View original document

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
February 1970
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
In this issue:

Defense-generated employment
How trade union policy is made


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

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
REGIONAL OFFICES AND DIRECTORS

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
George P. Shultz, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner
Ben Burdetsky, Deputy Commissioner
Leon Greenberg, Chief Statistician
Peter Henle, Chief Economist
The Monthly Labor Review is fo r sale by
the regional offices of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
and by the Superintendent of Documents,
U, S. Government Printing Office
W ashington D. C. 20402
Subscription price per year —
$9 dom estic; $11.25 foreign.
Single copy 75 cents.
Correspondence regarding subscriptions
should be addressed to the Superintendent of Documents.
Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-C hief,
M onthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D. C. 20212
Phone: (202) 961-2327.
Use of funds fo r printing this publication
approved by the D irector of the Bureau
of the Budget (October 31, 1967)

Region I — Boston: W endell D. M acdonald
1603-A Federal B uilding, Government Center, Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6727
C onnecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II — New York: H erbert Bienstock
341 Ninth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10001
Phone: (212) 971-5401
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III — Philadelphia: Frederick W. M ueller
406 Penn Square B uilding, 1317 Filbert Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107
Phone: (215) 597-7796
Delaware
D istrict of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
V irginia
West V irginia
Region IV — Atlanta: B runsw ick A. Bagdon
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30309
Phone: (404) 526-5416
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
M ississippi
North C arolina
South C arolina
Tennessee

Region V — Chicago: Thomas J. M cArdle
219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353-7226
Illin o is
Indiana
M ichigan
Minnesota
Ohio
W isconsin
Region VI — Dallas: Jack S trickland
411 N. Akard Street, Dallas, Tex. 75201
Phone: (214) 749-3516
Arkansas
Louisiana
New M exico
Oklahoma
Texas

Regions VII and VIII — Kansas City: E llio tt A. Browar
911 W alnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2378

VII

Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska

VIII
February cover:
A drawing by Paul Calle
from the colle ctio n
of the National Aeronautics
and Space Adm inistration,
Gemini I spacecraft
being raised to top of gantry
fo r mating to Titan II


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

Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming

Regions IX and X — San Francisco: Charles Roumasset
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017, San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556-3178

IX

Arizona
C alifornia
Hawaii
Nevada

X

Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
W ashington

Richard P. Oliver

3

Increase in defense-related employment
Forty percent of employment growth during Viet Nam buildup
was in ordnance, aircraft, transportation industries

Max A. Rutzick

11

Skills and location of defense-related workers
Analysis of data for fiscal year 1968 shows
continued demand of highly skilled workers

D. C. Bok, J. T. Dunlop

17

How trade union policy is made
Tendency to exaggerate the power of labor leaders overlooks
the demands of rank and file and pressures of environment

Howard G. Foster

21

Nonapprentice sources of training in construction
Survey finds that acquiring skill through informal training
in or out of the industry is common among craftsmen

Herbert A. Perry

27

New training plan in Britain’s construction industry
Intensive program offers basic certification within 2 years
of classroom instruction and on-the-job specialization

Dorothy R. Kittner

32

Changes in health and insurance plans
BLS survey of major plans shows significant improvement over
6-year period in protection offered to salaried employees

SPECIAL LABOR FORCE REPORTS
P. 0. Flaim, P. M. Schwab

40

Employment and unemployment in 1969

Vera C. Perrella

54

Work experience of the population in 1968
RESEARCH SUMMARIES

Joseph C. Bush

62

Wages in nonelectrical machinery

Michael J. Tighe

63

Wages in wood household furniture manufacture

Carolyn S. Fehd

64

Productivity in corrugated and solid fiber boxes


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

DEPARTMENTS
2
66
70
72
76
87

Labor month in review
Significant decisions in labor cases
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews and notes
Current labor statistics
FEBRUARY 1970

VOLUME 93, NUMBER 2

Philadelphia Plan. The Contractors Association
of Eastern Pennsylvania, representing more than
80 construction firms, went to court in January
to challenge the controversial Philadelphia Plan,
under which the Government requires minority
hiring commitments from bidders on large fed­
erally aided projects. The contractors’ suit charged
that minority hiring goals set by the Government
amount to a racial quota system that denies other
prospective employees equal protection of the
Constitution. The contractors also argued that,
because the plan applies only to the 5-county
Philadelphia area, it discriminates against Phil­
adelphia area workers and contractors compared
with those elsewhere in the United States. In
addition, the contractors contended that they
might face “financial ruin” because the Comp­
troller General has threatened to withhold pay­
ment on contracts subject to the Philadelphia
Plan’s minority hiring requirements.
The U.S. Supreme Court, meanwhile, ruled on
an Ohio case in which minority hiring commit­
ments similar to those in the Philadelphia Plan
were at issue. The case involved rejection by a
government agency of a low bid that was not
accompanied by an “affirmative action” plan
assuring “minority group representation in all
trades on the job and in all phases of work.”
Ohio’s highest court had upheld rejection of the
bid. Its ruling was challenged in a taxpayer’s
suit which warned in the appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court that, unless the Ohio ruling is
reversed, the same “unlawful” conditions “soon
will be imposed upon contractors throughout the
country” through the Philadelphia Plan and its
extension to other cities.
In denying the appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court
left the Ohio minority hiring requirement in effect.
Operation Outreach. Organized labor’s opposition
to the Philadelphia Plan was reiterated by a f l c i o President George Meany. He charged that the
2

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

plan, limited to federally aided projects, “will
make no contribution to the overall problem of
increasing minority group representation” in the
total labor force of an area because “a contractor
can achieve compliance by transferring minority
workers already in the area work force to Govern­
ment projects.”
Meany contrasted this with Operation Outreach,
sponsored jointly by Government agencies, trade
unions, and private organizations such as the
Urban League to recruit minority group members
into the building trades. He reported that Out­
reach, operating in 55 cities, has indentured more
than 5,000 apprentices during the past 2 ){ years.
Meany called Outreach “the only sound method
of bringing minority representatives into the
skilled construction trades.”
St. Louis Plan. Agreements to increase the number

of Negroes and other minority group members in
the building trades were negotiated in Chicago and
other cities. The St. Louis Plan, considered one of
the best by the U.S. Labor Department’s Office of
Federal Contract Compliance, was devised by the
Associated General Contractors of St. Louis.
Under the plan, Negroes with some construction
experience can become journeymen craftsmen
within 2 years. Those with no experience can
become journeymen within 2% years. Trainees
without experience receive $3 an hour and are
permitted to cross craft lines for 6 months, then
choose a specific trade for advanced training at
higher pay. The proposal calls for 1 trainee for
every 3 journeymen union members on rehabilita­
tion projects and housing up to four stories and a
1 to 5 ratio on other projects.
The St. Louis Plan is designed to cover private
as well as federally assisted construction. So far,
four of the city’s unions, Sheet Metal Workers,
Carpenters, Operating Engineers, and Teamsters
construction drivers, have incorporated the hiring
plan into their regular contracts.

Increase in
defense-related
employment during
Viet Nam buildup

Four out of 10 new jobs were
in ordnance, aircraft, transportationindustries likely
to be affected by a pullout
RICHARD P. OLIVER

M il it a r y
e x p e n d it u r e s
of the Department of
Defense ( d o d ) during the 3-year period ending
with fiscal year 1968 increased by almost $30
billion, largely as a result of our expanded involve­
ment in the Viet Nam war. These expenditures
rose from $45.8 billion in fiscal 1965 to $75.4 billion
in fiscal 1968 1 and have since remained close to
this level. During this time defense purchases
from the private sector of the economy rose about
80 percent, affecting employment in almost every
industry. Each billion dollars of defense purchases
(in current dollars) from the private sector is
estimated to have created about 80,000 jobs in
1965 and 74,000 in 1968.2
Defense-generated employment in the private
sector rose from an estimated 2.1 million in 1965
to almost 3.6 million in 1968. Since most of the
increase in defense expenditures during this period
were related to the buildup in Viet Nam, this
employment increase may be considered as an
approximate measure of the effects of Viet Nam
on jobs. Tracing the impact of this increase on
industry employment should, therefore, indicate
which industries were mostly affected by the
Viet Nam buildup and, conversely, which are
most likely to be affected by a withdrawal.
This article is the second presenting estimates
of the employment generated in each industry
by d o d military expenditures. It revises the
estimates in the earlier report covering fiscal years
1965 and 1967,3 and extends them to fiscal 1968.
As before, these estimates were derived through
the use of interindustry model approach designed
to determine not only the directly affected defense
employment, but the employment in supporting

Richard P. Oliver is an economist in the Division of
Economic Growth, Bureau of Labor Statistics.


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

industries as well. The procedure involved, first,
estimating military expenditures in product or
service detail. These were applied to interindustry
models projected to the appropriate year, to
generate the total production required in each
industry as a result of these expenditures. Industry
output levels were next converted to industry
employment levels by using employment-output
factors for each industry.

Total employment effects
The employment generated by military expendi­
tures, including military personnel and govern­
ment employment, rose steadily from 1965 through
1968, finally leveling off in 1969, as shown in the
following tabulation:
DOD-generated em ploym ent
(in thousands)
1965

Total.......................................
Public employment__.......................
Federal, m ilitary......................
Federal, civilian..........................
State and local.......................
Private employment..............

5,759
3,657
2,716
928
13
2,102

1967

7,529
4,447
3,343
1,085
19
3,082

1968

1969

8,190
4,616
3,483
1,113
20
3,574

7,915
4,515
3,370
1,125
20
>3,400

Prelim inary estimates for 1669.

As can be seen, defense-generated private
employment increased the most, rising from 2.1
million in 1965 to almost 3.6 in 1968, then falling
back to 3.4 million in 1969. As a proportion of total
private employment, defense jobs increased from
3.9 percent in 1965 to 6.1 percent in 1968 and 5.6
percent in 1969.
e f e n s e d e p e n d e n c y . The proportion of employ­
ment attributable to military expenditures in each
industry varied widely in both 1965 and 1968.4
This proportion of employment, or defense
dependency in each industry,5 ranged from well

D

3

4

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Table 1.

Private employment1attributable to Department of Defense expenditures in fiscal years 1965, 1967, and 1968
1965 2

1967 2

DOD-generated em ploym ent

Industry

Employm ent
(th o u sands)

N um ber
(th o u sands)

Percent
of
tota l

Percent
d is tr ibution

1968

DOD-generated e m p lo ym e nt
Total
em p lo ym ent
(th o u sands)

Num ber
(th o u sands)

DOD-generated em p lo ym e nt

Percent
of
tota l

Percent
d is trib ution

Total
em ploym ent
(th o u sands)

N um ber
(th o u sand s)

Percent
of
tota l

Percent
d is tribution

Total...................... ...................................

54,089

2 ,1 0 1 .9

3 .9

100.0

57,844

3 ,0 8 1 .6

5 .3

100.0

58,931

3 ,5 7 4 .2

6 .1

Agriculture forestry and fisheries..............................
Livestock and livestock products...... .................
Other agricultural products.................... ..........
Forestry and fishery products................. ..........
Agricultural, forestry, and fishery services____

4 ,616

70.1

1 .5

3 .3

4,101

8 9 .6

2 .2

2 .9

4,0 3 8

8 6 .3

2 .1

2 .4

4,4 3 0

6 6.3

1 .5

3 .1

3,913

8 4.7

2 .2

2 .8

3,0 4 3

8 1 .0

2 .1

2 .3

62
124

1 .2
2 .6

1 .9
2 .1

.1
.1

62
126

1 .8
3 .1

2 .9
2 .5

.1
.1

64
131

2 .0
3 .3

3 .1
2 .5

.1
.1

634
28
53
145
290

3 1 .9
1 .5
3 .9
5 .5
17.5

5 .0
5 .4
7 .4
3 .8
6 .0

1 .5
.1
.2
.3
.8

626
29
58
189
279

3 7 .4
2 .1
7 .3
6 .8
16.1

6 .0
7 .2
1 2.6
4 .9
5 .8

1 .2
.1
.2
.2
.5

614
28
45
142
277

4 3 .2
2 .4
7 .1
7 .7
18.2

7 .0
8 .6
1 5.8
5 .4
6 .6

1 .2
.1
.2
.2
.5

118

3 .5

3 .0

.2

121

5.1

4 .2

.2

122

7 .8

6 .4

.2

Construction________ _____________________
New construction_________ ____ __________
Maintenance and repair construction............

3,1 2 0

6 7.3

2 .2

3 .2

3 ,230

75.7

2 .3

2 .5

3 ,2 2 5

7 5.2

2 .3

2 .1

3 ,120

6 7 .3

2 .2

3 .2

3,2 3 0

75.7

2 .3

2 .5

3 ,2 2 5

7 5.2

2 .3

2 .1

Manufacturing......................................................
Ordnance and accessories............................ .......
Food and kindred products________ _____ _
Tobacco manufactures___ ______ __________
Broad and narrow fabrics, yarn and thread
mills.................. ........... ........... ....................
Miscellaneous textile goods and floor coverings.
Apparel...... ......................................................
Miscellaneous fabricated textile products_____
Lumber and wood products, except containers..
Wooden containers............................................
Household furniture__ _______ ____________
Other furniture and fixtures..................... ..........
Paper and allied products, except containers___
Paperboard containers and boxes___________
Printing and publishing............. ................ _ . j . .
Chemicals and selected chemical products.........
Plastics and synthetic materials.........................
Drugs, cleaning and toilet preparations_______
Paints and allied products..._____ _________
Petroleum refining and related industries_____
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products___
Leather tanning and industrial leather products.
Footwear and other leather products_________
Glass and glass products............. ............. .......
Stone and clay products....................................
Primary iron and steel manufacturing________
Primary nonferrous metals manufacturing_____
Metal containers....................... .................... .
Heating, plumbing, and structural metal prod­
ucts______________ __________________
Stampings,screw machine products, and bolts..
Other fabricated metal products......................
Engines and turbines........................................
Farm machinery and equipment..... ...................
Construction, mining and oil field machinery___
Materials handling machinery and equipment...
Metalworking machinery and equipment______
Special industry machinery and equipment........
General industrial machinery and equipment...
Machine shop products___________ ________
Office, computing and accounting machines........
Service industry machines______ ____ ______
Electric industrial equipment and apparatus___
Household appliances_____________________
Electric lighting and wiring equipment_______
Radio, television and communication equipment.
Electronic components and accessories_______
Miscellaneous electrical machinery, equipment,
and supplies.______ __________________
Motor vehicles and equipment..____________
Aircraft and parts___________ ____________
Other transportation equipment........... .............
Scientific and controlling instruments.................
Optical, ophthalmic, and photographic equipment.
Miscellaneous manufacturing................
Services................................ ..............................
Transportation and warehousing.........................
Communications, except radio and TV broad­
casting.......................................................... .
Radio and TV broadcasting........ .............. ..........
Electric, gas, water, and sanitary services_____
Wholesale and retail trade......... ............ ...........
Finance and insurance........................ ...............
Real estate and rental.......... .............................

17,611
227
1,756
90

1 ,3 9 0 .8
137.6
22.1
.1

7 .9
6 0.6
1 .3
. 1

6 6.2
6 .5
1 .0
.0

19,466
290
1 ,786
85

2,065. 6
215 .8
38.1
.2

10.6
7 4.4
2 .1
.2

6 7 .0
7 .0
1 .2

19,527
332
1,779
87

2 ,3 5 3 .1
255.0
3 6.5
.2

12.1
7 6 .8
2 .1
.2

6 5 .8
7.1
1 .0

574
110
1,395
158
571
34
302
117
437
196
965
406
187
227
65
182
454
35
315
166
454
933
351
71

11.5
3 .5
11.1
3 .5
15.0
1.1
8 .9
1 .9
14.8
7 .0
38.1
19.3
7 .8
3 .3
2 .9
8 .1
2 1.5
.5
3 .4
7 .8
14.1
5 3.2
33.7
1 .5

2 .0
3 .2
.8
2 .2
2 .6
3 .2
2 .9
1 .6
3 .4
3 .6
3 .9
4 .8
4 .2
1 .5
4 .5
4 .4
4 .7
1.4
1. 1
4 .7
3 .1
5 .7
9 .6
2 .1

.5
.2
.5
.2
.7
.1
.4
.1
.7
.3
1 .8
.9
.4
.2
. 1
.4
1 .0

30.7
5.1
32.3
7 .6
2 0.7
3 .5
11.4
2 .9
2 2 .0
11.3
4 9.4
3 5.5
12.9
5 .7
3 .9
11.6
3 5 .3
1.1
10.8
11.2
19.1
7 5.4
5 2.4
2 .5

5.1
4 .2
2 .2
4 .4
3 .7
9 .5
3 .5
2 .1
4 .7
5 .4
4 .8
7 .8
6 .3
2 .3
5 .7
6 .3
6 .9
3 .3
3 .3
6 .3
4 .2
7 .9
12.9
3 .2

1 .0
.2
1 .0
.2
.7
.1
.4
.1
.7
.4
1 .6
1 .2
.4
.2
.1
.4
1.1
.4
.4
.6
2 .4
1.7
. 1

608
128
1,466
174
561
37
326
135
472
216
1,055
471
209
262
69
185
536
34
320
171
457
928
381
77

3 1.3
5 .8
3 0 .3
9 .6
2 1 .8
3 .9
12.3
3 .4
25.1
12.4
5 4.0
40.1
13.9
6 .3
4 .3
13.1
4 3 .5
1 .3
12.1
12.4
2 1.3
81.7
59.7
2 .8

5.1
4 .5
2 .1
5 .5
3 .9
10.5
3 .8
2 .5
5 .3
5 .7
5.1
8 .5
6 .6
2 .4
6 .2
7 .1
8 .1
3 .8
3 .8
7 .3
4 .7
8 .8
15.7
3 .6

.9
.2
.8
.3
.6
.1
.3
.1
.7
.4
1 .5
1.1
.4
.2
.1
.4
1 .2

.2
.4
.7
2 .5
1 .6
.1

607
122
1,471
171
567
37
325
136
464
211
1,036
456
206
252
68
183
515
33
324
178
458
955
407
77

.3
.4
.6
2 .3
1 .7
.1

444
302
408
88
130
172
75

11.4
23.7
2 0.4
6 .7
1 .4
4 .1
3 .8

2 .6
7 .8
5 .0
7 .6
1.1
2 .4
5. 1

.5
1.1
1 .0
.3
. 1
.2
.2

482
349
459
102
153
192
88

15.8
32.1
3 1 .7
10.7
2 .0
10.2
7 .8

3 .3
9 .2
6 .9
10.5
1.3
5 .3
8 .9

.5
1 .0
1 .0
.3
. 1
.3
.3

483
347
459
107
143
184
87

18.2
3 3 .5
3 7 .2
11.8
2 .2
11.3
7 .7

3 .8
9 .7
8 .1
11.0
1.5
6 .1
8 .8

.5
.9
1 .0
.3
. 1
.3
.2

293
186
251
180
179
110
349
163
165
533
280

20.6
2 .4
14.7
29.3
13.2
2 .9
33 .8
2 .5
9 .6
195.4
81 .9

7 .0
1.3
5 .9
16.3
7 .4
2 .6
9 .7
1.5
5 .8
36 .7
2 9 .2

1 .0

349
207
291
223
231
128
418
179
202
654
398

3 1 .5
4 .0
2 2 .2
53 .5
13.6
4 .7
5 0 .2
3 .3
15.4
227.8
113.3

9 .0
1.9
7 .6
2 4 .0
5 .9
3 .7
12.0
1.8
7 .6
34 .8
28 .5

1 .0

345
198
290
227
245
130
417
175
203
666
374

3 6 .6
5 .3
26 .5
6 3 .0
13.2
5 .6
56.8
3 .4
18.5
256.9
126.5

10.6
2 .7
9 .1
27 .8
5 .4
4 .3
13 .6
1.9
9 .1
3 8 .6
3 3 .8

1 .0
.2

96
786
602
261
252
124
404
28,108
2 , 505

6 .3
16.4
331.3
6 6 .2
24 .5

115
844
806
302
291
152
431
30,421
2,657

9 .5
2 9 .0
514.7
7 7 .0
36.3
10.3
10.6
813.3
2, 275 . 0

8 .3
3 .4
6 3 .9
25.5
12.5
6 .8
2 .5
2 .7
8 .6

115
830
851
300
294
155
426
31 , 527
2,678

12.3
29 .6
615.9
79.1
43 .5
12.3
12.1
1, 016.4
311.6

10.7
3 .6
72 .4
26 .4
14.8
7 .9
2 .8
3 .2
11.6

2 8 .4
8 .7

759
105
619
12,427
2,424
563

27.1
4 .0
15.1
115.3
32 .8
6 .0

805
118
635
13,435
2 , 573
576

36 .3
6 .7
20 .8
165.9
47 .8
8 .2

4 .6
5 .7

847
127
653
13,844
2,696
590

4 3 .5
9 .0
24.2
194.6
55.8
9 .2

5.1

1.2

3 .7
1 .4

Mining........................ .................... ..................
Iron and ferroalloy ores mining_____________
Nonferrous metal ores mining______________
Coal mining........................... ............. .............
Crude petroleum and natural gas......................
Stone and clay mining and quarrying................
Chemical and fertilizer mineral-mining....... .......

See fo o tn o tes a t end of table.


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

8 .0

7 .0
541.8
117.1

6.6

2.1
55 .0
25.4
9 .7
6 .5
1.7
1.9
4 .7
3 .6
3 .8
2 .4
.9
1.4
1.1

.1

.7
1.4
.6
. 1
1 .6
. 1
.5
9 .3
3 .9
.3
.8

15.8
3 .1
1.2
.4
.3

25 .8
5 .6
1 .3
.2
.7
5 .5
1.6
.3

3 .3

1.2
1.9
1 .4

.1

.7
1.7
.4
.2
1.6
. 1
.5
7 .4
3 .7
.3
.9

16.7
2 .5
1.2
.3
.3

26 .4
7 .4
1.2
.2
.7

5 .4
1.6
.3

7.1

100.0

.7

1 .8
.4
.2
1 .6
.1
.5
7 .2
3 .5
.3
.8

17.2
2 .2
1 .2
.3
.3

.3
7

.

2.1

5 .4
1 .6

1 .6

.3

5

INCREASE IN DEFENSE EMPLOYMENT

Table 1. Continued—Private employment1 attributable to Department of Defense expenditures in fiscal years 1965, 1967,
and 1968

DOD-generated employment
Industry

Hotels; personal and repair services, except
auto............. ......................... ..................—
Business services...................... .................... }
Research and development___________ _____
Automobile repair and service______________
Amusements.. ____________________ ____
Medical, educational services, and nonprofit
organizations........ ..........................................

Employ­
ment
( thou­
sands)

1968

1967 2

19652

DOD-generated employment
Total
employ­
ment
(thou­
sands)

Percent
distri­
bution

Number
(thou­
sands)

Per­
cent
of
total

1,883

49.9

2.6

126.3
7.7
16.0

6.2

1.6
4.1

.2
.6

2,021
347
608

2.2
2.6

3.8

4,763

100.2

2.1

Number
(thou­
sands)

Per­
cent
of
total

Percent
distri­
bution

1,787

36.7
90.3
4.4
13.3

2.1
5.2

1.7

1,752
329
587

4.3

1.3
2.3

4,251

79.7

1.9

DOD-generated employment
Total
employ­
ment
(thou­
sands)

Number
(thou­
sands)

Per­
cent
of
total

1,945

59.9
159.6

.3
.5

2,129
360
628

9.9
18.9

3.1
7.5
2. 8
3. 0

3.3

5,030

120.2

2.4

Percent
distri­
bution

1.7
4.5
.3
.5
3.4

1 Employment estimates cover wage and salary employees in the United States,
attributable to Department of Defense military functions. They do not include the selfemployed, domestic workers, or U.S. citizens employed abroad other than military
personnel. However, farm employment does include self-employed and unpaid family
workers.
2 Employment estimates for fiscal year 1965 and fiscal year 1967 have been changed
n many cases from those shown in the 1967 article. In most industries employment

estimates were changed only slightly, while in a few cases changes were substantial.
Changes in employment resulted from changes in estimated DOD purchases, the use of
revised matrices for fiscal year 1965 and fiscal year 1967, and changes in industry output
estimates. The most significant changes occurred in the 1967 estimates as a result of
changes in estimated purchases. Military expenditures for 1967 in the earlier report
were preliminary, having been estimated largely from contract awards data which
required timing adjustments to convert them to an expenditure basis.

below 1 percent in the tobacco industry to about
77 percent (in 1968) in the ordnance industry.
Aircraft and ordnance were the only industries
with more than 50 percent of their employment in
defense activities. In most other industries the
proportions were less than 10 percent in both
1965 and 1968 as shown in table 1. The accom­
panying chart shows the industries with more than
10 percent of their employment attributable to
defense purchases in 1968.
The proportion of defense employment in­
creased from 1965 to 1968 in all industries except
computers. Although defense purchases of com­
puters increased during this period, civilian
demand grew even more rapidly. The industries
most dependent upon defense in 1965 remained so
in 1968. The employment increase in the ordnance
industry from 61 to 77 percent of the total does
not reflect the total rise in expenditures for
ordnance. Some of the increase in ordnance output
occurred in arsenals owned and operated by the
Government. The employment associated with
this production is included in the increase in d o d
civilian employment. National Aeronautics and
Space Administration’s purchases of space vehicles
declined during this period. Since completed space
vehicles are classified in the ordnance industry in
Census data, this had the effect of reducing non­
military employment in the industry and increas­
ing d o d ’ s share.
In the aircraft industry, defense employment
rose from 55 percent in 1965 to about 72 percent

in 1968 despite substantial increases in the
purchase of civilian aircraft. The proportion of
defense jobs in the communications equipment
industry rose only moderately, reflecting a strong
civilian demand for television and telephone
equipment and relatively low requirements for
military operations in Viet Nam. Defense em­
ployment in transportation services more than
doubled during the 3 years.


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

is t r ib u t io n
o f
d e f e n s e
e m p l o y m e n t .
The
total employment generated in the private sector
by defense spending was widely distributed. Most
industries had less than 1 percent of this total and
only five industries each had 5 percent or more of
total defense-generated employment in 1965 and
1968. These were aircraft, ordnance, communica­
tions equipment, transportation, and wholesale
trade. In aggregate, they accounted for a little over
40 percent of the total.
About half of the employment generated in the
private sector by defense expenditures in 1965 and
1968 resulted from direct defense purchases, while
the remainder occurred in supporting industries. In
the three major defense industries—ordnance, air­
craft, and electronics—the proportion of employ­
ment due to direct purchases was much higher
than in other activities. The higher proportion
resulted partly from d o d ’ s policy of purchasing
major components directly from manufacturers
and providing them to another prime contractor
for assembly. This practice reduces the amount of

D

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

6

subcontracting from these industries, lowering the
amount of supporting employment and increasing
direct employment.

Viet Nam employment effects
The 3-year period ending with fiscal 1968 coin­
cides with the increase in expenditures for the
war in Viet Nam from a relatively small amount
Chart 1. Defense-generated employment as percent of
total industry employment, fiscal years 1965 and 1968

Percent of Industry Employment


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

to almost their peak level. During this time d o d
tried to reduce, or at least hold, expenditures not
related to Viet Nam to existing levels, while most
new non-Viet Nam projects were deferred. The
increase in defense purchases in each industry dur­
ing this period was, therefore, taken as an ap­
proximation of purchases for the war in Viet Nam.
Thus, the increases in purchases between 1965 and
1968 were assumed to be the amount of the 1968
expenditures in each industry attributable to Viet
Nam requirements, while the remainder was con­
sidered as the levels necessary to maintain non-Viet
Nam military functions.6
This portion of the 1968 military expenditures
was then used to calculate separate employment
requirements. The employment due to the Viet
Nam buildup was not estimated by simply taking
the difference between defense-generated employ­
ment in 1965 and 1968. That measure would not
fully account for changes in productivity.
Such calculation of the employment impact of
Viet Nam showed that, of the 3.6 million jobs
generated by military expenditures in 1968, about
1.4 million would have resulted from Viet Nam.
This result, of course, does not mean that this
number of jobs would be lost in the event of a
withdrawal from Viet Nam. While the industries
in which these employment increases occurred are
likely candidates for a cutback, deferred non-Viet
Nam requirements would probably keep overall
defense employment at a high level, and in some
industries increased civilian demand could take up
the slack.
i e t N a m D e p e n d e n c y . The employment attrib­
utable to the Viet Nam buildup was a substantial
part of total defense-generated employment in
most industries in 1968. (See table 2.) However,
only the ordnance and aircraft industries had em­
ployment increases which were large in relation to
total industry employment—42 and 27 percent,
respectively. Viet Nam buildup employment in
miscellaneous machinery, or machine shop prod­
ucts, amounted to about 14 percent of the in­
dustry’s total. This industry, which produces and
repairs machine and equipment parts on a spe­
cial-order basis, experienced a substantial increase
in defense orders. Viet Nam-generated employ­
ment in transportation accounted for almost 12
percent of the industry’s total as d o d increased
its direct purchases of transportation, particularly
ship apd air services.

V

7

INCREASE IN DEFENSE EMPLOYMENT

In some industries the buildup employment,
though not a significant portion of total employ­
Table 2.

ment, provided a large part of the industry’s
total increase from 1965 to 1968. Such was the

Private employment attributable to Viet Nam in fiscal year 1968
Viet Nam-attributed employment
Industry

Number
(thousands)

As percent of total
industry employment

As percent of total
defense employment

Percent dis­
tribution

Total___ ______ ____________________ ____________________________________

1,422.4

Agriculture, forestry and fisheries............ ........................... .............................. .......... .....................
Livestock and livestock products........ ................................................ - .......................................
Other agricultural products........ ...................... ..........................................................................
Forestry and fishery products............. .................................................................. ........ ..............
Agricultural, forestry, and fishery services
. .
.................................................

29.9
28.5

0.7
.7

34.6
35.2

2.1
2.0

.8
.6

1.3
.5

40.0
18.2

0.1

Mining.......................................................................................................... .................................
Iron and ferroalloy ores mining..... .............................................. ........ .......................................
Nonferrous metaTores mining........................ ........................... ...... .........................................
Coal mining.............. .......... ............................. ..........................................................................
Crude petroleum and natural g a s ....................................................................................... .......
Stone and clay mining and quarrying............................................................................................
Chemical and'fertilizer mineral mining____________ ____________________ ______ _____

17.1
1.0
2.9
2.5
7.7
3.0

2.8
3.6
6.4
1.8
2.8
2.5

39.6
41.7
40.8
32.5
42.3
38.5

1.2
.1
.2
.2
.5
.2

Construction............................................. ........ ........ .................................... ...........................
New construction............. . ............. ......................................................................... .............
Maintenance and repair construction...........................................................................................

14.7
14.7

.5
.5

19.5
19.5

1.0
1.0

Manufacturing
. . ___
Ordnance and accessories...........................................................................................................
Food and kindred products___ . . . . . . . . . _.
................... .................... ........................... .
Tobacco manufactures___
.
. .
..
..........................................
Broad and narrow fabrics, yarn, and thread mills................................... ...................................
Miscellaneous textile goods and floor coverings............................................................... ............
Apparel..
........... ......... ................. ............... ........................................ ....... ........
Miscellaneous fabricated textile products.............
.
...............
Lumber and wood products, except containers..................................................................... _.
Wooden containers
.................................
.
______
Household fu rn itu re ........ ................... ........... . ........................ .......... . . . . ................ .
Other furniture and fixtures......... ............. .................................................................. ...........
........
Paper and allied products, except containers........ ..................................................
............... .
Paperboard containers and boxes............................................................
Printing and publishing....................... ........... ....................................................... ._ . . . .
Chemicals and selected chemical products.................. ............ ................................... ...............
Plastics and synthetic materials........ .......................... ................... ........................................
Drugs, cleaning, and toilet preparations__ . _ .......................................................................
Paints and allied products____ ____ _______ "............. .........................................................
Petroleum refining and related industries........................... ............... ......... ..............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.................................................. .............................
_____
Leather tanning and industrial leather products___
Footwear and other leather products.... . ...............................................................................
Glass and glass products__ .........................................................................................................
Stone and clay products______ ..____________ _ __________________ _______________
Primary iron and steel manufacturing........ ..................................................................... _ _
Primary nonferrous metals manufacturing......................................
.................... .
......... .................. ......... ......................................................................
Metal containers
Heating, plumbing, and structural metal products......... ..........................................................
Stampings, screw machine products, and bolts......................... .................................................
Other fabricated metal products.. . ’ ..........................................................................................
Engines and turbines...............................................
..........
.
.................... .
.
........... .
Farm machinery and equipment....................
Construction, mining, and oil field machinery................................... ............ ..............................
Materials handling machinery and equipment..................................................... ......... . . .
Metalworking machinery and equipment.................................................................................. .
Special industry machinery and equipment______ ___________ _______________ ____
General industrial machinery and equipment________________ _____________ _________
Machine shop products___.’ . . . . . . . ...........................................
.......... ..................
Office, computing, and accounting m achines...........................................................................
Service industry machines_______________ _____________ _____________ ___________
Electric industrial equipment and apparatus.................................................................. .............
Household appliances............ . . .
....................
...........................
Electric lighting and wiring equipment_________________ ____ _____________ _________
Radio, television, and communication equipment.......... . ...................................... ................
Electronic components and accessories.
...........................
.................................
Miscellaneous electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies...... ...
...................... .......
Motor vehicles and equipment__ . . .
....
.................................. . ..............
Aircraft and p a rts .................. ................................................
. ___ ___________
Other transportation equipment..
...............................
Scientific and controlling instruments__
.
.........................
Optical, ophthalmic, and photographic equipment
.
........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing..” . . ___________________ _________ ____________ ______

948.1
140.3
15.1
.1
19.4
2.3
19.6
5.9
7.6
3.0
4.0
1.1
9.1
5.4
16.1
18.8
6.0
2.9
1.5
5.6
20.0
8
8.5
4.6
7.1
32.5
24.5
1.3
6.1
13.3
15.6
5.4
.8
7.0
4.1
15.1
2.8
11.9
32.8
2.3
2.8
23.6
1.3
7.8
73.9
41.4
5.7
13.3
232.6
20.1
15.2
5.3
4.8

4.9
42.3
.8
.1
3.2
1.8
1.3
3.4
1.4
8.1
1.2
.8
1.9
2.5
1.5
4.0
2.9
1.1
2.2
3.0
3.7
2.4
2.7
2.7
1.6
3.5
6.4
1.7
1.3
3.8
3.4
5.0
.6
3.8
4.7
4.4
1.4
4.1
14.4
.9
2.2
5.7
.7
3.8
11.1
11.1
5.0
1.6
27.3
6.7
5.2
3.4
1.1

40.3
55.0
41.4
50.0
62.0
39.7
64.7
61.5
34.9
76.9
32.5
32.4
36.3
43.5
29.8
46.9
43.2
46.0
34.9
42.7
46.0
61.5
70.2
37.1
33.3
39.8
41.0
46.4
33.5
39.7
41.9
45.8
36.4
61.9
53.2
41.3
52.8
44.9
52.1
17.4
50.0
41.5
38.2
42.2
28.8
32.7
46.3
44.9
37.8
25.4
34.9
43.1
39.7

66.7
9.9
1.1

Services......... ............ .......................................................................................................... ........
Transportation and warehousing................................................................ . ............. ............
Communications, except radio and TV broadcasting
.
.
............. ........
Radio and TV broadcasting___ . .
~
______
Electric, gas, water, and sanitary services....................................................................................
Wholesale and retail trade____’. ...............
........................................................................
Finance and insurance.....................................
.
...
_ _ . ...............
Real estate and rental_______
____
Hotels; personal and repair services, except auto
...................................................................
Business services____ . . . .......... ........ ......................................................................... ........
Research and development
Automobile repair and service................
...
..........................................................
Amusements............................................. ........... ....................................................................
Medical, educational services, and nonprofit organizations....................................................

412.6
164.8
16.1
3.4
9.7
75.7
23.5
3.6
21.3
49.8

1.3
6.2
1.9
2.7
1.5
.5
.9
.6
1.1
2.3

40.6
52.9
37.0
37.8
40.1
38.9
42.1
39.1
35.6
31.2

29.0
11.6
1.1
.2
.7
5.3
1.7
.3
1.5
3.5

4.8
5.3
34.6

1.3
.8
.7

48.5
28.0
28.8

.3
.4
2.4


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

100.0

1.4
.2
1.4
.4
.5
.2
.3
.1
.6
.4
1.1
1.3
.4
.2
.1
.4
1.4
.1
.6
.3
.5
2.3
1.7
.1
.4
.9
1.1
.4
.1
.5
.3
1.1
.2
.8
2.3
.2
.2
1.7
.1
.5
5.2
2.9
.4
.9
16.4
1.4
1.1
.4
.3

8

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Table 3. Defense expenditures,1 fiscal years 1965, 1967, and 1968
[In millions of 1958 dollars, producers’ prices2]
1965

1967

1968

Industry

Total_________ ________ ______ ______________ _____________
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries.................................. .................
Livestock and livestock products...... ........ .................................
Other agricultural products........... ..............................................
Forestry and fishery products........................................................................
Agricultural, forestry and fishery services........................................
Mining____________ ____ __________ ____________________ _____ ______ ________
Iron and ferroalloy ores mining_______________ _________ ______
Nonferrous metal ores mining_________________________ ________
Coal mining_________ ____ _________ ____ __________________ ________
Crude petroleum and natural g as...____ _____ _______________________
Stone and clay mining and quarrying____________ _________ ________
Chemical and fertilizer mineral mining______ ______ ________________
Construction........ ..........................................................................................................................
New construction— ____________________________________ _____ ______
Maintenance and repair construction_____________ ______ ______ _

Defense
purchases

Percent
distribution

$40,216.0

100.0

$54,947.0

130.5
47.0
67.6

.3

154.0
60.8
82.4
3 0
7 8

.1
.2

2 .0

13.9
28.7

.1

.1
.1

28.3

Defense
purchases

71 1

Percent
distribution

Defense
purchases

100.0

$60,995.0

.3
.1
.2

.1
.1

5
7
1
0

100.0
3

’1
’1

.1

.1
.1
1

157
62
84
4
6j

Percent
distribution

1
.1

*1
26 5
'1
'a

1,846.0
1, 023.0
823.0

3.4
1.9
1.5

1,787.4
' 945.0
842.4

2 .9
1 6

26,418. 0
4,714.0
1,049.6
- 1 .5
256.2
42.9
326.9
103.9
11.2
36 2
26.6
22.4
32.8
35.2
137.8
574.3
36.9
122.3
3.3
908.9
183.6
.2
97.8
12.0
11.9
101.8
120.7
18.3
83.5
39.3
62.1
218.8
4.3
158.2
150.3
91.4
21.8
112.6
56.5
339.9
86.8
491.0
12.1
24.0
4, 301.3
457.4
105.1
917.3
8,113.5
1,049.3
353.3
168.1
13.9

48.1

30,020.2
5,963.8
977.9
1 5
223! 4
48.2
303.2
135.7
12.7
42*_3
27 4
24 9
33.1
32 6
124.6
612.0
35.3
130.2
3 5
1, 054.2
269.9
2
110.4
13 1
12 5
88.2
117.5
21.5
99.6
42.4
71.4
241.0
4.2
189.3
142.6
82.1
39.3
143.1
76.3
312.3
108.4
557.5
14.4
37.1
4, 965. 0
496.7
150.4
953.2
9, 098. 3
1,159.8
394.7
207.1
17.2

49.2
9 8

27 3
.1
.1

1,595.0
852.0
743.0

4.0

Manufacturing______________________________________________ _________
Ordnance and accessories__________________ ____ ___ _______
Food and kindred products___________________________ ____________
Tobacco manufactures_________ ________________ __________
Broad and narrow fabrics, yarn and thread m ills ............. ......................
Miscellaneous textile goods and floor coverings_______ _______
Apparel__________________________________________________ .
Miscellaneous fabricated textile products____ _____ ______ ______
Lumber and Wood products, except containers.........................
Wooden containers________________________ ______________
Household furniture______ ___________ ____ _________ _______
Other furniture and fixtures_________________ __________________
Paper and allied products, except containers................. ...................
Paperboard containers and boxes___________ _____ ______ ____ _
Printing and publishing_____________________________________
Chemicals and selected chemical products........................................
Plastics and synthetic materials___________ _____ _______________
Drugs, cleaning and toilet preparations_____ ____ _______________
Paints and allied products____________________________________
Petroleum refining and related industries... ________ ________
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products________ ____ _____
Leather tanning and industrial leather products.______ _____________ _______
Footwear and other leather products_______________ ________
Glass and glass products__________ _________________________________
Stone and clay products_______________ __________ ______
Primary iron and steel manufacturing______________________
Primary nonferrous metals manufacturing___________________
Metal containers_____________________________________
Heating, plumbing, and structural metal products...........................................
Stampings, screw machine products and bolts__________
Other fabricated metal products_________________ __________
Engines and turbines_________________________________
Farm machinery and equipment_______________ _______
Construction, mining and oil field machinery_______ .
Materials handling machinery and equipment.. _____
Metalworking machinery and equipment___
... .
Special industry machinery and equipment______________
General industrial machinery and equipment___ ________
Machine shop products.________ __________________
Office, computing, and accounting machines______ .
Service industry machines_____________
Electric industrial equipment and apparatus______
Household appliances__________________
Electric lighting and wiring equipment_______ .
Radio, television, and communication equipment— .
Electronic components and accessories .
Miscellaneous electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies
Motor vehicles and equipment______
Aircraft and parts_____________ .
Other transportation equipment____ .
Scientific arid controlling instruments____ _
Optical, ophthalmic, and photographic equipment...
Miscellaneous manufacturing___________

17,760.5
2,463.5
564.4
- 1.2
62.0
39.3
91.2
42.5
4.1
3.5
12.7
16.5
22.9
7.1
139.0
267.2
27.9
56.7
2.1
627.3
113.9
.1
29.3
7.8
6.0
37.6
57.5
7.2
45.0
13.4
17.7
121.8
5.1
49.8
58.3
41.2
11.6
60.5
38.2
281.2
40.7
304.0
10,0
9.1
3,613.5
308.3
73.9
514.0
6,102.3
928.0
285.0
111.5
8.3

44.2

Services____ ________________ _______
Transportation and warehousing__________
Communications, except radio and TV braodcasting
Radio and TV broadcasting_______________
Electric, gas, water, and sanitary services_______
Wholesale and retail trade____ ________
Finance and insurance_________ _____
Real estate and rental_____________
Hotel«; personal and repair services, except auto..
Business services.............................................
Research and development...................

4, 011.5
1.035.0
249.0

10.0
2.6
.6

6,147.7
2, 542. 4
310.2

11.2
4.6
.6

7, 540.2
3,407.1
356.0

12.4
5.6
.6

148.5
525.0
12 2
70.5
209.1
514.8
638.0

.4
1.3

176.8
721.2
15.3
71.7
265.7
630.9
681.4

.3
1.3

240.5
859.3
17.1
72.2
315.5
744.7
695.9

.4
1.4

See footnotes at end of table.


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

2.1

1.9
6.1

1.4
.2

.1
.2
.1

.1
.4
.7
.1
.1
1.6
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
.7
.1
.8
9.0
.8
.2
1.3
15.2
2.3
.7
.3

.2
.5
1.3
1.6

8.6

1.9
.5
.1
.6
.2
1
.1
.1
.1
.3
1.1
.1
.2
1.7
.3
.2
.2
.2
.2
.1
.1
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
.1
.6
.2
.9
7.8
.8
.2
1.7
14.8
1.9
.6
.3

.1
.5
1.2
1.2

1.4

1 6
.4

.1
.5
2
.1
.1
1
.2
1.0
.1
.2
1.7
.4
.2
.1
.2
.2
.1
1
.'4

.3
.2
.1
.1
.2
.1
.5
.2
.9
.1
8.1
.8
.3
1.6
14.9
1.9
.7
.3

.1
.5
1.2
1.1

9

INCREASE IN DEFENSE EMPLOYMENT

Table 3. Continued—Estimated defense expenditures,1 fiscal years 1965, 1967, and 1968

Industry

1968

1967

1965
Defense
purchases

Percent
distribution

Defense
purchases

Percent
distribution

Automobile repair 9 nd service
- ________________
Amusements
_ _______________________________________________
Medical educational services and nonprofit organizations
________________________

15.1
79.7
514.6

.2
1.3

18.2
89.3
624.6

.2
1.1

Government Enterprises
__ __________________________________ _____
Federal government enterprises
_____________________________________
__________
State and local government enterprises
Imports
__________ _____ ___ _______- ..........................................-

53.6
46.5
7.1
1,513.0

Dummy industries

_ ______ ____ ___________ _________ ______________
________________________________________

Offir.p supplies
Special industries
Government industry 3

____________________________________________
________ _______________ ______ _____ _____ _____

1 Expenditure totals differ from national income totals in that adjustments for timing
and receipts netted against expenditures have not been made in order to provide more
realistic employment estimates.
2 Producers' prices exclude the distribution costs of transportation and trade. These

case with the ferrous and nonferrous metals
industries, where defense employment in 1968
amounted to about 9 and 16 percent of the total.
Much of the total increase in employment in
these industries from 1965 to 1968 was attributable
to the defense buildup. Other industries where
the total increase in employment was largely due
to defense included petroleum refining and food
processing. Much of the increase in transportation
employment during this period was due to
Viet Nam.
D

is t r ib u t io n

of

V

ie t

N

am

—g

enerated

em

­

Most of the employment increases
assumed to be attributable to Viet Nam occurred
in the major defense industries of ordnance, air­
craft, and electronics, as well as in transportation
and trade. These were the only industries with 5
percent or more of the total employment created
by the Viet Nam buildup. Most industries had
1 percent or less of such employment.
The distribution of Viet Nam-generated em­
ployment by industry in 1968 generally followed
the patterns of total defense employment in 1965,
1967, and 1968. The incremental employment
resulting from the Viet Nam buildup was relatively
greater in ordnance and transportation and lower
in electronics and shipbuilding. The aircraft
proportion remained about the same. Differences
were greatest in comparison with pre-Viet Nam
levels in 1965. These shifts in industry emphasis
for major defense industries are as follows:
plo ym en t

.


