 Jan. 4 0 58. Norwood, Janet L. and Deborah P. Klein. Developing statistics to meet society’s needs. 1989 Oct. 14-19. O ’Conor, Karen and William Wong. Measuring the precision of the Employ ment Cost Index. 1989 Mar. 29-36. Palmisano, Mark. Respondent under standing of key labor force concepts used in the CPS. 1989 Oct. 31. Parks, William II and Wayne J. Howe. Labor market completes sixth year of expansion in 1988. 1989 Feb. 3-14. ------ and James P. Markey. Occupational change: pursuing a different kind of work. 1989 Sept. 3-12. Peitzmeier, Flora K. and Arthur L. Hughes. Weighting and imputation methods for nonresponse in CPS gross flows estimation. 1989 Oct. 32. Personick, Martin E. and Judy Daley. Profiles in safety and health: work haz ards of mobile homes. 1989 July. 15-20. ------ and Elyce A. Biddle. Job hazards underscored in woodworking study. 1989 Sept. 18-23. ------ and Katherine Taylor-Shirley. Pro files in safety and health: occupational hazards of meatpacking. 1989 Jan. 3-9. Personick, Valerie A. Industry output and employment: a slower trend for the nineties. 1989 Nov. 25-41. Plewes, Thomas J. Pointing the way: data analysis and decisionmak ing. 1989 Oct. 29. Plotnick, Robert D. How much poverty is reduced by State income transfers? 1989 July. 21-26. Podgursky, Michael and Paul Swaim. Do more-educated workers fare better fol lowing job displacement? 1989 Aug. 43-46. Polivka, Anne E. and Thomas Nardone. On the definition of “contingent work.” 1989 Dec. 9-16. Ponikowski, Chester H. and Sue A. Meily. Controlling response error in an establishment survey. 1989 Oct. 30. Raskin, A. H. Cyrus S. Ching: pioneer in industrial peacemaking. 1989 Aug. 22-35. Richards, Steven and Lori A. Livingston. U.S. import and export prices contin ued to register sizable gains in 1988. 1989 May. 11-33. Reubens, Beatrice G. Unemployment in surance in the United States and Eu rope, 1973-83. 1989 Apr. 22-31. Richter, Jaqueline A. Integrating the Em ployment Cost Index and the Employee Benefits Survey. 1989 Oct. 30. Rones, Philip L. and Diane E. Herz. In stitutional barriers to employment of older workers. 1989 Apr. 14-21. ------ and Bruce W. Klein. A profile of the working poor. 1989 Oct. 3-13. Rosenthal, Neal H. More than wages at issue in job quality debate. 1989 Dec. 4-8. Ruben, George. Collective bargaining and labor-management relations, 1988. 1989 Jan. 25-39. Runner, Diana. Changes in unemploy ment insurance legislation during 1988. 1989 Jan. 59-65. Saunders, Norman C. Aggregate struc ture of the economy, The. 1989 Nov. 13-24. Schmidt, Mary Lynn, Charles C. Mason, Robin Duncan, and Nathan Amble. A comparative analysis of price indexes produced by National Governments for older consumers. 1989 Oct. 30. Senser, Robert A. How Poland’s Solidar ity won freedom of association. 1989 Sept. 34-38. Shiells, Clinton R. and Robert W. Bednarzik. Labor market changes and ad justments: how do the U.S. and Japan compare? 1989 Feb. 31-42. Shipp, Stephanie, Gregory Brown, and Eva Jacobs. Families of working Monthly Labor Review December 1989 117 Volume Index wives spending more on services and nondurables. 1989 Feb. 15-23. Silvestri, George and John Lukasiewicz. Projections of occupational employ ment, 1988-2000. 1989 Nov. 4265. Sleemi, Fehmida and William M. Davis. Collective bargaining in 1989: negotia tors will face diverse issues. 1989 Jan. 10-24. Sorrentino, Constance. Japanese unem ployment rate remains below 3 percent in 1987-88. 1989 June. 36-38. Spease, Carol. Comparison of variance estimators for Producer Price Index data. 1989 Oct. 33. Steinberg, Edward I. Book review. 1989 Apr. 44-45. Swaim, Paul and Michael Podgursky. Do more-educated workers fare better fol lowing job displacement? 1989 Aug. 43-46. 118 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Taylor-Shirley, Katherine and Martin E. Personick. Profiles in safety and health: occupational hazards of meat packing. 1989 Jan. 3-9. Thompson, Cynthia. Compensation for death and dismemberment. 1989 Sept. 13-17. Tiller, Richard. A Kalman filter ap proach to labor force estimation using survey data. 1989 Oct. 33. Tinsley, LaVeme. State workers’ com pensation: enactments in 1988. 1989 Jan. 66-71. Tucker, Clyde. Characteristics of com mercial residential telephone lists and dual frame designs. 1989 Oct. 3233. Usher, Lisa and John Duke. Multifactor productivity slips in the nonrubber foot wear industry. 1989 Apr. 32-38. Wiatrowski, William J., and James N. Houff. Analyzing short-term disability December 1989 benefits. 1989 June. 3-9. ------ and Joseph R. Meisenheimer II. Flexible benefits plans: employees who have a choice. 1989 Dec. 17-23. Wilder, Patricia S. Productivity in the re tail auto and home supply store indus try. 1989 Aug. 36-40. Williams, Harry B. What temporary workers earn: findings from new bls survey. 1989 Mar. 3-12. Wilson, Robert H. and W. Norton Grubb. Sources of increasing inequality in wages and salaries, 1960-80. 1989 Aug. 3-13. Winegarden, C. R. Book review. 1989 Oct. 45. Wong, William and Karen O ’Conor. Measuring the precision of the Employ ment Cost Index. 1989 Mar. 29-36. Yellowitz, Irwin. Samuel Gompers: a half century in labor’s front rank. 1989 July. 27-33. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis I*ill w SAII BECAUSE IT'S FREE! Every year the Government publishes thousands of books. And every year the U.S. Government Printing Office sells these books to the public. Now there’s a book that tells you about the Government’s new and popular publications— but it’s not for sale . . . it’s free! It’s our catalog of books— hundreds of books from virtually every Government agency. The subjects range from agriculture, business, children, and diet to science, space, transportation, and vacations. And there are titles on military history, education, hobbies, physical fitness, gardening, and much, much more! There’s also a special section for recently published books. Find out about the Government’s new and popular books by sending today for a copy of the book we d o n ’t sell. Write— Free Catalog P.0. Box 37000 Washington. DC 20013-7000 A ■£& ..... 1 1 « 1 Handbook of Labor Statistics - 1989 Edition Bulletin 2340 Makes available in one 585-page volume historical data (through 1988 in most cases) for the major statistical series produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 4 H andbook of Labor Statistics Contains 156 tables with data on: Labor force characteristics Employment and unemployment Provides technical notes for each major group of tables. Hours and earnings Includes related series from other countries. Productivity and unit labor costs Wage and benefit changes Prices and living conditions Work stoppages Occupational injuries and illnesses Foreign labor statistics Employee benefits Please send your order to: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 copies of Handbook of Labor Statistics, Order Processing Code: □ Please send____ Bulletin 2340, GPO Stock No. 029-001-03009-6, at $29 per copy. □ Enclosed is a check or money order payable to the Superintendent of Documents. □ Charge to GPO Account No. ■ □ Charge to □ ■ ■ VISA1 ] - □ ^~ x~ \ □ (MartwCad) v_x_y Account No. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Publications Sales Center, P.O. Box 2145, Chicago, IL 60690 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Expiration date (Deduct 25 percent for 100 or more copies sent to the same address.) Name Organization (if applicable) Street address City, State, ZIP *6748 The Board of Trustees of the Lawrence R. Klein Award announces A Special Competition to mark the 75th year of the Monthly Labor Review 1. A prize of $1,000—separate from the annual Law rence R. Klein A w a rd will be awarded for the best article m anuscript subm itted to this com petition before May 1, 1990. 2. Entries will be judged on the basis of quality o f w riting and adherence to criteria of professional research and analysis. 3. The m anuscript should not exceed 3,500 words, m ust be w ritten exclusively for the M onthly L abor Review and must nor have been subm itted to or appeared in any form in any m anner of publication prior to its subm ission to this com petition. 4. The com petition will be open to anyone except m em bers of the Law rence R. Klein Board of Trustees and m em bers of their imm ediate families. 5. M anuscripts must be based on original research or analysis in a subject germ ane to the interests of the M onthly L abor Review’. 6. To be eligible, entries must be subm itted to the trustees with the entry form shown below, or a reproduction thereof. 7. The Board of Trustees of the Law rence R. Klein Award will have first publication rights. C harles D. Stew art, President, Ben Burdetsky, S ecretary-T reasurer, The L aw rence R. Klein A w ard M ail to: Board of Trustees, Lawrence R. Klein Award Monthly Labor Review 75th Anniversary Competition q/o Monthly Labor Review,' 441 G Street, N.W ., Room 2822 Washington, DC 20212 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r Entry Form Monthly Labor Review 75th Anniversary Com petition I submit the attached manuscript, titled as my entry in the M onthly L abor Review 75th A nniversary Com petition. I am aware of the contest rules and agree to abide by them. Signature Name Street Address City, State, Z ip Date U.S. Department of Labor Bupéau of Labor Statistics „Washington, DC 20212 Second Class MaiL—Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Department of Labor ISSN 0098-1818 Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300 RETURN POSTAGE G U ARANTEED LI B F E 4 4 2 L f e d e r a l rE LOUI S I BOX 442 HT LO UI S S chedule of release dates for Series bls 63164 * statistical series Release date Period covered December 6 3rd quarter Employment situation December 8 November January 5 December February 2 January 1; 4-21 Producer Price Indexes December 15 November January 12 December February 9 January 2; 34-37 Consumer Price Index December 19 November January 18 December February 21 January 2; 31-33 Real earnings December 19 November January 18 December February 21 January 14-17 U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes December 21 November January 25 4th quarter February 22 January 38-43 Employment Cost Index January 25 4th quarter Major collective bargaining settlements January 25 1989 Release date Period covered Release date Period covered MLR table number Productivity and costs: Nonfinancial corporations https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2; 44-47 \ JL ■ 22-25 26-29
@FedFRASER