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

19.7
102.8
709.4

Percent
distribution

.2
1.2

4.1

66.0
53.3
12.7
2,439.0

4.0

100.2

.2

102.8

.2

100.2

.2

102.8

.2

17,950. 0
17,950.0

32.7
32.7

18,855.0
18,855.0

30.9
30.9

3.8

64.4
52.7
11.7
2,239.0

85.2

.2

85.2

.2

15,038.0
15,038.0

37.4
37.4

.1
.1

Defense
purchases

.1
.1

.1
.1

are included in the totals for transportation and trade.
3 Force account construction compensation is in sectors of new construction and
maintenance and repair construction.

Percent distribution
of DOD-generated
em ploym ent
1966

Ordnance....... ........................................... ................
Communications equipment....................................
Electronic components........................... - ................
Aircraft------------------------------------------ ----------Other transportation equipment (primarily ship
building)............................... - ............. ........ ..........
Transportation....... ...................................... -..........

V iet N a m
buildup

6.5
9.3
3.9
15.8

9.6
5.2
2.9
16.4

3.1
5.6

1.4
11.6

The industries most likely to be affected by a
cutback of Viet Nam requirements would be air­
craft, ordnance, and transportation, which to­
gether accounted for almost 40 percent of the
increase in defense employment assumed to be
due to Viet Nam. In the case of ordnance, most
of the increase for Viet Nam occurred in the
production of ammunition. With the end of
fighting in Viet Nam, ammunition purchases
would remain high for a short period to replenish
stocks, but there would be little possibility of
maintaining ammunition employment at recent
levels. Increased missile expenditures will prob­
ably help to counter the overall decline in employ­
ment in the ordnance industry, but this would not
affect ammunition workers.
Similarly, purchases of transportation services
will probably decline, with little prospect of being
restored by increased non-Viet Nam military
expenditures. Reductions in Viet Nam expendi­
tures for aircraft will probably be offset to some
extent by other military requirements and a
strong civilian demand. In the communications

10

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

equipment industry, which enjoyed only moderate
increases in employment due to the Viet Nam
effort, it is likely that other military requirements
and strong civilian demand will maintain em­
ployment. In the shipbuilding industry, where
certain expenditures have been deferred because
of Viet Nam, employment could increase through
heavier military and civilian purchases.

Note on procedure
The reader is referred to the article in the
of September 1967 7 for details of the
analytical procedure followed. The basic approach
of the input-output system remains the same.
Use of interindustry models permitted tracing the
impact of purchases of final products throughout
the economy, determining output and, ultimately,
employment requirements for all supporting in­
dustries, as well as requirements of the final
producer.
Direct employment estimates generated by this
approach should be considered as having general
validity, although obviously not the precision of
a survey. On the other hand, the input-output
R e v ie w

approach used here provides an estimate of the
total employment impact of defense purchases,
which an employment survey would not, since
suppliers beyond the first level would usually not
know that their product was ultimately destined
for d o d . Still, this approach does not include all
indirect employment effects. No attempt was
made to measure the income multiplier or accel­
erator effects which would account for substantial
additional employment.
The defense purchases used for 1965, 1967, and
1968 are listed in table 3. Changes from the expendi­
tures listed in the previous article were based
mainly on additional data now available for 1967
and on some changes in the concept. Military
expenditures for 1967 in the earlier report were
estimated largely from contract awards data which
had to be adjusted for timing and stated on ex­
penditure basis. Expenditures and other types of
d o d data are now available for 1967 that permit
revisions. The most significant change in the
concept occurred in the new and maintenance
construction sectors. These now cover all expendi­
tures, including force account or d o d expenditures
for materials and compensation as well as contract
construction.
□

-FOOTNOTES1
Military expenditures, as considered in this article,
differ from administrative budget figures in that they
exclude grants and transfer payments, e.g., retirement pay.
These expenditures are not the same as national income
amounts. To obtain more accurate measures of the impact
of defense expenditures on employment, national income
adjustments for timing and miscellaneous receipts were
not made. After eliminating the influence of price in­
creases, this measure of military expenditures declined
somewhat in fiscal year 1969. In fiscal 1965-69, these
expenditures were as follows (in millions of 1958 dollars) :
1965
GNP
dod

1967

1968

1969

_
_ _
.$595. 1 $660. 3 $689. 1 $720. 3
expenditures._. 40. 2
55. 0
61. 0
58. 6

Percent
.
6. 8
8. 3
8. 9
8. 1
2 All year references in this article are to fiscal years.
3 See “The Employment Effect of Defense Expendi­
tures,” M onthly Labor Review, September 1967, pp. 6-16.
4 Industry employment estimates were not made for
1969 since most data necessary for this analysis were not
yet available. The aggregate private employment estimates
for 1969 was derived from the change in total d o d pur­
chases and average productivity.
5 The employment effects of military purchases on each
industry are examined in two ways. First, industry em­
ployment generated by defense expenditures is considered
as a percent of total employment in each industry. This

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

relationship, or defense dependency, demonstrates the
importance of direct and indirect defense purchases in
each industry. Defense employment in e^ 3h industry is
then considered as a percent of the total defense-generated
employment in each year, indicating the distribution or
change in relative emphasis in defense purchases during
this period. The same approach is followed in the next
section dealing with the employment assumed to be
attributable to the Viet Nam war.
6 Of course, some of the base expenditures from 1965
were probably shifted from lower priority projects to the
more urgent Viet Nam requirements, and some of the in­
creases to 1968 were probably for non-Viet Nam purchases.
While the initiation of non-Viet Nam projects during this
period seems to have been small, shifts from non-Viet
Nam to Viet Nam requirements were probably significant.
This situation would have the effect of understating the
Viet Nam-related purchases. On the other hand, since this
treatment does not allow for growth in non-Viet Nam
base requirements through 1968, there is an opposite
tendency to overstate Viet Nam purchases. Since do d
data do not explicitly identify expenditures as Viet Namrelated, an exact determination cannot be made. The
above approach is considered to provide a valid approxi­
mation of the impact of Viet Nam in 1968, although it
would not be valid for later years. Viet Nam expenditures
are now being cut back and new strategic weapons are
being introduced.
7 See footnote 3 above.

A fifth of the country's engineers
and nearly a tenth of skilled
and semiskilled workers
were in defense-attributed jobs
in fiscal 1968
MAX A. RUTZICK

demand for workers to fill jobs in
defense-related activities, particularly those re­
quiring high skills, pressed during fiscal year 1968
on the Nation’s labor market, already affected by
critical shortages. Employment generated by
military expenditures, including military and
civilian personnel of the Government, increased
steadily between 1965 and 1968, although it
leveled off in 1969.1
This article describes the work skills found in
government and private defense-related enter­
prises in fiscal 1968, and the changes that occurred
in the occupational structure of the defense work
force between fiscal 1967 and 1968. It also dis­
cusses the regional distribution of defense employ­
ment by broad occupation groups, and the
methods that were used to make the estimates.
C

o n t in u e d

Skills in defense work
The labor force in defense-associated industries
is generally more skilled than the civilian labor
force as a whole. As shown in table 1, 20.1 percent
of the 4.7 million defense workers in fiscal 1968
were in the skilled category; in the general labor
force the proportion was 13.2 percent. Semiskilled
workers made up 26.4 percent of the defense
work force, and professionals 14.4 percent; in
the whole labor force the corresponding propor­
tions were 18.4 and 12.8 percent.
A notable characteristic of the defense work
force was that nearly 18 percent of its members
were in clerical occupations, as compared with 6
percent in the whole economy. Another marked
distinction of the defense force was the smaller
number of service personnel. This group, which in
Max A. Rutzick is Assistant Mobilization Coordinator,
U.S. Department of Labor. The Office of Emergency
Preparedness, Executive Office of the President, provided
computer facilities and significant data for this article.

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

Skills
and location
of defense-related
workers
the past several years had increased rapidly to
the level of 12.3 percent of all workers in the
economy, constituted only 4.6 percent of all
defense workers.

Defense work and labor force
Defense-associated workers made up 6.1 percent
of the country’s total employment in fiscal 1968,
although the proportions were different for dif­
ferent skill categories. Defense workers constituted
approximately 9 percent of all the skilled and
semiskilled workers and nearly 7 percent of
professional workers; but they were of minor
proportions in such broad categories as salesworkers (2.4 percent), service personnel (2.3
percent), and laborers and farm workers (3.2
percent).
The representative list of 54 detailed occupa­
tions (table 2) includes three groups which had
more than one-fourth of their numbers in defenseassociated work in fiscal 1968. These were aero­
nautical engineers, aircraft mechanics, and
physicists (not including physicist-professors).
Defense employment of fiscal 1968 included an
estimated 244,000 (20 percent) of the Nation’s
engineers, a growth of 26,000 from the previous
year. The highest proportions in this group were
aeronautical engineers (59 percent of the U.S.
total), followed by electrical engineers (22 per­
cent), and mechanical and metallurgical engineers
(19 percent each group). Technicians, whose
work is closely related to that of engineers,- had
100,000 workers in the defense group, and drafts­
men 39,000 (14 percent of all the draftsmen).
There was a steady rise in the use of such
highly trained technical personnel during the
year. This demand for engineers and technicians
most likely was a considerable factor in a labor
market plagued by shortages in various occupa­
tions. Special incentive programs will probably be
11

12

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Table 1. Civilian employment attributable to defense
expenditures, by occupation group,1 fiscal years 1967
and 1968
[Numbers in thousands]
Defense-generated employment

Occupation group
1968

As per­ As per­
In­
cent of cent of Percent
1967 crease
all
all
distri­
from defense workers bution
1967 workers in 19682 in 19683
in 1968

Total.................................. 4,700 4,200

500

100.0

6.1

Professional workers..................... 680
609
Managers, officials, and proprietors.............................. ....... 414
372
Saiesworkers.................................
112
97
Clerical and kindred workers........
830
742
Craftsmen, foreman, and
kindred workers_____ ______
949
858
Operatives (semiskilled)_______ 1,233 1,090
Service workers ___________
191
219
Laborers and farm workers____
260
241

71

14.4

6.9

12.8

42
15
88

8.8
2.4
17.6

5.4
2.4
6.4

10.0
16.8
6.0

91
143
28
19

20.1
26.4
4.6
5.5

9.3
8.8
2.3
3.2

13.2
18.4
12.3
10.5

100.0

1 Employment estimates cover wage and salary employees in the United States
where pay is attributable to military functions of the Department of Defense. They
do not include self-employed or domestic workers or U.S. citizens employed abroad
other than military personnel. Farm employment, however, does include self-employed
and unpaid family workers.
2 Defense employment is given as a percent of all employment including self-employed
workers. The number of self-employed workers is statistically insignificant in
defense-related employment, so their theoretical exclusion does not affect relationship
percentages.
3 As of June 1968. Based on Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force,
July 1968, table A-19, Employed Persons by Occupation Group.

necessary if further rise in the demand for such
workers is to be met.
The importance of electronics in defense pro­
duction was indicated by a large number (69,000)
of electrical engineers in defense work, and by an
equally large number of skilled electricians— 13
percent of all electricians in the country. And
since defense work involves production of huge
masses of metal goods it creates a great demand
for metal trades workers. Machine-tool operators,
sheetmetal workers, metalwork assemblers, metal­
working inspectors, machinists, and toolmakers
are needed in large numbers. Defense employment
in these occupations ranges from 10 to 25 percent.
Construction workers, on the other hand, have
a relatively minor role in defense work. Car­
penters, bricklayers, stonemasons, and excavating
machine operators have 5 percent or fewer of
their numbers in defense activities.
Table 3 shows the distribution of workers in
selected occupations, by industry, important in
defense programs. Industries with the largest
defense-related employment also had the largest
shares of employment in such occupations. Of
course, considerable numbers of defense workers
were found throughout the economy, but they
were relatively few per industry and in numerically
less important occupations.


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

It is estimated that approximately 79,000 of
defense engineers, including almost 90 percent
of aeronautical engineers, were employed in
aircraft industry. Next in importance as employer
for this group was the Department of Defense
itself, employing nearly 53,000 engineers; the
electrical machinery industry absorbed nearly
40 percent of all electrical engineers engaged in
defense production. Blue-collar workers such
as metalworking assemblers were concentrated
in the electrical machinery and the aircraft
industries.

Table 2. Civilian employment attributable to defense
expenditures, by occupation, fiscal years 1967 and 1968
[Numbers in thousands]
Defense-generated employment
Occupation

Technical engineers__________ ____________
Aeronautical engineers_________ ____ _______
Chemical engineers_______________________
Civil engineers............................................ .......
Electrical engineers_______________________
Industrial engineers.._____ _______________
Mechanical engineers......... ................... ............
Metallurgical engineers and metallurgists____
Chemists_______________________________
Biological scientists_____________________
Physicists___________________________ . . .
Technicians except medical and dental________
Draftsmen...____________________________
Statisticians..... .........................................
Accountants and auditors._______ _________
Designers except design draftsmen................... .
Secretaries, stenographers, and typists...............
Office machine operators.....................................
Accounting clerks_______________________
Carpenters...................... ............................. .
Brick and stonemasons and tilesetters_______
Electricians................ ............................ ............
Excavating, grading, and road machine operators.
Painters and paperhangers........ ............ ..........
Plumbers and pipefitters........................ ..........
Structural metalworkers____________________
Machinists________________ ____________
Machine tool operators, semiskilled............
Blacksmiths, forge and hammermen.................
Boilermakers..--. . . .........................................
Heat treaters, annealers, and temperers_____
Millwrights________________ ___________
Molders, metal, except coremakers................
Pattern and model makers................. .................
Sheetmetal workers__________ _____ _______
Tool and die makers__ ____ ______ ____ ____
Assemblers, metalworking, skilled
Assemblers, metalworking, semiskilled__
Inspectors, metalworkingrsemiskilled_________
Photoengravers and lithographers.................. .
Linemen and servicemen, telephone, telegraph,
and power_________ _________ _________
Air conditioning and heating mechanics...............
Airplane mechanics______ _________________
Motor vehicle mechanics___________________
Office machine mechanics
Cranemen, derrickmen, and hoistmen_________
Loom fixers. . . . .
_________
Opticians, lens grinders, and polishers________
Drivers, bus, truck, and tractor______________
Furnacemen, smelterers, and pourers_________
Heaters, metal.
Welders and flamecutters................................. .
Spinners, textile
Weavers, te x tile .............................

1968

1967

244
45
6
17
69
24
49
5
11
2
9
100
42
2
38
7
264
44
52
40
5
59
8
24
30
6
113
57
3
4
4
10
8
10
39
39
34
108
48
3

219
38
5
16
63
21
44
5
10
2
8
93
37
2
31
6
241
41
49
39
5
55
7
23
29
5
99
49
3
4
4
9
7
9
36
34
29
94
41
2

21
11
73
31
3
14
1
2
130

18
10
66
27
3
13
1
1
104
7
1
57
3
3

8

1
63
3
3

Increase
from
1967

26
7
1
1
6
3
4
1
1
9
5
7
1
23
2
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
14
8

1
1
1
3
5
5
14
7
1
3
1
7

Percent
distri­
bution
in 1968
20
59
10
10
22
16
20
19
10
7
38
14
6
6
8
8
9
5
2
13
3
6
9
8
19
11
13
15
12
15
25
25
19

8
6
10
54

4

4

1

5
10
4

1
26
1
6

5
7
14
11
13
6
6

13

SKILLS OF DEFENSE WORKERS

Estimation method
The occupational employment data presented in
this article are based on the number of defenseassociated workers, by industry in fiscal years
1967 and 1968, estimated by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.2 The estimating technique involved
development of percent distribution, or pattern,
of occupations for each of the 80 industries defined
in the basic economic structure model used by b l s

to calculate the industry employment. These
patterns consist of percent distributions of broad
occupation groups, such as skilled or professional
workers, as well as percentages of employment for
individual occupations considered important in
mobilization or post-attack situations.
In the next step, the defense-associated em­
ployment in a given industry was multiplied by
the percentages of the occupations in that in­
dustry’s pattern, to calculate the number of

Table 3. Distribution of employment attributable to defense expenditures, selected occupations and industries, fiscal
year 1968
[Numbers in thousands]
Engineers
Technicians 1
Industry

Technical
Num­
ber

Per­
cent

Tota l.._____ _____________________ ___________________ 244.0 100.0
Construction_________ ____ ________________
_____________
Ordnance and accessories------------------------ ------------------------- ------------Machinery__ _________ __________________________________ _
Engines and turbines................._
Farm machinery and equipment......... .........
Construction, mining, and oilfield machinery_____
Materials handling machinery and equipment........................... ..........
Metalworking machinery and equipment...........................................
................
Special industry machinery and equipment .
General industrial machinery equipment.....
..........................
Machine shop products.
.................
....................
Office, computing, and accounting machines.
Service industry machines _
______________ ________
Electrical machinery equipment and supplies..
____
Electrical industrial equipment and apparatus________ _ __ __
Household appliances
...................................
Electrical lighting and wiring equipment
................
Radio, television, and communication equipment...
.................
Electronic computers and accessories.
_____________
Miscellaneous electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies__
Aircraft and parts...................... .......11_ _ 1____ ______ V ._________
Department of Defense............ ............................ .......................................

1.7
30.0
7.4

.7
13.4
3.2

1.3

.6

44.5 100.0
1.0

2.2

Num­
ber

Per­
cent

69.0 100.0
13.1
.7

19.0
1.2

Num­
ber

Per­
cent

97.6 100.0
1.0
7.9
2.6

1.1
8.0
2.8

.5

.8

.7
.7

.8
.8

28.8
4.8

12.5
2.1

23.3
2.8

39.1
4.7

19. 2
2.3

20.7
2.5

1.6
10.4
10.7
1.0
78.4
52.7

.7
4.5
4.7
.4
34.3
23.0

.9
12.6
6.2
.6
10.9
14.9

1.5
21.2
10.4
1.0
18.3
25.0

.8
10.4
5.1
.5
19.9
30.4

.9
11.2
5.5
.5
20.5
32.8

Percent

Total'............................................................................................ 141.5 100.0


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

Per­
cent

Ï.Ô
.5

Number

1 Excluding those in the medical areas.

Num­
ber

39.3
.8
3.3

88.3
7.4

Inspectors,
semiskilled

Number

Percent

47.8 100.0

Airplane
mechanies

Number

Percent

72.9 100.0

Welders

Number

Percent

7.0
2.8

14.6
5.7

.5

.8

.5

1.0

1.6

2.5

1.3
3.2
1.1

.9

1.9

1.1
2.7

58. 2
7.0

41.2
4.9

16.4
2.0

34.3
4.2

2.3
31.5
15.5
1 5
41.9

1.6
22.3
11.0
1.1
29.6

.6
8.9
4.4

1.3
18.6
9.2

7.6
9.6
.6

.8
.5
2.6

.6
.4
1.8

1.9
4.5
1. 5

14.6

30.5 33.9
33.1

46.5
45.4

Num­
ber

Per­
cent

42.0 100.0
.5
6.1
3.7

1.3
8.0
9.7

Accountants

Electricians

.8

2.1

.5
1.3

1.3
11.4
11.6
.8

Num­
ber

Per­
cent

Num­
ber

Per
cent

34.7 100.0

59.4

100.0

2.6
1.6
1.0

4.4
2.7
1.7

1.6
1.4

4.6
4.1

1.3
3.4

.5

1.4

9.4
1.1

24.4
2.8

4.0
.5

11.6
1.4

3.3

5.6

5.1
2.5

13.2
6.5

2.1
1.1

6.1
3.2

1.8
.9

3.0
1.5

8.1
5.7

21.0
14.8

5.2
10.8

15.0
31.1

11.3
27.4

19.0
46.1

Machinists

Number

Percent

63.1 100.0 113.1 100.0
.8
7.2
7.3
.5

¡5.7
13.4
.8

Draftsmen

Electrical

1.0
2.3
1.2

Assemblers,
metalworking

Construction.......
.............................
Ordnance and accessories.. .
.........................
Machinery.
___
Engines and turbines.
. . . . ____ .
Farm machinery and equipment
_
...............
Construction, mining, and oilfield machinery.......
.................
Materials handling machinery and equipment___ .
Metalworking machinery and equipment..
............... . . .
Special industry machinery and equipment .
General industrial machinery and equipment
Machine shop products. . .
.................
Office, computing, and accounting machines
Service industry machines
Electrical machinery equipment and supplies.
Electrical industrial equipment and apparatus.. .
Household appliances
Electrical lighting and wiring equipment
Radio, television, and communication equipment
Electronic computers and accessories
Miscellaneous electrical machinery equipment and supplies
Aircraft and parts____ ______________________ _____ ___________
Department of Defense

Aeronautical

Machine-tool
operators,
semiskilled
Number

Percent

56.8 100.0

15.3
19.4
1.3

13.5
17.1
1.1

11.0
10.9
.7

19.4
19.1
1.2

1.1
.8
3.6
.5
2.7
6.3

.7
.5
2.3

1.2
.9
4.0

1.7
4.3

1.3
.9
4.1
.6
3.0
7.1

1.6
3.9
.5

2.8
6.9
.9

8.3
1.0

13.2
1.6

.6
13.2
1.6

.5
11.7
1.4

7.8
.9

13.8
1.6

4.5
2.2

7.1
3.5

.5
7.2
3.5

.4
6.4
3.1

4.2
2.1

7.4
3.7

8.4
9.9

13.3
15.7

29.8
14.9

26.3
13.2

18.5

32.6

Note: Dashes indicate fewer than 500 workers.

14

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Table 4. Nonagricultural private defense-generated em­
ployment as percent of all comparable employment, by
region,1 fiscal year 1968
[Numbers in thousands]

Region

All regions.......... . . .
Region 1_______
Region 2_____ _____
Region 3________ ____
Region 4_______
Region 5.................. .
Region 6___________
Region 7___________
Region 8_______

Private
employment
average2
66,857
13,760
12,673
8, 405
11,624
5, 829
4, 664
7,702
2,197

Defense
employment

3, 500
799
612
290
564
220
230
650
125

Defense as
percent of total
employment
5.2
5.8
4.8
3.4
4.8
3.7
4.8
8.4
5.6

1 Region 1— Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey New
York, Rhode Island, Vermont; region 2— Delaware, District of Columbia, Kentucky
Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia; region 3— Alabama, Florida
Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee; region 4— Illinois’
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin; region 5— Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma’
New Mexico, Texas; region 6— Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming; region 7— Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada.
Utah; region 8— Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
2 Nonagricultural private employment was calculated from State data given in
Employment and Earnings, issues for 1968 and 1969, table B-7

workers in each occupation in the industry. These
industry numbers were added to obtain national
totals for the various occupation groups. This
simple technique rests essentially on the
validity of the concept of distinctive industry

occupation patterns.
To appraise the importance of defense-gener­
ated work in relation to total employment in
each occupation, current estimates of occupa­
tional employment were necessary. As there is no
widely accepted set of such statistics for detailed
occupations, the necessary data were obtained
from a rather small sample (Bureau of the Census,
Current Population Survey, 1968).
The methods used here, essentially employing
computer-based economic and manpower models,
are still in the process of development and im­
provement. The statistics on which this study is
based, although the best available, were of un­
even quality. Analytic judgment, therefore, was
sometimes needed to prepare an internally con­
sistent, economywide set of data. Where this was
done, efforts were made to produce conservative
estimates regarding the role of the highly trained,
skilled groups. Despite these handicaps, the re­
sults shown here are believed to indicate ade­
quately the kinds of skills found in defense-created
employment and location of defense workers.

Chart 1. Regional nonagricultural private defense-generated employment as percent of all comparable employment,


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

15

SKILLS OF DEFENSE WORKERS

Location of skilled defense labor
Another question that commands a special
attention is, what proportion of workers in each
occupation group of a region are engaged in
defense related work?
No study has yet been made to answer this
question on the basis of direct regional surveys—
either of defense employment by occupation or of
defense expenditures by the nature of goods and
services procured. The Department of Labor, in
cooperation with the Department of Defense, is
currently engaged in such evaluation of defense

employment. The findings will be released some
time in 1970. At present, the location of defense
workers with particular skills must rest on
interpretation of the national estimates of defense­
generated employment, which have some limita­
tions. Such an effort is attempted here.
Information on the location of defense-associ­
ated employment in a region was developed by
using a technique that relies primarily on national
patterns of industrial output in the United States.
It assumes that defense expenditures by industry
in regions generally follow the national geogi aphic
pattern of industrial production. For instance, if
25 percent of output of the Nation’s electronics

Table 5. Nonagricultural private defense-generated employment, by occupation group and region, fiscal years 1967
and 1968
[Numbers in thousands]
Defense-generated employment

Defense-generated employment
Region and occupation

Percent
distribu­
tion in
1968

Increase
from
1967

1967

1968

All regions.................................

4,639

4,128

511

100.0

Professional workers______________
Managers, officials, and proprietors___
Salesworkers____________________
Clerical and kindred w o rke rs.............
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred
workers...... .............................. .........
Operatives, semiskilled____________
Service workers...................... ........... .
Laborers................................................

680
415
112
830

607
371
98
742

73
44
14
88

14.7
8.9
2.4
17.9

949
1,255
219
179

856
1,106
190
158

93
149
29
21

20.5
27.0
4.7
3.9

Total, region 1________ ____ _

962

845

117

100.0

Professional___________ ______
Managers, officials, and proprietors___
Salesworkers___ _________________
Clerical and kindred workers________
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred
workers. ______ ________________
Operatives, semiskilled......................
Service workers________ _________
Laborers.............................................

146
82
28
169

1 28
72
24
149

18
10
4
20

15.2
8.5
2.9
17.6

182
275
47
33

162
241
40
29

20
34
7
4

18.9
28.6
4.9
3.4

Total, region 2............................

953

865

88

100.0

Professional.......................... ................
Managers, officials, and proprietors___
Salesworkers................... .....................
Clerkcal and kindred workers...............
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred
workers______________ ________
Operatives, semiskilled_____ _______
Service w orke rs..................................
Laborers.................................... .........

139
90
20
177

127
82
17
162

12

14.6
9.4
2.1
18.6

203
241
45
38

187
216
40
34

16
25
5
4

21.3
25.3
4.7
4.0

429

8

3
15

388

41

100.0

Professional......................... .............
Managers, officials, and proprietors___
Salesworkers. ________ ________
Clerical and kindred workers________
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred
w orkers....................... ................. .
Operatives, semiskilled____________
Service workers......... .............. ............
Laborers________________________

57
42
10
78

51
38

6

9

71

1
7

13.3
9.8
2.3
18.2

85
177
22
18

78
105
20
16

7
12
2
2

19.8
27.3
5.1
4.2

Total,, region 4______________

673

597

76

100.0

Professional......................... ..............
Managers, officials, and proprietors___
Salesworkers.......... .............................

88

79
49
17

9
6
2

13.1
8.2
2.8

Total, region 3___________ _


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

55
19

4

Region and occupation

Clerical and kindred workers..............
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred
workers....................................... .
Operatives, semiskilled.......................
Service workers...................................
Laborers.............................................
Total, region 5.
Professional............ ..................
Managers, officials, and proprietors----Salesworkers.......................................
Clerical and kindred workers......... .
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred
workers............................ .............
Operatives, semiskilled--------- ---------Service workers...................................
Laborers........................ — .............
Total, region 6.
Professional.
Salesworkers.......................................
Clerical and kindred workers...............
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred
workers.----- -------------- ---------------Operatives, semiskilled.....................
Service workers....................................
Laborers.......................... - .................
Total, region 7.
Professional................ ........ r ............
Managers, officials, and proprietors—
Salesworkers.............. .................... .
Clerical and kindred workers------------Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred
workers______ __________- .........
Operatives, semiskilled..... .................
Service workers...................... ............
Laborers.............................................
Total, region 8.
Professional.......... ...............; ------Managers, officials, and propritors._
Salesworkers.......... ........................
Clerical and kindred workers..........
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred
workers________________
Operatives, semiskilled---------Service workers____________
Laborers........ ........................

Percent
distribu­
tion in
1968

Increase
from
1967

1967

1968

109

97

12

16.2

137
205
29
31

123
180
25
27

24
25
4
4

20.4
30.4
4.3
4.6

326

292

34

100.0

47
33
8
62

43
30
7
56

4
3
1
6

14.4
10.1
2.5
19.0

69
78
16
13

62
69
14
11

7
9
2
2

21.2
23.9
4.9
4.0

304

270

34

100.0

47
27
7
55

42
24
6
49

5
3
1
6

15.5
8.9
2.3
18.1

65
78
14
11

59
68
12
10

6
10
2
1

21.4
25.6
4.6
3.6

817

716

101

100.0

1299
70
17
148

113
62
15
130

16
8
2
18

15.8
8.6
2.1
18.1

169
219
38
27

150
190
32
24

19
29
6
3

20.6
26.8
4.7
3.3

175

155

20

100.0

27
16
3
32

24
14
3
28

3
2
0
4

15.4
9.1
1.7
18.3

39
42
8
8

35
37
7
7

4
5
1
1

22.3
24.0
4.6
4.6

16

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

industry is defense-related, it is assumed that 25
percent of each region’s electronic output is
defense-related. The estimated defense employ­
ment for each industry was weighted by the
relative importance of that industry in each State,
and the resulting numbers were aggregated into
regions to obtain the estimates presented here.
Of course, there is a drawback to this method.
The Department of Defense has the option, in
most cases, of making all of its purchases from a
given industry in a single region. These purchases
frequently show substantial regional variations
from year to year, reflecting the introduction of
new weapons systems and changing opportunities
to procure at lower costs.
Defense-generated nonagricultural employment
in the private sector in fiscal 1968 differed in
importance from one part of the country to
another, both in numbers and relative to all
comparable employment. (See table 4 and chart.)
It was estimated at 3.5 million workers for the

whole country (or 5.2 percent of all comparable
employment), of whom 800,000 were in New
England (region 1) and over 600,000 in lower
Northeast. The smallest number (125,000) were
in the upper Northwest. However, in terms of
relative importance of defense jobs to all non­
agricultural employment, defense work ranged
from the highest ratio of 8.4 percent of all em­
ployment in Far Western States (region 7, with
concentration of defense activity in California)
to the lowest of 3.7 in the Southeast.
There were no substantial differences among
regions in worker skill distribution of defense
employment. Generally, the distribution followed
the national defense employment patterns, as
shown in table 5.
□
--------- F OOTNO TES --------1 All year references in this article are to fiscal years.
2 See pp. 3-10, this issue.

Employee compensation and payroll hours
Additional reports on 1967 surveys of employee compensation and payroll
hours are now available free of charge from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The new publications cover confectionery and related products manufacturing
(Report 364), laundries and cleaning and dyeing plants (Report 367), and
men’s and boys’ shirt manufacturing (Report 368). Earlier reports covered
banks (362), commercial and development laboratories (363), fabricated
structural steel manufacturing (365), and hotels and motels (366).
For a copy of any of these reports, write to your regional bls office (listed
on the inside front cover) or to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Depart­
ment of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212.


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

The common tendency to exaggerate
the power of labor leaders
fails to reckon
with membership pressures
and the influence of subordinates
DEREK

c. BOK AND JOHN T. DUNLOP

A t p r e s e n t , most commentators seem to
assume that the future of the labor movement
rests mainly in the hands of its leaders. This point
of view is reflected in the constant criticism of
labor leaders, and it is buttressed by a mass of
opinion data to the effect that unions are run
pretty much as the top officials see fit. Yet one
must beware of such opinions, for each of the
groups that most influence the public view of
organized labor has its special reasons for miscon­
ceiving the role of the union leader and exagger­
ating his influence.
The businessman, for example, is accustomed
to organizations where the leader enjoys con­
siderable power (though not so much as the
outsider tends to suppose). As a result, many
executives assume instinctively that the union
leader enjoys comparable authority; they over­
look the fact that union officials must win office
by election. Businessmen may also exaggerate the
role of the union leader as a result of their natural
tendency to assume a “harmony of interests”
between themselves and their employees. This
assumption has suffused the literature of business
for decades and stems, once again, from under­
standable motives. Few managements wish to
harbor the thought that they are pursuing their
own interests at the expense of their employees.
It would be most disagreeable to concede that
wages are kept unfairly low or that the quest for
efficiency has led to harsh supervision or uncomDerek C. Bok is dean of Harvard Law School. John T.
Dunlop is professor of economics at Harvard. This article
is drawn from their book, Labor and the A m erican Commu­
n ity (New York, Simon & Schuster, Inc. 544 pp. $12.50
clothbound; $3.95 paperbound), to be published in April.
(Reprinted by permission of Simon & Schuster, Inc.,
copyright © 1970 by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.)
A review of the book will appear in a forthcoming issue of
the M onthly Labor Review.

How
trade union
policy
is made
for table working conditions. As a result, when
employees organize or protest or strike, many
employers assume that harmonious relations
within their plants have been disrupted by some
opportunistic union leader who has succeeded in
leading the workers astray. This reaction, once
again, is not a simple matter of tactics; it springs
naturally from a network of beliefs that help
many executives to justify their behavior as
businessmen and human beings.
Intellectuals also have their reasons for ascribing
great influence to the union leader. As Bertrand
Russell has pointed out, the liberal critic has
traditionally been sentimental toward the under­
dog. He has been unable to champion the cause of
the poor and the disadvantaged without idealizing
them as well. As a result—until recently, at any
rate—these critics could seldom bring themselves
to blame union shortcomings on the members;
instead, they concluded that the leaders must
somehow be responsible.
Other forces also helped to reinforce this bias.
After the rush of organizing in the thirties, union
members seemed to have become representative
of the entire working class. Under these circum­
stances, it would have been most awkward to fault
the members for labor's failure to press for social
reform. How could the liberal justify his programs
if the beneficiaries themselves were indifferent to
them? Unless the rank and file were on his side,
how could he urge the unions to reform and still
keep true to his democratic principles? Above all,
how could he harbor any optimism at all if the
entire working class had to be persuaded to
support his programs? With all these difficulties,
it was far easier to assume that unions were made
up of willing members who were held back by
the stubbornness and selfishness of powerful
leaders. These beliefs could begin to weaken only
when union members were no longer seen as
17

3 7 3 -1 0 6

O—

7 0 -------2


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

18
representative of the lower classes and unions were
no longer the only organized force for social reform.
Thus, it is no accident that intellectuals did not
acknowledge the lack of liberal, reformist senti­
ments among the members until the 1960’s, when
students, black militants, and other groups had
already begun to offer organized support for
fundamental social reforms. (Characteristically
enough, now that the pendulum has begun to
swing, it has swung very far indeed in the minds
of many critics. Union members are now viewed
not only as apathetic and undisposed to social
reform; they are erroneously perceived as a highly
conservative force in the society.)
Because of these tendencies to exaggerate the
influence of the labor leader, one must take pains
to construct a more realistic picture of how union
policy is actually made. Otherwise, society will
often misdirect its energies by flailing away at
union officials for actions that are not really within
their power to change. In the process, deeper
forces may be overlooked, forces that actually
determine union behavior and must ultimately
be changed if the conduct of unions is to change.
In the end, union behavior is the product of
four broad influences that are constantly inter­
acting upon one another: the desires of the
members, the nature and abilities of the leader­
ship, the capacities and opinions of surbordinates,
and the pressures of the environment. This book
has been a series of illustrations showing how these
forces interact in the most important areas of
union activity. In the brief space remaining, it
is possible only to distill these illustrations into
a more succinct, more general statement.

What the members want
Starting first with the rank and file, a mass of
data suggests that the members are primarily
interested in their union as an agent for negotiat­
ing with the employer and administering the
collective bargaining agreement. Where these
functions are involved, the members exert influ­
ences through many different channels to impose
certain restraints upon their leaders. Sometimes
the demands of the members are very high, even
impossibly so; sometimes they can be modified by
the leaders through education and persuasion.
Once formed, however, these demands can be
ignored only at the risk of decertification, election


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

defeat, refusals to ratify contracts, wildcat strikes,
or other forms of withholding cooperation.
The members expect little and ordinarily de­
mand even less in other areas of union activity,
such as organizing, political action, or community
service. Their main interest is simply that these
programs not require too large an expenditure of
dues or demand too much time and attention
from union officials. To enforce this interest,
members exert pressure either by refusing dues
increases and special levies to pay for the programs
or by withholding their cooperation or participa­
tion, which is often essential if the programs are
to succeed.
Throughout the entire range of union programs,
the members tend to impose closer restraints upon
local leaders than upon national officials, espe­
cially if the local organizations are small. At the
national level, it is much more difficult to marshal
an effective protest or to oust the incumbent
officials, since opposition must be mounted in
many widely scattered groups of members. But
in the national as well as in the local union, the
influence of the member expresses itself more
insistently and through many more channels
than most observers have been prepared to con­
cede. On the whole, moreover, the influence has
been much less salutary than critics of unions like
to acknowledge. A candid appraisal compels the
conclusion that the rank and file has contributed
to most of the widely condemned union short­
comings: racial discrimination, excessive wage
demands, featherbedding, and—in many in­
stances—irresponsible strikes. Corruption, of
course, is one form of union misbehavior that
cannot be attributed significantly to the member­
ship. Critics may often respond to the abovementioned arguments by asserting that auto­
cratic unions can also indulge in featherbedding,
racial discrimination, etc. This is undoubtedly
correct, but one reason may be that democratic
elections are only one way by which the views of
the members are impressed upon the leader;
there are other highly effective conduits for
transmitting membership demands and values,
even in seemingly autocratic unions.

Influence of subordinates
The union leader is also limited by his sub­
ordinates. In many cases, of course, the sub-

TRADE UNION POLICY

ordinate is simply a vehicle for pressures arising
from the membership. Thus, local officials will
resist advice or commands which, if carried out,
would threaten defeat at the next local election.
But subordinates can limit their superiors in ways
quite independent of any rank-and-file sentiments.
Local leaders may develop personal ambitions
that can be furthered by resisting the international.
Staff personnel may have views and priorities that
conflict with those of the union leaders they serve.
Local officials or staff can simply lack the ability
to carry out orders effectively. In theory, of course,
the higher official may have formal authority to
order his subordinates about. In practice, how­
ever, the situation is not so simple. The leader
must normally obtain genuine cooperation and
even enthusiasm from his subordinates, and this
cannot often be achieved if the leader does not
accommodate himself, to some extent at least, to
the abilities and desires of those whom he com­
mands.

Effect of environment
The environment presses in upon the union
from many directions: through the policies of
employers; the market pressures affecting the
firm, the industry and the entire economy; the
attitudes of the public; and the provisions of the
law. With all its endless variety, the environment
affects the union in three essential ways.
To begin with, the environment acts upon the
members and shapes their outlook, their expecta­
tions, and their preferences. For example, the
openness of the society and the lack of class
divisions have had much to do with the unwilling­
ness of union members to support a labor party.
The educational system and the gradual evolution
of community values have produced large changes
in the attitudes of union members toward the
Negro. The restless disaffection of the young
pervades the unions as it does so many other
institutions. Advertising and the widespread
emphasis on material success inflate the demands
that members make in collective negotiations.
As a general rule, influences of this sort play their
most vital role in helping to determine union goals.
The environment also affects the methods
unions can use to achieve their goals and the
degree of success that they will achieve. Thus, the
creation of vast conglomerate firms has impelled
many different unions to join in “coalition

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

19
bargaining” to increase their bargaining power.
In turn, the effectiveness of this strategy will be
conditioned by the financial health and competi­
tive position of the firm and its separate units, as
well as by conditions in the economy as a whole.
In similar fashion, labor’s success in organizing
mass-production industries in the thirties (after
repeated failures in the past) was greatly helped
by such factors as the impact of the Depression,
the personnel policies of the firms involved, and
the newly enacted Federal law to protect union
organization. Conversely, the inability of many of
the same labor officials to organize the South
10 years later was due to another set of social and
community pressures that hampered the organizer
and dulled the incentive of employees to join a
union.
The environment affects the union movement in
still another way by helping to shape the quality of
labor leadership. The political traditions and the
laws of this country insure that union leaders will
be chosen by the members. This policy in turn
implies that the leaders will be chosen from the
ranks and will be generally representative of the
membership. At the same time, the educational
system, the programs of scholarships and student
aid, the emphasis on social mobility, and the
willingness to recognize talent whenever it appears,
all create opportunities through which promising
individuals can escape the shop floor and the as­
sembly line from which tomorrow’s labor leaders
must be drawn. The low prestige that society
accords to union leaders also helps to insure that
many employees will take advantage of these
opportunities instead of seeking a union post. In
this way, environmental forces diminish the pool
of talent available for union office.

The limits of leadership
What freedom of action remains to the union
leader caught between the pressures of the en­
vironment and the demands of the rank and file? To
begin with, he can experiment and innovate, at
least on a modest scale. He may not always be
able to launch new programs costing large sums
nor will he be quick to experiment at the risk of
failing to meet the critical demands imposed by
his members. Moreover, his innovations will
eventually have to win acceptance by the rank and
file in order to survive and flourish. Nevertheless,

20
the activities and achievements of the union will
ultimately reflect the capacity of its officials to
offer up new goals, new programs, and new
benefits for the members to consider.
Union leaders can also do something to alter the
opinions of the members and affect their attitudes
toward the goals and policies of the organization.
On specific trade-union issues—to accept or reject
the contract; to strike or not to strike—the leader
may have great influence, especially if he is popular
and without vocal opposition. On more general
matters of value, social attitude, and political
choice, his opportunities for exerting influence may
be sufficient to deserve attention, but they are not
large. Where these issues are concerned, it is
normally too difficult to reach the members, too
hard to engage their attention seriously, too
arduous to overcome all the competing messages
reaching them through other media and other
sources.
Finally, and perhaps most important, the
leader can have the imagination to conceive of
new strategies and new opportunities in the
environment to help the union make fresh progress
toward its goals. This capacity is partly a matter
of knowing the environment well, but it is ulti­
mately dependent on the intuition, the judgment,
and the imagination of the leader. It is this type
of influence and power that John L. Lewis demon­
strated so tellingly in perceiving that the time
was ripe for massive organizing in the thirties.
It is very hard to guess how much an able,
imaginative leader could accomplish to make
progress toward union goals. Nevertheless, it is
safe to say that the process of selecting union
officials—while admirably suited for certain pur­
poses—is not likely to produce an unusual number
of leaders with exceptional vision or imagination.
Indeed, one would frankly expect less talent of
this sort in unions than in most other major
institutions. In addition, many of the forces that
press upon the labor leader are strong indeed and
leave him with much less freedom of action than
many critics seem to recognize. For example, those
who exhort the unions to exercise wage restraint,
eliminate featherbedding, or refrain from strikes
seem greatly to underestimate the pressures from
the members. Although most union leaders have a
degree of influence over the policies of their
organizations, few would stay in office very long
if they slighted their members’ concern for safe­


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

guards against the loss of work or ignored their
desire to seek pay raises—and go on strike if need
be—to keep pace with wage and price increases
they see occurring all around them.
One can readily sympathize with the visions of
other critics who deplore the failure of union
leaders to seize opportunities to turn their talents
to new fields: organizing the poor, mobilizing
the members to fight for consumer protection,
and taking the lead in searching for a more
meaningful life for workers caught between their
television set and the tedium of a semiskilled,
repetitive job. In one sense, unions seem naturally
suited to such tasks in view of their experience
in organizing mass movements, their large mem­
berships, and their commitment to high social
purposes. Yet, critics invariably overlook the
enormous difficulties involved; the members’
lack of interest in undertaking ventures outside
the traditional union domain, their unwillingness
to see their dues expended for such purposes, the
shortages of talented leadership in labor’s ranks,
and the pressures on existing leaders, whose time
and energy are already stretched thin attending to
conventional union tasks. In the face of such
limitations, even a leader as gifted and energetic
as Walter Reuther has been unable to make note­
worthy progress in organizing the poor, expanding
union membership, altering Detroit politics, or
expanding the skilled job opportunities for Negro
members. B y underestimating these problems,
liberal critics have succeeded—after two decades
of biting prose—in accomplishing virtually nothing
except to antagonize the union leadership.

The critic’s role
This sketch of union behavior has clear impli­
cations for the critic’s role in assessing social
institutions. In reality, union members, leaders,
subordinates, and environmental forces interact
in such an intimate way that it is treacherous to
single out one set of actors in the drama and heap
responsibility upon them. Union behavior must
be seen as the product of a complex, interrelated
process. In order to be effective and fair, the
critic must seek to identify the various centers of
initiative throughout this process and suggest the
actions that can be taken by each of these groups
to make it easier for unions to progress toward
desirable goals.
□

Study of craftsmen
in upstate New York reveals
that skills are often acquired
through informal training within
and outside the industry
HOWARD G. FOSTER

labor supply in the construction
industry was regarded primarily as a function of
apprenticeship training. Recently, it has been
recognized that formal apprenticeship is not the
exclusive, or even major, source of skilled man­
power for the building trades.1 Little is known,
however, of the nature of alternative sources and
their relative significance for particular crafts.
This article, based on a larger study of con­
struction labor supply in upstate New York,2
attempts to provide some information on these
questions. The data presented here were gathered
through (1) a series of interviews with more than
70 persons familiar with construction labor
(including 20 business agents and 26 contractors)
and (2) questionnaire returns from 784 workers
in four important crafts (bricklayers, carpenters,
electricians, and operating engineers).3

F or

m a n y

y e a r s

,

Training in construction
Other than completion of an apprenticeship
program, training in construction is gained es­
sentially through the informal and unstructured
acquisition of skills in the production process
itself. Such training is actually aided by the
severe seasonal fluctuations in activity characterHoward G. Foster is assistant professor of industrial
relations, State University of New York at Buffalo. The
material for this article was prepared under Grant No.
91-34-68-51 from the Manpower Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, under the authority of Title I of
the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962.
Researchers undertaking such projects under Government
sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their pro­
fessional judgment. Therefore, points of view or opinions
stated in this article do not necessarily represent the official
position or policy of the Department of Labor. The author
wishes to acknowledge the help of Professors D. E. Cullen,
R. L. Aronson, and F. F. Foltman in the larger study on
which this article is based.


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

Nonapprentice
sources
of training
in construction
istic of the industry, for the employer is obliged
at times to utilize unskilled and semiskilled workers
at jobs for which they are only partially prepared,
and the experience thus gained is a vital part of
learning. At the same time, the process does not
work as smoothly as in an industrial context,
for union craft jurisdictions impede somewhat the
free flow of manpower from one occupation to
another. Nevertheless, the avenues of occupational
change remain partially open, and the astute (or
sometimes lucky) worker is often able to take
advantage of them. Thus, nearly 20 percent of the
operating engineers surveyed reported that they
had once been laborers or truckdrivers on con­
struction jobs. A similar proportion of brick­
layers (not including tile setters) had been
laborers, presumably mason tenders. The pro­
portion for carpenters was surprisingly low at
10.3 percent.4 As might be expected, the number of
electricians who were once laborers was negligible.
Other crafts not included in the questionnaire
survey—cement masons and reinforcing iron­
workers, for example—also derive many of thenjourneymen from unskilled ranks.5
It is difficult to assess the overall role of informal
training within construction in quantitative terms,
but the questionnaires do provide some clues.
Respondents were asked to identify sources of thenskills other than apprenticeship. (If the worker
had taken apprenticeship training, he was not
asked to go any further.) One of the questionnaire
choices was “picked it up on the job in construc­
tion.” Of 784 respondents, 280 either had taken
apprenticeship or did not answer in any way. Of
the remaining 504, 455 checked the “picked up on
the job” option. Of these, 169 or one-third checked
only that option. In short, 21.5 percent of all the
respondents indicated that their only source of
skill was informal training on the job in construc­
tion.
21

22
Much informal training is carried on by the
nonunion sector of construction, primarily homebuilding, where the absence of jurisdictional
limitations on work assignments facilitates move­
ment from unskilled to skilled occupations. The
questionnaire attempted to probe movements be­
tween the union and nonunion sectors in two
ways. First, respondents were asked to report on
the types of projects on which they had worked
in the preceding 10 years, including the union
status of the projects. Second, those respondents
who had not undergone apprenticeship and who
had “picked up skills on the job in construction”
were asked whether their training had been on
union jobs, nonunion jobs, or both. The results of
these two questions are presented in table 1.
The discrepancy in the “nonunion” percentages
between the two questions, of course, is attribut­
able in part to the fact that the employment
question referred only to the past decade, whereas
the training question had no time limits. Pre­
sumably, some workers had had nonunion em­
ployment experience more than 10 years ago. In
any event, table 1 illustrates the importance of
nonunion construction as a training ground for
union craftsmen. Fully 46 percent of the respond­
ents for whom the training question was applicable
had had some nonunion work in their background.
The highest percentage (62) was for carpenters,
followed by bricklayers (59), engineers (37), and
electricians (35) .6

Training outside construction
The development of construction skills outside
the industry springs from four broad sources:
Training or experience in industries other than
construction; formal education, including both
vocational and standard high schools; military
service; and informal instruction by friends and
relatives. The questionnaire sought to probe the
relative influence of these sources by asking
respondents to specify the industry of their last
three jobs, their last three occupations, and their
prior training for construction work.

Industries other than construction
Perhaps the first characteristic of the previous
employment experience of the respondents deserv­
ing mention is that a significant proportion of them


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970
Table 1. Union background of construction workers in
Syracuse, selected trades, by employment experience and
training
(Percent)
Employment
experience,
preceding 10
years only
Craft in 1968

Sector where trained

Num­
ber
Union

Union
and
non­
union

Union

Non­
union

Both

Not
appli­
cable i

Total....................

781

82.2

17.8

30.5

8.3

18.0

43.2

Bricklayers, tile setters.. .
Carpenters........................
Electricians.....................
Operating engineers..........

126
207
229
219

88.1
74.9
84.7
83.1

11.9
25.1
15.3
16.9

18.1
22.2
19.6
56.8

12.6
12.1
4.3
6.4

13.4
24.6
6.5
26.4

55.9
41.1
69.6
10.4

>Respondents who had taken apprenticeship or who reported sources of skill outside
construction only.
__

had none. Over 26 percent of the sample indicated
that they had never worked in another industry
or at another occupation. By craft, the proportions
were 37 percent of bricklayers, 26 percent of carpen­
ters, 24 percent of electricians, and 22 percent of
operating engineers.
The process of imparting construction skills in
other industries is largely informal. According to
one Government study, the number of construc­
tion craftsmen who undergo formal training in
company schools is negligible.7 Our questionnaire
tended to confirm that finding. But the significance
of even this informal training is easily overstated.
Although interindustry mobility provides con­
struction with a substantial number of workers,
the extent to which these workers are actually
trained in other industries is yet another question.
r ic k l a y e r s .
There is, on the whole, little
training of bricklayers outside the construction
industry. As noted previously, over one-third of
our sample had never held a different job. Another
20 percent or so simply advanced from an un­
skilled construction occupation. Even among
those who had held jobs outside the industry,
only a smattering held jobs even remotely related
to the bricklaying trade. The above finding is
consistent with the results of the sources-of-skill
question. One of the available options on that
question was “picked it up on the job in a factory
or shop.” Only three bricklayers utilized this
option. In sum, then, bricklayers may be termed
essentially an indigenous construction craft, the
skills being learned almost exclusively through
apprenticeship or upgrading.

B

NONAPPRIENTICE TRAINING
C a r p e n t e r s . Carpentry skills are much more
likely to be acquired in other industries than are
masonry skills. Over one-fifth of all carpenters are
employed outside construction.8 In addition, pro­
ficiency at carpentry work is more likely to be
found in persons classified in other occupations,
from the farmer to the do-it-yourself homeowner.
The questionnaires revealed a relatively high num­
ber of farm backgrounds among the Syracuse
carpenters (about 29 percent). Farm work, of
course, entails such chores as building fences and
other structures that involve a basic knowledge
of working with wood. Furthermore, a number of
carpenters seem to acquire their skills in industries
other than construction or agriculture. In the
source-of-skill question, about 10 percent of the
respondents checked the “factory or shop”
option. Most of these were former maintenance
employees in factories or employees of building
material supply companies. For the most part,
however, the previous jobs reported had little or
nothing to do with carpentry work.
l e c t r i c i a n s . Since so many of the electricians
(nearly 70 percent) gained their skills through
apprenticeship programs, most of the previous
jobs reported were undoubtedly temporary em­
ployment immediately upon graduation from high
school. At the same time, however, there were
occupational relationships that seem to govern to
some extent the flow of electricians into construc­
tion. In particular, there was a relatively high
proportion (15.5 percent) of previous jobs in the
service industries. For the most part, these jobs
were in such businesses as auto repair, radio and
television maintenance, and shops that sell and
repair various electrical appliances. Although
such jobs bear little direct relationship to con­
struction, many do involve a working knowledge
of electrical currents and wiring. In addition,
a number of respondents had previously worked
for manufacturers of electrical products and for
electric utility companies.
Training outside the industry, therefore, seems
on the whole more relevant and more scattered
for electricians than for the other crafts. Elec­
tricians entering construction from other in­
dustries—although numerically less important—
seem generally better prepared for their work
than most other beginning craftsmen. This con­
clusion is buttressed by the responses on the
source-of-skill question in which about 13 percent

E


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

23
of all the electricians checked the “factory or
shop” option.
In this trade, there has
long been an informal training procedure in which
a worker serves for 4 years as an oiler, during
which time he is expected to “pick up” the trade
by observation and self-learning. A dispropor­
tionately large number of engineers in our survey
(nearly 18 percent) had previously worked in
unskilled and semiskilled construction occupa­
tions. On the whole, though, the previous exper­
ience of this group was sufficiently different from
the others to indicate a reasonably systematic
set of flows into the occupation.
To start with, an extremely large number of
engineers reported some background on the farm.
While operating a tractor and operating construc­
tion machinery are by no means the same, they
both involve the manipulation of heavy equip­
ment over unpaved terrain. And, even though
the relationship is not perfect, it is surely signifi­
cant that 40 percent of the engineer respondents
indicated a farm background somewhere on the
questionnaire, compared with 29 percent for
carpenters and well under 10 percent for the
other crafts. Furthermore, a disproportionate
number of the operatives had been truck or bus
drivers. While driving a truck is even less closely
related to operating construction equipment than
is running a tractor, both involve moving and
directing large vehicles. Third, a large number of
engineers were previously employed as auto and
truck mechanics, particularly those who desig­
nated their current occupation as “equipment
mechanic” rather than “operator.” Again, this
type of employment necessarily imparts (or
requires) a general working knowledge of how
machines run. Finally, there was previous em­
ployment on highway or public works crews,
sometimes involving the actual handling of heavy
equipment.
The training of operating engineers is probably
best summarized in the following way. It often
begins outside the craft ( and outside the construc­
tion industry), but the kind of training obtained
elsewhere is only the most rudimentary kind.
Essentially, it involves merely an acquaintance
with moving parts. The real skill is then obtained
on the job in construction, by an informal process
of learning and experience. In sum, however,
O

p e r a t in g

e n g in e e r s

.

24

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

the making of an operating engineer involves a
kind of interin iustry “cooperation” which is not
nearly as important—numerically, at least—in
the other three crafts.

Table 3. Vocational education of construction workers
reported on questionnaire, by craft
Respondents

Vocational education

Craft

T h e p r i n c i p a l c o n c l u s i o n of this part of the
study is that simply to speak of interindustry
mobility into and out of construction may be
misleading. While other industries may well
send large numbers of workers to construction
over the years, the construction skills themselves
seem to be in the main internally generated. The
mere fact that an increase in job opportunities in
construction attracts workers from other indus­
tries does not in and of itself guarantee that the
supply will be adequate in terms of the skills
needed. And the mere fact that there are large
numbers of trained craftsmen outside the con­
struction industry9 does not necessarily mean
that such workers will make themselves available
for construction work even if the demand were
there.

Training in the military
The main source of information for training in
the military was the question asking respondents
to specify the sources of their skill. Over 12 per­
cent of all respondents—and 19 percent of those
who had not taken apprenticeship—indicated
that they had learned at least part of their trade
in military service. Table 2 summarizes the re­
sponses by craft. Perhaps the most striking figure
in the table is the 36 percent for nonapprentice
electricians, although the percentages for car­
penters and operating engineers are also
noteworthy.
The numbers in table 2, however, can be some­
what deceptive. While electricians seem to avail
themselves more of training opportunities in the
Table 2. Relevant military training of construction workers
reported on questionnaire, by craft
Respondents

Military training

Craft in 1968

Total____ ______
Bricklayers, tile setters . .
Carpenters...........................
Electricians...................... .
Operating engineers______

Total

Nonapprentice

Number

Percent
of all
respondents

784

504

96

12.2

19.0

127
207
230
220

60
143
89
212

2
21
32
41

1.2
10.1
13.9
18.6

3.3
14.7
36.0
19.3


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

Percent
of nonapprentice
respondents

Total____________
Bricklayers, tile setters___
Carpenters..... .......... . ........
Electricians........................
Operating engineers______

Percent
Percent
of all
of nonrespondents apprentice
respondents

Total

Non­
apprentice

Num­
ber

784

504

103

13.1

20.4

127
207
230
220

60
143
89
212

4
36
41
22

3.1
17.4
17.8
10.0

6.7
25.2
46.1
10.4

military than do the other crafts, comments on
the questionnaire suggested that the type of
training received—in terms of its direct relevance
to construction work—may have been more
appropriate for carpenters and operating engineers.
Some of the electricians who checked “military”
as a source of skill gave their service occupation
as “radio technician,” “electronic technician,”
“electronics repairman,” and the like. Others
were ship’s electricians. While these occupations
may be indirectly related to electrical construction
work and involve a basic knowledge of electricity,
they are still not the same as wiring a construction
project.
On the other hand, most of the carpenters and
operating engineers who checked “military”
seemed to have had direct experience at a building
site. Many of the carpenters had served in the
Navy Construction Battalion (“Seabees”); simi­
larly, a number of operating engineers had served
with the Army Corps of Engineers. Both of these
agencies perform construction work of various
kinds in the United States and abroad.

Vocational training in schools
Vocational training in the public schools has
long been the neglected stepchild of the American
education system.10 It is, therefore, not surprising
that few workers manage to move directly into a
journeyman position upon completion of a voca­
tional curriculum. In some areas, building trades
unions, concerned over the establishment of a
potentially competitive and nonunion workforce,
have succeeded in limiting vocational course
offerings in the schools.11 These observations sug­
gest that in-school vocational education, in and of
itself, does not seem to have provided a significant
number of craftsmen.
The qualifying phrase “in and of itself” is

25

NONAPPRENTICE TRAINING

important, for the responses to our questionnaire
would seem to tell a very different story. A total
of 103 respondents indicated that they had ac­
quired at least some of their skills in school.
(The responses are broken down by craft in table
3.) But care must be exercised in evaluating the
figures. In the first place, most construction crafts­
men tend to regard on-the-job training as more
helpful in acquiring skills than in-school instruc­
tion.12 Perhaps more importantly, however, the
contribution of vocational education is in part a
function of the extent to which the student can
move directly into construction work without any
further training. For example, of the 198 workers
who indicated friends or relatives as a source of
skills, 111 (56 percent) specified no other form of
training. By contrast, of the 103 respondents
with schooling as a source of skills, only 19 (18
percent) had no other training source. The point
here is by no means that in-school vocational edu­
cation is a useless form of training, but rather that
in current practice it often does not complete the
worker’s training, that it usually must later be
combined with other avenues of skill acquisition,
such as military service, apprenticeship, or training
in other industries. Thus vocational education,
at least for these four crafts in the Syracuse area,
seems to have been only the first step of several
in the attainment of skilled craftsman status.
All this should not serve to obscure important
differences in vocational education among the four
crafts studied. The ranking of the crafts is similar
to that in table 2 (military training). Again the
bricklayers show the lowest percentage and the
electricians the highest, although the positions of
the carpenters and operating engineers are reTable 4. Father’s occupation reported on questionnaire,
by connection with construction and craft
[Percent distribution!

Connection

Elec­
Brick­ Carpen­
tricians
ters
layers *

Operat­
ing
engi­
neers

Total

Same as respondent.............. ..........
Other construction. ...........................
Other blue collar__________ ____ _
White collar............. ........................
No answers. .....................................

35.4
14.2
28.4
6.2
15.7

25.1
12.1
44.0
12.6
6.3

24.9
10.0
31.0
12.2
21.8

15.0
19. 5
38.6
5.4
21.4

23.9
13.9
36.1
9. 5
16.6

Number of respondents................. .

127

207

230

220

784

1 Including tilesetters.
2 The large proportion of "no answers” is attributable to failure to ask respondents
to specify fathers occupation even if father is dead or retired. This omission was
corrected for carpenters only.


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

Table 5. Friends and relatives as a source of skill as
reported on questionnaires, by craft
Friends and relatives

Respondents

Percent
of nonapprentice
respondents

Total

Nonapprentice

Num­
ber

Percent
of all
respondents

....................

784

504

198

25.2

39.3

Bricklayers, tilesetters------Carpenters
....................
Electricians .....................
Operating engineers______

127
217
230
220

60
143
89
212

33
73
27
65

26.0
35.5
11.7
29.5

55.0
51.0
30.3
30.7

Craft

Total

versed. The reasons for this ranking are undoubt­
edly related to the ease or difficulty in teaching the
various trades off the job. Two considerations in
this regard seem noteworthy: the relative degree to
which a craft requires intellectual ability as op­
posed to manipulative skills, and the relative
expense and convenience of providing such manip­
ulative training in the classroom.13

Training by friends and relatives
The construction industry has often been char­
acterized as nepotistic. Indeed, when racial dis­
crimination in apprenticeship began to emerge as
a fiery national issue, primary attention was
focused on the alleged practice of giving special
consideration to relatives of current union mem­
bers. Whether or not conscious discrimination was
in fact widespread, it is true that substantial
numbers of construction craftsmen do indeed
follow in their fathers’ footsteps. Thus, as shown
in table 4, almost a quarter (23.9 percent) of the
respondents were pursuing the craft of thenfathers, and the fathers of an additional 13.9 per­
cent worked at some other construction occupa­
tion.14 Furthermore, the craft-by-craft breakdown
is particularly illuminating in the case of the brick­
layers, half of whose fathers had worked in con­
struction. This finding helps to explain why the
other sources of skill development discussed earlier
were relatively insignificant in the training of
bricklayers.
The importance of friends and relatives as a
source of skill was more directly demonstrated by
responses to the question asking, “If you did not
get training in an apprenticeship program, how
did you get your skill?” Respondents were given
a series of options, including “Was taught by a
close friend or relative.” The numbers choosing

26

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

this option 15 are broken down by craft in table 5.
Again, bricklayers stand out, although it is clear
that such informal “handing down” of skills is
not uncommon for any of the crafts surveyed.

A summing up
In summary, it seems safe to conclude that the
p rim a r y means of skill acquisition is training, for­

mal and informal, within the construction industry
itself. For bricklayers, skills are developed almost
exclusively within the operations of the industry.
The only exception is learning from friends and
relatives, and it could easily be argued that even
this method is in essence endogenous to construc­
tion. Carpenters rely to a somewhat greater degree
-

FOOTNOTES •

1 See, in particular, George Strauss, “Apprenticeship:
An Evaluation of the Need,” in Arthur M. Ross, ed.,
Employment Policy and the Labor Market (Berkeley;
University of California Press, 1965), pp. 299-332.
2 Howard G. Foster, “Labor Supply in the Construction
Industry: A Case Study of Upstate New York,” un­
published Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1969.
3 The interviews were conducted in Buffalo, Rochester,
Syracuse, and Binghamton. The questionnaire was ad­
ministered in Syracuse, and the returns constituted about
half of those surveyed. The four crafts together amounted
to nearly 60 percent of all skilled construction workers in
1960 (Census of Population, part 7c).
4 Surprising in the sense that laborers often work
closely with carpenters and are thus in a fortunate position
to learn the fundamentals of carpentry through observa­
tion. One possible explanation is that opportunities to
obtain carpentry skills are extraordinarily abundant outside
the industry, coupled with the fact that the Carpenters
union is among the most liberal of the construction crafts
in its admission policies. Thus an individual is more likely
to become a construction carpenter without going through
the informal “apprenticeship” of laborer’s work than is,
say, a bricklayer.
5 As reported by several of the interviewees.
6 These figures are derived by dividing the sum of


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

on outside sources, particularly farm work and the
military. Most electricians are trained formally
through apprenticeship, although military train­
ing and formal vocational education also contrib­
ute. Finally, most operating engineers tend to
acquire skill informally by picking it up on con­
struction work as oilers or other unskilled and
semiskilled workers. Important outside sources for
engineers are farming, the military, and various
occupations which involve a basic knowledge of
machines, although not necessarily heavy equip­
ment. In all these occupations, learning from
friends and relatives is common. Although some
vocational education was reported by a significant
number of respondents, this appeared to be only a
short first step in the development of construction
skills.
□

“nonunion” and “both” percentages by the percentage of
“applicable” responses. Thus 46 percent equals 26.3
divided by 56.8.
7 Formal Occupational Training of Adult Workers (U.S.
Department of Labor, Manpower/Automation Research
Monograph No. 2, December 1964), p. 368.
8 Allan F. Salt, “Estimated Need for Skilled Workers in
1975,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1966, p. 368.
9 Ibid.
10 See, for example, Jacob J. Kaufman, “Occupational
Training Needs of Youth,” Journal of Human Resources,
Vol. 3, Supplement, Summer 1968, p. 136.
11 Strauss, op. cit., p. 328.
12 Formal Occupational Training of Adult Workers, op.
cit., p. 44.
13 In this connection, see Strauss, op. cit., especially pp.
310-311.
14 It should be noted, moreover, that these percentages
are based on total responses, including “no answers.”
Presumably some of those fathers whose occupations were
not specified had worked in construction.
15 The respondents were not, of course, limited to a
single option, since an individual may have picked up
skills from more than one source before becoming a
construction worker.

New training
plan in Britain’s
construction
industry

Basic certification offered
after l 1/2 to 2 years
of intensive classroom instruction
and on-the-job specialization
HERBERT A. PERRY

To m a i n t a i n the building craft labor force in
Britain, 25,000 apprenticeship recruits are needed
annually,. Only about 20,000 have been completing
apprenticeships each year. Along with the chronic
shortage problem, there has long been a concern
about the poor quality of training most apprentices
receive.
The Industrial Training Act, passed by Parlia­
ment in 1964, ushered in a new era in British man­
power policy. It empowered the Ministry of Labor
to establish training boards to cover all industries.
One of the first areas affected was construction,1
where antiquated apprenticeship schemes were in
need of overhauling. This article traces the evolu­
tion of the training system established by the
Construction Industry Training Board.
In the past, building craft apprentices had to
serve 4- or 5-year apprenticeships. This system was
supported by the British building craft unions as a
means of controlling entry into the trades and by
many employers because it provided a source of
low-cost labor.
Continued criticism of industrial training in
Britain and lack of any real progress along with
the government’s growing interest in manpower
planning finally resulted in government inter­
vention. The Industrial Training Act of 1964 2 es­
tablished industrial training boards to :
1. Provide and secure the provision of sufficient
training facilities for employees in their respective
industry;
2. make recommendations about the nature, length,
standard, and content of training for different
occupations;
3. pay grants to employers providing training of
improved standard; and,
4. impose a levy on employers in their industry in
order to accomplish the above.

The Construction Industry Training Board,
one of the first established under the new law,
broke with past practice when it proposed new

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

concepts of craft training. The Board’s proposals
were based, in part, on a survey report of construc­
tion occupations by the Building Research Station,
an agency of the Ministry of Public Building and
Works.
The report emphasized that the length of train­
ing required differs considerably for the various
trades and that practical job training is more
important than technical (classroom) education
for some occupations. Although the quality of
most current job training was not measured, the
study showed that bricklayers with 6 months’
training at a government training center could
serve between 6 and 18 months as improvers or
trainees and do the same range of work as those
whose practical training had consisted of 5 years’
site experience.3 The report also revealed that
few apprentices had the opportunity to practice
the full range of the trade’s work.
The Building Research Station suggested that,
within the general area of work in a main trade
and within some areas of specialization, two
levels or more of skill should be recognized.4
Competence at the basic level would permit
operatives to undertake the easier and most
common work of the trade, while a small propor­
tion who have the necessary ability and motivation
would receive advanced training and technical
education. The skill differential would be recog­
nized by a higher wage rate and a certificate of
achievement would be issued once an acceptable
standard at the basic level is met.

The new plan
Under the plan adopted by the Construction
Industry Training Board, a trainee receives in­
tensive training the first year. He spends 30 to 40
Herbert A. Perry is associate professor of economics at
Sacramento State College.

27

28
percent of the time in a training center receiving
technical instruction and practical training, with
the remainder of the year spent in on-the-job
training. The second year follows a similar pattern,
except that the trainee is given more specialized
training in a specific craft or sub craft. For
example, the first year in the wood trades includes
courses in basic carpentiy, joinery, and wood
machining, but the second year concentrates on
only one of these areas. At the end of the 1%- to
2-year training period, the apprentice usually
is expected to meet the standards of his craft.
For those who wish to gain a higher standard of
competency, advanced training modules are avail­
able. A module, in this context, is a unit of training
which can be given at any time after basic train­
ing is completed. It may vary from an offsite
2-week course in scaffolding for laborers to a
6-month course in electronics for electrician jour­
neymen, integrating college courses and onsite
training. Persons completing a module receive
certification and in some cases a higher wage rate.
Highly motivated or brighter apprentices are ex­
pected to take the advanced modules immediately
following basic training. Those persons who ter­
minate training after the initial 2 years may return
in later years to pick up advanced modules if they
wish. The modular approach should make it easier
to accommodate new skill needs resulting from
technological change. New modules can be added
or old ones modified as changes in the industry
dictate, and the craftsman who has had the basic
18 months or 2 years can advance his competency
and keep up to date as he and his employer see fit.
The new plan includes basic courses to cover the
nine principal groups of operatives in the construc­
tion industry. In all cases, there is a 2-week pre­
liminary course on the structure of the industry,
the industry’s processes and trades, career patterns
and prospects, and conditions of employment
and citizenship. Visits to job sites are also recom­
mended. After completion of the preliminary
course, the trainee starts one of the following nine
basic courses.
General con stru ction operations apply to labor­
ers, ironworkers, operating engineers, and préfabri­
cation workers. Courses for these trainees, where
there have been no previous apprenticeship
schemes, last 4 to 6 weeks, depending on the job
classification. They are given at the construction
industry’s training center at Bircham Newton, a


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

refurbished Royal Air Force Base in Norfolk.
Centers are also planned for other regions of the
country. Advanced modules are available in such
specialties as scaffolding and bar bending.
The trowel trades basic course deals with oper­
ations common to four of the trowel trades as
approved by the National Joint Council for the
Building Industry—bricklaying, plastering, ma­
sonry, and wall and floor tiling. The basic year
of 48 weeks is divided into Part A, 10 weeks of
instruction, practice, and technical education in
either a technical college (similar to a junior
college in the United States with both academic
pre-university courses and terminal craft and
technical courses offered), college of building (a
trade school for training craftsmen and techni­
cians solely for the building industry), college of
further education (community colleges offering
vocational subjects, general education and ex­
tension courses for adults, generally less rigorous
than the technical colleges), company training
center (operated by some large construction firms
to train their own employees), or government train­
ing center (operated by the Department of
Productivity and Employment for training adult
workers in industrial skills). This instruction is
followed by 14 weeks of on-the-job training with
the experience related to the first phase of college
or training center instruction. Part B consists of
10 weeks of off-the-job instruction, practical and
theory, followed by 14 weeks of planned experi­
ence related to the second 10 weeks of instruction.
(A detailed description of the course is shown in
chart 1.)
An important aspect of the new plan is that the
off-the-job sessions in the college or training cen­
ter contain strong practical training with short
periods of classroom instruction. Extended exer­
cises enable trainees to develop their skills. Another
new element requires the employer to assign the
trainee during his period on the job to certain
tasks and jobs which involve the use of skills
learned in the college or training center. In the
second year, the same format is followed except
that the trainee is trained in greater depth in only
one of the four trowel trades.
W ood tra d es’ practical training is in carpentry,
joinery, wood machining, and formwork carpentry.
R oofing’s basic course involves the use of a
variety of materials including slate, tile, and vari­
ous kinds of sheet material.

29

TRAINING IN BRITISH CONSTRUCTION

Chart 1. New plan of training for trowel trades

Minimum Certification
2d Phase ------------------------

■1st Phase-

■3rd Phase-

BASIC YEAR

SPECIFIC MODULES

ADVANCED MODULES

48 weeks

26 weeks

Varies as necessary

2-10 week periods in training
center

10 weeks in training center

Gauged brickwork

16 weeks RPE-OJT

Brick archwork

2-14 week periods OJT-RPE
Decorative brickwork
Refractory brickwork - minor
Refractory brickwork - major
PCC paving slabs and curbs
Cladding
MRR brickwork
1
N
p
U

BASIC TROWEL

c

TRADE SKILLS &

T
1
0
N

JOB KNOWLEDGE

2 weeks

48 weeks

/
/
f

*

Fibrous and decorative plastering

>

In situ floor finishes

»

MRR plastering

.—
.

PLASTERING

______

\

{
\

Ornamental masonry
Monumental masonry
Masonry archwork
Internal masonry linings
Cladding

WALL AND
FLOOR TILING

OJT - On the Job Training
RPE - Related Planned Experience
MRR - Maintenance, Renovation and Repair


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

Wall and floor tilin g
PCC paving slabs and curbs

30
A sp h a ltin g includes built-up felt, asphalt, roof­
ing, and lining industrial tanks.
P a in tin g a n d decorating includes industrial
painting.
G lazin g takes in all types of glass fitting, with
lead work in an advanced module.
E lectrica l engineering services include construc­
tion electricians and installers of electrical equip­
ment.
M ech a n ica l engineering services include plumb­
ing, heating, and ventilating, refrigeration, and
industrial pipe work.

Training facilities
At its training center at Bircham Newton, the
Construction Industry Training Board offers short
courses for civil engineering operatives, work study
and other management courses, a training course
for advisers and, since September 1969, a 2-year
residential college for aspiring civil engineering
'meratives just out of school.
One of the most promising of the training
board’s accomplishments is the establishment of
124 group training associations covering about
1,500 firms with over 1 million employees. Many
more are being formed. The training associations
employ full-time training advisers and provide
many small firms an opportunity to participate
more fully in training.

Employer grants
The Construction Industry Training Board oper­
ates a grants scheme which subsidizes in-company
training programs, group training schemes, exter­
nal courses at various levels, certain technical col­
lege courses, and a number of special programs
including outside research at universities and re­
search institutes. Critics on the use of grants say
that it involves an unnecessary collection and allo­
cation of funds at considerable cost, with great
inequity and with no proven positive impact on
training. The system is somewhat complex, tending
to favor the larger firms who have the personnel
to handle the necessary paperwork and establish
approved training schemes.

Levy on training
The Industrial Training Act requires the train­
ing boards to raise a levy from the industry to
redistribute the costs of training fairly. At least,


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

this is intended; but equity in practice is difficult
to attain. In 1969, the Construction Industry
Training Board introduced a differential levy on
the basis of extent of training required by certain
classes of workmen. Until then, the levy was a
percentage of the employer’s wage and salary bill.
Small firms were not covered initially; now the
levy covers all employers irrespective of size. One
problem area was that of the “labor only” sub­
contractors who claim to be groups of individually
self-employed. The “labor only” subcontractors
contract to supply labor for a specific job and
craft, e.g., bricklayers, where the practice is most
common. To escape the responsibilities of being an
employer, these contractors often claim that their
gang of workers is made up of self-employed indi­
viduals. They are generally paid on a piece-rate
basis and are employed by general contractors.
They are now assessed through the main contrac­
tors, but administrative problems still abound.

Adopting the new plan
The new plan of training for operative skills was
presented to the Construction Industry Training
Board early in 1968 with the request that it be
introduced in about 36 centers throughout the
country. There was adverse reaction, particularly
about the lack of consultation between the Con­
struction Industry Training Board staff and
various interested parties. The board adopted the
plan in June 1968, but its building committee
decided that basic courses should be allowed to
start in September 1968 at only 10 colleges and
on a trial basis. The subjects included four on
trowel trades, four on wood trades, two on painting
and glazing, and one course on roofing. Subcom­
mittees were established to evaluate and recom­
mend future action. With some minor modifica­
tions, the building committee authorized the
expansion of courses to 36 colleges in September
1969, with the number of trainees to rise from
about 150 to about 800 in new plan courses.
Those who completed the basic year in 1968-69
entered the second phase courses in September
1969. By March 1970, some will have qualified for
minimum certification as craftsmen with the
option to take advanced modules in their craft.
New plan courses in electrical installation were
started at seven colleges in 1968 and expanded in
1969. The plumbing and heating and ventilating

31

FRAINING IN BRITISH CONSTRUCTION

courses were not approved in 1968 because of
interindustry controversy on other matters, but
the Mechanical Services Committee of the Con­
struction Industry Training Board allowed them
to start on a pilot basis in 1969.
While the basic concept outlined will probably
be maintained, there will be more modifications as
experience indicates the optimum time for off-the-

job and on-the-job phases and recognition is
given to the need for regional variation in timing
and course content. Institutional lag makes it
difficult to determine at what speed changes will
take place, but the present situation seems to
indicate an increasing momentum towards rapid
change as a result of Construction Industry
Training Board action.

1
In Britain, the term construction covers a wide range
of activities in civil engineering and building including
both new work and repairs and maintenance. The con­
struction industry straddles the public and private sectors
of the economy. It employs about 1.7 million workers in­
cluding about 720,000 skilled building craftsmen and
about 1 million less skilled building and civil engineering
tradesmen. There are approximately 130,000 apprentices
and trainees included in this group, with an annual input
of about 45,000 boys of whom 67 percent are apprenticed
to skilled crafts. The remainder in the industry includes
self-employed, clerical, technical, and managerial grades.
There are about 85,000 private firms in the industry and
80 percent employ no more than 10 operatives.

2 See Gary B. Hanson, Britain’s Industrial Training Act:
Its History, Development and Implications for America
(U.S. Department of Labor, National Manpower Policy
Task Force, 1967).
3 According to the Building Research Station report,
training for occupations other than the apprenticeable
trades is probably the largest task to be faced by the
building industry in the near future. In the past, there has
been very little training done for those who are not in
apprenticeable occupations.
4 E. Warrington, Building Occupations and Training,
Part 11, Building Research Station current paper CP/25/68,
1968.

Migrant Labor
A concerted program to help migrant farm workers move into more productive
occupations—farm and nonfarm—that would lead to the eventual elimination of migra­
tory farm labor in the United States is recommended by the Agriculture Committee of
the National Planning Association. The Committee’s statement, “Ending the Misery of
Migratory Farm Labor,” appears in the January issue of n p a ’ s monthly publication,
L ookin g A h ead.

Furthermore, the Committee says, while education, training, and job opportunities
are being provided to pull migratory workers from the labor stream, measures should be
adopted to boost wages and benefits and to improve the lot of those who remain, for the
time being, in their traditional occupation. In this respect the committee recommends
bringing migrant farm workers under Federal minimum wage coverage at the prevailing
standard level; providing for collective bargaining for farm workers under the National
Labor Relations Act or similar Federal provisions; extension of benefits of unemployment
compensation, workmen’s compensation for injuries on the job, and public assistance
without residence requirements for farm workers; and reform of the crew leader registra­
tion program.


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

Changes in health
and insurance
plans for
salaried employees
M a jo r
c o m p a n ie s
substantially improved the
health and insurance protection of their salaried
employees during the past 6 years. Although
improvements in both the levels and types of
benefits provided salaried workers were almost
always unilaterally made by the employer, they
often reflected gains achieved by production
workers through collective bargaining. Some of
the changes, however, reflected the employer’s
awareness of the necessity of broader and greater
coverage to meet changing standards of health
care protection and rising living costs, particularly
medical costs.
Health and insurance plans for salaried workers
generally provided greater income protection and
more comprehensive coverage than plans for
production workers. In particular, plans for
salaried workers included optional life insurance,
long-term disability benefits, and major medical
benefits more frequently than those for production
workers. Also, salaried employees, unlike most
production workers, often continued to receive
their regular pay while temporarily absent from
work because of illness.1
Some recent improvements in salaried employee
benefit plans represent interesting innovations
and special benefits supplementing or liberalizing
existing private plan benefits, while others involve
new ways of supplementing government-provided
benefits, such as Medicare and disability pensions.
In the income area, a special survivors’ benefit,
which provided certain survivors a percentage of
the deceased employee’s salary for at least 12
months, was increasingly superimposed on basic
and optional life insurance benefits.2 In the
health area, liberal benefits for convalescent and
nursing home care, psychiatric care, and dental

Dorothy R. Kittner is an economist in the Division of
General Compensation Structures, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.

32

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

Study of major plans
reveals significant improvements
in protections
during 6-year period
DOROTHY R. KITTNER

care are now added to health care packages.
Service benefits, covering surgical-medical care
for all employees regardless of their incomes,
became more frequent as more plans paid all
reasonable and customary charges of physicians
and surgeons instead of a fixed allowance.3
Although benefits paid for solely by the employer
(noncontributory) became more common, many
workers still had to pay part of the cost of their
health and insurance plans. In 1968, as in the
previous 5 years, more than 40 percent of all
employees surveyed by the Health Insurance
Institute participated in noncontributory pro­
grams, and more than half were in contributory
ones.4Of course, as implied by the term “optional,”
all employees with optional life insurance coverage
paid at least part of its premium, and those with
long-term disability and major medical benefits
coverage usually helped finance it. As in the past,
the proportion of office workers with noncon­
tributory benefits lagged behind the proportion
of plant workers whose benefits were similarly
financed. The only major exception to this gen­
eralization is in the area of major medical coverage,
as shown in the following tabulation, showing the
proportion of workers in metropolitan areas during
1967-68 covered by noncontributory benefit plans:
P la n t
workers

Office workers

Benefit
1967-68 1967-68 1968-64 Percent increase
period period period since 1963-64

Life insurance..........................
Accidental death.....................
Weekly accident and sickness.
Hospital....................................
Surgical....................................
Bade medical...........................
Major medical..........................

66
42
47
65
64
55
30

58
33
26
50
49
44
39

54
28
21
46
44
36
28

7
18
24
9
11
22
39

Nevertheless, since 1963, there has been a notice­
able increase in the proportion of office workers
covered by plans paid for entirely by their
employers.6

33

HEALTH AND INSURANCE PLANS

In 1963 and again in 1969, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics compiled a digest of health and insurance
plans covering salaried employees of major com­
panies.6 These plans, selected to illustrate only
those of large manufacturing and nonmanufactur­
ing firms, are not necessarily typical plans, nor
are they a representative selection. Improvements
in the plans contained in the b l s digest frequently
occur earlier than in other plans, and innovations
are often made in them which, with appropriate
modifications, are later adopted by others, and
thus are pattern-setting. The following dis­
cussion, limited to these plans, examines changes
made between 1963 and 1969.

optional life insurance is usually discontinued,
basic life insurance is reduced, and health benefits
are modified so as to supplement rather than
duplicate Medicare. Since 1963, only three com­
panies, which previously required the retirees to
pay the full cost of their health benefits, discon­
tinued health benefits for retirees. Of course, sal­
aried employees of these companies who retire at
age 65 are eligible for Medicare protection, as are
most employees age 65 and over in private
industry.8

Prevalence of benefits

F

While all plans provided for basic life insurance
in 1963 and 1969, almost twice as many provided
optional life insurance as in 1963 and almost 3
times as many paid special benefits to relatives of
deceased employees. Long-term disability benefits
were provided by almost half the companies
studied— a fivefold increase since 1963 when only
approximately 1 in 10 provided such benefits.7
Since 1963, there has been a slight decline in
the proportion of plans that offer basic hospital
and surgical-medical benefits to their active em­
ployees and their dependents, but in 1969, as in
1963, those not offering basic benefits offered
comprehensive major medical plans, which usually
provided broader protection than most basic ben­
efit plans. Between 1963 and 1969, three of the
plans substituted comprehensive major medical
benefits for basic hospital-surgical-medical bene­
fits. Major medical benefits now are offered by
nine-tenths of the plans studied. In 1963, slightly
more than four-fifths of them had this benefit.
Psychiatric care and treatment in facilities other
than hospitals are now specifically offered in three
plans. Previously, no plan had a benefit solely for
this type of care. However, the basic hospital ben­
efits of most plans provided coverage for hospital
confinement for short periods due to mental and
nervous disorders, and the major medical benefit,
when available, covered a limited amount of outof-hospital psychiatric treatment both in 1963 and
1969.
In both years, 4 out of 5 of the companies con­
tinued life insurance coverage for their employees
after retirement and 2 out of 3 continued health
benefit coverage. Upon retirement at age 65,

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

Plans covering active employees
In early 1969 about 1 out of 6 of the
companies paid the full cost of all benefits, except
optional (added) life insurance. Basic life insur­
ance was provided without charge to employees
of more than 2 out of 5 of the companies studied;
in 1963, more than half the plans required em­
ployee contributions. Optional life insurance was
generally offered on a contributory basis but only
two of the plans required employees to pay the
full cost of their added insurance.
Long-term disability benefits, generally not pro­
vided in 1963, were fully paid for by about 30
percent of the firms that offered them. About 30
percent of the other companies with this benefit
required employees to pay the full cost of it. In
the remaining cases, company and employees
shared the cost.
Roughly half of the companies studied paid
the full cost of all health benefits covering their
salaried employees. Five of these, however, re­
quired their employees to contribute toward or
pay the full cost of their dependents’ coverage. In
addition, seven companies paid the basic health
program’s full cost but required their employees
to contribute toward major medical coverage. Six
years earlier, more than two-thirds of the plans
required employees to contribute toward their
own basic benefits.
The striking change in the financing of health
and insurance benefits for salaried workers during
the past 6 years became apparent only when the
same package of benefits available in 1963 was
compared with those available in 1969. By early
1969 one-third of the companies paid the full cost
of benefits available to salaried employees and
their dependents, compared with one-seventh in
1963.
in a n c in g

.

34
L i f e i n s u r a n c e . Since 1963 almost half of the
companies made one major change or more in
the life insurance benefit offered salaried em­
ployees. The most typical change being a revision
of the benefit schedule or formula to provide
almost everyone with greater protection. In a
few cases, however, only those workers at the
lower or higher salary levels profited by the
revisions. Different levels of coverage were elimi­
nated between 1963 and 1969 in those few cases
where greater life insurance coverage had been
provided men than women. At least for insurance
purposes, all of the companies treated men and
women employees alike.
The level of life insurance protection for
salaried employees is generally geared to salary
levels. In early 1969, basic and optional coverage
provided by most companies ranged from an
amount approximately equal to annual salary to 4
times salary. Six years earlier, maximum coverage
provided by several companies was much less than
annual salary and only one company had in­
surance limits which exceeded 3 times salary. A
few plans adopted changes between 1963 and 1969
that adversely affected some future partici­
pants—generally those to be hired into entrylevel jobs—while improving the plan for all
others. This type of revision does not adversely
affect the benefits of current plan participants,
but does occasionally result in lower benefits
being offered to future participants at certain
entrance-level salaries than prevailed under the
superseded plan. One of the ways that this
can occur is illustrated by changes in the Douglas
Aircraft Co., Inc. plan. In 1969, the Douglas
plan provided basic coverage equal to annual
salary plus optional coverage in the same amount;
6 years earlier, the plan had offered $9,000
basic coverage to all employees plus optional
coverage based on an earnings schedule. As a
result basic coverage for employees currently
hired at $5,000 and $10,000 is $5,000 a year less
than it was in 1963. Those workers previously
employed at these salary levels continued to
receive the insurance protection they had pre­
viously enjoyed. However, because basic coverage
under this plan is now based on annual salary,
new employees earning over $9,000 yearly get
more noncontributory insurance coverage than
they would have received in 1963.
Some modifications made by companies in the
life insurance benefit increased the basic coverage
amount provided by the company on a non­


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

contributory basis without affecting total coverage.
This was accomplished in one of the plans by
eliminating the contributory optional insurance
provided in 1963 and increasing the free basic
insurance by a corresponding amount.
n c o m e
p r o t e c t io n
b e n e f it s .
Income protec­
tion was usually provided during temporary dis­
ability periods either by an insured weekly accident
and sickness benefit, the company’s self-insured
paid sick leave plan, or both. The “building block”
approach used when both these benefits are pro­
vided guarantees employees, with few exceptions,
full pay for a specified period and part pay for an
additional period.9 A significant number of com­
panies also provided nonmanagerial employees
income protection benefits during long-term
disabilities.

I

c c id e n t
a n d
s ic k n e s s
b e n e f it s .
For most
employees the accident and sickness benefits
offered by the companies were considerably higher
than those available 6 years ago. Nevertheless,
higher-paid employees frequently were eligible for
a smaller fraction of their salary than lower-paid
employees. For example, with few exceptions, the
size of the benefit in early 1969 for the $5,000-ayear man ranged between 50 percent of weekly
salary and 75 percent, the median plan paying
between 60 and 65 percent. B y contrast, the
size of the benefit for the $10,000-a-year man
ranged from 25 percent to 75 percent with the
median plan paying between 40 and 45 percent of
weekly salary. The amount of the benefit and the
ratio of benefit to average salary rose substantially
between 1963 and 1969. For example, the $5,000a-year employee’s benefit in 1969 averaged $59
(62 percent of his weekly salary) as compared with
$55 (57 percent of salary) in 1963.
Between 1963 and 1969, only a few plans
extended the duration of accident and sickness
benefit periods. Three plans made changes with
two of them doubling the period to 52 weeks
(none had a longer period) from 26 weeks and
the other, to 26 weeks from 13 weeks. One out
of 5 companies with accident and sickness benefits
provided them for 52 weeks in 1969 and 7 out of
10 for 26 weeks. In 1963 about one-eighth of the
plans with accident and sickness benefits made
payments for 52 weeks and two-thirds for 26
weeks.

A

L

o n g

-t

e r m

d is a b il it y

.

These benefits are usually

35

HEALTH AND INSURANCE PLANS

designed to assure totally disabled employees
an income until age 65 when normal retirement
benefits under private pensions typically become
available.10 Because age and long service are
rarely considered in determining the employee’s
eligibility, these plans are of special importance
to young and new employees, who could not
qualify for regular disability retirement benefits
under their company’s retirement plan, and to
employees with short service who are entitled
only to small inadequate disability retirement
benefits. Following the qualification standards
developed under Social Security, the plans
required employees to be totally disabled for
6 months to become eligible for benefits. While
waiting, they usually collect some weekly accident
and sickness benefits, sick leave pay, or both.11
Under long-term disability plans, all eligible
employees typically are guaranteed a specified
monthly income. The benefit paid never equaled
full pay, but together with other benefits generally
provided at least half pay. The actual amount
paid by the plan, however, usually depended on
the employee’s Workmen’s Compensation, Social
Security, and private retirement plan benefits.
Most of the companies explicitly reduced monthly
benefit payments by these other payments. One,
however, deducted only half of the employee’s
Social Security benefit. Of course the few com­
panies paying benefits without a Social Security
reduction probably considered Social Security
payments in establishing the benefit formula. This
type of consideration seemed particularly likely
in the case of one plan that established a monthly
payment equal to 25 percent of monthly salary
plus 35 percent of salary in excess of $550 monthly
(in 1966 and 1967, earnings above this amount
were not subject to Social Security taxes).
Most plans provided payment until the em­
ployee’s disability ended or until he reached age
65, whichever occurs first. However, under one
plan, the employee’s length of service determined
the duration of benefit payments. Those with
less than 5 years of service received payments
for 5 years; those with 5 but less than 15 years
received benefits for a period equal to their length
of service, and those with at least 15 years of
service, received them until normal retirement.
The monthly payment under long-term dis­
ability plans (as shown in table 1) was calculated
with four exceptions, by using a ‘‘percentage of
salary” formula, frequently with an upper limit

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

on the monthly benefit. The excepted plans either
graded the percentage used in the computation
according to salary and service, paid a larger
proportion of an employee’s salary during the
first part of his disability than later on, used a
combination flat amount and percentage-of-salary
formula, or paid a flat amount based on an earnings
schedule.
o s p it a l
b e n e f i t s . Basic hospital benefits are
not quite as common in the plans in 1969 as they
were in 1963. Two plans that dropped this benefit,
as well as one that never had it, helped defray
hospital expenses by providing comprehensive
major medical benefits. Many of the remaining
plans provide hospital benefits that differ in one
respect or more from those in effect in 1963. The
principal changes involved lengthening the dura­
tion of benefit payments, switching from cash
benefits to service benefits, and increasing cash
allowances for room, board, and ancillary services.
Service hospital benefits, such as those pro­
vided by most Blue Cross plans, have a built-in
cost adjustment feature. Because they cover the
full cost of hospital confinements for specified
periods, the monetary value of service benefits
increases as hospital charges for room, board, and
ancillary services increase and as more services
often requiring expensive new machinery and
personnel—are provided owing to technological
advances in hospital care and treatment. The
value of and protection provided by the plans

H

Table 1. Distribution of plans by long-term disability
benefit formula
Benefit formula for monthly disability payment

All digest plans with long-term disability benefit------------- -------------------Including Social Security and other statutory benefits, and private disa­
bility retirement benefits:
50 percent of salary------- ------------------------- ............................... —
No maximum payment-------------- -------- - — ........................
Maximum payment ($l,000-$3,125 monthly)............................. 60 percent of salary........ .......... ..............- .........................................
No maximum payment------------ ----------------------- - ..................Maximum payment ($2,000 monthly)-----------------------------------66?i percent of salary (maximum, $2,000 monthly).- - - - - - ............. 80 percent of after-tax salary (maximum. $3,000 monthly). ---------25 percent of salary under $550 monthly; 35 percent of salary over
$550__________ _______ - ..................- .........— - .........- ..............
Graduated amount based on salary----------------- — - - - - .................
Graduated percent of salary based on salary and service a-------------$100 plus 50 percent of salary over $400 monthly*.......... ............... -

Number
of plans
23

14
‘ 9
25
3
2

1

1
1
1
1
1
1

1 Under one plan only employees earning $6,600 annually or more, a/.e.®
enefit. One plan provided a minimum benefit of $265 monthly, a n o t h e r ¿ , S ar h
f salary during first 24 months, and another paid employees with at least 15 years of
ervice, an additional 1 percent of salary for each year of service over 15
2 Under one plan only employees with earnings of
nr more 8
jr benefit and under another, only employees earning $15,000 annually or rn°re.
s Only employees with annual earnings of $7,000 or more were e d ib le for benefit
* Applicable to employees with less than 15 years of service, employees with at
1CL a rc nf cen/ire received $100 Dlus 30 percent of salary over $400 monthly.

?400

36
with service benefits increased significantly during
the past 6 years.12 In particular, the protection
provided by the six plans that switched from cash
to service benefits since 1963 was superior to that
provided previously.
Most of the Digest plans provided service-type
benefits with only about 1 out of 5 paying cash
allowances. These plans have substantially higher
room and board allowances than in 1963, the
amounts ranging from $14 to $40 a day compared
with $12 to $18 in 1963, and averaged $28 instead
of about $15. Only one plan paid under $20 a day
but 5 paid at least $30. As a result, since 1963 the
87-percent increase in the average room and
board allowance of the plans with cash hospital
benefits surpassed the 66 percent increase in
semiprivate room and board charges reported in
the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index.
Not only have the major companies covered a
larger proportion of the hospital charge because
of a switch to service benefits for room and board
or payment of higher room and board allowances,
but about half the companies also increased the
maximum number of days for which full benefits
were payable. By early 1969, over three-fifths of
the plans provided full benefits for 120 days or
more of hospital confinement compared with
one-half in 1963 and the number of plans pro­
viding full coverage for at least 365 days of
hospitalization increased from 8 to 11.
Additional improvements were made by plans
that shifted from cash to service benefits for
room and board. They changed their ancillary
service benefit from a cash allowance to the full
cost of specified services. In addition, plans that
increased the duration of room and board benefits
also made identical increases in the period during
which the ancillary services were payable. The
maximum allowances of plans which paid the
full cost of such services up to a specified amount,
ranged from $300 to $450 with two exceptions.
One of the excepted plans paid $150 and the
other, $800. In 1963 only two plans with cash
benefits had an ancillary allowance of $300 or more.
u r g i c a l b e n e f i t s . Over half of the companies
revised their plans’ surgical benefits by raising
the maximum payable for surgical procedures.
In addition, six companies improved their surgical
benefit by switching from fee-for-service benefits
to full payment of reasonable and customary
charges. Under the scheduled benefit plans, al­

S


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

lowances for all procedures were not affected to
the same extent, the greatest increase generally
occurring in those for the most expensive opera­
tions.
a s ic
m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s . Over half of the com­
panies with basic medical benefits (benefits for
nonsurgical treatment by a physician) revised
these benefits during the past 6 years. In addition
to paying the entire surgeon’s fee, four plans also
paid a reasonable and customary fee to physi­
cians for in-hospital nonsurgical treatment in­
stead of providing a cash allowance as in 1963.
These plans, like most of those with basic medical
benefits, did not cover medical treatment in the
home or doctor’s office. The remaining ones
slightly raised the allowance for in-hospital (and
if covered, out-of-hospital) visits. As a result,
11 plans (up from 4 in 1963) paid at least $5 for
an in-hospital treatment.13

B

M a j o r m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s . In early 1969, threefourths of the 44 plans that had a major medical
benefit, specified a uniform amount of medical
expenses (the deductible) that employees, regard­
less of their earnings, had to pay before the major
medical benefit became operative. In 1963, twothirds specified a uniform deductible. This differ­
ence from 1969 levels reflected a decrease in the
proportion of plans with a deductible graded by
employee’s annual earnings. However, because
all plans dropping a deductible tied to earnings
retained a minimum deductible of $100, the change
to the uniform amount did not aid lower paid
employees. In fact, only two companies reduced
the deductible for everyone—one reducing the
amount from $100 to $75, and the other, from 4 to
3 percent of earnings. Most plans allowed em­
ployees to meet the deductible by accumulat­
ing all medical expenses for an entire calendar
year. This and other types of deductible accumu­
lation periods are summarized in table 2.
Plans modified the coinsurance provision by
raising the proportion of charges the plan paid
from 75 percent to 80 percent thereby lowering
the proportion the employee had to pay from 25
to 20 percent of costs. These modifications and
the addition of three plans that did not have a
major medical benefit in 1963 raised the propor­
tion of plans with an 80/20 percent coinsurance
provision to three-fourths from three-fifths.
The most frequent and often the most significant

37

HEALTH AND INSURANCE PLANS

Table 2. Major medical benefits: deductible accumula*
tion period, early 1969
Accumulation period

Number of plans

All Digest plans with major medical benefits.................. ___ .........

44

Per disability
.................- .............................. ...........
.................. _ - ______________ . . 2 months
3 months
______ ___ ________________________
4 months
.....................................................
6 months
.................... .............................. ..........
________ _____________ ___________
12 months
............. ..... ......................
All disabilities
6 months
. . __________________
____--............. ___ . _ ________ ___________
12 months
1 calendar year1 __
.........._. _ ___..............................
2 years2. . ! _______ _________ . ________ _________

11
1
3
1
4

2
33
3
6
23
1

1 With “ carry-back” to last 3 months of preceding year.
2 Applicable to other than hospital and surgical expenses

change in major medical benefits made since 1963
involved the maximum benefit payment. Several
plans removed the restriction on plan payments
for a single disability, thus providing greater
protection for a catastrophic illness. However,
they placed a limit ranging from $20,000 to
$100,000 on total plan payments to any employee
during the employee’s lifetime. These lifetime
limits were always higher than the maximums
“per disability” previously specified. Those plans
that retained the limitation on payments for each
disability at least doubled the amount the plan
paid before coverage ceased.
In 1969 as well as in 1963 the other plans with
revised maximum payments had no limit other
than a lifetime one. The limit in early 1969 was
usually $20,000—double the $10,000 maximum
in 1963. Maximum payments specified in the 44
plans with major medical benefits in early 1969
and the period to which they apply are shown in
table 3.

Plans covering retirees

of the cost, only three required them to contribute
toward the cost of both benefits; the remaining
companies divided almost evenly between those
that required them to contribute only for their
life insurance and those that required them to
contribute only for their health benefits.
Changes in the financing of health and insurance
benefits for retirees during the past 6 years, like
those for active employees, were most striking
when compared with the package of benefits
available in 1963. In 1969, 60 percent of the
companies paid the full cost of benefits provided
compared with only 35 percent in 1963. This large
increase was probably due in part to Medicare’s
making it possible for five companies with retiree
health benefits in 1963 to either assume the full
cost of these benefits or to discontinue retireefinanced health benefits.14
L i f e I n s u r a n c e . The amount of life insurance
coverage extended to retirees has increased over
the years, primarily because a retiree’s life in­
surance coverage is related to his coverage prior
to retirement, and, as pointed out previously,
life insurance coverage for active workers has in­
creased since 1963. However, the amount extended
was still usually much less than that available
prior to retirement. The practice of many com­
panies was, as in the past, to gradually reduce

Table 3. Major medical benefits: maximum payments and
basis of payments, early 1969
Numb sr of plans
Basis of payment and maximum amount
Total

With
disability
lim it

With benefit period
lim it

All digest plans with major medical
44

About two-thirds of all the companies continued
to provide health benefits for retirees, threequarters provided life insurance coverage, and
about one-half of them continued to provide
both life insurance and health benefits to retirees.
In addition, retirees of some companies carried
paid-up life insurance policies (fully paid for during
their active working years) into retirement and
almost all age 65 and over were eligible for
Medicare.
All retiree benefits were paid for by about
half of the companies providing these benefits.
Almost three-fifths of those with health benefits
for retirees paid the full cost, and three-fourths
of those extending life insurance paid for it. Of the
14 companies that provided both life insurance and
health benefits and required retirees to pay some


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

Plans with limits applying only to each
disability or benefit period, to ta l...
$5 000
10^000__________ ____ ______
15 000
20000
25 000
100 000

13
1
7
1
2
1
1

10
1
5
1
2
1
1
Limit
Limit
for each
for each
No other
benefit
disability
limit
period
(one-half
(one-half
lifetime
maximum) lifetime
maximum)

Plans with lifetime limits, total_____
$5 000
10,000
15,000_____________________
20 000
25 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
100 000

31
1
9
4
11
1
1
1
1
1

1

8

1

5
11
2

1
1 Limit each benefit period is two-third lifetime maximum.

22
1
4
2
9
1
1
1
1
1
1

38
employees’ retirement coverage over a period of
about 5 years to from 25 to 50 percent of that
available before the initial reduction. As in the
past, a few companies reduced preretirement
coverage to a nominal amount, such as $1,000,
immediately after retirement.
Employees of some companies that did do not
continue life insurance coverage after retirement
had a combination of group-term and paid-up
insurance coverage for active employees. Under
this arrangement, the employee’s contributions
bought units of paid-up insurance, which accumu­
lated over the years, and the employers contribu­
tions bought term insurance equal to the dif­
ference between the amount of paid-up insurance
purchased by the employee and the total amount
of insurance specified in the plan. Because the
paid-up portion of the employee’s total insurance
coverage was available to him when his employ­
ment terminated, long-service employees of these
companies, when they retire, had most or all of
the coverage possessed immediately prior to
retirement.
e a l t h B e n e f i t s . Like other employees in pri­
vate industry who are over 65 years old, salaried
employees who retired at that age were generally
eligible for the hospital and medical benefits of
Medicare.15 Customarily, companies let their em­
ployees, who are eligible for Medicare’s Part B
(medical) insurance be responsible for paying the
premium for their coverage and that of their de­
pendents.16 However, nine companies paid some
of the cost and three of them paid the full premium
for the retiree and his spouse.
Two companies purchased Part B coverage for
both their eligible active and retired employees
and their eligible dependents by paying the
entire monthly premium of $4 for each individual.
One company paid the original premium of $3 for
all eligible groups except dependents of active
employees (the employee paid the balance of his
premium and all of the premium for his de­
pendents).17 Another company paid the full
premium only for retirees; the latter had to pay
it for their dependents. The following tabulation
shows the number of companies paying the

H


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Medicare premium in full or in part for each of the
eligible groups:
Eligible group {66 years and over)

Active employee.............................................
Dependents of active employees.............
Ketired employees...............
Dependents of retired employees............

F u ll Medicare P a rt of Medicare
prem ium
prem ium
6
6
4
3

1

......................
2
2

All companies providing benefits for retirees in
1963 (except the three that discontinued coverage
since then and those adding this coverage,
modified their benefits during the past few years
to avoid duplication of Medicare benefits. They
did this by using one of the following three methods
developed by the insurance industry: Under one
method, the "benefit carveout,” Medicare benefits
are deducted from the same or similar benefits
provided workers under age 65; under another,
the "building block” method, payment is made
for specific services or expenses not covered by
Medicare; and under the third, the "major
medical” method, partial payment (commonly 80
percent) is made for practically all medical
expenses not covered by Medicare in excess of a
certain amount.
Over two-fifths of the 43 companies with
retiree health benefits used the "benefit carveout”
approach. However, the benefits extended fre­
quently differed from those available prior to
retirement. For example, basic hospital and
medical benefits might be available for a shorter
period, the major medical deductible might be
larger, or the maximum payment under the
major medical benefit might be smaller.
Roughly equal proportions of the remaining
companies utilized the "major medical” and
"building block” methods. Companies using the
former method extended to retired employees the
major medical benefits available to active employ­
ees under age 65 or a cut-down version of it (a
higher deductible, lower maximum payment, or
both). Those using the last method either paid
some or all of the Medicare deductibles and
certain charges that the retiree otherwise had to
pay, provided benefits for certain major expenses
(private duty nursing care and out-of-hospital
drugs) that are not covered by Medicare, or
both.18
n

39

HEALTH AND INSURANCE PLANS

-FOOTNOTES
1 In 1967 -68 for example, about 4 out of 5 of the office
workers in metropolitan areas as compared with 1 out of
2 of the plant workers had a major medical benefit, and
7 out of 10 of the former group and 3 out of 10 of the
latter group had a paid sick leave plan. Separate data on
the incidence of optional life insurance and long-term
disability benefits for the various groupings of employees
are not available. However, all indications are that these
benefits are much more prevalent for salaried employees
than for production workers. W ages and Related Benefits,
P a rt I I : M etropolitan A reas, U n ited States and Regional
Sum m aries, 1 9 6 7 -6 8 (BLS Bulletin 1575-87).

2 This benefit which provides certain survivors a per­
centage of the deceased employee’s salary for at least 12
months, is also payable in addition to the survivors benefits
of a pension plan.
3 See Donald M. Landay, “Trends in Negotiated Health
Plans: Broader Coverage, Higher Quality Care,” M onthly
Labor Review, May 1969, pp. 3-10, and J. F. Follman,
Jr., “Health Insurance Plan Design Trends-—Coverage
and Benefits,” P en sion and W elfare N ew s, February 1969,
pp. 13-22.
4 N ew Group H ealth Insurance: I . P olicies Issu ed in
1968; I I . The F ive-Y ear Trend, 1 9 63-1968, Health Insur­
ance Institute, New York, N.Y. This survey is based on
an analysis of the group health insurance policies, providing
health care and income replacement benefits, written by
insurance companies between January 1 and March 31,
1968, and an analysis of benefits provided employee
groups of 25-499, which the Health Insurance Institute
stated represents group health insurance trends.
5 See

b ls

Bulletins 1575-87 and 1385-82

6 D igest of 60 Selected H ealth and In su rance P la n s fo r
S alaried E m ployees, S p rin g 1963 ( b ls Bulletin 1377), and
D igest of 60 H ealth and Insurance P la n s fo r S alaried
E m ployees, E a rly 1969 (b l s Bulletin 1629). All, except
one plan, were included in both digests. Thirty-six of these
plans are in manufacturing industries and 13 in nonmanu­
facturing industries.
7 This protection was rarely available in 1963. However,
since the exact incidence of this protection in 1963 is
unknown the change in prevalence since then is also
unknown.
8 Medicare, the Federal health plan for individuals age
65 and over, became effective July 1, 1966. Hospital bene­
fits are available without charge to those qualifying for
Social Security old age benefits and the medical benefits
are available to those paying the monthly premiums.
9 Formal paid sick leave plans which are now provided
by about 3 out of 5 of the 50 Digest companies are not


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

discussed in this article. They are summarized in
Bulletin 1629.

bls

10 Long-term disability benefits are income protection
benefits for employees totally disabled for over 6 months.
The monthly payments, usually a high percentage of the
employee’s salary when combined with Social Security
and workmen’s compensation benefits, generally continue
until age 65 (unless he recovers earlier) when he ordinarily
becomes eligible for full regular benefits under his com­
pany’s private pension plan.
11 Both paid sick leave and weekly accident and sickness
benefits have brief waiting period requirements or none
at all. Weekly accident and sickness benefits were payable
for at least 6 months in all but three of the plans.
12 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Con­
sumer Price Index, hospital semiprivate room charges
increased 66 percent in the 5-year period, and operating
room charges and certain diagnostic services rose over
41 and 16 percent, respectively.
13 For plans that paid a higher allowance for treatment
during the first 2 days of hospitalization or a lower allow­
ance after several days of hospitalization, the allowance
referred to is the one payable for treatment on the third
day.
14 Medicare provides more comprehensive hospital,
medical, and other health care benefits than virtually any
private health plan formerly provided for people age 65
and over.
15 To be eligible for Medicare hospital benefits employees
have to be entitled to primary Social Security benefits.
For details on the benefits provided under Medicare, see
Your Medicare Handbook: Health Insurance Under Social
Security (U.S. Social Security Administration, 1968).
For a discussion of Medicare’s effect on private insurance
plans and how private plans have adapted to it see Dorothy
R. Kittner, “Negotiated Health Benefits and Medicare,”
Monthly Labor Review, September 1968, pp. 29-34.
16 Part A (hospital insurance) of Medicare is paid for
under the Social Security program by active employees
under 65 and their employers.
17 Prior to January 1, 1969, the premium for Part B of
Medicare was $3.
18 The hospital deductibles are the first $44 during the
first 60 days of confinement, $11 daily during the 61st
to 90th days, and $20 daily during the 91st to 150th days;
the convalescent home deductible is $5 daily for 80 days;
and the medical and other health care deductible is the
1st $50 of charges (Medicare pays 80 percent of charges
in excess of $50).

Job growth lost steam
after strong surge in first quarter,
and the unemployment rate
inched upward
from a 15-year low
PAUL O. FLAIM AND PAUL M. SCHWAB

E mployment rose substantially in

1969, with
about 2 million additional jobs being created,
The most vigorous job growth, however—as well
as the lowest rate of unemployment—was recorded
in the early months of the year. In the ensuing
months, the demand for labor slackened signifi­
cantly under the impact of the Government’s
anti-inflationary measures, and the jobless rate
moved to somewhat higher levels.
The slower pace of employment growth that
prevailed after the first-quarter surge halted a
sustained decline in the incidence of unemploy­
ment. After reaching a post-Korean war low of
3.3 percent as 1969 began, the jobless rate
returned gradually to the 3.5 to 4.0-percent range
of the previous 2 years. As 1969 drew to a close,
however, the rate dipped again slightly below the
3.5 percent mark.
For the year as a whole the unemployment rate
averaged 3.5 percent, slightly lower than the
annual rate for 1968, which was the lowest since
1953. The number of unemployed persons re­
mained at the 2.8 million level of 1968, despite
a huge increase in the labor force.

Employment growth
The year opened with an exceptionally strong
demand for labor prevailing in nearly all sectors
of the economy. This surge in the demand for
workers, which had begun in the closing months
of 1968, led to a 1.8-million increase in employ­
ment (on a seasonally adjusted basis) between
September 1968 and March 1969. (See chart 1.)
Paul O. Flaim and Paul M. Schwab are economists in
the Division of Employment and Unemployment Analysis,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.

40


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

Employment
and unemployment
developments
in 1969
This pace of employment growth could ob­
viously not be sustained, because additional
workers would be increasingly difficult to locate
under the relatively tight labor market conditions
that prevailed in the first half of 1969, and
because the stepped-up Government efforts to
restrain the economy were bound to have some
dampening effect on the demand for labor. As
the year progressed, the demand for labor did
taper off considerably, as reflected both by the
gradual rise in unemployment and by the much
smaller employment increases which took place
after the first quarter of the year.
The annual employment gain, however, was
still very impressive. At 2.0 million it exceeded
the average annual increases posted during the
1961-68 period of sustained economic expansion,
and raised total employment to 77.9 million.

Who got the new jobs
Because of the very tight labor market situation
that prevailed in early 1969, the additional workers
required by the economy during the year had to be
drawn almost entirely from outside the labor force.
This was unlike the situation in previous years
when a portion of the workers added to the
employment rolls came from the ranks of the
unemployed, which were being gradually whittled
down from the highs of the early 1960’s. With
unemployment reaching a 16-year low in early
1969, it became increasingly difficult to find
qualified workers—especially adult male workers—
among the jobless.
Drawing workers from outside the labor force
means essentially the hiring of large numbers of
women and teenagers, which is exactly what took
place in 1969. Employment of adult women in­
creased by more than 1 million and teenage em-

41

EMPLOYMENT— UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1969

ployment rose by 330,000. By contrast, adult
male employment rose by only 550,000 over the
year, although men make up about three-fifths
of the civilian labor force. (See table 1.)
Although adult women have been making
rapid advances in the job market for many years,
the gain in employment achieved in 1969 was the
biggest since World War II. Women 20 years old
and over now hold slightly more than one-third
of the Nation’s jobs. This is a considerable advance
compared with the situation in the immediate
post-World War II period, when women accounted
for only one-fourth of employment.
Of the 1.1 million additional jobs secured by
women in 1969, about one-third were obtained by
20- to 24-year-olds, for whom the increase in
population and labor force participation has been
particularly rapid in recent years. Women 25 to
54 years old accounted for about one-half (560,000)
of the year’s gain in female employment. But even
women 55 years and over posted a very sizable
increase in employment in 1969 (200,000).
Teenagers (16- to 19-year-olds) accounted for
330,000, or about one-sixth of the employment
increase. Annual job gains by this group have
varied widely during the decade; increasing
dramatically between 1963 and 1966, but falling
off sharply in the next 2 years, reflecting primarily
a leveling off in the growth of the teenage popula­
tion, as well as stepped-up draft calls.
Employment of adult males increased by about
550,000 in 1969, which was about 100,000 less than
the job gain posted by this group in each of the
previous 2 years, but in line with the group’s aver­
age annual gain since 1961. Of the 550,000 adult
men added to the employment rolls, about twofifths were men 20 to 24 years old. Product of the
baby boom of the late 1940’s, these young men are
now coming into the labor force in increased num­
bers, and the influx will gain momentum if the
present reduction of draft calls continues for a
protracted period.

faster rate than total employment in recent years,
passed the 11-million mark in 1969 and now ac­
counts for about 15 percent of all employed
persons. (See table 2.)
It should be emphasized that the rapid increase
in part-time employment does not necessarily de­
note a scarcity of full-time employment opportuni­
ties. In some fields, the increased use of part-time
workers is dictated by changing business patterns.
A typical example is the greater reliance on parttime help made necessary by the suburbanization
of the retail trade industry and the “open-everyevening” policy of most suburban stores. In other
cases, employers must turn to part-time help
simply because they cannot find workers who are
available on a full-time basis, particularly during
periods of peak demand. The great majority of the
11 million persons who usually worked only part
time in 1969 were either not available for or did
not want full-time work. Only about 1 million of
them said that they preferred full-time but had
Chart 1. Employment and unemployment, 1968-69,
seasonally adjusted

M illions of persons

83
Quarterly c iv ilia n labor force
and employment leve ls

C ivilian labor force

Employment

Percent

4.5

Quarterly unemployment rates

4.0

Full-time and part-time workers

3.5

About one-third of the employment increase in
1969 was accounted for by part-time workers.
These are persons who customarily work less than
35 hours a week, either for personal reasons or
because of the nature of the job. The number of
such workers, which has been increasing at a much

3.0


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

2.5
1968

1969

42

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

found only part-time work, or had seen their
workweek reduced below 35 hours because of a
shortage of work.
Of the 10 million workers on voluntary part
time, slightly over one-half (or 5.5 million) were
adult women. The greater availability of part-time
jobs has no doubt contributed significantly to the
sharp increase in labor force participation by wom­
en in recent years. Adult men accounted for about
2 million of the persons usually working part time
in 1969, with slightly more than a quarter 20 to 24
years old and thus likely to be in college. A roughly
similar proportion were 65 years of age' and over
and apparently semiretired. The balance of the
part-time workers (nearly 3 million) were teen­
agers, for whom such employment has almost
doubled since 1963.

and semiskilled workers are relatively easier to
find and train than skilled workers, and thus
their employment is much more responsive to
cyclical movements in the economy. With the
vigorous tempo of economic activity and the
tight labor market of early 1969, many employers
had no practical alternative but to hire and train
unskilled and semiskilled workers in order to
meet production goals.
The increased demand for blue-collar workers
in 1969 was clearly reflected in the unemployment
rate for this group. Primarily on the strength of
particularly low unemployment in the early
months, the annual rate of unemployment for
blue-collar workers edged down to a record low
of 3.9 percent in 1969. However, with the pace
of industrial production slackening in the second
half of the year, the demand for blue-collar
workers tapered off considerably. By the end of
the year, their jobless rate had returned to the
4.0 to 4.5-percent range of the previous 3 years.
Even with the relatively strong showing of
blue-collar employment, the proportion of workers
engaged in white-collar work posted another
increase in 1969. Over the year, white-collar
employment advanced by 1.3 million to 36.8
million, resulting in nearly one-half of the Nation’s
jobs being white-collar.
Consistent with employment trends charac­
terizing the entire post-World War II period, the

Occupational develoDments
Blue-collar employment, which had grown only
moderately in the previous 2 years, posted an
impressive gain in 1969 despite the leveling off
of industrial production that took place in the
second half of the year. The number of workers
in blue-collar occupations rose to 28.2 million,
an increase of 700,000 over 1968.
An interesting development among these work­
ers in 1969 was the sharp increase in the employ­
ment of operatives and laborers. These unskilled

Table 1. Civilian labor force, employment, and unemployment, by age, sex, and color, 1968 and 1969
[Numbers in thousands]
Civilian labor force

Employment

Unemployment

Age-sex-color group
1969

1968

Percent
change,
1968-69

1969

1968

Percent
change,
1968-69

1969

1968

Percent
change,
1968-69

ALL RACES
Total, 16 years and over...................
Men, 20 years and o v e r...............
Men, 20-24 years________
Men, 25 years and over_________
Women, 20 years and over...............
Women, 20-24 years.
Women, 25 years and over........
Both sexes, 16-19 years.

.

80,733

78,737

2.5

77,902

75,920

2.6

2,831

2,817

.5

46,351
5,282
41,068
27,413
4,597
22,815
6,970

45,852
5,070
40,782
26,266
4,235
22,031
6,618

1.1
4.2
.7
4.4
8.5
3.6
5.3

45,388
5,012
40,376
26,397
4,307
22, 090
6,117

44,859
4,812
40, 047
25j 281
3; 950
21,331
5,780

1.2
4.2
.8
4.4
9.0
3.6
5.8

963
270
692
1,015
290
726
853

993
258
735
985
285
700
839

-3 .0
4.7
- 5 .9
3.0
1.8
3.7
1.7

WHITE
Total, 16 years and over_______ ______
Men, 20 years and o v e r............
Women, 20 years and over.. . . .
Both sexes, 16-19 years

71,779

69,977

2.6

69,518

67,751

2.6

2,261

2,226

1.6

41,772
23,839
6,168

41,318
22,821
5, 839

1.1
4.5
5.6

40,978
23,032
5,508

40, 503
22,052
5,195

1.2
4.4
6.0

794
806
660

814
768
644

-2 .5
4.9
2.5

8,954

8,760

2.2

8,384

8,169

2.6

570

590

- 3 .4

4,579
3,574
801

4, 535
3,446
779

1.0
3.7
2.8

4,410
3,365
609

4,356
3,229
585

1.2
4.2
4.1

168
209
193

179
217
195

- 6 .2
- 3 .7

NEGRO AND OTHER RACES
Total, 16 years and over_____ ______
Men, 20 years and over.............
Women, 20 years and over. .
Both sexes, 16-19 years


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

-

1.0

43

EMPLOYMENT— UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1969
Table 2. Full-time or part-time status of employment by age and sex, 1968 and 1969
[Numbers in thousands]

Full-time or part-time status

All employed persons____
Persons usually working full time.
Working on full-time sched­
ules _________________
Temporarily working 1-34
hours_________________
Persons usually working part time.
Voluntarily working 1-34
hours_________________
Involuntarily working 1-34
hours__________ _____ _

1969

1968

1.2

26,397

25, 281

42,721

.9

20,454

42,164

.9

20,053

557
2,139

2.3
7.0

1,863

1968

2.6

45,388

44,859

65, 277

2.0

43,100

64, 225

2.0

42,530

1,093
11,306

1,052
10,644

3.9
6.2

570
2,288

10,343

9,726

6.3

2,002

1968

77,902

75, 920

66,596
65,503

963

Percent
change

918

4.9

286

latest annual increase in white-collar employment
occurred almost exclusively among workers in
the professional, technical, and clerical fields.
Persons in managerial positions registered a
relatively small increase in employment, while
the number of sales workers, which has shown
little growth in recent years, remained practically
unchanged.1
The jobless rate for white-collar workers was
2.1 percent in 1969, practically the same as
the record-low rate of 2.0 percent posted by this
group in 1966 and 1968.
Employment of service workers rose by 150,000
in 1969, with all the growth taking place among
those engaged in other than private household
work (for example, restaurant work, protective
services, etc.). Those engaged in private house­
hold work continued to decline (for the fifth
consecutive year), falling by 110,000 to 1.6 million.
In large part, this trend reflects the emergence
of many new employment opportunities for these
workers. This has particularly been the case for
Negroes, whose occupational upgrading has been
relatively rapid in recent years.

Occupational advances of Negroes
Negroes and members of other minority races
made significant progress on the occupational
ladder in 1969. Although at year’s end they still
held a disproportionately large share of the
Nation’s least desirable jobs, their most rapid
employment gains for the year were achieved in
the higher-skill, higher-status occupations.
As table 3 shows, overall Negro employment
increased by about 3 percent in 1969 (to 8.4
million), but the number of Negroes employed in
white-collar work rose by about 10 percent.
Moreover, this rise saw significant numbers of

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

Percent
change

1969

1969

276

Both sexes, 16-19 years old

Female, 20 years and over

Male, 20 years and over

Total, 16 years and over

Percent
change

1969

1968

Percent
change
5.8

4.4

6,117

5,780

19,601

4.4

3,042

2,956

2.9

19, 219

4.3

2,921

2,842

2.8

401
5,944

382
5,681

5.0
4.6

121
3,074

114
2,823

6.1
8.9

7.5

5,524

5,268

4.9

2,817

2,595

8.6

3.6

420

413

1.7

257

228

12.7

blacks secure jobs in the professional and manage­
rial fields as well as in clerical and sales occupations.
Encouraging upward progress was also made
by Negroes in blue-collar occupations. Nearly
all the additional jobs they secured in the bluecollar sector were in the craftsmen and foremen
group or as operatives. The number of Negroes
employed as nonfarm laborers was practically
unchanged over the year.
The exodus of Negroes from low-skill, low-status
occupations is reflected in a decline in their
employment as service workers (particularly as
private household employees) and as farmworkers.
With more attractive jobs opening up in other
occupations, the number of Negroes employed in
private households or on farms declined by about
a tenth during the year.2

Industry developments
The 1968-69 advance in total employment was
concentrated entirely in the nonagricultural sector
of the economy. Employment in agriculture
continued its long-term decline, falling by about
200,000 to 3.6 million. With the exception of 1968,
when farm employment remained virtually un­
changed, annual declines in agriculture have ex­
ceeded 100,000 in each of the past 10 years. In
the past two decades, the number of farm jobs has
been cut in half and agricultural employment has
now dropped to less than 5 percent of employ­
ment. The main factors contributing to this
fairly steady decline have been the continuing
mechanization of farming processes and the
availability of more attractive jobs in the nonfarm
sector. The exodus from agricultural jobs in recent
years has been particularly rapid for Negroes.
In 1960 they held about 900,000 farm jobs, now
only 400,000.

44

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Total nonagricultural employment—including
self-employed and unpaid family workers, and
wage and salary workers—increased by about
2.2 million in 1969, reaching a record of 74.3
million. Despite a noticeably slower rate of growth
in the second half, the year’s gain in total nonfarm
employment exceeded the increases of the previous
2 years.
Payroll employment in the nonagricultural
sector advanced by 2.3 million in 1969, passing
the 70-million mark for the first time. (Payroll
employment excludes private household, selfemployed, and unpaid family workers, but counts
workers more than once if they hold more than
one job.)3 The 1969 increase in the number of
payroll workers was about one-fifth greater than
the gains the previous 2 years.
The growth in payroll employment was par­
ticularly rapid (seasonally adjusted) in the closing
months of 1968 and the early months of 1969.
During the September 1968-March 1969 period,
monthly gains in payroll employment averaged
about 250,000. These advances, moreover, were
broadly based, being spread across most major
industries. (See table 4.)
Beginning in the second quarter of 1969,
however, the pace of employment growth slack­
ened considerably in most major industries. For

the remainder of the year, it showed only moder­
ate gains, coinciding with other signs of a general
deceleration in the nation’s economy.
As has been the trend for several years, the
bulk of new job opportunities in 1969 were
provided by the service-producing industries—
trade; services; government; transportation and
public utilities; and finance, insurance, and real
estate. It is these industries which provide most
of the new job opportunities for women and
teenagers. Even in these industries, however,
employment growth had begun to slow down as
1970 approached.
Substantial job growth was also exhibited by
the goods-producing industries in 1969, particu­
larly in the first half of the year. During the
second half, however, employment growth in this
sector—which includes manufacturing, construc­
tion, and mining—slackened considerably. The
employment developments for each major in­
dustry are discussed briefly below.
M a n u fa c tu r in g . Employment in the manufac­

turing industries continued to be a key indicator
of the general pace of our economy. Although
manufacturing employment rose by 350,000 in
1969, surpassing the 20-million mark for the
first time, virtually all of the year’s advance took

Table 3. Occupational distribution of employment by color, 1968 and 1969 annual averages
1969

1968

Color and occupation
Level
(in thousands)

Percent
distribution

Level
(in thousands)

Percent
distribution

Percent
change,
1968-69

WHITE
All employed persons............ .

69,518

100.0

67,751

100.0

2.6

34,647
10,074
7,733
12,314
4,527
24,647
9,484
12,368
2,795
7,289
2,935

49.8
14.5
11.1
17.7
6.5
35.5
13.6
17.8
4.0
10.5
4.2

33,560
9,685
7,551
11,836
4,489
24,063
9,359
12, 023
2,681
7,066
3,062

49.5
14.3
11.1
17.5
6.6
35.5
13.8
17.7
4.0
10.4
4.5

3.2
4.0
2.4
4.0
.8
2.4
1.3
2.9
4.3
3.2
-4 . 2

All employed persons_________

8,384

100.0

8,170

100.0

2.6

White-collar workers........ .....................
Professional and technical workers.
Managers, officials, and proprietors.
Clerical workers......................... .
Sales workers...............................
Blue-collar workers..............................
Craftsmen and foremen_________
Operatives........ J............................
Nonfarm laborers_________ ____
Service workers.....................................
Farmworkers..........................................

2,197
695
254
1,083
166
3,591
709
2,004
877
2,239
356

26.2
8.3
3.0
12.9
2.0
42.8
8.5
23.9
10.5
26.7
4.2

1,991
641
225
967
158
3,462
656
1,932
874
2,315
402

24.4
7.8
2.8
11.8
1.9
42.4
8.0
23.6
10.7
28.3
4.9

10.4
8.4
12.9
12.0
5.1
3.7
8.1
3.7
.3
- 3 .3
-1 1 .5

White-collar workers.............................
Professional and tech n ica l w o rk e rs .
M anagers, officials, and pro prie tors
C le rical w o rk e rs .......... ..................... ..

Sales workers.................................
Blue-collar workers...............................
Craftsmen and foremen..................
Operatives......................................
Nonfarm laborers_____________
Service workers...................................
Farmworkers.........................................
NEGRO AND OTHER RACES


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

EMPLOYMENT— UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1969

45

Table 4. Employees on nonagricultural payrolls by industry, 1968 and 1969 (seasonally adjusted)
(Numbers in thousands]
Annual averages

Quarterly averages
1969

Industry
1969 i

1968

1968
4»

3

2

1

4

3

2

1

Total_____________________________________

70,139

67,860

70,648

70,379

70,034

69,465

68,655

68,076

67,611

67,057

Mining_________________________________________
Construction,----------------------------------------------------------Manufacturing__________________________________
Durable goods_______________________________
Nondurable goods____________________________
Transportation and public utilities___________________
Wholesale and retail trade_________________________
Wholesale trade______________________________
Retail trade_________________________________
Finance, insurance, and real estate__________________
Services............. ................— ------- ----------------------------Government------------------ -------------------------------------------Federal_______________ ____ _____________ --State and lo ca l.,......... .......... .............. — ................

628
3,410
20,121
11,881
8,240
4,449
14,644
3,768
10,876
3, 558
11,102
12,227
2,756
9, 471

610
3,267
19,768
11,624
8,144
4,313
14,081
3,618
10,464
3,383
10,592
11,846
2,737
9,109

633
3,441
20,054
11,807
8,247
4,487
14,806
3,820
10,985
3,607
11,266
12,354
2,721
9,633

630
3,421
20,232
11,986
8,246
4,482
14,696
3,779
10,918
3,578
11,112
12,226
2,759
9,467

623
3,412
20,142
11,891
8,251
4,450
14,602
3,756
10,846
3,543
11,058
12,203
2,767
9,436

627
3,359
20,061
11,846
8,214
4,375
14,463
3,714
10,749
3, 502
10,967
12,112
2,762
9,350

606
3,316
19,898
11,698
8,201
4,351
14,276
3,669
10,607
3,450
10,782
11,977
2,714
9,263

620
3,275
19,808
11,649
8,159
4,325
14,148
3,634
10,514
3,396
10,614
11,889
2,748
9,141

615
3,268
19,743
11,605
8,138
4,283
14,019
3,603
10,417
3,357
10,517
11,808
2,740
9,068

598
3,203
19,625
11,544
8,081
4,292
13,871
3,564
10,308
3,326
10,451
11,691
2,722
8,969

i The 1969 annual averages and the data for the 4th quarter of the year are preliminary.

place during the first half. Stepped-up Gov­
ernment efforts to halt the mounting pace of
inflation weakened the demand for factory labor
in the ensuing months, as evidenced by the
trend of unemployment in the manufacturing
industries. The jobless rate in this sector, which
had dropped from 3.3 percent in 1968 to a 16-year
low of 3.1 percent in the first half of 1969, moved
to 3.5 percent in the last 6 months of the year.
The number of production workers employed
in manufacturing rose by 230,000 to 14.7 million
in 1969, approaching once again the 15-million
record posted during World War II. Despite the
latest gain, however, the ratio of production
workers to all manufacturing employees slipped
another notch to 73.2 percent.
Three-fourths of the gain in manufacturing
employment in 1969 was concentrated in the
durable goods industries. This skewed distribu­
tion of factory employment growth, unlike the
1967 and 1968 experiences, resembled the pattern
of 1965-66, when the hard goods industries set
the fastest pace of economic activity.
In 1969, 10 of the 11 durable goods industries
registered employment pickups, whereas only 6
of the 10 soft goods industries recorded advances.
Especially large employment gains were shown by
the electrical equipment (60,000) and fabricated
metal (60,000) industries. Machinery and primary
metals also registered considerable increases over
the year (50,000 and 40,000, respectively). To­
gether, these four industries accounted for slightly
more than half of the 1969 increase in manufactur­
ing employment. Employment strength among

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

these industries resulted largely from the combina­
tion of a continuing boom in capital equipment
and firm demand for dome’stically produced steel.
The only hard goods industry to register an em­
ployment decline over the year was ordnance (a
drop of 10,000). This development was not unex­
pected in view of the cutbacks in defense spending
implemented during the year.
In contrast to the relatively strong performance
among durable goods industries in 1969, employ­
ment among nondurable industries advanced only
moderately (95,000). The bulk of this increase
was accounted for by gains of 20,000 to 25,000
each in the printing, paper, chemicals, and rubber
industries. Smaller job increases were registered in
the food processing and apparel industries.
C onstruction and m in in g . Activity in the con­
struction industry was exceptionally strong in
early 1969, with large employment gains and a
drop in the jobless rate to a 16-year low. As the
year progressed, however, the building industry
showed signs of increasing weakness, with housing
activity, in particular, softening under the impact
of tightening credit and high interest rates. Con­
struction employment, consequently, showed no
growth during the second half of 1969. Neverthe­
less, the 1968-69 employment gain in this industry
remained impressive, with 140,000 new workers
added to payrolls.
After 11 years of continuous declines in employ­
ment, the number of mining employees rose by
20,000 in 1969 to 630,000 workers. Largely
responsible for this relatively strong showing were

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

46

Table 5. Unemployment rates by industry, 1968 and 1969 (seasonally adjusted)
Quarterly averages

Annual averages
Industry

1968

1969
1969

1968
4

3

2

1

4

3

2

1

3.7
6.9
3.3
2.9
3.8
2.0
4.4
3.5

3.5
5.6
3.2
3.1
3.4
2.3
4.1
3.3

3.3
5.7
3.1
2.6
3.7
2.0
3.8
3.0

3.4
6.0
3.1
3.0
3.4
2.0
4.0
3.2

3.6
6.5
3.3
3.0
3.7
2.4
4.0
3.5

3.6
6.7
3.2
2.9
3.8
1.7
4.0
3.5

3.7
7.8
3.4
3.1
3.9
1.9
4.1
3.3

1.9
7 .9

1.7
5.4

1.7
5.2

1.8
5.3

1.9
7 .9

1.8
6.6

1. 9
5. a

Private wage and salary workers 1
..........................
Construction........................ .......... ..............................
Manufacturing....... ......................................................
Durable goods
...........................
Nondurable goods
______ ____
Transportation and public utilities ............................
Wholesale and retaii trade
__
*
_____
__
Finance and service industries. ........
Government wage and salary workers................................

3.5
6.0
3.3
3.0
3.7
2.2
4.1
3.2
1.9

3.6
6.9
3.3
3.0
3.7
2.0
4.0
3.4
1.8

3.7
6.2
3.7
3.6
3.9
2.5
4.0
3.0
2.2

A g r ic u lt u r a l w a g e a n d s a la r y w o r k e r s . ..................................

6.0

6 .3

6.0

i Inclu de s m in ing , not shown separately.

job pickups in the oil and gas extraction segment
of the industry, and reduced strike activity in
coal and metal mining.
T r a d e . Throughout most of 1969, employment

gains in trade were off substantially from the
sharp increases recorded during the September
1968-March 1969 period. Nonetheless, employ­
ment in this industry, which is a large user of
part-time help, registered a substantial annual
increase of 560,000 workers.
A significant portion of the 1968-69 gain in trade
employment was accounted for by the wholesale
sector, the number of wholesale trade employees
increasing by 150,000. However, virtually all of
this advance occurred during the first half of the
year.
S er v ic es . Employment in services increased at a

particularly rapid rate during the first quarter.
Between March and August, however, employ­
ment remained relatively unchanged. One pos­
sible explanation for the absence of the usual
March-August gains in services might have been
the difficulty of obtaining seasonal workers in
low-paying industries. Despite the mid-year lull,
employment in services registered a year-to-year
gain exceeding 500,000 workers. About two-fifths
of this increase occurred in private medical and
other health services, a field where employment
has doubled over the past decade.
G overnm ent . Employment in the government
sector rose by 380,000 in 1969 to 12.2 million


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

workers. This was well below employment pickups
recorded in this sector in recent years. State and
local government employment continued to ex­
pand, but at a reduced rate as the year progressed.
Federal government employment, meanwhile,
was virtually unchanged over the year, due
largely to a stringent budget and severe staffing
limitations.
T ransportation and fin a n c e . Elsewhere in the

service-producing sector, transportation and pub­
lic utilities showed impressive job strength over
the year, with an employment rise of 140,000.
Employment in finance, insurance, and real
estate, where growth has been accelerating since
1965, increased by 180,000, to 3.6 million workers.

Hours of work and earnings
Despite the unusually high rate of economic
activity which prevailed early in the year, the
average weekly hours of American rank and file
workers declined another notch in 1969. Hourly
earnings continued to increase during the year,
but the gains were canceled out by the steady
rise in prices.
W orkw eek . For all production and other nonsupervisory workers on private payrolls, the
average workweek in 1969 slipped 0.1 hour to
37.7 hours, representing the fourth consecutive
year in which the workweek has declined. Among
major industries, however, the year-to-year picture
was mixed, with workweek declines in the trade
and manufacturing industries offsetting increases
in mining and construction. (See chart 2.)

EMPLOYMENT— UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1969

47

In manufacturing, the average workweek inched
slightly downwards to 40.6 hours. This was only
the second year since 1960 in which the Weekly
hours of factory production workers have dropped.
The only other decline took place in 1967, when
a period of mild economic readjustment occurred
after the rapid expansion in the preceding 2
years. Overtime for production workers in manu­
facturing averaged 3.6 hours a week in both 1968
and 1969. In the closing months of 1969, however,
overtime hours were running somewhat below
this average.
The workweek for employees of the trade
industry continued its long-term decline in 1969,
dropping another 0.4 hour to 35.6 hours. The
shortening workweek in this industry, however,
is clearly not a reflection of declining business.
It is instead a reflection of the increased use of
part-time help made necessary by the great
expansion of retail stores in the growing suburbs
of our cities. Since suburban stores must maintain
late closing hours in order to serve their clientele,
they can be staffed efficiently only through the

Chart 2. Average weekly hours of production workers on
private nonagricultural payrolls, 1968-69, monthly
averages

Average weekly
hours (seasonally
adjusted)

39.0

Mining

Finance, insurance,
and real estate
—— •" V

Trade

1968


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

1969

hiring of many part-time workers.
The average workweek increased for workers in
mining and construction by 0.4 and 0.6 hours,
respectively. Even in these two industries, how­
ever, weekly hours tended to be higher during the
first part of the year.
E a r n in g s . Under the tight labor market condi­

tions which prevailed during most of 1969, particu­
larly in the first half, workers exerted increased
pressure on employers to obtain higher wages and
employers, in turn, often had to offer higher wages
in order to maintain or increase their work force.
This being the setting, the wage level in 1969
increased at an exceptionally fast pace set during
the previous year, rising to $3.04 per hour—6.7
percent above 1968.
On a year-to-year basis, the average gross weekly
earnings for the Nation’s rank and file workers rose
about $6.90 (or 6.4 percent) to $114.60. Since the
average workweek dipped slightly over the year,
the increase in weekly earnings was attributable
entirely to the higher hourly wage level.
Because of rapid increases in the price level,
however, average gross earnings for all rank and
file workers rose by only 1 percent in terms of
constant (1957-59) dollars. Although the rate of
consumer price increases appeared to taper off
toward the close of 1969, the total increase repre­
sented the fastest annual rise in consumer prices
since 1951, virtually erasing all wage gains achieved
by workers.
Take-home pay (gross weekly earnings less
Federal income and social security taxes) for the
average worker with three dependents rose nearly 5
percent in 1969. Because of continued price
pressures, however, real take-home pay remained
virtually unchanged for this hypothetical bread­
winner. His purchasing power, in fact, has not
increased since 1965, despite the steady rise of
his wage rates.
Among major industries, construction registered
the sharpest rise in gross weekly earnings (10.1
percent), reflecting both a higher wage rate and a
longer workweek. A similar combination of factors
brought higher weekly earnings in mining and in
finance, insurance and real estate. Larger average
weekly earnings for manufacturing and trade
nonsupervisory workers, meanwhile, stemmed
entirely from increases in hourly earnings.

48

Unemployment trends
As a result of the surge in demand for labor
which began in the fall of 1968, the Nation
entered 1969 with the unemployment rate (sea­
sonally adjusted) at a 15-year low of 3.3 percent.
At this level, the jobless rate was not only much
lower than it had been during the early 1960’s,
when it hovered around 6 percent; it was sub­
stantially below the 3.5 to 4.0 percent range
within which it had fluctuated during most of
1967 and 1968, years which have generally been
viewed as representing relatively full employment.
Unfortunately, perhaps inevitably, the unusu­
ally high rate of economic activity, which sparked
the strong demand for labor, also added fuel to
the fires of inflation. As the unemployment rate
was dropping to a record low for the decade, the
rate of price increases began to rise, forcing
Government to take fiscal and monetary measures
that ultimately moderated the demand for labor
and returned the unemployment rate to the 3.5
to 4.0 percent range.
While on an annual basis unemployment in
1969 showed little change from 1968, the quarterly
averages show clearly how the jobless rate dropped
as the economy surged ahead and how it returned
to previous levels as the Government anti-infla­
tionary restraints began to slow the pace of
economic growth. As chart 1 shows, the seasonally
adjusted unemployment rate had dropped from
3.7 percent in the first quarter of 1968 to a postKorean War low of 3.3 percent in the first quarter
of 1969. It then reversed the trend, rising gradually
during the next two quarters and averaging about
3.7 percent for the second half of the year, despite
a small decline in joblessness among marginal
workers toward the close of the year.
The general upward turn in unemployment did
not spread immediately to all industries. Within
manufacturing, for example, this was the case
only for the durable goods industries. For workers
in nondurable goods production, the unemploy­
ment rate continued to decline until mid-year,
before the trend reversed. By the fourth quarter,
however, all major industries had somewhat higher
unemployment than at the beginning of the year.
Although unemployment moved to generally
higher levels in the second half of 1969, the


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

jobless rate had still not exceeded the 4.0-percent
level, once regarded as an interim index of full
employment. While the number of unemployed
also rose significantly, after having dipped to
2.7 million (on a seasonally adjusted basis) early
in the year, the average unemployment level for
1969 (2.8 million) was virtually unchanged from
the 1968 average.
Under present economic conditions, a further
slowing of the rate of economic growth should not
lead to as sharp increases in unemployment as
those experienced during previous slowdowns.
First, a much larger proportion of total employ­
ment is now in white-collar and service occupa­
tions, fields that are not very sensitive to changes
in the general economy. Another factor that should
militate against, or at least defer, any sharp
increases in unemployment is the still relatively
high levels of overtime work which prevail in
many industries. Gradual elimination of overtime
work in industries having to adjust production to
lower levels of consumer demand should act as a
buffer against layoffs of workers.
Another element, however, will add some un­
certainty to the manpower and unemployment
situation in the coming months. A stepped-up
disengagement of American troops from Viet Nam
and their subsequent demobilization might sub­
stantially swell the ranks of the jobseekers. How
promptly these men could be absorbed by the job
market would depend largely on the general
health of the economy and on the impact of
specific programs designed to assist their readjust­
ment to civilian employment.

Jobless trends for major groups
Paralleling the Nation’s overall unemployment
rate, the rates for most major groups in the labor
force also moved from relatively low levels at the
beginning of 1969 to generally higher levels by the
end of the year. On an annual basis, however, even
these rates showed little change from 1968. (See
table 6.)
A dult m e n . Unemployment rates for adult men,
who make up the main body of full-time workers,
continued at relatively low levels in 1969. The
incidence of joblessness was particularly low
among men 25 years of age and over. Although the

49

EMPLOYMENT— UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1969

unemployment rate for this group of experienced
workers edged up slightly in the second half, as an
annual average it remained below 2 percent for the
second consecutive year. The strong demand for
experienced workers was also reflected in the low
jobless rate for married men, the most important
group of breadwinners.
For men 20 to 24 years old, the unemployment
rate fluctuated widely during 1969. The annual
jobless rate for these young men, who are now
entering the labor force in swelling numbers,
remained at the 5.1 percent level of 1968, which
was up from 4.6 percent in 1967. The extent of
unemployment among them in the near future
will depend not only on the availability of new
jobs, but also on the rate at which they will be
absorbed into and discharged from the Armed
Forces.
A dult w o m en . The unemployment rate for
women inched up slightly during the year, after
attaining a relatively low level in the first quarter.
The annual rate however, was practically un­
changed from 1968. The only significant 1969
improvement was registered by women 20 to 24
years of age—a group that has experienced the
sharpest rise in labor force participation. Their
jobless rate declined from 6.7 percent in 1968 to
6.3 in 1969. The rate for women age 25 years and
over, on the other hand, remained at the 3.2 level
of 1968.
T ee n a g e r s . Youths 16 to 19 years old continued

to experience severe difficulties in securing em­
ployment in 1969, and their jobless rate remained
substantially above 10 percent for the 16th con­
secutive year. While the rates for most adult
worker groups attained very low levels in the first
part of the year, the rate for teenagers did not de­
cline much, hovering stubbornly around the 12percent mark all year. The annual teenage rate
was only slightly lower than in 1968 and thus not
far below the levels of the early 1960’s. Within the
teenage group, the unemployment rate continued
to be somewhat higher for girls than for boys. It
also remained much higher for Negro than for
white youngsters. Although many of the unem­
ployed teenagers want only part-time work, the
diffculties which these young persons encounter in
373-100 0— 70


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

4

Table 6. Unemployment rates for major labor force
groups, 1967-69
Group
Total, all civilian workers____________
Men, 20 years and over----------------------------------Men, 20 to 24 years____________________
Men, 25 years and over-----------------------------

1969

1968

1967

3.5

3.6

3.8

2.1
5.1
1.7

2.2
5.1
1.8

2.3
4.7
2.0

Married men_________________________

1.5

1.6

1.8

Women, 20 years and over_______ __________
Women, 20 to 24 years------- ------- --------------Women, 25 years and over.............................

3.7
6.3
3.2

3.8
6.7
3.2

4.2
7.0
3.7

Teenagers, age 16-19 (both sexes)--------------------

12.2

12.7

12.9

White, total______________________________
Negro and other races, total_________________

3.1
6.4

3.2
6.7

3.4
7.4

finding a job remains one of the most vexing un­
resolved manpower problems, which assumes
greater urgency due to the restiveness and aliena­
tion exhibited by members of this group in recent
years.
N egroes . Relative to their white counterparts,
Negroes and members of other minority races con­
tinued to experience serious problems in securing
and holding a job. Although the Negro unemploy­
ment rate dropped to the lowest quarterly level for
this decade in early 1969, it nevertheless continues
to be about twice as high as the white rate.
Averaged over the whole year, the Negro rate was
6.4 percent compared with 3.1 percent for the
whites.
Several factors account for the disproportion­
ately high incidence of unemployment among
Negroes: they are handicapped in the job search
by their lower median level of education and skills;
their labor force includes a comparatively larger
proportion of women and teenagers, two groups
that are generally more vulnerable to unemploy­
ment than adult men; they are undoubtedly still
the victims of some discriminatory practices.
Teenage Negro girls find it particularly hard to
obtain a job. The unemployment rate for this
group fluctuated around the 30-percent mark dur­
ing 1969—nearly 3 times as high as the jobless
rate for white girls. For Negro boys, the jobless
rate hovered around the 20-percent mark—about
double the white rate. The Negro jobless rates for
adult males and adult females, 3.7 and 5.8 percent
respectively, averaged somewhat less than double
the rates for their white counterparts.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

50
O ccupational groups . The unemployment rate
for white-collar workers, who continued to expand
their share of total employment in 1969, averaged
2.1 percent, slightly above the 2.0-percent level of
1968. The rate for blue-collar workers, on the
other hand, declined slightly over the year, edging
down from 4.1 to 3.9 percent. Within the bluecollar group, nonfarm laborers—the most unskilled
group— again bore the highest unemployment in
1969. However, the latest annual rate for this
group (6.7 percent) was somewhat lower than
then* jobless rate for 1968 (7.2 percent). (See
table 7.)
For service workers, the jobless rate averaged
4.2 percent in 1969 compared with 4.4 percent in
1968. Within this group, however, workers en­
gaged in private household work— an occupation
declining rapidly in popularity—enjoyed the low­
est unemployment rate on record in 1969. Farm
workers, whose number is also declining steadily,
had a jobless rate of 1.9 percent.

Characteristics of the une mployed
The stereotype that most of the unemployed are
men of prime working age who have lost their jobs
does not represent the present unemployment
situation. The composition of unemployment has
changed substantially since the early 1960’s, with
primary male breadwinners now making up a
substantially smaller proportion of total unem­
ployment, and only two-fifths of the persons cur­
rently unemployed attributing their situation to
job-loss.
A ge- se x - color d istributio n . Of the 2.8 m illion
persons w ho were unem ployed in 1969, n e a r lly
Table 7. Unemployment rates by occupational group,
1967, 1968, and 1969
Occupational group

1969

1968

1967

Total________________________

3.5

3.6

3.8

White-collar workers______________________
Professional and technical workers........... .
Managerial, officials, and proprietors_____
Clerical________________ ___ __
Sales__________________________
Blue-collar workers_______________________
Craftsmen and foremen______
..
Operatives______________
Nonfarm laborers_______________
Service workers_______________
Private household______________
.
All other______ ..
Farmworkers____ ___

2.1
1.3
.9
3.0
2.9
3.9
2.2
4.4
6.7
4.2
3.6
4.3
1.9

2.0
1.2
1.0
3.0
2.8
4.1
2.4
4.5
7.2
4.4
3.9
4.6
2.1

2.2
1.3
.9
3.1
3.2
4.4
2.5
5.0
7.6
4.5
4.1
4.6
2.3


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

million were adult men, another million were adult
women, and 850,000 were teenagers. Of the un­
employed adult men, one-half were 25 to 54 years
old and thus likely to be their families’ main
breadwinners. About 570,000, or 20 percent of
total unemployment, consisted of Negroes and
members of other minority races. The following
tabulation shows the percent distribution of the
civilian labor force and unemployment in 1969:
Civilian
labor force

U nem ploym ent

Total, all age groups.............................

100.0

100.0

Adult m en...............................................................
Adult women............... ..................................
Teenagers..................................................................

34.0

Total, all race groups............................

100.0

White................. .............. .................. .............
Negro and other races..............................................

88.8

Group

57.4
8.6

34.0
35.9
30.1
100.0

U.1

79.9
20-1

The proportion of unemployment accounted by
each group bore little relation to the group’s share
of the labor force. Because of the very high inci­
dence of joblessness among teenagers and Negroes,
these two groups accounted for disproportionately
large shares of total unemployment.
Data on the causes of
unemployment indicate that job loss has accounted
for only about two-fifths of recent unemployment.
Most of the unemployed are persons who have
either left their last job voluntarily to search for
another one, or are entering or reentering the
labor force, as shown in the following tabulation:
R easons

fo r u n em plo y m en t

Number unemployed (In thousands)_____
Percent.......- .........
Lost last job—.......................................
Left last jo b ..............
Reentering labor force----- - -.................
Looking for first job.................................

.

1969

1968

2,831
100.0
35.9
15.4
34.1
14.0

2,817
100.0
38.0
15.3
32.3
14.4

Only among adult men was job-loss the main
reason for unemployment. Adult women cited
reentering the labor force as the most common
cause for unemployment. Looking for the first job
is, understandably, the most common reason for
teenage unemployment.4
S eek in g full - time or part - time w ork . About
700.000 (one-fourth) of the unemployed in 1969
sought only part-time work. These included 100,000
(about one-eighth) of the adult male unemployed,
200.000 (one-fifth) of the female unemployed, and
400.000 (nearly one-half) of the teenage unem-

EMPLOYMENT— UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1969

51

ployed. Most of the teenagers and many of the
young adults seeking a part-time job are students.
Most of the women seeking part-time work were
housewives who wanted to boost their families’
incomes while still maintaining their primary role
as homemakers.

Long-duration unemployment, which has been
declining as a proportion of total joblessness for
several years, was particularly low in early 1969.
For the entire year, the number of persons re­
maining jobless for 15 weeks or more reached the
lowest mark since the Korean War.

H ousehold status . Less than one-fourth of the

Geography of unemployment

unemployed were male heads of household. This
is in sharp contrast to the situation in the early
1960’s, when male heads of household accounted
for well over one-third of the unemployed. Wives
or other relatives of the household head constituted
two-thirds of the unemployed, while female heads
of household made up about 8 percent.
O ccupational d istr ibu tio n . Unemployment con­

tinued to be most prevalent among low-skill
workers in 1969, with the unemployment rates for
the individual occupational groups showing little
change from 1968.
Although white-collar workers now hold prac­
tically one-half of the Nation’s jobs, their unem­
ployment rate continued relatively low (only 2.1
percent). Thus they accounted for only one-third
of all the experienced unemployed. Blue-collar
workers, being much more vulnerable to jobless­
ness, accounted for about one-half of experienced
unemployment. Within the blue-collar group, nonfarm laborers—the least skilled group—accounted
for a particularly large proportion of the jobless.
Service workers had a jobless rate of 4.2 percent
in 1969, accounting for nearly one-fifth of total
unemployment, and farm workers had a jobless
rate of only 1.9 percent, accounting for only 2
percent of the Nation’s unemployed.
D uration of unem plo ym ent . Most of the 2.8
million persons who were unemployed on average
during 1969 were generally able to secure a job
after searching for only a relatively short period.
Only about one-third remained unemployed for
more than 5 weeks and only one-eighth were still
without a job after 15 weeks of search:
N um ber
(in thousands)
Duration of unem ploym ent

Total unem ployed________
Less than 5 weeks--------------------5-14 weeks____________________
15 weeks and over______________
15-26 weeks________________
27 weeks and over__________


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

1969

1968

Percent
distribution
1969

1968

2,831

2,817

100.0

100.0

1,659
827
377
242
133

1,594
810
412
256
156

57.5
29.2
13.2
8.5
4.7

56.6
28.8
14.6
9.1
5.5

Newly available data show clearly that the
burden of unemployment and underemployment
was distributed very unevenly, not only among
the various groups that make up the labor force,
but also among geographic areas.5 For example,
the jobless rate is much higher in the West than
in other areas of the country. It is also generally
much higher for residents of central cities than for
persons residing in suburbs.
R egional pattern . Data for 1969 indicate that
the Westin general and the Pacific area in particular
continue to carry a substantially higher unem­
ployment burden than other regions of the country.
This situation is probably attributable in large
part to the continuous migration to the West of
jobseekers from other areas of the country and to
the initial delay they encounter in locating a job.
The following tabulation shows the percent of the
civilian labor force unemployed or working part
time for economic reasons, by region and color:
Percent unemployed:
Total................. ..........
Negro and other races
Percent limited to parttime work for economic
reasons:
Total______________
Negro and other races.

United
States

North­
east

3.5
6.4

3.2
5.5

2.5
5.1

1.6
2.6

North
Central

South

West

2.9

3.6
6.4

4.9

2.1

3.6
7.5

2.9
3.1

6.8

2.9

6.8

Another interesting finding from the regional
employment data concerns the high number of
Negro workers in the South who are involuntarily
limited to part-time work. While unemployment
among southern Negroes does not exceed national
averages, the percentage of Negro workers per­
forming part-time work was twice as high in the
South as in the other regions. The principal reason
for this situation is that Negroes in the South are
still heavily concentrated in the lowest skill occu­
pations—such as household work or farm labor
where work is often not available on a full-time
basis.

52
M etropolitan a r ea s . A special series of labor
force data for the Nation’s 20 largest metropolitan
areas have shown clearly that unemployment is
generally much higher in the central cities than in
the surrounding suburban areas and that the rates
also vary significantly from city to city. In 1969
the unemployment rate for the central cities of
these 20 areas was 3.9 percent, while the rate for
their suburban areas was only 3.0 percent. This
compares with 1968 jobless rates of 4.1 and 2.9
percent, respectively. The suburban areas are
mainly white, while some central cities are be­
coming predominantly Negro. Over one-third of
total Negro unemployment in the Nation is con­
centrated in the central cities of these 20 areas.
The slight improvement in the unemployment
situation for central city residents appears to
reflect in part a decline in joblessness among per­
sons residing in the poorest urban neighborhoods.
Based on data for the 100 largest metropolitan
areas, the jobless rate in the poorest one-fifth of
the urban neighborhoods edged down from 6.0
percent in 1968 to 5.5 percent in 1969.
The metropolitan areas with the highest unem­
ployment in recent years have been Los AngelesLong Beach and San Francisco-Oakland in the
West and Pittsburgh in the East. The jobless rate
has been running well above 4 percent in each of
these three areas. In a few other metropolitan
areas, on the other hand, unemployment has been
exceptionally low in recent years. In Boston,
Dallas, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Washington,
D.C., for example, the jobless rate has averaged
only around 2.5 percent.
S lum s . In order to pinpoint the employment

problems of persons residing in the poorest urban
areas, the U.S. Department of Labor initiated
a special study in July 1968 (known as the Urban
Employment Survey) conducted in Concentrated
Employment Program ( cep ) areas of six large
cities—Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los
Angeles, and Detroit.6 Initial findings from this
study indicate that the residents of these areas,
who are mainly Negroes or Spanish-Americans,
not only have generally high unemployment rates,
but also are concentrated in the less desirable
occupations that often provide only intermittent
work and thus a low level of annual income.
The study also revealed, however, that the situa­
tion varies widely from city to city. The areas with

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

the highest unemployment, as was the case in
Detroit, were not necessarily those with the lowest
incomes. The lowest level of weekly earnings
and family income was found among the residents
of the Atlanta and Houston target areas.
O ther a r ea s . While concern is justly focused on

the troubled urban scene, unemployment prob­
lems are still in evidence even outside of urban
areas.
The unemployment rate for workers residing in
small towns runs somewhat above the national
average; it was 3.9 percent in 1968 and 3.8 percent
in 1969. The rate for workers residing on farms, on
the other hand, was only 1.6 percent both in 1968
and 1969.
Workers living on farms, however, are much
more likely to be employed only part time or as
unpaid family workers. Although their low un­
employment situation may not indicate economic
problems, the continuous exodus of farm residents
to the cities is a clear indication of the lack of
reasonably attractive employment opportunities
in these areas.

Other employment problems
Being without a job is not the only problem
confronting a worker. He may, for example, want
full-time work but be confined involuntarily to a
part-time job where his earnings may not be
commensurate with his capacity.
I nvoluntary part - time work . In 1969, about 1
million workers on average wanted full-time work
but were able to locate only a part-time job. Also,
about 1.1 million workers supposedly employed
full-time were limited to less than 35 hours of work
per week because of economic factors (shortages of
material, reduced orders, etc.). The number of
workers confined to part-time employment was
particularly low during the first half of 1969, but
in the slower second half of the year the number
increased significantly. On an annual basis, their
average number was about the same as in 1968.
D iscouraged w orkers . In addition to workers
who are unemployed or underemployed, there is
another group of persons who have long worried
manpower experts: “discouraged workers” who
want jobs but who feel that any search for work

53

EMPLOYMENT— UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1969

on their part would be futile. Since these persons
do not take overt steps to look for work, they are
not included in the unemployment count, being
viewed as “out of the labor force.”
Through special questions added to the Current
Population Survey questionnaire in 1967, it is now
possible to identify and count such persons on a
regular basis. They averaged about 700,000 in
both 1967 and 1968, but their number dropped to
about 600,000 in 1969, reducing the proportion of
“discouraged workers” relative to unemployed
workers from 1 to 4 to 1 to 5.7

Discouragement over job prospects is a serious
problem only among the very young and the old.
Persons of prime working age—particularly men—
have included very few discouraged workers in
recent years. Out of approximately 210,000 adult
men in 1968 and 180,000 in 1969 who wanted work
but felt that they could not find a job, only about
one-third were between 20 and 59 years of age. It
can thus be said that discouragement over job
prospects has kept relatively few persons of prime
working age from the labor force in recent
years.
□

1 It should be noted that these data refer only to workers
for whom sales work is the primary employment. Those
multiple jobholders who are “moonlighting” as part-time
sales workers but whose primary job is in another field are
not counted as sales workers from an occupational stand­
point.

“Unemployment in 20 Large Urban Areas,” E m ploym ent
and E arnings, March 1969, pp. 5-18; Paul M. Ryscavage,

2 For a longer-term look at the occupational advances of
Negroes, see Claire C. Hodge, “The Negro Job Situation:
Has It Improved?” M on th ly Labor Review, January 1969,
pp. 20-28.
3 See Gloria P. Green, “Comparing Employment Esti­
mates From Household and Payroll Surveys,” M onthly
Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-20.
4 For a detailed discussion of the reasons for unemploy­
ment, see Kathryn D. Hoyle, “Job Losers, Leavers, and
Entrants—A Report On the Unemployed,” M onthly Labor
Review, April 1969, pp. 24-29.
5 See, for example, Howard V. Stambler, “New Direc­
tions in Area Labor Force Statistics,” M on th ly Labor
Review, August 1969, pp. 3-9; Paul M. Schwab, “Unem­
ployment by Region and in 10 Largest States,” M onthly
Labor Review, January 1970, pp. 3-13; Paul O. Flaim,

“Employment developments in urban poverty neighbor­
hoods,” M on th ly Labor Review, June 1969, pp. 51-56,
Harvey J. Hilaski and Hazel M. Willacy, “Employment
patterns by place of residence,” M on th ly Labor Review,
October 1969, pp. 18-25.
®See Norman Root, “Urban Employment Surveys:
Pinpointing the Problem,” M on th ly Labor Review, June
1968, pp. 65-66. The initial findings from this survey were
summarized in b l s Report No. 370, October 1969. Indi­
vidual reports for each of the six cities where the survey
is being conducted may be obtained from the regional
offices of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
7 Detailed data on persons not seeking work because of
discouragement over job prospects—as well as other specific
reasons—arc now being published quarterly in E m ploy­
ment and E arn ings, with the first series of tables having
appeared in the December 1969 issue. For a discussion of
these new data, see also Paul O. Flaim, “Persons not in
the labor force: who they are and why they don’t work,”
M on th ly Labor Review, July 1969, pp. 3-14.

Erratum
In table 3 (page 7) of the article on “Unemployment by region and in 10
largest States,” in the January R e v i e w , the 1960 unemployment rate for
Negro and other races in California should read 9. 9 rather than 4. 9.


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

Work
experience
of the
population
T he
of the population during
the course of a year indicates the mixture of
stability and movement in the American labor
force. In addition to the millions who are in the
labor force year-round, millions move into and
out of the labor force over a year’s time.
Students who fit work in with their school
schedules, women who work as home responsibili­
ties permit, persons who work at seasonal jobs,
those who come out of retirement, persons enter­
ing or leaving civilian life upon leaving or entering
military service are examples of the variety of the
people and the circumstances which generate this
amount of movement. In addition, there is the
normal turnover from death, retirement, disability,
and new entrants.
During 1968, for example, the combined total
of la b o r f o r c e e n tr i e s a n d e x i t s was estimated at
about 90 million. These figures represent a count
of different actions and not of different persons,
since many individuals change status more than
once in the course of a year. Further, an entry to
the labor force is also an entry into either employ­
ment or unemployment. The combined total of
entries into and exits from e m p lo y m e n t s ta t u s
during 1968 was also about 90 million; entries and
exits to and from u n e m p lo y m e n t s t a t u s were only
about half that.
This volume of movement results in a signifi­
cantly larger number in the annual than in the
monthly total of individuals with labor force ex­
perience. It accounts, too, for the differing patterns
of that experience with respect to weeks of
employment and extent and frequency of unem­
ployment over the 12 months.
w

o r k

e x p e r ie n c e

Vera C. Perrella is an economist in the Division of
Labor Force Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

54

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

Special Labor Force Report
examines the movements
into and out of the labor force
in the 1968
work experience survey
VERA C. PERRELLA

Despite its volume and importance, flux is not
of course, the whole picture with respect to work
experience, nor even the largest part of it. There
is a stable core to the labor force, composed of
year-round participants: 7 out of every 10 persons
who were in the labor force during 1968 were in it
all year. Most men, once they embark upon a work
career, are in the labor force year round, and
more and more women are working year round.
The latest survey of the work experience of the
population shows that 91% million different
individuals were in the civilian labor force at some
time during 1968—about 10% million more than in
July, the peak month.1 This article, based on
information obtained in the survey, deals with
the work experience of the men and women who
were in the labor force at some time during the
year and analyses their employment and unem­
ployment patterns. The discussion includes key
figures from the 1968 work experience survey, a
report on the overall employment and unemploy­
ment situation, and an examination of selected
groups whose work experience is typically
characterized by stability or movement.

Key numbers, 1968
Here, in summary form, are the major findings
of the 1968 survey:
90% million persons 16 years old and over
worked at some time during 1968^-2.1 million
more than in 1967. Two-thirds of the net increase
was in full-time jobs.
52% million men and women worked year round
full time—over half a million more than in 1967,
although the proportion in both years was roughly
58 percent of all who worked.
As in other years, a smaller proportion of Negro
than white male workers were employed all year
at full-time jobs—70 percent and 63 percent respec-

WORK EXPERIENCE

55

tively in 1968. However, the gap between these
two proportions has narrowed somewhat since
1966.
5.8
million men and women worked part time
year round in 1968, about the same number as in
1967.
32 million men and women worked part year,
compared with about 31 million in 1967; 4 of every
5 gave reasons other than unemployment as the
main reason for working part year.
43 million heads of households worked during
the year; 8 out of 10 worked year round full time.
22.2 million married women—one half of all
married women—worked at some time during
1968; 4 out of every 10 who worked did so year
round full time.
Almost 9% million teenagers—2 out of every 3—
worked at some time during 1968. A larger pro­
portion of the white than of the Negro teenage
population worked.
11.3 million persons, or 12.4 percent of the total
working or looking for work had unemployment
at some time during 1968; both the number and
the proportion were somewhat lower than in 1967.
19.6
percent of the Negroes in the labor force
had unemployment during the year compared with
11.5 percent of the whites.
2.4
million persons had unemployment totaling
15 weeks or more in 1968, 200,000 fewer than in
1967.

Employment
Economic activity, very high in 1967, was
even better in 1968, as evidenced by the smaller
number of persons with unemployment during the
year as well as the larger number with employment.
The number of persons who worked at some time
during 1968 was 2.1 million more than in 1967,
largely as a result of population increases (table 1).
More than half of the net employment gain was
among women, mostly full-time workers. The
gains were greater among women 20 to 29 years
old, among whom full-time workers increased by
almost half a million.
Among men, too, the increase in the number who
worked during 1968 was concentrated among
full-time workers, with the gains preponderantly
among the younger men.
Most of the additional women workers were
employed in the service industries, particularly
in medical and other health services; most of the
additional men were employed in durable goods
manufacturing and public administration.
Distribution of workers by number of weeks
worked and by whether they worked full or
part time was about the same as in 1967. About
90 percent of the men and 70 percent of the
women with work experience during 1968 worked
full time, as in 1967. In both years, 70 percent of
the men who worked did so year round (50-52

Table 1. Work experience of persons 16 years of age and over, by extent of employment and by sex, 1965-68
Female

Male

Both sexes
Work experience
1968

1967

1966

1965

1968

1967

1965

1965

1968

1967

1966

51, 708

51,067

36,918

35,787

34,558

32,863

25,953
15,271
5, 004
5,, 678

25, 251
15, 084
4,651
5,516

24,231
13,858
4,845
5, 528

23,080
13,090
4,860
5,130

1966

Number (in thousands)
Total who worked during the year

90,230

88,179

86,266

83,930

53,312

52,392

Fulltimes......................... ........ ................
50 to 52 weeks____________________
27 to 49 weeks......................................
1 to 26 weeks.........................................

73,266
52,285
11,115
9,866

71,909
51,705
10,702
9,502

70,140
50,049
10, 647
9,444

68,433
48, 383
11,157
8,893

47,313
37,014
6,111
4,188

46,658
36,621
6,051
3,986

45,909
36,191
5, 802
3,916

45, 353
35,293
6,297
3,763

Part time.................. ...................... ........
50 to 52 weeks.......................................
27 to 49 weeks......... ..............................
1 to 26 weeks.........................................

16,964
5, 769
3,720
7,475

16, 270
5,641
3,430
7,199

161126
5,407
3,380
7,339

15,497
4,940
3,068
7,489

5,999
2,237
1,227
2,535

5,734
2, 096
1,202
2,436

5,799
2,091
1,162
2,546

5,714
1,969
1,088
2,657

10,965
3,532
2,493
4,940

10, 536
3,545
2,228
4,763

10,327
3,316
2,218
4,793

9,783
2,971
1,980
4,832

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

70.3
41.4
13.6
15. 4

70.6
42.1
13.0
15. 5

70.1
40.1
14. 0
16.0

70.2
39.8
Ì4 .8
lb. b

29.7
9.6
6.8
13.4

29.4
9.9
6.2
13.3

29.9
9.6
6.4
13.9

29.8
9.0
6.0
14.7

Percent distribution
Total who worked during the year i ......... .....................

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Full tim e2_________
____________________________
50 to 52 weeks___________________________________
27 to 49 weeks__________ ____ ___________________
1 to 26 weeks__ _________________________________

81.2
57.9
12.3
10.9

81.5
58.6
12.2
10.7

81.3
58.0
13.3
10.9

81.5
57.6
12.3
10.6

88.7
69.4
11.5
7.9

89.1
69.9
11.5
7.6

88.8
70.0
11.2
7.6

88.8
69.1
12.3
7.4

Part time. . _________________ _____ ____________
50 to 52 weeks___________________________________
27 to 49 weeks_______________________________ . . .
1 to 26 weeks____________________________________

18.8
6.4
4.1
8.3

18.5
6.4
4.0
8.2

18.7
6.3
3.9
8.5

18.5
5.9
3.7
8.9

11.3
4.2
2.3
4.8

10.9
4.0
2.3
4.6

11.2
4.0
2.2
4.9

11.2
3.9
2.1
5.2

1Time worked includes paid vacations and paid sick leave.
: Usually worked 35 hours or more per week.


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

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

56

weeks) full time, compared with 40 percent of
the women.
The proportion of white men with work ex­
perience who worked year round full time con­
tinued higher than that of Negro men—70 percent
compared with 63 percent. However, among
youths under age 25, a smaller proportion of the
white youths worked all year at full-time jobs,
because relatively more of them were attending
school and had to limit their work.
The proportion of women who worked year
round full time was the same for Negro and white
women (40 percent each). This was also true for
those who worked part time (30 percent each).
A few figures sum up the variations in work
experience by number of weeks worked during
the year:
Percent o f workers
E m ploym ent in 1968

A ll
workers

Total........................ ....................................

100

50-52 weeks........................ - ................................
48-49 weeks.................................................................
40-47 weeks....... .........................................................
27-39 weeks.......................................................
14-26 weeks....... ............................................
1-13 weeks...................... ...... ..............................

64

F u lltime

P a r ttime

81
4
6

58
3
5
75
85

11

6

The distribution has been relatively stable over
the sixties to date, except that the proportion of
year-round full-time workers is now closer to 6
out of 10 of all workers than at the start of the
decade, reflecting the steadily improving economic
situation.
For part-year workers, the distribution by num­
ber of weeks worked shows no marked change over
the period. Nonetheless, the very fact that there
is such a range in the number of weeks worked
gives strong indication of the flexible nature of the
supply of labor. More than 32 million individuals
worked less than 50 weeks in 1968, but fewer than
6 million of them said unemployment was the main
reason they did not work a full year. The rest
attributed their less than full-year work to personal
circumstances rather than inability to find work.
This is the element which gives flexibility to the
supply of labor and, in the process, generates a
large portion of the movement which characterizes
the labor force.

Unemployment
Out of a total 91.5 million persons who worked
or looked for work during 1968, 11.3 million or

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

12.4 percent, had unemployment at some time
during the year. In 1967, the total who worked or
looked for work was 2 million smaller, but the
number who had unemployment was almost a
quarter million larger. The continuing increases in
•the demand for labor in an already tight labor
market kept the number of persons with unem­
ployment from rising, despite the 2 million growth
in number of persons in the labor force during the
course of the year (table 2).
While there were no sharp differences from 1967
in either numbers or proportions of persons with
unemployment, whether the figures are examined
with respect to sex, age, or color, the proportion
of white men who had unemployment decreased
1 percentage point. For women and Negro workers,
the proportions with unemployment were not sig­
nificantly different from 1967.
Overall, the percentage with unemployment con­
tinued higher for women than for men, and for
Negroes than for whites.
Most of the persons unemployed at some time
during 1968 had also worked during the year. In
both 1967 and 1968, about l } i million men and
women had looked for work for 1 week or more
but had not found jobs. Over half looked for work
for fewer than 5 weeks. Among both whites and
Negroes, the number of women who looked but
did not find jobs was more than double the number
of men.

Married men
The group of workers from whom the labor
force derives its greatest measure of stability is
married men. The chances that an individual is in
the labor force are highest when the individual is
male and married. The married man is also the
most likely to have worked continuously over the
course of a year.
Practically all married men are household and
family heads, with the major responsibility for
meeting family financial needs. As a result, the
work role dominates to a much greater extent for
them than for any other population group. During
1968, 90 percent of the 44.3 million married men
in the population were in the labor force at some
time during the year. A measure of the stability
which characterizes the group’s labor force ex­
perience is the ratio of the total number of them
in the labor force during the course of a year to
their monthly average in the labor force. For 1968,

WORK EXPERIENCE

57

Table 2. Extent of unemployment of persons 16 years of age and over, by sex, 1966-68
Both sexes

Men

Women

Extent of unemployment
1968

1967

1966

1968

1967

1966

1968

1967

1966

Number (in thousands)
Total working or looking for work_____________________________________________ 91,480
12.4
Percent with unemployment________________________________________________
Total with unemployment___ _____ ___________________________________________ 11,332
With work experience_____________________________________________________ 10,082
1,285
Year-round workers ‘ with 1 or 2 weeks of unemployment______________________
8,797
Part-year workers 2 with unemployment, total________________________________
With unemployment of—
3,632
1 to 4 weeks________________________________________________________
1,989
5 to 10 weeks_______________________________________________________
1,036
11 to 14 weeks______________________________________________________
1,406
15 to 26 weeks______ ________________________________________________
734
27 weeks or more__________ ____ _____________________ ________________
Spells of unemployment
6,960
_____
- __________________ -1 spell_______________ _____
1,471
2 spells____________________________________________________________
1,651
3 spells or more._____ _______________________________________________

89,432
12.9
11,564
10,311
1,381
8, 930

87,540
13.0
11,387
10,113
1,269
8, 844

53,677
11.7
6,263
5,898
900
4,998

52,788
12.6
6,655
6,259
1,002
5,257

52,103
12.5
6,503
6,108
923
5,185

37,803
13.4
5,069
4,184
385
3,799

36,644
13.4
4,909
4, 052
379
3,673

35,437
13.8
4,884
4,005
346
3,659

3,357
2,073
1,177
1,520
803

3,348
2,038
1,047
1,567
844

1,875
1,215
647
870
391

1,743
1,310
759
979
466

1,727
1,286
707
972
493

1,757
774
389
536
343

1,614
763
418
541
337

1,621
752
340
595
351

6,954
1,503
1,854

6,702
1,465
1,946

3,883
901
1,114

4,031
908
1,320

3,813
900
1,395

3,077
570
537

2,923
595
534

2,889
565
551

1,250
967
106
177

1,253
944
99
210

1,274
969
104
201

365
252
39
74

396
255
35
106

395
239
45
111

885
715
67
103

857
689
64
104

879
730
59
90

100.0
9.2

100.0
9.4

100.0
8.6

Did not work but looked for work, total______________________________ ________
1 to 14 weeks___ _____________________________________________________
15 to 26 weeks________________________________________________________
27 weeks or more._____ ______ _________________________________________

Percent distribution
Unemployed persons with work experience, total_______ __________________________
Year-round workers 1 with 1 or 2 weeks of unemployment________________________
Part-year workers 2 with unemployment, total__________________________________
With unemployment of—
1 to 4 weeks________________________________________________________
5 to 10 weeks_____________________________________ _________________
11 to 14 weeks____ __________________________________________________
15 to 26 weeks______________________________________________________
27 weeks or more____________________________________________________
Spells of unemployment
1 spell__________ ____
- ___________
—
------------ -----------------------2 spells______________________________________________________________
3 spells or more____ ___________________________________________________
Unemployed persons who did not work but looked for work, total____________________
1 to 14 weeks___________________________________________________________
15 to 26 weeks__________________________________________________________
27 w e e k s o r m o r e ____ _____________ _______ ______________________________________
1Worked 50 weeks or more.

100.0
12.7

100.0
13.4

100.0
12.5

100.0
15.3

100.0
16.0

100.0
15.1

87.3

86.6

87.5

84.7

84.0

84.9

90.8

90.6

91.4

36.0
19.7
10.3
13.9
7.3

32.6
20.1
11.4
14.7
7.8

33.1
20.2
10.4
15.5
8.3

31.8
20.6
11.0
14.8
6.6

27.8
20.9
12.1
15.6
7.4

28.3
21.1
11.6
15.9
8.1

42.0
18.5
9.3
12.8
8.2

39.8
18.8
10.3
13.4
8.3

40.5
18.8
8.5
14.9
8.8

69.0
14.6
16.4

67.4
14.6
18.0

66.3
14.5
19.2

65.8
15.3
18.9

64.4
14.5
21.1

62.4
14.7
22.8

73.5
13.6
12.8

72.1
14.7
13.2

72.1
14.1
13.8

100.0
77.4
8.5
14.2

100.0
75.3
7.9
16.8

100.0
76.1
8.2
15.8

100.0
69.0
10.7
20.3

100.0
64.4
8.8
26.8

100.0
60.5
11.4
28.1

100.0
80.8
7.6
11.6

100.0
80.4
7.5
12.1

100.0
83.0
6.7
10.2

NOTE:

Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

2 Worked less than 50 weeks.

this ratio was 103 percent. The ratio of the total
number to the number in the labor force during
the peak month of the year was 102 percent. These
ratios, and more particularly the smallness of the
difference between them, arc among the simplest
and most graphic indicators of the high degree of
stability which typifies the married-man labor
force. (See chart.) From these ratios, it is clear
that the married men who are in the labor force at
any given time in the year are also almost certain
to be in the labor force at any other time in the
year. For no other group of workers may this
statement be made with so much certainty.
In contrast, the comparable ratios for the next
most stable group—widowed, divorced, or sepa­
rated men—were 114 percent and 110 percent,
respectively. Fourteen percent more of this latter
group were in the labor force during the course of
the year than in an average month, and 10 percent
more than in the peak month.

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

Married men’s employment during the year also
shows a high degree of stability. Roughly 80 per­
cent of all those who worked at some time during
1968 worked year round full time. Further, of the
39% million who had worked during the year, less
than 10 percent had any unemployment. Among
those who did, nearly one-half had been jobless
for a total of 4 weeks or less. Moreover, about 2
out of 3 had only 1 period of unemployment.
The age distribution of married men has bear­
ing on the labor force experience of the group as
a whole relative to that of other men. Single men
are heavily weighted in the younger ages in which
the amounts of work experience and of tenure are
low. Widowed, divorced, or separated men are
more heavily weighted in the older ages, in which
labor force participation is lower than in the
middle years.
Other factors than the age differences are
undoubtedly also relevant, sinco age for age,

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

58

married men tend to have higher labor force rates
than other men. Marriage and labor force partici­
pation are selective processes. Physical or psy­
chogenic handicaps may tend to lessen both the
likelihood of marriage and of steady employment.
Further, in our society, the married man who
elects not to work, or to loaf periodically, is
subject to greater criticism than are other men,
so that his work orientation may be influenced.
Whatever the mixture of demographic, eco­
nomic, psychological, and sociological factors and
the relative importance of each, the labor force
effects are clear. Married men typically are most
likely of all population groups to be in the labor
force, and to be employed year round full time.
In sum, population change aside, married men
constitute the portion of the supply of labor
which is least subject to expansion or contraction.
The patterns of their labor force, employment,
and unemployment experience indicate that
in proportion to their number, they account for
only a small portion of the annual volume of
movement.

Married women
The high degree of mobility, mixed with stabil­
ity, in the married-women labor force is indicated
by the variations in their labor force participation
and work experience. In 1968, about half (22.6
million) of all married women were in the labor
force at some time during the year—about onethird more than were in the labor force in an
average month. Almost 6 million more married
women worked or looked for work over the course
of the year than during an average month.
The women who had work experience were
almost equally divided between full-year and
part-year workers. Of the 11.3 million women who
worked the full year, a very large proportion (8
out of 10) worked full time. Whether they worked
full time or part time, the year-round workers
were a stable element in the labor force over the
course of the year.
The 11 million wives who worked part-year
and the 450,000 who looked for work but did not
find jobs generated a considerable portion of the

Chart 1. Annual labor force compared with peak month and average month, selected groups, 1968

Number in labor force

Ratio of annual to monthly labor force

M illions

Percent
150

100

140

Annual labor force

Number in annual labor force
as percent of:

Labor force in peak month

Number iW labor force
*• in average month

Labor force in average month

130

Number in labor force
in peak month

120

Married
men


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

JL

Widowed,
divorced, and
separated men

M arried
women

J3l

Teenagers
(16-19 years old)

110

ioo

r~J

Married
men

Widowed,
divorced, and
separated men

Married
women

Teenagers
(16-19 years old)

59

WORK EXPERIENCE

A ll
workers

Part-year
workers

100
Total............................- ........ ____
30
1-13 weeks....................................... ____
24
14-26 weeks.....................................
19
27-39 weeks...................................... ____
27
40-52 weeks...................................... ____
11,332
Number (in thousands)----- ____
1D ata are for interval of 1 to 14 weeks.
2D ata are for interval of 15 to 26 weeks.

100

100

27
25

184
38

home and family responsibilities permit is made
possible by these seasonal requirements. The
intermittent work patterns of a significant pro­
portion of women workers create vacancies for
others to fill. The secretary who leaves her job
because she is going to have a baby may be
replaced by a woman who is reentering the labor
force to help meet expenses of her college-age
children.

28
10,883

449

Teenagers

total volume of movement over the year. Over
half of the part-year workers were in the labor
force less than 27 weeks; of the nonworkers, more
than 9 out of 10:
Percent of workers

Weeks in labor force

20

Nonworkers
who looked
for work

2
6

For most of these part-year workers, unemployment was not the major factor in their partyear work, and therefore, not the major factor
in the expansion and contraction of the marriedwomen labor force. About 80 percent had no
unemployment during the year, and of those who
did have any unemployment, almost half had 4
weeks or less. Undoubtedly, much of the unem­
ployment was of the frictional kind which occurs
upon entry to the labor force, since 7 out of 10
had only 1 spell of unemployment. So, while
unemployment contributed to lessening the time
they had worked, it was not the primary factor.
A further indication is that, among all women who
worked part year, only a small proportion (10
percent of the white and 16 percent of the Negro
workers) said unemployment was the major
reason for their part-year employment. Most
women gave home and family responsibilities as
the major reason for part-year work.
To repeat, unemployment is not the major
factor here. It is, rather, a congruence of supply
and demand factors which enables so large a
proportion of married women to tailor their
labor force participation to their needs and
preferences.
In addition to the usual turnover in the labor
force which arises from deaths and retirements,
there are seasonal expansions and contractions in
the demand for labor, such as those associated
with agriculture, recreation activities, construc­
tion, and retail trade. The peak demands in retail
trade, at Easter and Christmas, for example,
create a requirement for temporary workers. Dur­
ing the year, many employers find it advantageous
to increase their work force for peak hours, days,
or seasons only. On the supply side, the need or
desire of many married women to work only as


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

The movement of teenagers into the labor force
at the annual school-closing for the summer and
their subsequent withdrawal upon school-opening
in the fall result in the widest short-term swings
in the labor force during the course of a year.
Almost 10 million teenagers (16 to 19 years) were
in the labor force at some time during 1968. This
was about 3% million, or 50 percent, more than
in an average month, but only 900,000 more than
in July, the peak month for their labor force
strength.
This annually recurring phenomenon places a
tremendous demand upon the economy for a large
number of very short term jobs within a 3-montli
period. In 1968, the number of teenagers in the
labor force increased by 2 ){ million within the
30 days between May and June, and by another
600,000 within the next 30 days. By September,
the number of teenagers in the labor force was back
very close to its May level.
What is perhaps even more remarkable than
the dimension of this mass movement into the
labor force is that between May and June, teenage
employment increased by more than half their
labor force increase, and between June and July,
by another 900,000. Thus, although unemploy­
ment increased, almost 2 ){ million teenagers found
employment within a 2-month period.
By September, the labor force, employment,
and unemployment rate of teenagers were back
to very nearly their May levels:
N um ber (in thousands )
M ay

Civilian labor force......................... 6,040
Change from preceding m onth___ +139
E m ployed........................ -.........
5,424
Change from preceding m onth....... +143
Unemployment rate (percent).......
10.2

Ju ne

8,295
+2,255
6,697
+1,273
19.3

J u ly

8,891
+596
7,589
+892
14.6

A u gu st

September

8,335 0,179
—656 —2,156
7,512 5,438
—< i —2,074
9.9
12.0

Because of the propensity of young people
generally to move into and out of the labor force,

60
and because so large a proportion of the teenagers
in the labor force are enrolled in school, move­
ment in the teenage labor force is high throughout
the year, though not as great in volume as during
the summer months. In February 1969, 70 percent
of the 16- to 19-year-olds in the population were
enrolled in school. Among the 9.8 million teenagers
who had worked or looked for work at some time
during 1968, 2 out of 3 were students. As is to be
expected, a larger proportion of the out-of-school
youths (81 percent) had been in the labor force
at some time during 1968, but even among the
students, the proportion was quite high (66
percent).
However, the differences between students and
nonstudents were marked with respect to number
of weeks worked and whether they usually worked
full or part time. Among those who worked, over
two-thirds of the students compared with onefourth of the nonstudents had worked part time,
and nearly half of the students compared with a
fifth of the nonstudents had worked only 1 to 13
weeks. Among both students and nonstudents,
the proportions who worked the full year were
low—about one-fifth and one-third respectively.
In this teenage segment of the labor force, as in
the married-woman segment, the length of time
worked was more the result of the length of time
they were available for work than of unemploy­
ment, though again, unemployment did play a
considerable part in lessening the length of time
worked.

Nonworkers who looked for work
The group of persons who look for work at
some time during the year but do not find jobs is
relatively small during periods of economic pros­
perity. Nonetheless, these individuals account for
a significant portion of the volume of movement in
the labor force over the year. During 1968, the
1y* million nonworkers who looked for work rep­
resented about 10 percent of the persons who had
unemployment at some time during the year, and
a little more than 1 percent of all persons in the
labor force. Seventy percent of the nonworkers
were women, of whom half were married. In
terms of age, a third of all the group were teenagers. These proportions give yet another buttress­
ing to the labor force truism that teenagers and
married women are more highly represented in the


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

floating contingent of the labor force than are
other groups in the working-age population.
More than other groups, these two are given to
sporadic labor force participation, as school and
home responsibilities permit, and many of them
stop looking for work if jobs do not materialise
quickly. Often, as in the case of students, the
period during which they can fit work into their
schedules is itself relatively short, so their search
for work is necessarily limited by the period for
which they are available. Similarly, married
women may try to find work that will fit in with
their home responsibilities, or during seasonal
periods such as the Christmas and Easter rush in
stores, or the school vacation period when older
children are at home to look after the younger
ones. Because they are not the primary workers
in their families, persons in these groups tend to
leave the labor force if the search for work becomes
too extended, and to reenter when it is convenient
or the likelihood of a job seems good.
Of the nonworkers, about two-thirds of the
married women had looked for work 4 weeks or
less, and more than half the teenagers. In contrast,
among the small number of men 25 years old and
over, only 20 percent looked for 4 weeks or less,
and about 40 percent for 40 weeks or more.
There are no data to indicate whether any
appreciable proportion of these nonworkers had
several periods of unemployment during the year.
Even the minimal one-time entry and subsequent
withdrawal from the labor force, however, would
account for 2% million gross changes in terms of
entries and exits from the labor force, and an
equal number of gross changes in unemployment
entries and exits. In the Negro labor force, the
nonworkers who looked for work were 15 percent
of the total unemployed during the year;
in the white labor force, the nonworker was 10
percent of the total who looked. In this group,
married women were a smaller proportion of the
Negro women than of the white women. Among
both whites and Negroes, nonworkers were pre­
dominantly secondary workers.
T h e v o l u m e of m o v em en t in the labor force
over the course of a year is indicative of a high
degree of flexibility in labor supply and demand,
which results from the interplay of economic and
social factors, as well as geographic and occupa­
tional mobility. A preponderant portion of the

61

WORK EXPERIENCE

movement is the result of part-year and part-time
work by persons who are not available for fullyear full-time work.
The high degree of movement and flexibility
notwithstanding, there is a broad base of stability
in the labor force. Close to 2 out of every 3 persons
who worked during 1968 did so year round. To
the extent that it constitutes a medium for the
fulfillment of both worker and employer needs,

the combination of flexibility and stability is a
force for a dynamic and viable economy.
The degrees of stability and mobility differ
considerably among various groups in the labor
force. The group whose labor force experience is
most stable is married men, particularly those
who are tvhite and in the central ages. Mobility
is relatively high among teenagers, married
women, and older workers.
□

1
Since the annual survey of the work experience of the
population during a given year is made in February of
the following year, the information obtained relates to
the civilian work experience of those persons 16 years old
and over in the civilian noninstitutional population as of
the February date. Thus, the work experience of persons
who were in the civilian labor force during 1968 but not
in the civilian noninstitutional population as of February
1969 is not included; similarly, persons who died during
the course of 1968 or in the 1969 period preceding the
survey date are also not reflected in the figures. On the
other hand, those persons who reached age 16 in January
and February 1969 are included.

The data are from supplementary questions to the
February 1969 monthly survey of the labor force, con­
ducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau
of the Census through its Current Population Survey.
This is the tenth in a series of reports on this subject.
The ninth in the series was published in the M on th ly
Labor Review, June 1969, and reprinted with additional
tabular data and explanatory notes as Special Labor
Force Report No. 107.
2
Data for all persons other than white persons are
used in this report to represent data for Negroes, since
the latter constitute about 92 percent of all persons other
than white in the United States.

A note on communications
The M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w welcomes communications that supplement,
challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered for
publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not polemical
in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, M o n t h l y
L a b o r R e v i e w , Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C. 20212.


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

WAGES IN MANUFACTURING
OF NONELECTRICAL MACHINERY
JOSEPH C. BUSH
A v e r a g e str a ig h t - tim e h o u r ly e a r n in g s of
production and related workers in the nonelectrical
machinery manufacturing industries increased 13.5
percent between mid-1966 1 and SeptemberNovember 1968 in the 21 metropolitan areas
surveyed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The
annual rate of increase for the 21 areas combined
was 5.7 percent; it ranged from 3.3 percent in
Pittsburgh to 7.5 percent in St. Louis.
The September-November 1968 survey covered
e s t a b lis h m e n t s employing two-fifths of the
Nation’s 1,950,000 workers in the nonelectrical
machinery industries. Employment ranged fewer
than 10,000 in Denver, Portland (Oreg.), and
Worcester to 118,000 in Chicago. Other major
areas of industry employment included Detroit
(84.000) , Los Angeles (69,000), and Milwaukee
(63.000) . Pay levels of production workers are
shown in table 1.
Tool and die makers had the highest average
hourly earnings among the occupations surveyed
separately in each area. Men producing or main­
taining tools and dies for use within the establish­
ment (other than jobbing) averaged from $5.12
an hour in San Francisco-Oakland to $3.53 in
Worcester; in 13 other areas, they averaged $4
or more an hour. In most areas, averages for men
producing tools and dies for sale (jobbing) were
within 5 percent of the earnings levels for tool and
die makers (other than jobbing).
Production machine-tool operators were the
largest occupational group studied and, for survey
purposes, were divided into three skill groups.

Joseph C. Bush is an economist in the Division of Oc­
cupational Wage Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

62

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

Operators who set up their own machines and
perform a variety of machining operations to
close tolerances averaged from $4.40 an hour in
San Francisco-Oakland to $3.14 in Dallas; the
corresponding range for the intermediate group of
operators was $3.68 in St. Louis to $2.65 in Dallas.
Averages for operators who perform routine
repetitive operations and do not set up the machines
were highest in Hartford ($3.30) and lowest in
Dallas ($2.19).
Janitors were the lowest paid among the jobs
studied in most of the selected areas. They
averaged from $3.07 in Detroit to $2 in Dallas.
Hourly averages for material-handling laborers,
another relatively low-paying job, ranged from
$3.30 in Portland to $2.16 in Dallas.
Work schedules of 40 hours a week applied to
a majority of the production workers in each
area. In all areas except Boston, Dallas, Newark
and Jersey City, New York, and San FranciscoOakland, 15 percent of the workers or more were
employed on extra shifts. Extra shift workers
usually received a cents-per-hour differential above
day rates.
Paid holidays, usually 8 to 9 a year, and paid
vacations were provided to production workers
by nearly all the establishments studied. Typical
provisions for paid vacations were 1 week after
1 year of service, 2 weeks after 2 or 3 years, and
3 weeks after 10 years. Provisions for 4 weeks of
vacation pay after 20 or 25 years were reported
in 13 areas. Approximately seven-eighths of the
production workers were in establishments that
provided life, hospitalization, and surgical in­
surance. Retirement pension benefits (other than
social security) were also available to a majority
of the workers in all areas.
The survey included establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing nonelectrical machinery.
Omitted from the survey were ( 1) establishments
with fewer than eight workers primarily manu­
facturing special dies, tools, jigs, and fixtures, or

63

RESEARCH SUMMARIES

Table 1. Relative area pay levels, nonelectrical machinery
manufacturing, 21 selected areas, September-November
1968
[Chicago = 1001
Area

San Francisco-O akland
_ __
__________
P o rtla n d (D re g -W a s h .)
_ ____ ________ - D e tro it
____________________________
S t Louis
_ _____________ ______ ________
M ilw aukee
_ ______________ - - - - Denver Cleveland
________________________
Los /Angeles-Long Beach and A naheim -S anta
Ana Garden Grove, Chicago______
___________
P ittsb urgh
................ - ____
______ —
B uffalo N ew ark and Jersey C ity___________ ____
H a rtford Houston
_____________ _______
M in ne a po lis-S t- Paul, B altim o re
_____ ____
P hiladelphia, Boston
__ . . ________ W orcester
____________________ ____
New Y ork
__________________________
n a lla s
.................................................

Pay levels»

116
112
109
107
103
101
100
99
97
95
94
92
91
87
79

i The averages for men in 10 jobs common to all areas were used in computing the
relatives. To minimize interarea differences in occupational composition, weights
expressing constant employment relationships based on total employment in the respec­
tive jobs in all 21 areas were used. Aggregates were computed for each area bv multi­
plying the average straight-time hourly earnings for the jobs by these weights and
totaling. The ratio of these aggregates formed the basis for the relatives.

machine-tool accessories, and (2) other non­
electrical machinery establishments employing
fewer than 20 workers. Earnings data developed
by the survey exclude premium pay for overtime
and for work on weekends, holidays, and late
shifts. A comprehensive report on the survey is
expected to be issued this spring. Separate
releases providing information on earnings and
supplementary benefits for each area are available
upon request to the Bureau of Labor Statistics or
any of its regional offices.
CD
1 For an account of the earlier survey, see M onthly
Labor Review, August 1967, pp. 52-53. The mid-1966 survey
was nationwide in scope but provided separate tabulations
for the 21 areas studied in September-November 1968.

WAGES IN WOOD HOUSEHOLD
FURNITURE MANUFACTURING
MICHAEL. J. TIGHE
r a ig h t - t im e
e a r n in g s
of production and re­
lated workers in the wood household furniture
(except upholstered) manufacturing industry av­
eraged $2.07 an hour in October 1968. Men,
nearly four-fifths of the 130,779 workers covered
in the b l s survey of this industry, averaged
$2.13 an hour, compared with $1.86 for women.

St

Michael J. Tighe is an economist in the Division of
Occupational Wage Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics.


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

More than nine-tenths of the workers earned
between $1.60 (the Federal minimum wage for
manufacturing establishments) and $3 an hour;
earnings of the middle half of the workers fell
between $1.74 and $2.28.
The overall level of wages in the industry in
October 1968 was 21 percent above the average
of $1.71 recorded in a similar Bureau survey in
May-June 1965.1 During this period, average
earnings rose about 25 percent in the New Eng­
land, Middle Atlantic, Southeast, and Southwest
regions, 19 percent in the Border States, 16
percent in the Great Lakes region, and 11 percent
in the Pacific region. Employment changes be­
tween the two surveys also varied by region: Up
28 percent in the Pacific, 18 percent in the South­
west, 9 to 11 percent in the Border States, South­
east, and Great Lakes regions, and down about
8 percent in the New England and Middle At­
lantic regions.
Average hourly earnings for the industry’s
production workers in October 1968 ranged from
$1.83 an hour in the Southwest and $1.85 in the
Border States to $2.84 in the Pacific. Workers
in the Southeast and Great Lakes region—almost
three-fifths of the industry’s work force—averaged
$1.87 and $2.24, respectively. Production-worker
averages also varied among the areas of industry
concentration surveyed separately, as shown in
table 1.
Nationwide, average earnings for production
workers varied by size of community, size of
establishment, and extent of union agreement
coverage. Averages were higher in metropolitan
areas than in smaller communities ($2.27 com­
pared with $1.96) and higher in establishments
with between 20 and 249 workers than in larger
establishments ($2.19 and $1.98). The lower
nationwide average for larger establishments
reflects a disproportionate concentration of work­
ers in these plants in the three lowest paying
regions. The Southeast, the Southwest, and the
Border States accounted for nearly four-fifths
of the employment in establishments with 250
workers or more, but for only about a third of the
employment in smaller establishments. Workers
in establishments with union agreements covering
a majority of their production workers averaged
$2.27 an hour—32 cents more than those in other
establishments.
Furniture manufacturing plants with union

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

64
Table 1.
ings 1 of
(except
selected

Number and straight-time average hourly earn­
production workers in wood household furniture
upholstered) manufacturing establishments,
areas, October 1968
Area

Number of
production
workers

Average
hourly
earnings

Chicago, III----- ---------- ------------- ------- -----------Evansville, Ind.-Ky................. ...........................
Fort Smith, Ark.—O kla____________________
Gardner, Mass...... .......................................—
Grand Rapids, M ich ............. .............................
Hickory-Statesville, N.C__________ ____ ____
Jamestown, N . Y ______________________________________
Los Angeles-Long Beach and Anaheim-Santa
Ana-Garden Grove, Calif_______ ______ —
Louisville, Ky.-lnd_______________________
Martinsville, Va................................. .................
Miami and Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood, Fla_.........
Winston Salem-High Point, N.C-------- ------- —

2,924
1,494
2,414
1,883
2,181
12,330
1,080

$2.23
1.99
1.85
2.32
2.33
1.91
2.42

4,998
1,551
7,791
1,140
8,155

2.68
2. 82
1.84
2.12
1.92

State of In d ia n a................................................

11,199

2.25

t Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late
shifts.

agreements covering a majority of their production
workers constituted nearly two-fifths of the indus­
try’s work force—a somewhat lower proportion
than in all manufacturing industries combined.
The proportions of workers in union establishments
were seven-tenths in the Pacific, two-thirds in the
Middle Atlantic, about half in the Great Lakes,
Southwest, and New England, and a fifth or less
in the Border States and Southeast.
Slightly more than four-fifths of the production
workers were paid time rates, usually determined
on the basis of the individual worker’s qualifica­
tions. Proportions of workers paid on an incentive
basis ranged from two-fifths in the Great Lakes to
less than one-fifth in the Border States, Southeast,
Southwest, and Pacific regions.
Among the occupations studied separately,
average hourly earnings ranged from $1.85 for
machine off bearers to $2.39 for general utility
maintenance men. Furniture assemblers (except
chair assemblers), the occupation with the most
workers, averaged $2.13 an hour. Their earnings
levels varied by type of assembly: $2.20 for
complete furniture pieces (case goods), $2.14 for
complete furniture pieces (other than case goods),
and $2.02 for subassemblies.
Paid holidays, most commonly 6 or 7 a year, and
paid vacations were provided by establishments
employing more than four-fifths of the industry’s
production workers. Typical vacation provisions
were 1 week of vacation pay after 1 year of service
and 2 weeks after 5 years. A fifth of the workers
were in establishments providing 3 weeks after 10
years of service. Life, hospitalization, and surgical


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

insurance were available to more than nine-tenths
of the production workers; medical insurance to
about two-thirds; and sickness and accident, and
accidental death and dismemberment, insurance
to six-tenths. Retirement pension benefits (other
than social security) applied to slightly more than
half of the workers.
The b l s survey covered establishments with 20
workers or more primarily engaged in manu­
facturing wood household furniture (except up­
holstered) commonly used in dwellings. Earnings
information developed by the survey excludes
premium pay for overtime and for work on
weekends, holidays, and late shifts. A com­
prehensive report on the survey is expected to be
issued this spring. Separate releases for the areas
listed in table 1 are available upon request to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics or any of its regional
offices.
D
1 See Frederick L. Bauer, “Earnings in Wood Household
Furniture, May-June 1965,” M on th ly Labor Review,
April 1966, pp. 398-400.

PRODUCTIVITY IN CORRUGATED
AND SOLID FIBER BOXES
CAROLYN S. FEHD
p e r m a n - h o u r in the corrugated and
solid fiber boxes industry increased 23 percent
between 1958 and 1966, expanding at an average
rate of 2.9 percent a year. This rate of increase
was somewhat slower than the rate for all
manufacturing over the same period, 3.8 percent
a year.
I n d e x e s o j O u t p u t P e r M a n - H o u r , C o r r u g a te d
a n d S o l i d F ib e r B o x e s , 1 9 5 8 - 1 9 6 6 ( b l s Bulletin
1641, 1969) presents the first study of this in­
dustry’s productivity. A part of the paper and
allied products group, the corrugated and solid
fiber boxes industry with more than 900 es­
tablishments employed 96,000 workers in 1966.
Productivity grew unevenly between 1958 and
1966 (chart 1). The largest annual change was an
increase of 6.6 percent in 1963. A decrease of .4

Output

Carolyn S. Fehd is a statistician in the Division of
Industry Productivity Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

65

RESEARCH SUMMARIES

Chart 1. Corrugated and solid fiber boxes industry: output
per all employee man-hour, output, and all employee
man-hours, 1958-66

Index (1958 = 100)

200

Since 1958, a portion of the increase in capital
expenditures has gone for new plants, but there
has been no marked effect on productivity. Future
capital investment should cause greater increases
in productivity as more advanced equipment, such
as rotary steel dies that cut and crease the
corrugated board, is adopted.
O

180 —

EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
IN KANSAS CITY

percent in 1960 marked the beginning of a re­
cession; this was the only year in which output
per man-hour failed to grow. Other increases
ranged from 1.1 percent in 1964 to 5.6 percent in
1961 when the economy started upward again.
One of the more important factors in the
increased productivity was the growth in output of
6.6 percent a year. Both the steady gains in total
manufacturing output and new uses for corrugated
containers and paperboard led to a higher demand
for these products.
Changes in the manufacturing process con­
tributed to the gain in productivity. Recent
improvements in the handling of rolling stock and
in glueing have made corrugators much faster. In
addition, the linking and coordinating of machines
involved in different parts of the production
process have speeded up output.
373-106 0 — 70------ 5


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

A report on employment, earnings, and living
costs in the Kansas City metropolitan area has
been published by the Mountain-Plains regional
office of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The study shows that the Kansas City area is
similar to the United States as a whole in employ­
ment growth patterns, levels of earnings, and living
costs. In spite of these similarities, employment
growth rates for some industries, hourly wage
rates and weekly salaries for individual occupa­
tions, and price changes for certain commodities
vary from their national counterparts as a result
of conditions peculiar to the locality.
In recent years, manufacturing has grown more
rapidly in the Kansas City area than in the Nation,
largely because of expansion in the manufacture
of durable goods and because of the opening of
many new plants. There is a relatively high pro­
portion of employment in industries that are
predominantly influenced by national markets;
thus, national and local trends in compensation
are generally similar. An unusually high proportion
of jobs are in transportation, finance, and trade.
Kansas City, like the Nation, has witnessed a rising
level of living over the past 20 years, a reflection
of increases in occupational earnings, and the
upgrading of the labor force.
Single copies of E m p lo y m e n t, E a r n i n g s , a n d
L i v i n g C o s ts i n K a n s a s C i t y are available without
charge from the Bureau’s Kansas City regional
office (see inside front cover for address).
□

Significant
Decisions
in
Labor Cases
Striking by public employees
Teachers in an Indiana community were in
contempt of a court-imposed restraining order
when they struck and picketed in support of their
demands during contract negotiations; and the
State’s so-called “Little Norris-LaGuardia Act”
prohibiting antilabor injunctions afforded them
no refuge—it did not apply to public employees.
Such was the ruling of the Indiana Supreme
Court in School C ity o f A n d e rso n }
The court’s reasoning ran along the traditional
lines of judicial decisions regarding stoppages by
public servants: “The overwhelming weight of
authority in the United States is that government
employees may not engage in a strike for any pur­
pose.” The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in
U n ite d S ta tes v. U n ite d M in e W orkers 2 was cited
as the bedrock of the Nation’s judicial opinion on
the issue. There the Court had ruled that govern­
ment employees do not have the right to strike
and can be enjoined from doing so. No fewer
than 17 authoritative decisions of courts in vari­
ous States were also cited by the Indiana court in
support of its position.
Most remarkable, however, is the dissenting
opinion. Much of the reasoning there is of broader
applicability and encompasses the basic issues
inherent in the employer-employee relationship
in government service.
The dissent makes no frontal assault upon the
vexing problem of sovereignty, although it heavily
discounts the doctrine of sovereignty as a valid
basis for banning antigovernment labor strikes.
A major portion of it is concerned with the particu­
lar aspects of the case—the questions of whether
the teachers’ walkout was illegal and enjoinable

Prepared by Eugene Skotzko of the Office of Publications,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, in cooperation with the Office
of the Solicitor of Labor.

66


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

as violative of the State’s public policy, and
whether the State’s anti-injunction law denied
protection to public employees. The answer to
both questions was negative, the dissenting judges
held.3 Indiana had no such policy, the judicial
pronouncements in other States were not the law
in Indiana, and the State’s Little Norris-LaGuar­
dia Act’s ban on antiunion injunctions contained
nothing to indicate that it was not to be applied
to public workers, the dissent maintained.
Turning to issues of concern to public workers
everywhere, the dissenting judges noted recurrence
of certain arguments in all the judicial decisions
the majority cited as condemning antigovernment
strikes. They repeated these arguments and
rebutted them.
1. A rg u m en t: The terms of public employment
are set by legislation and are not subject to
bargaining or at the discretion of agencies. D is ­
sent: In the case of teachers, the fact is that school
boards have (as the board had in the present case)
discretion in many areas of legislative intent, and
arbitrary unfair board actions can be avoided only
through effective means of pressure by teachers.
2. A rg u m en t: “To say that public employees can
strike is to say that they can deny the authority of
government.” 4 D issen t: “. . . [LJocal governing
boards of school corporations have a great deal of
discretion over the terms and conditions of em­
ployment of teachers. Any decision within this
discretionary area is authorized by the govern­
ment and, therefore, obviously does not deny
the authority of government. The teachers seek
to compel choices within that discretionary area
[not] to destroy the body politic or pressure
employers into violating their statutory duties.”
3. A rg u m en t: “A strike by public employees is
a strike against government itself, a situation
so anomalous as to be unthinkable.” D isse n t: It
is unthinkable that “any sovereign worthy of the
name would strive to remain insulated from all

67

DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES

pressures to act fairly and decently, without
arbitrariness, towards its employees. The conflict
of real social forces cannot be resolved by the
invocation of magical phrases like ‘sovereignty.’ ”
4.
A r g u m e n t : As agents of government, serving
public purpose, public employees occupy “a
status entirely different from [that of] private
employees” ; their strike contravenes public wel­
fare and paralyzes society. D i s s e n t : A distinction
between private and public employees in this
matter is violative of the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, unless there
is some “rational basis in light of the purpose of
the no-strike prohibition.”
Significantly, in belaboring the last argument,
the dissenting judges stopped short of a demand
for an absolute right for public employees to strike.
Here, as throughout the length of their dissent,
the judges seemed to say, or at least to imply,
that some antigovernment strikes may not be
permissible or even desirable, but that only a
court should determine whether a public strike
is justified. They said:
It is true that a strike by public employees may re­
sult in some amount of disruption of the agency for
which they work. In the absence of legislative dealings
with this subject we believe that it is a judicial func­
tion to determine whether the amount of the disrup­
tion of the service is so great that it warrants
overriding the legitimate interests of the employees
in having effective means to insure good faith bar­
gaining by the employer. This is a minimum requirement
before a court can declare a strike by government
employees illegal.

Stressing that not all public strikes are disrup­
tive, the dissenting judges said:
Does the majority [of the court] seriously believe
that a strike by employees of municipal golf courses
would result in anarchy? What of city parking lot
attendants? What about janitors? What about referees
of the high school basketball games? . . .

And again:
There is no difference in impact on the community
between a strike by employees of a public utility
and employees of a private utility; nor between
employees of a municipal bus company and a privately
owned bus company; nor between public school
teachers and parochial school teachers. The form
of ownership and management of the enterprise does
not determine the amount of disruption caused by
a strike. . . . [T]he form of ownership that is actually
employed is often a political or historical
accident. . . .


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

Lockout before impasse
A fertilizer manufacturer shut down his plant
before an impasse was reached in contract bargain­
ing that had failed to resolve some difficult issues.
The employer claimed that his action was dictated
by business considerations: the busy season was
approaching, and past experience as well the
union’s utterances at the bargaining table fore­
shadowed a strike “ ‘at a time of [the union’s]
own choosing’ ”—undoubtedly with the arrival of
the busy season, when it would cause the company
much harm. Throughout the bargaining the em­
ployer made concessions and showed no antiunion
attitude, nor was there a history of such an
attitude on his part.
The union charged the company with unfair
labor practices in violation of the Taft-Hartley
Act’s section 8(a)(1) and (3)—coercion of em­
ployees and discouragement of membership. The
National Labor Relations Board found the com­
pany innocent of the charges, and a Federal court
of appeals upheld the Board. (L a n e v. N L R B ) 5
In reaching its decision, the appeals court
traced the evolution of the U.S. Supreme Court’s
thinking on the subject of violations of the two
provisions. First of all, it noted that, as the High
Court had once acknowledged, “the basic issue at
stake in these cases is the relative power to be
accorded employers and unions in their economic
battles.” It then proceeded to show that the
Supreme Court’s attitude toward violations in
this area has shifted from developing rules of “per
se” violations (that is, violations which are such
by their very nature regardless of any extenuating
circumstances) to “ad hoc balancing of the com­
peting interests of labor and management.”
In the past, the appellate court said, the Supreme
Court’s position was that an unfair labor practice
of an employer could be established only if the
illegal purpose of his conduct could be proved or
presumed. That is, the employer’s conduct was
illegal if it was “ ‘demonstrably so destructive of
collective bargaining’ ” that no evidence of illegal
intent was needed (in a case involving coercion
and violation of employee rights to organize and
bargain, section 8(a)(1)); or was “ ‘inherently so
prejudicial to union interests’ ” that no evidence
of antiunion animus was needed (in the case in­
volving discouragement of membership, section
8(a)(3)).6 Illegality of the employer’s act could be

68
established in both instances by proving antiunion
motivation on his part.
In 1967, two decisions marked a modification of
the Supreme Court’s position. In Great D a n e ,7 the
Court introduced a new category of illegal conduct:
it ruled that an employer’s act need have only a
“comparatively slight” adverse effect on the
employees’ rights, to be considered as discouraging
membership. A subsequent decision in F leetw ood
T ra ilers 8 extended this new principle to coercion
and interference with organizing and bargaining
rights of employees (section 8(a)(1)).
To avoid illegality of conduct, an employer had
to demonstrate that his acts had “ ‘legitimate and
substantial business justification,’” with pro­
nounced emphasis on the word “substantial.”
Only a proof of antiunion motivation could over­
come the employer’s business justification claim.
However, the new principle of “comparatively
slight” adverse effect did not obviate the old. An
employer was still in violation of the law if his
conduct was inherently destructive of employees’
rights, even if it was based on business considera­
tion.
The appellate court ruled that the Great D a n e
principle of slight effect was applicable to the
present case: the employer’s lockout was of slight
effect on the workers’ rights, but the company
had ample economic justification for its action.
And there was no evidence of antiunion animus to
overcome his claim of economic necessity.
Regarding the occurrence of the lockout prior
to the impasse, the court’s holding suggested that
this fact was of no particular significance. As the
Supreme Court clearly held in G reat D a n e, a lock­
out after impasse under similar circumstances
would not be inherently destructive of the rights
of employees.

Court halts fruitless mediation
The National Mediation Board found it difficult
to settle a dispute between the National Airlines
and the Machinists Union. After 48 mediation
sessions, which consumed 179 hours of talk, 97
issues remained unresolved and the positions of
the parties had hardened. The Board remained
silent when queried by both the union and a
Federal district court as to what sustained its
confidence that it would eventually resolve the
dispute and why, in this obviously hopeless


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

situation, it was not seeking to induce the parties
to arbitration, the final step in the procedure under
the Railway Labor Act. Under these circum­
stances, the court granted the union’s request for
relief by ordering the Board to cease its mediation
efforts and to strive for arbitration. (In te rn a tio n a l
A sso c ia tio n o f M a c h in ists v. N a tio n a l M e d ia tio n
B o a rd ) 9
Paramount in the suit was the question of
whether the court had the authority to issue such
an order in a situation of this kind. The act grants
the Board a great power in settling disputes in
transportation industries, and full discretion in
deciding at what point its mediation becomes
ineffective and arbitration should be invoked.
The Board challenged the court’s authority
to order termination of its efforts.
Citing judicial precedents,10 the court held that
although it cannot “substitute its judgment for
the Board’s” as regards the merits of the dispute,
it has the duty, and the power, to inquire and
determine “whether there has been a clear viola­
tion of the statute by reason of the Board’s
alleged arbitrary refusal to act.” The court also
recalled that the Administrative Procedure A c t11
enables a court to “ ‘compel agency action unlaw­
fully withheld or unreasonably delayed.’ ”
The Board is powerful in dispute settlement,
but it cannot abuse its power; it cannot behave in
a way that could prevent the solution of a dispute.
“It cannot invoke immunity from judicial scrutiny
on the ground that it and it alone knows what is
best under the circumstances,” the court said.

Foreign language ballots
Many years ago, the n l r b ruled that “ [i\n
election proceedings, it is the function of the Board
to provide a ‘laboratory’ in which an experiment
to determine the uninhibited desires of the
employees may be conducted under conditions as
nearly ideal as possible.” 12 The statement came
to haunt the Board in a recent case involving the
nature of ballots used in a representation election
it had conducted. An appeals court ruled: “An
election in which one-third of the electorate has no
access to ballots in language that it can under­
stand necessarily falls below the minimum labora­
tory standards of fairness.” (.M a rrio tt In -F lite
Services v. N L R B ) 13 For that particular election,
the n l r b regional office provided ballots only in

69

DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES

English, even though it knew that a large pro­
portion of the voters spoke and understood only
Spanish.
The parties and the n l r b representative had
agreed that the election would be held “in accord­
ance with . . . the Board’s rules and regulations,
and the applicable procedures and policies of the
Board.” They also had agreed that election notices
would be in English and Spanish, and the n l r b
representative promised to provide ballots in
Spanish if the Board’s policy permitted them.
Spanish language notices were subsequently fur­
nished, but only English language ballots were
printed. After the vote the employer filed objec­
tions, including one about the ballots used, and
refused to recognize the winning union. The Board
nevertheless certified the union, and the employer
appealed.
The n l r b denied that providing foreign lan­
guage ballots was one of its standard policies. The
court, however, established that at least 18 of the
31 n l r b regional offices 14 either provided or, if
need be, would provide such ballots, and that
among the offices which had considered the issue,
the one in questioiv(Region 13, Chicago) alone did
not make such ballots available. Further, the court
cited a written statement of a high official of the
Board that “election notices in a foreign language
may be posted and in such cases, the foreign lan­
guage . .. should also appear on the ballot,” if the re­
gional director deems it necessary. This evidence was
adequate to show that there was such a Board policy.
The Board was reminded that standards must be ad­
ministered uniformly and may not be applied to
some persons but withheld from others. Past
judicial opinions to this effect were cited.
The Board argued that the ballots had been
marked with English words “yes” and “no,”
which could not be mistaken even by those least
proficient in the language, and that the bilingual


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

notices sufficed. The court replied that the ability
to distinguish between “yes” and “no” does not
preclude various complications in the exercise of
voting rights by one whose knowledge of the lan­
guage does not go much further. And the em­
ployees do not always read notices.
Also rejected was the Board’s contention that
voters in labor elections are not entitled to greater
rights than those of the voters in political elec­
tions, in which only English language ballots are
used. The court said that the two situations cannot
be compared: “What comprises fairness to the
majority in one case does not necessarily define
fairness to the minority in the other.”
□

----------- FOOTNOTES ----------1 Anderson Federation of Teachers, Local 519 v. School
City of Anderson (Sup. Ct.-Ind., October 1, 1969).
2

330 U.S. 258 (1947).

3 The dissenting opinion was written by Chief Judge
DeBruler; Judge J. Jackson concurred.
4 Arguments are cited in the dissent opinion as quota­
tions from unidentified decisions.
0 C.A.-D.C., October 14, 1969.
0
American Ship Building Co. v. NLRB, 380 U.S. 300
(1965).
^ N LRB v. Great Dane Trailers, 388 U.S. 26 (1967).
8

N LRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375 (1967).

» D.C.-D .C ., August 7, 1969.
10 With particular reliance on the appellate decision in
National Mediation Board v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks,
402 F.2d 196 (C.A.-D.C., 1968).
11 5 U.S.C.A., section 701-06.
12 General Shoe Corp., 77 NLRB No. 18 (1949).
13 C.A. 5, October 7, 1969.
14 At present, the
gional offices.

nlrb

has 31 regional and 3 subre­

This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in March was prepared in
the Bureau's Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agree­
ments on file with the Bureau covering 1,000 workers or more in all industries
except government.
Number
of
workers

Company and location

Industry

Union1

Alabama Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Co. (Mobile, Ala.).............. ....................
Allen-Bradley Co. (Milwaukee, Wis.)..........................................................
American Greetings Corp. (Cleveland, Ohio).............................................. .

Transportation equipment....................
Electrical products........................................
Printing and publishing............... ...............
Construction........... ......... ...........

Marine and Shipbuilding Workers............
Electrical Workers (UE)(lnrl.)
International Association of Greeting Card
Workers (Ind.)
Laborers

3, 000

Construction........... ....................

Carpenters

2,100

Construction.................... ............

Laborers .

1.500

2.500
5,400
1,750

Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Baltimore Builders Chapter
(Maryland).
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Baltimore Builders Chapter
(Maryland).
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Evansville Chapter (Evans­
ville, I nd.).
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Building and Heavy Con­
struction (Wisconsin).
Associated General Contractors of Jefferson County, Inc. (Texas)......... .........

Construction........... ...................

Operating Engineers

1 , 200

Construction______

Carpenters.

2,000

2, 500

Builders’ Assn., of Kansas City (Missouri and Kansas)....................................

Construction........................

Laborers.. .

Campbell Soup Co. (Camden, N.J.)__.............................................
Cartage Agreement— Private Carriers 2(Chicago, I I I , ) . . . .......................... ”
Catskill Mountain Contractors Assn., Inc.(New York).......................................
Central States Cement Haul2(Interstate)..........................................................
Chicago Coal Merchants Assn. (Chicago, III., and vicinity). .
Chicago Downtown Hotels (Chicago, III.)....................... .......... .........................
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.; The Union Light, Heat and Power Co. (Cincinnati,
Ohio, and Kentucky).

Food products.................
Trucking_____________
Construction....................
Trucking.................................
Retail trade_________ .
Hotels.___ _____
Utilities................ ...........

Meat Cutters
Chicago Truck Drivers (Ind )
Laborers
Teamsters (Ind.)
Teamsters (Ind.)
Motel and Restaurant Fmplnyeps
Independent Utilities Union (Ind )

Dairies-Milk Cos.2 (Massachusetts);...................
Dairy Employers’ Labor Council (Seattle, Wash, and vicinity)
Dairy industry Industrial Relations Assn., Master Office Agreement2 (Cali­
fornia).
Dairy Industry Industrial Relations Assn., Master Dairy Agreement (Cali­
fornia).
Downtown Casinos and Hotels2 (Las Vegas, Nev.).............
Dried Fruit Industry2(Fresno County, C alif.).................. ..........................

Food products.............. .
..
Food products...........................
Food products............ ...........

Teamsters (Ind.)
Teamsters (Ind.)
Teamsters (Ind.)

2,000

Food products....... .............

Teamsters (Ind.)

8,000

Hotels............. .
.
Food products.......................

Hotel and Restaurant Employees..............
Teamsters (Ind.)

1,700
4,500

2,800

6,000
1, 500
1 , 000
1,800
8,000
1,200

1,100
1,000

Erwin Mills, Inc. (Cooleemee, N.C.)...................................................................

TextTes.....................

United Textile Wnrkers

1,300

General Dynamics Corp., General Dynamics/Electronics Division (Rochester,
N.Y.).

Electrical products........

Rochester Independent Workers (Ind.)___

2,550

General Foods Corp., Maxwell House Division (Hoboken, N.J.)
Great Western Sugar Co. (Interstate)........ ..............................

Food products................
Food products_____

Meat Cutters
Teamsters (Ind.)

2,900

Hartford General Contractors Assn. (Connecticut)
Honeywell, Inc. (Gardena, Calif.)..........................

Construction...............
Instruments..............

Laborers.
Utility Workers

2,300

Local Cartage— Employers Assn.2 (Chicago, III., area).....................................

Trucking...................

Chicago Truck Drivers (In d .)..

5,000

Madison Employers Council, Building and Construction Contractors Division
(Madison, Wis.).
Madison Employers Council, Building and Construction Contractors Division
(Wisconsin).

1,000

1,000

Construction...........

Carpenters

2,100

Construction_____

Laborers

1,200

Masonite Corp. (Laurel, Miss.)............................................
Mechanical Contractors Assn., of New Mexico, Inc. (New Mexico).................
Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp. (Milwaukee, Wis.)
Monroe International, Inc., Bristol Division (Bristol, Va.)...............................

Paper......... ..........
Construction...........
Transit..................
Machinery.................

Woodworkers
Plumbers and Pipefitters
Amalgamated Transit Union.
Machinists

2,100
1,100

Narragansett Electric Co. (Rhode Island)....................................
National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn., Inc. (Interstate)
National Broadcasting Co., Inc., Master Agreement (Interstate)
National Electrical Contractors Assn., Rocky Mountain Chapter (Colorado)....
National Master Freight Agreement (Trucking Employers, Inc., Negotiator for
employers) (Interstate).
Nevada Industrial Council, Resort Hotels (Las Vegas, Nev.)............................
New England Road Builders’ Assn., Massachusetts Labor Relations Divi­
sion (Massachusetts).
New York Times Co. (New York, N.Y.)
News Syndicate Co., Inc. (New York, N.Y’.).............................." ” ” ” 11111
Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. (Virginia)............................................ "

Utilities.....................
Construction.................
Communications..............
Construction.................
Trucking______ _______

Utility Workers of New England (Ind.)
Plumbers and P ipefitters............
Broadcast Employees and Technicians..
Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Teamsters (In d )

Hotels...........................
Construction..........v............

Hotel and Restaurant Employees
Laborers

Printing and publishing_______
Printing and publishing________
Transportation equipment..........

Newspaper Guild
Newspaper Guild
Boilermakers

Continued on next page.

70


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

1.500

1,200
1,200
3,550
1.500
1,300
3400,000
9,000

10, 000
2.500

1,100
1,800

Major agreements expiring next month—Continued

Outboard Marine Corp., Evinrude Motors Division (Milwaukee, Wis.)..............

Machinery

Number
of
workers

Union4

Industry

Company and location

Steelworkers................ ...............................

1,450

Painters____ ____________ __________
Bookbinders.................................................
Typographical Union.....................................

10,000

Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' (Ind.)____
Electrical Workers (IBEW)_________ ____

2,000

Utility Workers______________________
Chemical Workers (Ind.)..............................

3.000
1,700

____ _________ Steelworkers................................................

1.350
5.500
1,150

............................. ..............

Construction
Painting and Decorating Contractors’ Assn. (Cook and Lake Counties, III.)—
Printing Industries of Northern California (California)................ . ................... Printing and publishing
__
Publishers’ Assn., of New York City covering four newspaper companies Printing and publishing
(New York, N.Y.).
...............
Publishers’ Assn., of New York City (New York, N.Y.)................... ................ Printing and publishing
........................- . .
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. (Washington).................................................. Utilities
Southern California Gas Co. (Los Angeles, Calif, area)................ . ...................
Southern Counties Gas Co. of California (California).........................................

Utilities
Utilities

St. Joseph Lead Co. (Missouri).........................................................................

Mining

_

United Airlines4 Pilots (Interstate)................... ............................... ...............
United Metal Trades Association, Oregon District Foundry Operators
(Washington and Oregon).
United Parcel Service, Package Agreement (California)...................................

Air Transportation
Primary metals

.................................

Airline Pilot's Association..........................
Molders.......................................................

Trucking

Virginia Electric and Power Co. (Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina)..

Utilities

Wagner Electric Corp. (St. Louis, Mo.)...............................................................
Washington Metal Trades, Inc. (Puget Sound, Wash., area)..............................

Electrical products
Primary metals

Xerox Corp. (Rochester, N.Y.)............................................................................

Instruments

1Union affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as Independent (Ind.).
2 Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).

.................................
...............- .........................

1.350

__ _________

Teamsters (Ind.)..........................................

1.000

__________ ______

Electrical Workers (IBEW)........... ...............

2.500

...............
__ ....................

Electrical Workers (IUE)...............................
Molders........................................................

4.000

_____ ____ ______

Clothing Workers................................ .......

3,200

3 Estimated.
4 Information is from newspaper account of settlement.

Major collective bargaining settlements in 1969
Major contracts negotiated during 1969 provided a median wage and
benefit package increase of 7.4 percent a year, as compared with 6.0 percent
for the full year 1968 (assuming changes went into effect at equal intervals
during the life of the contract). When actual timing of wage and benefit
changes was taken into account, the median increase amounted to 8.2 percent
a year, compared with 6.6 percent for 1968.
Considering wage rates separately from benefits, average annual increases
during the entire life of the contract were 7.1 percent of straight-time average
hourly earnings, compared with 5.2 percent for the full year 1968.
With continued emphasis on first-year changes, a median first-year adjust­
ment of 8.2 percent of straight-time hourly earnings was shown for 1969,
compared with 7.2 percent for the full year 1968.
Further details on these preliminary estimates by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics are available from any of the regional offices listed on the inside
front cover.


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

1,600
1,800

71

1.000

Developments
in
Industrial
Relations
Shopcraft dispute
The December chapter in the dispute between
four shopcraft unions 1 and the Nation’s railroads
unfolded with a strike threat, Government medi­
ation, a tentative settlement, and its subsequent
rejection. In November, the four unions rejected
the recommendations of a Presidential Emergency
Board created October 3 by President Nixon.2
The board had proposed a 1-year pact with wage
boosts of 2 percent retroactive to January 1, 1969,
3 percent July 1, 1969, and the establishment
of a special rate for mechanics at least 20 cents
an hour above the regular rate. (This special rate
was to apply to from 15 to 25 percent of the
mechanics.) The unions then issued a strike
threat for December 3, the expiration date of a
60-day cooling-off period provided under the
machinery of the Railway Labor Act.
On November 12, the U.S. Department of
Labor entered the negotiations. Marathon bar­
gaining sessions resulted in a December 4 settle­
ment that provided the following wage increases:
2 percent retroactive to January 1; 3 percent
retroactive to July 1; 10 cents September 1;
5 percent January 1, 1970; and 4 cents both
April 1 and August 1, 1970. Highly skilled em­
ployees, who constitute about 84 percent of the
workers, were to receive 5 cents an hour on top
of the July 1 raise and a 7-cent boost effective
on the date of ratification.
The agreement was rejected under the unions’
“unit rule,” which provides that none of the
unions accept an agreement unless all accept it.
Members of the Machinists, Electrical Workers
( ib e w ),
and Boilermakers unions ratified the
settlement; but the Sheet Metal Workers rejected
it, fearing that jobs might be eventually elimi­
nated because of a work rule change that
permits workers in a particular craft to spend
up to 50 percent of their time performing work
in another craft. Carriers and unions announced
that negotiations Avould resume on January 19
72

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

and that there would be no work stoppage prior
to that date.

Elections
After the most heated election campaign in the
United Mine Workers (UMW) since 1920, W. A.
(Tony) Boyle apparently defeated Joseph A.
(Jock) Yablonski and retained the presidency
of the 190,000-member union. The latest unofficial
tally gave Mr. Boyle some 81,000 votes, compared
with about 46,000 for Mr. Yablonski, a member
of the union’s international executive board. The
bitterness engendered by the campaign promised
to continue, however, as Mr. Yablonski termed
the election results “fraudulent” and urged the
U.S. Department of Labor to impound the
ballots and begin “a prompt and thorough investi­
gation.” He claimed that Mr. Boyle’s apparent
victory was the result of “his embezzlement of
millions of dollars from the UMW treasury for
his campaign coffers.” He also asserted that 500
regular union employees were illegally used as
“campaign aides” and that 1,000 other people
were added to the union’s payroll to aid in Mr.
Boyle’s campaign.
A spokesman for Mr. Boyle termed the charges
“categorical falsehood by a poor loser,” adding
“this was the cleanest, most honest and most
peaceful election ever held in this organization.”
Several interesting patterns emerged from the rela­
tively close election. (In 1964, Mr. Boyle defeated
his opponent by a margin of 95,000 to 19,000.)
Mr. Boyle generally had his best showings in
districts with heavy concentrations of retired
miners, possibly because the union had recently
raised pensions to $150 a month, from $115.3
Mr. Yablonski generally fared better in the
“working” districts in West Virginia, Ohio, and
southwestern Pennsylvania, where many miners
have shown dissatisfaction with the results of
recent collective bargaining settlements in the
industry and the way the union is administered.

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

About 110,000 active miners and 80,000 retirees
were eligible to vote in the election.
Less than 2 weeks before the balloting was
scheduled to take place, the Department of Labor
released its findings in an investigation of the
union’s finances. The report stated that Mr.
Boyle had raised the salaries of union employees
“without prior approval or subsequent ratification
by the international executive board” as required
by the union’s constitution. The Department
also asserted that there was inadequate reporting
to the Government regarding a pension fund set
up in 1960 for union officers, improper reporting
of a $1.4 million loan receivable, and loose handling
of union expense accounts, as well as instances of
nepotism. Mr. Boyle labeled the report a “smear
job and open union busting.” He said that “noth­
ing was spelled out” in the report, and that “it
was all allegations. There was not one specific
charge of wrong-doing.”
The Department of Labor did not intervene in
the campaign, despite requests from Mr. Yablonski
for a “continuing investigation” of alleged illegal
activities by Mr. Boyle and his backers. The
Department took the position that it is “longestablished policy” to investigate election irregu­
larities only after the voting is completed.
On January 5, Mr. Yablonski and his wife and
daughter were found murdered in their Clarks­
ville, Pa., home. The Department of Justice
entered the case shortly thereafter.
Secretary of Labor Shultz announced, on Jan­
uary 8, receipt of a letter from the UMW General
Counsel removing legal impediments to the im­
mediate investigation of the December election,
under Title IV of the Landrum-Griffin Act. By
mid-January some 200 Labor Department in­
vestigators were at work in the coal fields checking
into the election and the events preceding it.
The U.S. Department of Labor acted in another
union election by requesting a Federal court to
set aside the latest election of officers in the
largest district of the Seafarers’ International
Union. The Department asked the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York to
require another election, under Labor Depart­
ment auspices, contending that certain balloting
procedures had violated Federal labor law. The
request centered on the election of six top officials
of the Seafarers’ Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland
Waters District during balloting in November

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

73
and December 1968. (The district includes an
estimated 30,000 to 35,000 of the 80,000 members
in the international union.) One of the six men is
Paul Hall, president of the district and of the
Seafarers’ International Union. The suit was filed
on October 15, following more than 6 weeks of
negotiations between the Department of Labor
and union officials. The suit charged that “mem­
bers in good standing” of the district were denied
“a reasonable opportunity to nominate, vote for,
or otherwise support the candidates of their choice”
in the 1968 elections. The suit also charged that
“the imposition of unreasonable candidacy quali­
fications” denied members the right to be candi­
dates.
The legal action was mentioned in an official
report of the district’s committee proposing an
overhaul of its constitution to “limit its exposure
to lawsuits by the Department of Labor.” The
committee accused the Labor Department of “nit­
picking,” claiming that the Department’s suit
was based on charges that, “at the most, appear
to be harmless errors of members who participated
in carrying out election procedures.”

Hospitals
In mid-December, trade unions which had won
bargaining rights for nonprofessional hospital
workers in Charleston, S.C., and Baltimore, Md.4
met in New York to establish a national union.
The aim of the new union will be to organize the
estimated 2.5 million service and maintenance
workers in private hospitals and nursing homes
throughout the country. Currently about 10 per­
cent of these workers are unionized. The new
union will be known as the National Union of
Hospital and Nursing Home Employees division
of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Union (RWDSu).The prime organizer of the new
union is the Drug and Hospital Union Local 1199
of the Retail and Wholesale organization, which
now represents 42,500 workers in 200 hospitals and
2,000 drug stores in the New York Metropolitan
area. Local 1199, with the support of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference, helped the
Charleston Hospital workers win bargaining rights
after a prolonged strike last summer.
On December 9, rwdsu Local 1199E negotiated
an initial contract with the Johns Hopkins
University Hospital, one of the Baltimore hos­
pitals it recently organized. The 3-year pact,

74

which covered 1,500 nonprofessional employees,
featured adoption of a modified union shop clause
requiring 65 percent of the employees to be
members of the union on the effective date of the
agreement (December 1, 1969), and 75 percent to
be members a year later. The union had been
seeking a full union shop and had set two strike
deadlines over the issue.
Wages were increased by 25 cents an hour on
December 1 of both 1969 and 1970 and by 20
cents on December 1, 1971. A $100-a-week
minimum wage was also adopted, effective De­
cember 1, 1970. The hospital assumed the full
cost of the pension plan, which had been partly
financed by employees, and a union representative
was added to the pension committee. A health and
welfare plan was established, with the hospital
paying an amount equal to 4 percent of wages
effective December 1, increasing to 4.5 percent
on December 1, 1970, and to 5 percent a year
later. An additional paid holiday was also
provided.
The union had won the right to represent the
employees in an August 1969 election.5
About 4,000 nurses received a $301 increase in
annual salaries as a result of a November settle­
ment between the New York State Nurses
Association and New York City’s Commissioner
of Hospitals. The increase, which was retroactive
to July 1 , 1969, brought rate ranges to $7,900$9,460 a year for staff nurses, $8,600-$10,400 for
head nurses, and $9,700-$12,040 for supervisors
of nurses and nurse midwives. The amount of the
increase was determined by comparing pay in the
18 city-operated hospitals with the average for 20
voluntary, State, and Federal hospitals in the
metropolitan area.

Government
On December 5, the Michigan State Civil
Service Commission approved wage increases
for classified hourly and salaried employees.
Raises for the 39,000 hourly workers ranged from
4.7 to 18 percent. Pay increases for salaried
employees were from 5 to 6.6 percent. The overall
average increase was 6.4 percent. The new wages
are effective July 1, 1970. For hourly workers,
the resulting rate range was $2.34 to $5.54.
The commission also approved annual longevity
payments of $132 to $660 for employees with at
least 6 years of continuous service.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

A strike which had kept the Providence, R.I.,
public schools closed for 12 days ended on De­
cember 12 when the city’s 1,400 teachers ratified
a 2-year contract. The pact, which became
effective January 1, 1970, provided for 11-step
salary schedules of $6,850 to $10,000 the first
year, and $7,000 to $11,200 in the second year.
The previous schedule was $6,500 to $10,000, also
in 11 steps.

Airlines
In November, the Machinists ratified a 3-year
nationwide contract with Northwest Airlines, Inc.,
covering 3,500 ground service employees. Rates
for mechanics at the top of the scale will rise, in
steps, to $5.62 an hour on May 1, 1971, from $4.14.
Shift differentials and license and line premiums
were increased; the escalator clause was revised
to provide adjustments of up to 7 cents an hour
in January of 1970, 1971, and 1972. Under the
previous agreement, the employees received maxi­
mum 3-cent-an-hour adjustments in January
and September 1968. Other terms included im­
proved holidays, vacations and pensions, and
the establishment of a dental plan.

Earnings index
The Bureau’s index of average hourly earnings
(excluding overtime and the effects of interindustry
employment shifts.) of production workers in manu­
facturing rose 1.1 in September to 149.5. Data for
prior periods are shown below.
Index

(1967-69
= 100)

1968

September
October __
November- _
December__

. 141. 2

141. 7
142. 6
143. 6

Index
{1957-69
=100)

1969

January
FebruaryMarch _
April
May
June _ _
July. -------August
September

Annual averages:
1967_______
1968_______

144. 4
144. 9
145. 2
146. 0
146. 6
146. 9
147. 8
- - _ 148. 4
149. 5

- ____
--_
--_
__ _

- - - 131. 5
. - - 139.5

BLS Bulletin 1616, Su m m ary of M an u factu rin g
Production

W orkers

E arn in gs

Series,

1936-68,

contains monthly data from 1947 through 1968
and data for selected periods from 1939 to 1947.

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

75

Stone, clay, and glass
About 5,000 workers at 16 plants in five States
were covered by a November settlement between
three refractories and the International Union
of District 50, United Mine Workers of America.6
The contract provided for a 27.5-cent-an-hour
immediate wage increase, plus inequity adjust­
ments, an average 25 cents in the second year,
and a wage reopener in the final year. Supple­
mentary benefit changes included an eighth paid
holiday; an increase to $6 a month in the pension
for each year of credited service, effective in
November 1970; sickness and accident benefits of
$70 a week for up to 52 weeks, instead of $60
a week for 26 weeks; $6,000 life and accidental
death and dismemberment insurance, instead of
$5,000; and improved funeral leave and jury
duty benefits. The union said that these terms were
expected to be extended to several other firms.

Stockbrokers
To counter profit cuts resulting from decreased
trading volume and increased costs of doing busi­
ness, a growing number of New York City broker­
age firms have reduced the commission rates for
their salesmen. In addition, some other firms were
considering personnel reductions.
Cuts have averaged between 5 and 10 percent
in terms of estimated dollar payments. To induce
salesmen to raise the average size of individual
sales transactions, and thus raise profits, the cuts
were usually coupled with adoption of “quality
bonuses” for large sales. At Shearson-Hammill &
Co., the new basic commission scale was set at the
following levels: 30 percent if gross annual fees
are $59,999 or less, 33 percent if fees are $60,000 to
$99,999, and 35 percent if fees exceed $100,000.
In addition, a salesman grossing $60,000 or more
receives a quality bonus of 1 percentage point if
his average gross fee per transaction is $45 to
$49.99, 3 points if it is $50 to $54, and 5 points

if it is $55 or more. Previously, scales ranged from
33/i? percent to 50 percent, with no quality bonuses.
At Shearson-Hammill and some other firms, the
reductions in basic commissions were also partly
offset by improvements in benefits such as profit
sharing and medical and disability coverage.
The first public call for commission reductions
came in a September speech by Leon Kendall,
president of the Association of Stock Exchange
Firms. Mr. Kendall referred to a study that showed
that the dollar amount of salesmen’s compensation
increased 91 percent during 1958 to 1968, while
profits to brokerage firm owners rose 29 percent.

No-strike plan
In a move intended to aid Phoenix Steel Corp.
in improving its financial condition, the Steel­
workers have agreed not to engage in any strikes
against the specialty steelmaker until August 1,
1974, or possibly later. Under the plan, which was
announced in mid-December, the current collective
bargaining agreement will be extended 3 years
beyond its scheduled August 1, 1971, termination
or until the termination date of the contract nego­
tiated in 1971 at the major basic steel producers,
whichever date comes sooner. Phoenix employees
will receive all of the wage and benefit gains of the
1971 settlement in the industry but they will not
participate in any walkout. The Steelworkers
represent 3,000 Phoenix employees in Claymont,
Del., and Phoenixville, Pa.

Statistical summary
Strikes in November totaled 4,050,000 mandays or .29 percent of the total estimated working
time,7 compared to .17 percent the previous
November and .22 percent in November 1967.
The continuing strike of a coalition of 13 un­
ions representing 147,000 workers at the General
Electric Co. accounted for a large portion of the
idleness.
□

FOOTNOTES
1 M a c h in is ts, E le c tr ic a l W ork ers

( ib

e w

),

B o ile r m a k e rs,

a n d S h e e t M e ta l W o rk ers.
2 See

Monthly Labor Review, D e c e m b e r 1969, p . 69.

3 See

Monthly Labor Review, S e p te m b e r 1969, p . 57.

* S e e Monthly Labor Review, N o v e m b e r 1969, p. 65.


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

5 See

Monthly Labor Review, N o v e m b e r 1969, p . 76.

0 T h e firm s are G en era l R e fr a c to r ie s C o .; th e H a r b is o n W a lk er R e fr a c to r ie s C o ., d iv is io n o f D r e s se r I n d u s tr ie s
I n c .; a n d K a is e r I n d u str ie s C orp . T h e p la n ts are in
A la b a m a , G eo rg ia , M a r y la n d , M isso u r i, a n d O h io.
7 D a t a fo r 1969 are p r e lim in a r y .

Finding new perspectives
C r i s i s o f I n d u s t r i a l S o c ie ty . By Norman
Birnbaum. New York, Oxford University
Press, 1969. 185 pp., bibliography. $4.75.
The essential contribution of these three short
essays on class, power, and culture lies in the field
of speculative and critical sociology. The crisis
dealt with by these essays is the dilemma that
must inevitably arise in modern societies when
“The active component of culture . . . has been
allocated to science and technology [while the]
meaningful one . . . which alone could make
sense of this activity has been ascribed to those
devoid of any practical competence.” Here lies,
according to our author, the true source of the
absurdities and inhumanity shown by western
societies in recent times. A new and humanistic
industrial society demands new perspectives.
Toward this end, the author has provided us
with a penetrating, shrewd, informed commen­
tary on the contemporary western scene. These
comments do not amount to a manifesto; there is
nothing here that could reasonably be regarded as
a theory; nor is there anything being said that has
not been said before. The book’s value lies in its
highly relevant and acute insights about situations
with which we are already familiar.
The trouble with works of this kind is the ten­
sion that must inevitably develop between abstract
ideas such as class, power, and culture (as tools of
analysis) and reality. Too often, the author gives
the impression that the ideas he has abstracted
are the cause of contemporary events. Of course
they are not; causality is much more complex
than that. This is where the title of the book is
misleading. What we have here are reflections on
so m e aspects of the crisis faced by industrial
societies—however illuminating and valuable those
reflections prove to be. Where Mr. Birnbaum tries
to do more than this, he does so only with a stress­
ing and straining that makes one wonder whether
The

76

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

the exercise was worthwhile. Moreover, when he
concludes that “. . . industrial culture can be
humanized if men again take power into their own
hands,” he leaves this reviewer wondering how
this is to be done. Perhaps this is where Mr.
Birnbaum’s true value as a sociologist lies: not in
providing answers, but in provoking the reader to
ask the right questions.
—W illiam W oodruff
G r a d u a te R e s e a r c h P r o fe sso r
of E c o n o m ic s a n d H is to r y
U n iv e r s it y o f F lo r id a

Commitment and conflict
A n O c c u p a tio n i n C o n flic t: A S t u d y o f th e P e r s o n n e l

By George Ritzer and Harrison M.
Trice. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University, New
York State School of Industrial and Labor
Relations, 1969. 127 pp. $5.
It is odd that there are so few penetrating
studies of the personnel manager and the personnel
function, in view of their potential for significant
influence on organizational behavior. This research
report, based on competent theorizing and investi­
gation, is therefore a welcome contribution to
knowledge. It makes rewarding reading for the
scholar in search of hypotheses, for the behavioral
theorist interested in applications of the tools of
behavioral science research, and for the student
seeking to enlarge his knowledge of personnel
administration. Although the authors address the
book to researchers and theoreticians rather than
practitioners, it is not so technical or esoteric as
to prevent the latter from gaining useful insights.
The project was conducted at Cornell University
and sponsored by the American Society for Per­
sonnel Administration. Most of the data were
obtained from 530 questionnaires returned from
a sample of 848 of the association’s members. In
addition, depth interviews were used in exploring
conflict resolution, and a case study of a single
M an ager.

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

firm is presented. In appropriate appendices, the
authors describe the evolution and use of the
questionnaire, and present the questionnaire itself
as well as the interview schedule.
This study demonstrates what can be achieved
when a research design relates behavioral concepts
to carefully conceptualized theoretical problems.
Both the behavioral concepts and the research
findings become more meaningful. The researchers
used four concepts from occupational sociology to
draw a focus on the personnel manager: profes­
sionalism, commitment, role conflict resolution,
and occupational image. To this reader, the study
was most successful in dealing with commitment
and role conflict resolution, and least satisfactory
in exploring the questions of professionalism and
occupational image.
The findings on professionalization are not sur­
prising: the personnel manager is not very far
along enroute toward this goal. The development
of the criteria for occupational and individual
professionalization are rather pedestrian, and
more space is devoted to the delineation of the
criteria than is necessary.
The study concludes that personnel managers
are almost as highly committed to their employing
organizations as to their occupation. This appears
to be a reversal of traditional commitment theory
as represented by Howard Becker’s concept of side
bets. Side bets are the ways in which individuals
acquire stakes in things outside the firm, such as
stock investments or real esstate. Hence, the
greater the number of side bets, the greater the
commitment to the organization. Measurements of
several dimensions such as age, education, mar­
riage, and children, which should affect the number
of side bets, revealed correlation coefficients too
low to support Becker’s theory. The coexistence of
occupationa1 and organizational commitment are
explained by the coexistence of three ideologies in
personnel administration: the trash-can (dumping
ground) factor, the welfare orientation, and profes­
sionalism. These explanations seem plausible, but
they do not rule out other explanations which
might be tested in future research.
A third major effort of the study was to retest
and supplement the theory of role conflict resolu­
tion advanced by Gross, Mason, and McEachern.
A major finding was that the personnel manager
is an independent actor. He behaves independently
both in superior-subordinate relations and in
other types of conflict situations. The authors

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

77
consider this to be at variance with the traditional
occupational image of the personnel manager,
which is supposed to derive from his staff advisory
role. This latter role has been the subject of much
analysis. The framework of occupational sociology
does not seem to this reviewer to be the correct
one by which to understand the decision behavior
of the personnel executive.
The meticulous reader will note some minor
flaws in this book. Several secondary sources are
footnoted where original sources would be better.
Textbooks are cited as authorities. Moreover, the
book is uneven in structure and impact. One does
not get a sense of cumulative development. Part
of this problem lies in the methodologies used.
The main questionnaire was used for a sp a mem­
bers. The interview data were half from a sp a
members and half from nonmembers. Therefore,
there was a problem in comparing the interview
and questionnaire data. Chapter 7 surprises the
reader because it is a case study not mentioned in
the introductory sections. It too does not seem
to lend continuity to the discussion. There is much
extraneous and superficial material in the early
chapters, yet the book is comparatively short.
In spite of the limited nature of occupational
theory as a window to organizational behavior,
most readers will find this a stimulating and
provocative piece of work.
— D a l to n E. Me F a r l a n d
Professor and Chairman
Department of Management
Michigan State University

Teacher insurance
By William C.
Greenough and Francis P. King. New York,
Columbia University Press, 1969. 481 pp. $15.

B e n e fit P l a n s i n A m e r i c a n C o lle g e s.

Many lessons may be learned by the planners of
employee benefits in private industry from the
practical pioneering of our private colleges and
universities. Much of their leadership stems from
the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association,
whose chairman and research officer are the
authors of this book and its predecessors. While
they devote the most space to describing the
prevalence and features of the health, insurance,
and pension plans of the 1,200 public and private
institutions responding to their questionnaire

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

78
(including five appendices summarizing the salient
features of the retirement plans of each of these
1,200 institutions), the authors’ explanation of
the unique aspects of the teachers’ insurance plans
was of greatest interest to this reviewer.
While it is generally known that as early as
1952, the Teachers’ Insurance and Annuity
Association established an equity fund—College
Retirement Equity Fund—to give retirees some
continuing protection against price inflation and
enable them to share in the rising standard of
living, one of the most overlooked aspects of this
fund is the timing of purchases for the retiree’s
account. Instead of purchasing a variable annuity
out of pension fund accumulations at the time of
retirement, or during the following year, members
of the College Retirement Equity Fund purchase
participation units in a portfolio of securities each
year. This procedure automatically results in
dollar-averaging over the employee’s entire period
of plan membership. Thus, the equity fund
member is protected against purchasing all his
shares in the fund in a year or two when the stock
market was unusually high and also enables him
to share over a longer period of time in the ap­
preciation of the growth stocks his fpnd has
acquired.
Another interesting feature of the Teachers
Insurance and Annuity Association is that in
order to give young employees with the largest
families the most coverage, many institutions
determine the amount of life insurance coverage
on a money purchase basis, rather than as a
function of salary. Thus, for example, the school
may provide whatever insurance $3 a month will
buy. In 1968, this would purchase $34,281 for
employees who are 25 years old and $1,932 for
those 65. Since the amount provided older em­
ployees is regarded by many schools to be inade­
quate, declining plans are often combined with
flat benefit plans or plans geared to salary. D e­
creasing life insurance has enabled the teachers’
association to tailor its coverage more closely to
its members’ needs than the traditional survivorincome plans, such as those in the automobile
industry. However, until noncontributory life in­
surance is more prevalent among its institutions,
the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association
is probably justified in not offering such plans.
With the aid of a grant from the Ford Founda­
tion, the teachers’ association also pioneered in the


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

development of long-term disability insurance and
of comprehensive major medical insurance. An
important feature of the former is to supplement
cash benefits by a “waiver of premium” benefit
that continues both the employer and employee
contributions to the pension fund. This feature
permits the payment, after the disability benefits
stop at age 65, of pension benefits based on the
employee’s entire career, including his years of
disability, rather than just on his years of active
service. While found in a few other plans, this is
a fairly low-cost feature which should be more
widely adopted by all long-term disability plans.
— D o n ald M. L a n d ay
Chief, Division of General Compensation Structures
Office of Wages and Industrial Relations
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Business cycles
The

B u s i n e s s C y c le i n a C h a n g in g W o r l d . By
Arthur F. Burns. New York, National Bu­
reau of Economic Research, 1969. 368 pp.
$8.50, Columbia University Press, New York.

Interest in these 13 previously published essays
derives from the reputation of the author more
than the other way round. Most were written
during the elder-statesman period of Burns’
career between his resignation as Chairman of
the Council of Economic Advisers in 1956 and his
appointment as Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board in 1969. Ten were topical pieces on current
issues of stabilization policy, two are reports on
business cycle research, while the 13th is only
loosely related to business cycles.
The book embodies the reflections of a wise and
knowledgeable economist on the American scene.
Those looking for clues as to what kind of man
is now in charge of monetary policy will be re­
assured. There is no doctrinaire commitment to
any particular policy or theory. What stands out
is Burns’ immense factual knowledge, his balanced
judgment, and his appreciation of the complexi­
ties of economic life that get neglected in simplified
models. Many, however, will object to Burns’
emphasis on the evils of inflation as against the
evils of unemployment. “There can be little
doubt that poor people, or people of modest
means generally, are the chief sufferers from
inflation.”

79

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

The essay of most enduring interest is “The
Nature and Causes of Business Cycles.” Although
it is the general article on business cycles in the
I n te r n a tio n a l E n c y c lo p e d ia

o f th e S o c i a l S c ie n c e s ,

it is dominated by Burns’ own approach to the
subject. It has virtually nothing on econometrics
and little more on cyclical models. (The E n c y c l o ­
p e d i a ' s excellent companion piece on mathematical
models by Haavelmo is primarily methodological
and is no substitute for the discussion of the
substantive contribution of models that belongs
in Burns’ general article. The entry on aggregate
econometric models by Carl Christ, though in­
cluding more substantive discussion, is subject
to similar comments.) Though Burns pays some
attention at the end of the article to the changing
nature of the cycle, his emphasis on the cycle
as self-generating is misleading for an era when
government policy has come to dominate eco­
nomic fluctuations. He barely mentions recent work
directed toward redefining the cycle in terms of
rates of change. The essay as a whole gives an
obsolescent account of the business cycle.
Burns’ contribution to the I n te r n a t i o n a l E n ­
c y c l o p e d i a can be viewed as a final report on the
research project described by Burns and Mitchell
in M e a s u r i n g B u s i n e s s C y c le s (1946), a project
begun by Mitchell at the National Bureau of
Economic Research shortly after World War I
and continued under Burns’ direction after
Mitchell’s retirement and death. It was intended
through an inductive approach to achieve a
theory that would solve the riddle of the business
cycle. It can be compared and contrasted with
the model-building or deductive approach used
by theorists too numerous to mention, with the
historical approach advocated by a small number
of scholars such as Slichter and R. A. Gordon,
and with the econometric approach, which,
pioneered by Tinbergen, dominates the field.
None of the other approaches has been much
of a success in dealing with cycles. Slichter and
Gordon each started a major research effort
using the historical approach and then dropped it.
The deductive approach resulted in a bewildering
variety of theories, none with more than a few
adherents— the business cycle is too complex, too
sensitive to small, erratic quantitative changes,
to lend itself to analysis through the kind of
simplifying assumptions so illuminating in other
parts of economics (e.g., the theory of comparative


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

cost). The econometric approach has come to the
fore not by solving the problem of the business
cycle but by bypassing it. At this writing, the
last peak was in 1960. After the trough in 1961,
there began an unprecedentedly long expansion.
Since most of the peaks and troughs that had
occurred in the previous quarter century were
the result of government policy (a statement
that almost surely will be true of any that occur
in the future), and since econometric models
perforce are based almost exclusively on data
since World War II, they have not had to be
concerned with self-generating cycles.
With the recent reorganization of the National
Bureau under new leadership, the Burns-Mitchell
research program on business cycles is virtually
at an end. Like the other approaches, it yielded
valuable results. The search for empirical regu­
larities enriched our knowledge of what happens
during cycles and yielded as a byproduct the
leading indicator approach to forecasting. But as
with the other approaches, the final outcome is
a letdown. Burns’ essay gives a skillful description
of the business cycle blended with bits and
pieces of explanation. But no theory.
— R e n d ig s F e l s
Professor of Economics
Vanderbilt University

Brief history
The

N e w I n d u s t r i a l S o c ie ty . By Bernard A.
Weisberger. New York, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1969. 162 pp. $6.50, clothbound;
$2.50, paperbound.

Historical works continue to roll from the press
in profusion. Almost every academician these days
is a contributor to some textbook series or collec­
tion of readings. It is hardly surprising, therefore,
that the busy editors of the “Wiley American
Republic Series” refer in their perfunctory preface
to an entirely different volume and title than the
one Professor Weisberger has written. His book
in turn, it should be pointed out, covers much the
same ground in briefer compass as his two volumes,
T h e A g e o j S te e l a n d S te a m and R e a c h in g f o r E m p i r e
in the L i f e history of the United States. There is
less attention here to personalities and the illus­
trations, though adequate, are not equal to L i f e ' s

80

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

lavish standards. But the writing is lucid and even
elegant—much beyond the usual text requirements.
What, then, is Professor Weisberger’s contribu­
tion? As the title indicates, his book is another of
many studies of American economic growth and
attendant social problems. Although the cited
time span is 1848 to 1900, the author ranges more
widely over the 19th century and even looks
ahead into the Progressive Era. Despite the argu­
ment for a pre-Civil War date, it seems clear from
Weisberger’s own exposition that the real begin­
nings of the new American industrial society
belong in the last third of the 19th century. To
contend, as he does, that the fur trade was a
model for the organization of industry seems
quixotic and is rebutted by his own emphasis on
science and technology.
Among the growing number of short narratives
of separate parts of American history—designed
to supplant by cutting into smaller pieces the old
survey texts—this book achieves a place as a
concise, interesting, and valuable interpretive
account. Economic forces are stressed, and social,
cultural, and political changes are related to this
foundation. The emphasis is upon consensus rather
than conflict. Conservative leaders like Booker T.
Washington and Samuel Gompers win praise be­
cause they “may have made the best bargain
attainable at the time.” Labor’s role is treated
briefly in the chapter, “A New American Popula­
tion (1870-1910).” There is a highly selective
bibliographical essay that discusses only some
two dozen works distinguished partly by their
critical view of the older Parrington-Matthew
Josephson “great barbecue” and “robber baron”
theses respecting American industrial progress.
Thus the book, while a la m o d e , is definitely not
New Left.
— A r t h u r A . E k ir c h , J r .
Professor of History
State University of New York
at Albany

Black status
The

C ir c le

o f D is c r im in a tio n : A n

E c o n o m ic

and

S o c i a l S t u d y o f th e B l a c k M a n i n N e w Y o r k .

By Herman D. Bloch. New York, New York
University Press, 1969. 274 pp. $7.95.
This book examines in detail the historical devel­
opment of the economic, social, and political
factors contributing to the current status of the

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

black man in New York. The seemingly inevitable
result of the interaction between these forces—
the markedly inferior socioeconomic position for the
black man—receives primary emphasis through­
out. White attitudes arising from the slavery
system coupled with the black man’s high visi­
bility and the successive waves of unskilled
immigration to the United States led to the con­
centration of black workers in low-skill, dead-end
jobs. This situation tended to perpetuate itself
by removing both the incentive and the opportu­
nity to achieve the higher levels of education and
training necessary for economic advancement.
The resulting inferior status of the black man
served to reinforce the idea of inherent Negro
inferiority.
Approximately one-half of the book is devoted
to trade unionism and black political activity.
At the national level, labor leaders, both past
and present, seem genuinely opposed to color
barriers. But they lack the power to translate
their views into action at the local level where
discriminatory practices exist. The political history
of the New York black man before 1900 is por­
trayed as one of almost complete frustration.
Initial disenfranchisement was followed by a
period of political ineffectiveness, due both to the
lack of black unity and to the unwillingness of the
major parties to make significant concessions to
gain the black vote. The political situation after
1900 was not specifically covered, but general
comments relating to this period indicate that
more success has been achieved in the passage of
antidiscrimination laws than in their enforcement.
The unavoidable difficulties in enforcement lead
to the conclusion that “the law can only . . . fill
a very small gap in the existing situation.”
The author is at his best when dealing with
carefully documented historical material and
recent case histories drawn from a wealth of
personal experience over the past three decades.
But when brief attention is directed to empirical
evidence relating to recent years, the presentation
is weaker. Statistics are too frequently discussed
without an adequate frame of reference. The
data cited by the author to establish that the
relative economic status of the black man did
not improve from 1940 to 1960 is not convincing.
The conclusion that little recent progress has been
made in the ability of educated black men to
obtain employment commensurate with their
educational achievement is also inadequately

81

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

supported. In this case, the use of data covering
all age groups biases the sample in favor of indi­
viduals whose education was completed and whose
employment patterns were fixed long before the
recent period being considered.
These difficulties do not affect the major portion
of the book which provides an informative his­
tory of racial discrimination in New York.
— R ic h a r d R a y m o nd
Director of Graduate Programs in Economics
West Virginia University

Outline of systems
L a b o r • R e l a t i o n s a n d th e L a w i n B e l g i u m a n d th e
U n i t e d S ta te s . By Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather, and Geraldson. Ann Arbor, Mich., Uni­
versity of Michigan, 1969. 455 pp., bibliog­
raphy. $15.

This volume is the second in a series of com­
parative studies of labor relations in the United
States and selected West European countries. The
first volume considered the United Kingdom and
subsequent publications are planned for West
Germany, France, Italy, and Spain.
Research for this book was undertaken by
eight large international companies with head­
quarters in the United States and the entire
project was “directed and coordinated’’ by the
well-known labor law firm of Seyfarth, Shaw,
Fairweather, and Geraldson. The study was
designed to assist the project companies in “com­
prehending what the differences in the labor
relations systems of the various countries are, in
understanding the origins of these differences, and
in perceiving their operational consequences.”
Unfortunately, the authors have not done well
in terms of their self-imposed objectives. There is
no analysis of the social and cultural factors which
have influenced the development of these two
labor relations systems. The book lacks a sense of
history that a person needs to understand and to
work effectively in a foreign system or culture.
We have Ugly Americans, not because of technical
incompetence, but because of a false sense of
superiority resulting from an ignorance of the
traditions, beliefs, and value systems of other
human beings. In addition, “operational conse­
quences” may have been determined in private
management councils but they certainly are not
discussed in this published volume. The book, at
373-106 0 - 7 0 - 6

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

best, provides a sketchy outline of certain labor
relations features in the United States and
Belgium: collective bargaining law, forms and
methods of compensation, management control,
and personnel practices.
The authors have attempted a comparative fact
collection and listing. Possibly because so many
areas are covered, the facts on any one subject are
necessarily incomplete and therefore subject to
argument and to misinterpretation. The authors
claim, for example, that “the typical U.S. labor
agreement has become a complete labor relations
code” and that, whereas a permanent arbitrator
“normally evidences a genuine desire to render
sound decisions . . . the same degree of respon­
sibility cannot be expected from an ad hoc
arbitrator.” They also suggest, on the basis of the
report of one Belgian plant, “that there is less
reluctance to cross a picket line in Belgium than
in the United States.” On page 188, the authors,
after comparing the relative wage levels of U.S.
and Belgian workers, conclude correctly that these
statistics are inconclusive until subjected to a
comparative analysis of such things as output per
man-hour, unit costs, bargaining policies, and
government economic policies. Yet no such
analysis is made in ..the subsequent 150 pages
devoted to wages. In terms of style, the fact
compilations make for uninspiring reading, many
quotations are not footnoted, and a perusal of
the earlier “Labor Relations and the Law in the
United Kingdom and the United States” indicates
a striking similarity in the content of the sections
on U.S. labor relations.
The authors reach no general conclusions con­
cerning the two labor relations systems. (The
“Conclusion” section appears almost verbatim in
the two volumes produced so far.) The authors
maintain that the management participants were
the primary beneficiaries of this project because
these companies worked on “specific problems”
and engaged “in a process of direct communica­
tion.” This is probably so, but that makes it only
more difficult to justify the publication of this
work by an outstanding business school at this
selling price.
— J a m e s A. G ross
Associate Professor
New York State School of Industrial
and Labor Relations
Cornell University

82

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Primary source
T h e T r u th a b o u t B o u l w a r i s m : T r y i n g to D o R i g h t

By Lemuel R. Boulware. Wash­
ington, Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.,
1969. 180 pp. $7.50, clothbound; $2.85,
paperbound.

V o lu n ta r ily .

Lemuel Boulware, the retired vice president
for Employee and Community Relations of the
General Electric Co., has written a spirited
defense of “Boulwarism,” his approach to col­
lective bargaining, and still practiced at ge and
other companies. Shortly after publication, a
prolonged major strike impaired production at
General Electric and at about the same time the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the
company’s use of the tactics espoused by Boulware
in the 1960 bargaining negotiations had violated
the National Labor Relations Act. After
23 years, Boulwarism remains at best a
controversial method of h a n d lin g em p lo ye e
relations.
The book opens with Boulware, the marketing
consultant and general management expert, being
named to the brand new post of vice president for
Employee and Community Relations, with little
to guide him but the conviction that General
Electric’s industrial relations were less than
perfect. Using techniques borrowed from market­
ing, he studied the worker’s needs, then deter­
mined a nine-point program to meet them, a
program he says that was merely a more emphatic
and formal statement of what the company had
been doing all along. To the program was added
a method of communicating a basic offer to the
unions which represent many of the employees
and communicating the same offer to the press,
employees, management personnel, and anyone
else who might care to know. To the successive
entreaties of the unions to offer more, or at least
a different mix, the Boulware approach turns a
virtually deaf ear; this is designed to block the
union tactic of showing up the employer while
depicting themselves as necessary to force equitable
treatment from otherwise unyielding adversaries.
Unions have so far successfully challenged this as
a refusal to bargain.
A lot is said about all of this. But the most
glaring flaw to this polemic is the complete and
utter conviction that the Boulware approach is
correct, and not only for General Electric but for
society as well. There is no analysis of possible

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

error despite the fact that Boulwarism has resulted
in controversy, strife, and adverse judicial de­
cisions. Boulware is strong medicine. He lashes
out against those who fail to agree with him, or
whose views do not coincide with his own. Thus,
he rails against the unions, union leaders (never
by name), the Courts, the New Deal and its
successors, the press, the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service, socialists, and the public.
Because the book ends its coverage with the
events of the 1950’s, it may prove unsatisfying
to those concerned with a more contemporary
view of the scene. Similarly, it is sometimes only
vaguely chronological. But for anyone who wants
to understand modern collective bargaining, or
is concerned with the labor-management struggle
in this country, this book is important. It is not
often a man’s name comes to connote a basic
bargaining response, and when the man himself
tries to explain what he meant, few can deny the
importance of the work.
— P aul B. G rant
Assistant Professor of Economics
Loyola University

Administering manpower programs
F e d e r a l T r a i n i n g a n d W o r k P r o g r a m s i n th e S i x t i e s .

By Sar A. Levitan and Garth L. Mangum.
Ann Arbor, Mich., University of Michigan
and Wayne State University, Institute of
Labor and Industrial Relations, 1969. 465 pp.
$9.50, clothbound; $6.50, paperbound.
The two authors of this book, both of tvhom are
long-time observers of the manpower scene at
first-hand, have brought together in one useful
package a number of their previously published
papers on federally supported manpower programs.
The papers review the legislative history, program
objectives, administrative and other problems, and
evidence of success and failure of seven programs:
The Manpower Development and Training Act,
Vocational Education, the Job Corps, the Neigh­
borhood Youth Corps, the Work Experience and
Training Program, Vocational Rehabilitation, and
the Employment Service. In addition, the authors
include an updated, as of 1968, overall assessment
of the Federal manpower system.
In their introduction, the authors point out the
change in the magnitude of the Federal Govern-

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

83

merit’s commitment to manpower training during
the 1960’s. From 1961, when the Area Redevelop­
ment Act with its retraining program was passed,
to 1968, when such newer measures as the Man­
power Development and Training Act and the
Economic Opportunity Act were in full swing,
Federal manpower allocations rose from less than
a quarter billion dollars to nearly 2.2 billion dollars,
an increase of 9 times. The authors show how
Federal policy shifted from its traditional concern
with putting the best man into an existing job
to training and developing the employability of
the unemployed and disadvantaged.
The individual papers bring out the problems of
administration and operation of the major pro­
grams that transformed manpower policy during
the 1960’s. Although the reader might prefer a
systematic comparison of the different programs
in regard to social needs, there is much to be
gained from the separate analyses of the seven
they discuss in detail. The evaluations are pri­
marily in terms of the program’s own objectives,
although the authors point out that evidence for
evaluation is often inadequate, and sometimes
nonexistent. In general, they are careful to avoid
quick judgments based upon either lack of data or
arbitrary criteria, such as cost-benefit ratios, which
they believe can be misleading.
In their concluding section, the authors are
principally concerned with the complex problems
of intergovernmental relations which the piece­
meal creation of manpower programs produced.
Only 1 of every 10 Federal manpower dollars
is spent on programs operated by the Federal
Government; the rest are grants and contracts to
State and local governments and to private organi­
zations. As a new approach, the authors like the
idea of local centers of manpower services and
propose a new department of manpower that would
coordinate all programs at the Federal level.
Perhaps they are too optimistic in hoping that
such a system could resolve problems of gaps and
overlaps among specific programs and straighten
out present relationships with States and local
agencies, but their arguments should be given
serious attention.


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

— E verett J. B urtt , Jr.
Professor of Economics
Boston University

Other recent publications
Economic development
Abert, James Goodear, Economic Policy and Planning in
the Netherlands, 1950-1965. New Haven, Conn., Yale
University Press, 1969, 282 pp., bibliography. $10.
Leys, Colin, editor, Politics and Change in Developing
Countries: Studies in the Theory and Practice of
Development. London, Cambridge University Press,
1969, 289 pp. $7.50, Cambridge University Press,
New York.

Education and training
Bendiner, Robert, The Politics of Schools: A Crisis in
Self-Government. New York, Harper & Row,
Publishers, Inc., 1969, 240 pp. $6.95.
Kolberg, William H., “Upgrading the Working Poor,”
Manpower, U.S. Manpower Administration, Novem­
ber 1969, pp. 24-27.
National Committee on Employment of Youth, A Guide
to the Development of Vocational Education Programs
and Services for the Disadvantaged. New York, 1969,
32 pp., bibliography.
Odiorne, George S., “Adult Education in the Multiver­
sity,” Michigan Business Review, University of
Michigan, November 1969, pp. 17-20.

Employee benefits
Kittner, Dorothy R., Digest of 50 Health and Insurance
Plans for Salaried Employees, Early 1969. Washing­
ton, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1969, 126 pp.
(Bulletin 1629.) $1.25, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington.
U.S. Social Security Administration, “Study of Benefits
For Survivors of UAW Members in Detroit Areas,”
Social Security Bulletin, November 1969, pp. 18-21.

Health and safety
California State Department of Industrial Relations,
Electrical Work Injuries in California, 1968. San
Francisco, 1969, 28 pp.
Levin, Lowell S., “Building Toward the Future: Implica­
tions for Health Education,” American Journal of
Public Health and the Nation’s Health, November 1969,
pp. 1983-1991.
New York State Department of Labor, Work Injuries in
New York State Agriculture. New York, 1969, 71 pp.
(Publication B-173.)

84

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Labor force

Sidney Hillman Health Center of New York, Helping
Blue-Collar Workers in Trouble: A Report of a LaborMental Health Conference. New York, Columbia
University School of Social Work, 1969, 54 pp.
Single copies free.

Ballon, Robert J., editor, The Japanese Employee. Tokyo,
Sophia University, 1969, 317 pp. $8, Charles E.
Tuttle Co., Rutland, Yt.

Uhrich, Richard B., “Tribal Community Health Repre­
sentatives of the Indian Health Service,” Public
Health Reports, November 1969, pp. 965-970.

Carbine, Michael E., “Public Employers Feel Growing
Pains,” Manpower, U.S. Manpower Administration,
November 1969, pp. 14-18.

Industrial relations

Ginzberg, Eli, “Manpower Research— The Cutting Edge
of Policy,” Manpower, U.S. Manpower Administra­
tion, December 1969, pp. 2-5.

Bureau of National Affairs, Major Labor-Law Principles
Established by the N LRB and the Courts, December
1964-September 1969. Washington, 1969, 100 pp.
$7.50.

Goldthrope, John H. and others, The Affluent Worker in
the Class Structure. New York, Cambridge University
Press, 1969, 239 pp. (Cambridge Studies in Sociology,
3.) $7.50, cloth; $2.25, paperback.

Fine, Sidney, Sit-Down: The General Motors Strike of
1936-1937 . Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press,
1969, 448 pp. $12.50.

Grosser, Charles, William E. Henry, James G. Kelly,
editors, Nonprofessionals in the Human Services. San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969, 263 pp. $8.50.

Garbarino, Joseph W., “Managing Conflict in Industrial
Relations: U.S. Experience and Current Issues in
Britain,” British Journal of Industrial Relations,
London School of Economics and Political Science,
November 1969, pp. 317-335.

Janger, Allen R., “What’s Been Learned About Managing
the Disadvantaged,” Conference Board Record, De­
cember 1969, pp. 28-32.

Hartman, Paul T., Collective Bargaining and Productivity :
The Longshore Mechanization Agreement. Berkeley,
University of California Press, 1969, 307 pp. $8.50.
Hodgson, James D. and Matthew A. Kelly, Two Statements
on LaborIManagement Relations in the 1970s. New
York, National Association of Manufacturers, In­
dustrial Relations Department, 1969, 32 pp.
Imberman, A. A., “To Avoid a Strike,” Personnel Journal,
November 1969, pp. 890-894, 909.
Kelly, Matthew A., The Contract Rejection Problem: A
Positive Labor-Management Approach. Ithaca, N .Y .,
Cornell University, New York State School of Indus­
trial and Labor Relations, 1969, 12 pp. (Reprint
Series, 271; from Labor Law Journal, July 1969.)
New York State Department of Labor, Statistics on Work
Stoppages in New York State, 1968. New York, 1969,
25 pp. (Publication B-175.)
Novit, Mitchell S., “Right-To-Work: Before and After—
the Indiana Experience,” Business Horizons, Indiana
University, Graduate School of Business, October
1969, pp. 61-68.
Somers, Gerald G., editor, Essays in Industrial Relations
Theory. Ames, Iowa State University Press, 1969,
200 pp. $6.50.


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

Marcus, Sumner and Jon Christoffersen, “Discrimination
and the Older Worker: Public Policy Not Yet Effec­
tive,” Business Horizons, Indiana University, Grad­
uate School of Business, October 1969, pp. 83-89.
Northrup, Herbert R., The Negro in the Rubber Tire
Industry. Philadelphia, Pa., Wharton School of Fi­
nance and Commerce, Industrial Research Unit,
1969, 134 pp. (Racial Policies of American Industry,
Report 6.) $3.50, University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia.
Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section, Sex
Discrimination in Employment. Princeton, N.J.,
November 1969. 4 pp. (Selected References 149.)
50 cents.
Quay, William Howard, Jr., The Negro in the Chemical In ­
dustry. Philadelphia, Pa., Wharton School of Finance
and Commerce, Industrial Research Unit, 1969, 110
pp. (Racial Policies of American Industry, Report 7.)
$3.50, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Urban Employment
Survey: Employment Situation in Poverty Areas of
Six Cities, July 1968-June 1969. Washington, 1969,
23 pp. (BLS Report 370.)
U.S. Manpower Administration, “Bridge to the Barrios,”
Manpower, December 1969, pp. 10-14.
Webber, Arnold R., Frank H. Cassell, Woodrow L. Ginsburg, editors, Public-Private Manpower Policies.

85

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Madison, Wis., Industrial Relations Research As­
sociation, 1969. 210 pp. $4.50.

Labor organizations
Czarnecki, Edgar R., “ Unions’ Record in Repeat Elec­
tions,” Labor Law Journal, November 1969, pp. 703715.
Daly, Lawrence, “Protest and Disturbance in the Trade
Union Movement [Great Britain],” Political Quarterly,
October-December 1969, pp. 447-453.
Schmidman, John, British Unions and Economic Planning.
University Park, Pennsylvania State University,
1969, 106 pp. (Pennsylvania State University Studies,
27.) $1.
Sorenson, Jay B., The Life and Death of Soviet Trade
Unionism, 1917-1928. New York, Atherton Press,
1969, 283 pp.

Social security
Jenkins, Shirley, editor, Social Security in International
Perspective: Essays in Honor of Eveline M. Burns.
New York, Columbia University School of Social
Work, 1969, 255 pp. $9, Columbia University Press,
New York.
Morton, Malvin, editor, Can Public Welfare Keep Pace?
New York, Columbia University Press (for American
Public Welfare Association), 1969, 175 pp. $6.50.
Stein, Bruno, “The Negative Income Tax: Some New
Dimensions,” Poverty and Human Resources Abstracts,
University of Michigan-Wayne State University,
Vol. 4, No. 5, 1969, pp. 14-19.
U.S. Social Security Administration, “Poverty in Israel,”
Social Security Bulletin, November 1969, pp. 21-23, 29.

Urban affairs

Personnel management

Forrester, Jay W., Urban Dynamics. Cambridge, Mass.,
M. I.T. Press, 1969, 285 pp.

Chase, Richard B., “Work Physiology: A New Selection
Tool,” Personnel Administration, November-December 1969, pp. 47-53.

Warren, Roland L., editor, Politics and the Ghettos. New
York, Atherton Press, 1969, 214 pp. $7.95.

Dekar, Alain-Daniel, “Absenteeism: A Fact of Life,”
Personnel Journal, November 1969, pp. 881-888.

Wages and hours

Gerstenfeld, Arthur, “Employee Absenteeism: New In­
sights,” Business Horizons, Indiana University,
Graduate School of Business, October 1969, pp. 51-57.

de Bal, Marcel Bolle, “The Psycho-Sociology of Wage
Incentives,” British Journal of Industrial Relations,
London School of Economics and Political Science,
November 1969, pp. 385-398.

Prices and consumption economics

Financial Executives Institute, Committee on Employee
Benefits, Retirement Income in the United States; A
Case for the Composite System. New York, 1969, 47 pp.

Goldfinger, Nathaniel, “The Myth of Housing Costs,”
American Federationist, December 1969, pp. 1-6.
Linden, Fabian, “The Geography of Consumer Demand,”
Conference Board Record, December 1969, pp. 45-48.
Moore, Geoffrey H., The Anatomy of Inflation. Washington,
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1969, 24 pp. (Report
373.)
U.S. Federal Reserve System, “Recent Price Develop­
ments,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, September 1969,
pp. 683-695.
Wasson, Chester R, Cases in Buying Behavior and Mar­
keting Decision. St. Charles, 111., C h a lle n g e
Books, 1969, 288 pp. $4.95, paperback.

Productivity and technological change
Deakin, B. M. and T. Seward, Productivity in Transport:
A Study of Employment, Capital, Output, Productivity
and Technical Change. New York, Cambridge
University Press, 1969, 248 pp. (University of
Cambridge, Department of Applied Economics
Occasional Paper 17.) $7.50, cloth; $3.95, paperback.


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

Lerner, Shirley W., John R. Cable, S. Gupta, editors,
Workshop Wage Determination. Oxford, England,
Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1969, 294 pp. $7, cloth; $5.50,
paperback, Pergamon Press, Inc., Elmsford, N.Y.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Area Wage Survey: The
Chicago, III., Metropolitan Area, April 1969. Washing­
ton, Superintendent of Documents, 1969, 67 pp.
(Bulletin 1625-82.) 65 cents. Other bulletins in this
series include the metropolitan areas of Houston,
Tex.; Worcester, Mass.; San Antonio, Tex.;
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pa.-N.J.; PatersonClifton-Passaic, N.J.; New York, N.Y.; Akron,
Ohio. (Bulletins 1625-83 through 1625-89.) Various
pagings and prices.
Area Wage Survey: The Utica— Rome, N .Y., Metro­
politan Area, July 1969. Washington, Superintendent
of Documents, 1969, 15 pp. (Bulletin 1660-1.) 30
cents. Other bulletins in this series include the metro­
politan areas of Little Rock-North Little Rock, Ark.;
Manchester, N.H.; Rochester, N.Y.; Binghamton,
N . Y.; Raleigh, N.C. (Bulletins 1660-2 through
1660-6.) Various pagings and prices.

------- ,

86

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970
Employee Compensation and Payroll Hours: Confec­
tionary and Related Products Manufacturing, 1967.
Washington, 1969, 15 pp. (Report 364.)

Kerr, Clark, Marshall, Marx and Modern Times: The
Multi-Dimensional Society. New York, Cambridge
University Press, 1969, 138 pp. $4.95.

------- , Fabricated Structural Steel Manufacturing,
1967. Washington, 1969, 15 pp. (Report 365.)

McCracken, Paul W., “The Transition to Economic
Stability,” Michigan Business Review, University of
Michigan, November 1969, pp. 1-5.

------- ,

------- ,

Laundries and Cleaning and Dyeing Plants,
1967. Washington, 1969, 15 pp. (Report 367.)

------- , ------- ,

Men's and Boys' Shirt Manufacturing, 1967.
Washington, 1969, 15 pp. (Report 368.)

------- , ------- ,

Industry Wage Survey— Cotton and Man-Made Fiber
Textiles, September 1968. Washington, Superintendent
of Documents, 1969, 82 pp. (Bulletin 1637.) $1.

------- ,

Miscellaneous
Berkwitt, George, “The Management Machine—Can It
Work?” Dun's Review, December 1969, pp. 25-29.
Boorstin, Daniel J., The Decline of Radicalism: Reflections
on America Today. New York, Random House, Inc.,
1969, 141 pp. $4.95.
Drinan, Robert F., S.J., Democracy, Dissent, and Disorder—
The Issues and the Law. New York, Seabury Press,
Inc., 1969, 152 pp. $4.95.
Drucker, Peter F., “Management’s New Role,” Harvard
Business Review, November-December 1969, pp. 4954.
Ferman, Louis A., editor, “Evaluating the War on
Poverty,” Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, September 1969, pp. 1-156.
Friedlaender, Ann F., The Dilemma of Freight Transport
Regulation. Washington, Brookings Institution, 1969,
216 pp. (Studies in the Regulation of Economic
Activity.) $6.75.
Galambos, Eva, The Tax Structure of the Southern States:
An Analysis. Atlanta, Ga., Southern Regional
Council, Inc., 1969, 18 pp. 50 cents.
Harberger, Arnold C. and Martin J. Bailey, editors, The
Taxation of Income From Capital. Washington, Brook­
ings Institution, 1969, 331 pp. (Studies of Govern­
ment Finance.) $7.50.


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

McCullouch, Kenneth, “Work and Words,” Employment
and Productivity Gazette, H.M. Stationery Office,
October 1969, pp. 904-906.
Namias, Jean, Handbook of Selected Sample Surveys in the
Federal Government With Annotated Bibliography,
1960-1968. Jamaica, N.Y., St. John’s University,
College of Business Administration, 1969, 296 pp.
Perloff, Harvey S., Alliance for Progress: A Social In­
vention in the Making. Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins
Press (for Resources for the Future), 1969, 253 pp.
$8.50.
Redford, Emmette S., The Regulatory Process: With Illus­
trations From Commercial Aviation. Austin, Univer­
sity of Texas Press, 1969, 336 pp., bibliography. $8.
Robinson, E.A.G., editor, Backward Areas in Advanced
Countries: Proceedings of a Conference held by the
International Economic Association. New York, St.
Martin’s Press, Inc., 1969, 474 pp. $18.
Robinson, John P. and Phillip R. Shaver, Measures of
Social Psychological Attitudes. (Appendix B to Meas­
ures of Political Attitudes.) Ann Arbor, University of
Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Survey
Research Center, 1969, 662 pp.
Ross, Davis R. B., Preparing for Ulysses: Politics and
Veterans During World War II. New York, Columbia
University Press, 1969, 315 pp. $10.
Ruitenbeek, Hendrik M., Group Therapy Today: Styles,
Methods, and Techniques. New York, Atherton Press,
Inc., 1969, 365 pp., bibliography. $9.50.
Simmons, Harold E., Work Relief to Rehabilitation.
Sacramento, Calif., General Welfare Publications,
1969, 618 pp. $8.95, paperback.
Weissman, Harold H., editor, Community Development in
the Mobilization for Youth Experience. New York,
Association Press, 1969, 190 pp. $4.95, cloth; $2.50,
paperback.

Current
Labor
Statistics

Employment and unemployment—household data
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Employment status of noninstitutional population, 1947 to date...........................................................
Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages...........................
Full- and part-time status of civilian labor force......................................................................................
Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted, quarterly data........................
Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment................................................................................
Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted....................................................................
Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted.......................................................................................
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted.....................................................................................
Unemployment insurance and employment services..............................................................................

88
88
89
89
90
90
91
92
92
93

Nonagricultural employment—payroll data
11.
12.
13.
14.

94
94
95
96

Employment by industry, 1947 to date.....................................................................................................
Employment by State.................................................................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group........................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted.......................

Labor turnover rates

97
98

15. Labor turnover in manufacturing, 1959 to date.......................................................................................
16. Labor turnover in manufacturing, by major industry group.....................................................................

Hours and earnings—private nonagricultural payrolls
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

99
100

Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1947 to date..........................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group......................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted....................
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group................................................
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group..................................................
Spendable weekly earnings in current and 1957-59 dollars...................................................................

101
102
103
104

Consumer prices

105
105
111

23. Consumer Price Index, general summary.................................................................................................
24. Consumer Price Index, selected items.....................................................................................................
25. Consumer Price Index, selected areas.....................................................................................................

Wholesale prices
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

112
114
115
116
116

Wholesale Price Index, by group and subgroup of commodities............................................................
Wholesale Price Index, for special commodity groupings............................................................. ........
Wholesale Price Index, by stage of processing........................................................................................
Wholesale Price Index, by durability of product.....................................................................................
Industry-sector price index for output of selected industries..................................................................

Labor-management disputes

118

31. Work stoppages and time lost.................................................................................................................

Productivity
Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs.......................................

119

Schedule of release dates..............................................................................................

119

32.


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

87

88

HOUSEHOLD DATA

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

1. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, 1947 to date
[In thousands]
Total labor force
Total non­
institutional
population

Ysar

Civilian labor force
Employed

Number

Unemployed

Total

Percent of
population

Total

Agriculture

Nonagricultural
industries

Number

Not in
labor force

Percent of
labor
force

1947.................................................
1948......................... ......................

103,418
104,527

60,941
62,080

58.9
59.4

59,350
60,621

57,039
58,344

7,891
7,629

49,148
50,713

2,311
2,276

3.9
3.8

42,477
42,447

1949.................................................
1950.................................................
1951................................................
1952.................................................
1953.................................................

105,611
106,645
107,721
108,823
110,601

62,903
63,858
65,117
65,730
66,560

59.6
59.9
60.4
60.4
60.2

61,286
62,208
62,017
62,138
63,015

57,649
58,920
59,962
60,254
61,181

7,656
7,160
6,726
6,501
6,261

49,990
51,760
53,239
53,753
54,922

3,637
3,288
2,055
1,883
1,834

5.9
5.3
3.3
3.0
2.9

42,708
42,787
42,604
43,093
44,041

1954.................................................
1955.................................................
1956........... .....................................
1957.................................................
1958.................................................

111,671
112,732
113,811
115,065
116,363

66,993
68,072
69,409
69,729
70,275

60.0
60.4
61.0
60.6
60.4

63,643
65,023
66,552
66,929
67,639

60,110
62,171
63,802
64,071
63,036

6,206
6,449
6,283
5,947
5, 586

53,903
55,724
57,517
58,123
57,450

3,532
2,852
2,750
2,859
4,602

5.5
4.4
4.1
4.3
6.8

44,678
44,660
44,402
45,336
46,088

1959.................................................
1960.................................................
1961.................................................
1962.................................................
1963............................... .................

117,881
119,759
121,343
122,981
125,154

70,921
72,142
73,031
73,442
74,571

60.2
60.2
60.2
59.7
59.6

68,369
69,628
70,459
70,614
71,833

64,630
65,778
65,746
66,702
67,762

5,565
5,458
5,200
4,944
4,687

59,065
60,318
60,546
61,759
63,076

3.740
3,852
4,714
3,911
4,070

5.5
5.5
6.7
5.5
5.7

46,960
47,617
48,312
49,539
50,583

1964.................................................
1965.................................................
1966.................................................
1967.................................................
1968.................................................
1969.................................................

127,224
129,236
131,180
133,319
135,562
137,841

75,830
77,178
78,893
80,793
82,272
84, 239

59.6
59.7
60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1

73,091
74,455
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,733

69,305
71,088
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902

4,523
4,361
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606

64,782
66,726
68,915
70,527
72,103
74, 296

3,786
3,366
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,831

5.2
4.5
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5

51,394
52,058
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602

2. Employment status, by color, sex and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages
[In thousands]
1969

1968

1967

1966

A n n u a l a v e ra g e

Characteristic

4th

3d

2d

1969

1968

................................................................................................. 72,468 71,927 71,388 71,421 70,388 70,016 69,813 69,668 69,432 68,915 68,170 68,301 67,936
Men, 20 years and over.............................. 41,961 41,851 41,612 41,705 41,428 41,365 41,222 41,250 41,178 40,963 40,645 40,630 40,376
Women, 20 years and over......... ............... 24,172 23,941 23,624 23,601 23,138 22,830 22,701 22,593 22,640 22,265 21,749 21,735 21,635
Both sexes, 16-19 years........................ . 6,335 6,136 6,152 6,115 5,822 5,821 5,890 5,825 5,614 5,687 5,776 5,936 5,925

71,779
41,772
23,839
6,168

69,977
41,318
22,821
5,839

......................................................................................................................... 70, 098 69, 529 69,185 69,285 68,271 67,753 67,578 67,403 67,034 66,526 65,850 66,052 65,734
Men, 20 years and over.............................. 41,091 40,996 40,844 40,982 40,678 40,540 40,392 40,403 40,300 40,087 39,745 39,802 39,525
Women, 20 years and over_____ _______ 23,350 23, 096 22,837 22,833 22,394 22,043 21,951 21,807 21,781 21,394 20,942 20,930 20,922
Both sexes, 16-19 ye a rs........................... 5,656 5,437 5, 504 5,470 5,199 5,170 5,235 5,193 4,953 5,045 5,163 5,320 5,287

69,518
40,978
23,032
5, 508

67,751
40,503
22,052
5,195

1st

4th

3d

2d

1st

4th

3d

2d

1st

4th

W H IT E
Civilian labor force

Em p lo ye d

Une m played .......................................................................................................... ..............

Men, 20 years and over...............................
Women, 20 years and over..........................
Both sexes, 16-19 years.............................

2,371 2,398
870
855
844
822J
679
699

2,202
768
787
648

2,137
723
768
645

2,117
750
744
623

2,263
825
787
651

2,235
830
750
655

2,265
847
786
632

2,398
878
859
661

2,389
876
871
642

2,320
900
807
613

2,249
828
805
616

2,202
851
713
638

2,261
794
806
660

2,226
814
768
644

3.3
2.1
3.4
10.7

3.3
2.0
3.5
11.4

3.1
1.8
3.3
10.5

3.0
1.7
3.3
10.5

3.0
1.8
3.2
10.7

3.2
2.0
3.4
11.2

3.2
2.0
3.3
11.1

3.3
2.1
3.5
10.8

3.5
2.1
3.8
11.8

3.5
2.1
3.9
11.3

3.4
2.2
3.7
10.6

3.3
2.0
3.7
10.4

3.2
2.1
3.3
10.8

3.1
1.9
3.4
10.7

3.2
2.0
3.4
11.0

9,041
4,615
3,618
810

8,984
4,598
3,592
794

8,854
4,545
3,525
784

8,947
4,563
3,568
816

8,724
4,507
3,467
750

8,706
4,520
3,416
770

8,818
4,561
3,456
801

8,782
4,548
3,442
792

8,727
4,492
3,444
791

8,634
4,509
3,349
776

8,624
4,503
3,338
783

8,614
4,504
3,371
739

8,538
4,492
3,322
724

8,954
4, 579
3, 574
801

8,760
4,535
3,446
779

...................................................................................................................... ... 8, 480
Men, 20 years and over__________ ____ 4,438
Women, 20 years and over_____ _______ 3, 427
Both sexes, 16-19 years..............................
616

8,391
4,420
3,359
612

8,251
4,375
3,300
575

8,418
4,408
3,375
635

8,147
4,329
3,262
556

8,133
4,350
3,200
583

8,219
4,385
3,238
596

8,181
4,359
3,215
607

8,052
4,301
3,190
571

8,005
4,329
3,107
569

7,974
4,300
3,108
566

8,001
4,305
3,132
564

7,916
4,268
3,097
551

8,384
4,410
3,365
609

8,169
4,355
3,229
585

561
178
189
194

593
178
232
182

603
169
225
209

529
155
193
181

577
178
205
194

573
170
216
187

599
176
218
205

601
189
227
185

665
191
254
220

629
180
242
207

650
203
230
217

613
199
239
175

622
224
225
173

570
168
209
193

590
179
217
195

6.2
3.9
5.2
24.0

6.6
3.9
6.5
22.9

6.8
3.7
6.4
26.7

5.9
3.4
5.4
22.2

6.6
3.9
5.9
25.9

6.6
3.8
6.3
24.3

6.8
3.9
6.3
25.6

6.8
4.2
6.6
23.4

7.6
4.3
7.4
27.8

7.3
4.0
7.2
28.7

7.5
4.5
6.9
27.7

7.1
4.4
7.1
23.7

7.3
5.0
6.8
23.9

6.4
3.7
5.8
24.0

6.7
3.9
6.3
25.0

Une m plo ym e nt rate .................................................................................................

Men, 20 years and over..............................
Women, 20 years and over........... .......... .
Both sexes, 16-19 years............... ..............
N EG RO
C lv illa n ia b o rfo rc e

AND

O TH ER

.................................................................................................

Men, 20 years and o v e r...........................
Women, 20 years and over........... ..............
Both sexes, 16-19 ye a rs................ ..........
Em p loyed

U ne m plo ye d ............................................................................................... .........................

Men, 20 years and over..............................
Women, 20 years and over..........................
Both sexes, 16-19 years...... .......................
U ne m plo ym e nt ra te ..................................................................................

Men, 20 years and over..............................
Women, 20 years and over.........................
Both sexes, 16-19 years.............................


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

H O U S EH O LD DATA

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

89

3. Full- and part-time status of the civilian labor force
[In thousands— not seasonally adjusted]
1969

1968

Annual average

Employment status
Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1969

1968

69,296

69,491

70,350

73,713

73,514

72,365

67,818

67,921

67,799

67,700

67,233

67,610

69,700

68,332

67,433

65,594

66,206

68,854

68,471

67,011

64,346

64,244

63,778

63,588

63,126

64,073

65, 503

64,225

1,897

1,871

2,055

1,970

FULL TIME
Civilian labor force.......................... 69,204
Employed:
Full-time schedules*.........
Part-time for economic
reasons.........................

65, 302
1,998

2,061

1,955

2,069

2,607

2,456

2,522

1,672

1,704

1,961

1,906

1,904
2.8

1,864
2.7

1,942
2.8

2,075
2.9

2,251
3.1

2,587
3.5

2,831
3.9

1,799
2.7

1,973
2.9

2,060
3.0

2,206
3.3

2,211
3.3

1,667
2.5

2,142
3.1

2,138
3.1

Civilian labor force..........................

12,212

12,131

12,019

10,634

8,803

9,283

9,991

11,745

11,699

11,467

11,404

11,000

11,508

11,032

10,405

Employed (voluntary parttime).......................................

11,488

11,284

11,122

9,751

8,185

8,688

9,422

11,245

11,130

10,781

10,687

10,335

10,757

10,343

9,726

Unemployed, looking for parttime work...............................
Unemployment rate...................

724
5.9

847
7.0

898
7.5

883
8.3

618
7.0

594
6.4

568
5.7

500
4.3

569
4.9

686
6.0

717
6.3

665
6.0

752
6.5

689
6.2

679
6.5

Unemployed, looking for full­
time work...............................
Unemployment rate...................
PART TIME

i Employed persons with a job but not at work are distributed proportionately among the full- and part-time employed categories.

4.

Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
1969

1968

Annual average

Em p lo y m e n t status

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1969

1968

85,029

84,788

85,014

84,902

84,584

84,277

83,957

83,593

83,966

83,999

83,831

83,351

82,868

84,239

82,272

79,874
77,229
3,752
73,477
2,645

79,368
76,765
3,842
72,923
2,603

80,733
77,902
3,606
74,296
2,831

78,737
75,920
3.817
72,103
2.817

TO TAL
T o ta l labor force .............................

Civilian labor force...... ................... 81,589
Employed.......................... 78,779
3,505
Agriculture......................
Nonagriculture......... ....... 75,274
2,810
Unemployed........................

81,295
78,497
3,429
75,068
2,798

81,486
78, 325
3,332
74,993
3,161

81,359
78,127
3,458
74,669
3,232

81,054
78,187
3,634
74,553
2,867

80,756
77,874
3,551
74,323
2,882

80,433
77,671
3,705
73,966
2,762

80,071
77,265
3.805
73,460
2.806

80,450
77,605
3,664
73,941
2,845

80,495
77,767
3,732
74,035
2.728

80,356
77,729
3,881
73,848
2,627

M E N , 20 Y E A R S A N D O V E R
T o ta l labor force ....... ..............................................

49,574

49, 502

49,595

49,563

49,552

49,389

49,304

49,267

49,286

49,378

49,336

49,189

49,132

49,406

48,834

46,618
Employed............................ 45,607
2, 510
Agriculture......... ...........
Nonagriculture................. 43,097
1,011
Unemployed-------- ---------- -

46,489
45,487
2,479
43,008
1,002

46, 552
45,424
2,531
42, 893
1,128

46, 568
45,442
2,570
42,872
1,126

46,507
45,551
2,693
42,858
956

46,322
45,293
2,646
42,647
1,029

46,206
45,260
2,676
42,584
946

46,171
45,227
2,731
42,496
944

46,195
45,285
2,681
42,604
910

46,297
45,422
2,706
42,716
875

46,280
45,422
2,732
42,690
858

46,131
45,231
2,680
42,551
900

46,093
45,254
2,763
42,491
839

50,221
48,818
2,963
45, 854
1,403

45,852
44,859
2,816
42,043
993

27,660

27, 817

27, 686

27,677

27,511

27,262

27,049

27,205

27,189

27,230

26,950

26,737

30,512

26,266

26,264
731
25,533
966

25,999
691
25,308
951

25,802
722
25,080
935

29,084
643
28,441
1,428

25,281
606
24,675
985

Civilian labor force ...... ........................................

W O M E N , 20 Y E A R S A N D O V E R
C ivilian labor force ....... ..................

27, 892

Employed............................ 26,932
646
Agriculture......................
Nonagriculture....... ......... 26,286
960
Unemployed..................
B O T H S E X E S , 16-19 Y E A R S
C ivilian labor f o r c e .. .....................

Employed...........................
Agriculture......................
Nonagriculture........... .
Unemployed......... .............


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

7,079
6,240
349
5,891
839

26,695
562
26,133
965

26,711
514
26,197
1,106

26,519
511
26, 008
1,167

26,622
578
26,044
1,055

26,505
540
25,965
1,006

26,251
617
25,634
1,011

26,046
627
25,419
1,003

26,169
609
25,560
1,036

26,228
638
25,590
961

7,146

7,117

7,105

6,870

6,923

6,965

6,851

7,050

7,009

6,846

6,793

6,538

6,970

6,618

6,076
365
5,711
847

6,160
412
5,748
805

5,992
447
5,545
859

6,151
374
5,777
899

6,117
388
5.729
892

6,043
418
5,625
803

5,999
381
5,618
794

5,709
357
5,352
829

6,117
377
5,739
853

5,780
394
5,385
839

6,315
388
5,927
831

6,190
287
5,903
927

6,166
377
5,789
939

6,014
363
5,651
856

90

5.

H O U S E H O L D D ATA

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages
1968

1969

1967

Characteristic
4th

3d

2d

1st

4th

3d

2d

4th

1st

3d

2d

1st

1966

Annual average

4th

1969

1968

EMPLOYMENT (in thousands)
White-collar workers............................................
Professional and technical............ ............
Managers, officials, and
proprietors..............................................
Clerical workers......................................
Sales workers..................... ......................

37,509 36.959 36,700 36,217 35,906 35,756 35,445 35,109 34,882 34,481 33,955 33,616 33,686
10,914 10,765 10,775 10,628 10,452 10,393 10,326 10,142 10,057 9,953 9,784 9,731 9,596

36,844
10,769

35,551
10; 325

8,143 7,992 7,985 7,828 7,900 7,838 7,661 7,706 7,639 7,640 7,445 7,254 7,429
13,669 13, 483 13,277 13,158 12,889 12,828 12,808 12,685 12,619 12,351 12,245 12,115 12,158
4,782 4,719 4,662 4,603 4,665 4,697 4,650 4,576 4,567 4,537 4,481 4,516 4,503

7,987
13,397
4,692

7,776
12,803
4i 647

Blue-collar workers________________________
Craftsmen and foremen_______ ______ _
Operatives..._____ _________________
Nonfarm laborers................................ .......

28,369 28,445 27,875 28,255 27,756 27,509 27,466 27,342 27,273 27,356 27,140 27,276 26,962
10,276 10,144 10,020 10,334 10,158 9,953 9,979 9,964 9,840 9,774 9,321 9,942 9,709
14,393 14,628 14,170 14,293 14,032 13,943 13,928 13,915 13,904 14,022 13,773 13,836 13,826
3,700 3,673 3,685 3,629 3,566 3,613 3,559 3,463 3,529 3 ,560 3,536 3,498 3,427

28,237
10,193
14,372
3,672

27,524
10,015
13,955
3,555

Service workers......................................... ............

9,604

9,467

9,466

9,575

9,427

9,367

9,392

9,343

9,334

9,264

9,275

9,426

9,408

9,528

9,381

Farmworkers.............................................. ..........

3,051

3,229

3,447

3,479

3,307

3,401

3,536

3,683

3,620

3,556

3,472

3,610

3,585

3,292

3,464

Unemployment rate
White-collar workers....................................... .......
Professional and technical........................ .
Managers, officials, and
proprietors..............................................
Clerical workers________________ ____
Sales workers....... ......................................

2.2
1.5

2.2
1.4

1.9
1.3

1.9
1.0

1.9
1.2

2.0
1.3

2.0
1.2

2.0
1.1

2.3
1.3

2.3
1.3

2.0
1.4

2.1
1.3

2.0
1.3

2.1
1.3

2.0
1.2

1.0
3.2
2.8

1.0
3.3
3.0

.9
2.8
2.9

1.0
2.9
2.9

1.0
2.8
2.9

1.1
3.0
2.6

.9
2.9
2.6

.9
3.1
2.9

1.0
3.4
3.2

.9
3.4
3.6

.9
2.7
2.9

.9
3.0
3.2

.9
3.0
2.4

.9
3.0
2.9

1.0
3.0
2.8

Blue-collar workers..................................... ..........
Craftsmen and foremen............. ...............
Operatives................... .............................
Nonfarm laborers....... .......... ........... .........

4.3
2.2
4.9
7.0

4.0
2.2
4.4
7.4

3.8
2.1
4.3
6.4

3.7
2.1
4.1
6.4

3.8
2.1
4.3
6.7

4.2
2.4
4.5
7.6

4.0
2.4
4.3
6.9

4.4
2.6
4.8
7.6

4.5
2.4
5.1
7.8

4.5
2.3
5.1
7.8

4.6
2.8
5.0
7.9

4.2
2.4
4.8
7.1

4.1
2.8
4.2
7.5

3.9
2.2
4.4
6.7

4.1
2.4
4.5
7.2

Serviceworkers......................................................

4.0

4.6

4.4

3.9

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.3

4.9

4.5

4.2

4.5

4.5

4.2

4.4

Farmworkers.........................................................

1.8

2.3

1.9

1.6

1.7

2.4

2.3

1.9

2.3

2.5

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.9

2.1

6.

Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment
[In thousands— not seasonally adjusted]
1969
Reason for unemployment,
age, and sex

1968

Annual average

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1969

1968

Total, 16 years and over_._.............

2,628

2,710

2,839

2,958

2,869

3,182

3,400

2,299

2,542

2,746

2,923

2,876

2,419

2,831

2,817

Lost last job.................... .
Left last job. ......................
Reentered labor force.........
Never worked before..........

1,133
378
825
292

939
421
1,011
339

882
451
1,093
414

823
586
1,105
445

894
507
997
471

979
459
1,010
734

875
448
1,275
802

892
325
796
286

1,088
394
770
290

1,186
391
869
301

1,245
409
947
323

1,266
463
881
265

914
339
822
343

1,017
436
965
413

1,070
431
909
407

Male, 20 years and over..................

1,052

909

906

914

888

945

905

810

901

1,048

1,134

1,142

873

963

993

Lost last job....................
Left last job____________
Reentered labor force.........
Never worked before..........

693
150
188
20

524
141
226
18

458
141
267
40

440
209
235
30

469
192
200
24

534
170
195
46

427
183
262
33

438
148
204
19

575
145
164
17

686
139
203
19

707
167
232
28

721
179
212
29

512
129
211
21

556
164
216
27

599
167
205
22

Female, 20 years and over................

840

994

1,097

1,202

1,119

987

1,058

867

967

964

1,061

1,031

818

1,015

985

Lost last job____________
Left last job............. ..........
Reentered labor force.........
Never worked before..........

303
138
354
46

309
183
457
45

314
209
501
72

288
237
596
81

310
196
549
64

307
184
434
62

336
172
480
69

344
107
377
39

374
159
399
35

353
144
414
52

394
153
457
57

385
168
438
41

286
132
360
40

335
171
455
55

341
167
422
55

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years................

736

807

836

842

865

1,250

1,437

623

674

734

729

703

728

853

839

Lost last job........................
Left last jo b ..................... .
Reentered labor force.........
Never worked before_____

137
90
283
226

106
97
328
276

110
101
324
301

95
140
274
334

115
119
248
383

138
105
380
627

112
93
533
699

110
70
214
228

139
90
207
238

147
107
252
229

145
89
257
238

160
116
232
195

116
78
251
283

126
101
294
331

130
97
281
330


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

HOUSEHOLD DATA

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
7.

91

Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted

1969

1968

Annual average

Dec.

1969

1968

A ge and sex

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

TOTAL

16years and o ve r.........................................................
16to 19years.....................
16and 17years...........
18and 19years...........
20to 24years____ ______
25years and over...............
25to 54years_______
55years and over........

3.4
11.9
13.9
10.1
5.6
2.2
2.2
2.2

3.4
11.6
14.2
9.0
5.9
2.2
2.4
2.0

3.9
13.0
16.8
10.6
6.5
2.4
2.4
2.4

4.0
13.2
16.7
10.8
6.7
2.5
2.5
2.3

3.5
12.5
16.1
9.9
5.4
2.3
2.4
2.0

3.6
12.2
14.7
10.4
5.9
2.3
2.3
2.1

3.4
11.6
13.4
10.0
5.3
2.2
2.3
2.0

3.5
12.5
13.8
11.8
5.4
2.2
2.3
1.7

3.5
12.8
14.5
11.5
5.7
2.2
2.3
2.0

3.4
12.7
14.0
11.6
5.3
2.1
2.2
1.9

3.3
11.7
13.1
11.1
5.5
2.1
2.0
2.0

3.3
11.7
13.5
10.5
5.2
2.1
2.2
1.9

3.3
12.7
15.0
10.9
5.3
2.0
2.0
2.1

3.5
12.2
14.5
10.5
5.7
2.2
2.3
2.0

3.6
12.7
14.7
11.2
5.8
2.3
2.3
2.2

2.9
11.1
13.2
9.3
5.2
1.8
1.6
2.3

2.9
11.5
14.0
8.6
5.3
1.8
1.8
2.0

3.2
12.2
15.1
10.0
6.5
1.9
1.8
2.2

3.2
12.1
15.0
9.6
6.3
1.9
1.8
2.0

2.7
11.1
15.7
7.6
4.5
1.7
1.7
2.0

3.0
12.0
14.7
10.0
5.5
1.8
1.7
2.0

2.7
10.4
12.7
8.3
4.8
1.6
1.6
1.8

2.7
11.0
13.9
8.8
4.8
1.7
1.8
1.6

2.7
11.4
12.6
10.4
4.7
1.6
1.6
1.7

2.6
11.5
12.9
10.2
4.5
1.6
1.5
1.8

2.6
11.0
12.5
9.5
4.9
1.5
1.4
1.7

2.7
11.8
13.2
10.6
5.0
1.6
1.5
1.9

2.6
11.6
14.2
9.5
4.2
1.5
1.4
1.9

2.8
11.4
13.8
9.4
5.1
1.7
1.6
1.9

2.9
11.6
13.9
9.7
5.1
1.8
1.7
2.1

4.4
12.8
14.9
11.1
6.0
2.9
3.3
2.0

4.3
11.8
14.5
9.5
6.6
3.0
3.4
2.0

5.0
14.0
19.0
11.2
6.5
3.4
3.6
2.6

5.3
14.6
19.2
12.1
7.1
3.5
3.7
2.7

4.9
14.1
16.7
12.3
6.4
3.3
3.6
2.1

4.6
12.5
14.8
10.8
6.3
3.2
3.5
2.3

4.7
12.9
14.3
11.9
5.9
3.3
3.6
2.3

4.8
14.5
13.5
15.2
6.1
3.1
3.4
1.8

4.9
14.5
16.9
12.7
6.8
3.2
3.6
2.4

4.6
14.3
15.6
13.3
6.3
3.0
3.3
1.9

4.5
12.7
13.9
13.0
6.1
3.1
3.2
2.5

4.3
11.6
14.0
10.4
5.5
3.2
3.4
1.9

4.5
14.1
16.2
12.6
6.5
2.9
3.1
2.4

4.7
13.3
15.5
11.8
6.3
3.2
3. 5
2.2

4.8
14.0
15.9
12.9
6.7
3.2
3.4
2.3

M A LE

16years and o ve r_______ ___________
16to 19years.....................
16and 17years...........
18and 19years...........
20to 24years.....................
25years and over...............
25to 54years_______
55years and over____
FEM ALE

16years and o ve r............. ...........................................
16to 19years.....................
16and 17years...........
18and 19years...........
20to 24years.....................
25years and over...............
25to 54years..............
55years and over........


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

92

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

H O U S E H O L D D ATA

8. Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[In percent]
1969

1968

Annual average

Dec.

1969

Selected catesories

Dec.
Total (all civilian workers)........ .
Men, 20 years and over__
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...
White..................................
Negro and other..................
Married men..................... .
Full-time workers............. .
Unemployed 15 weeks and
over*............................. .
State Insured2...................
Labor force time losts........

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

June

July

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1968

3.4
2.2
3.4
11.9
3.2
5.5
1.6
3.1

3.4
2.2
3.5
11.6
3.1
6.2
1.5
3.0

3.9
2.4
4.0
13.0
3.5
6.9
1.7
3.2

4.0
2.4
4.2
13.2
3.6
6.8
1.7
3.4

3.5
2.1
3.8
12.5
3.2
6.5
1.5
3.1

3.6
2.2
3.7
12.2
3.2
6.4
1.6
3.1

3.4
2.0
3.7
11.6
3.0
7.0
1.5
3.1

3.5
2.0
3.7
12.5
3.1
6.5
1.5
3.1

3.5
2.0
3.8
12.8
3.1
6.9
1.5
3.2

3.4
1.9
3.5
12.7
3.1
6.0
1.4
2.9

3.3
1.9
3.5
11.7
2.9
5.7
1.4
2.8

3.3
2.0
3.5
11.7
3.0
6.0
1.4
2.9

3.3
1.8
3.5
12.7
3.0
6.0
1.4
2.7

3.5
2.1
3.7
12.2
3.1
6.4
1.5
3.1

3.6
2.2
3.8
12.7
3.2
6.7
1.6
3.1

.5
2.4
3.8

.5
2.4
4.0

.5
2.2
4.4

.5
2.2
4.4

.5
2.1
4.1

.5
2.2
4.1

.5
2.1
3.9

.5
2.0
3.5

.5
2.1
3.7

.4
2.1
3.7

.4
2.2
3.6

.4
2.1
3.6

.4
2.0
3.6

.5
2.2
3.9

.5
2.2
4.0

OCCUPATION
White-collar workers..................... .
Professional and mana­
gerial...............................
Clerical workers.................
Sales workers.....................

2.1

2.1

2.4

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.1

1.9

1.8

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.9

2.1

2.0

1.4
2.8
2.6

1.1
3.5
2.2

1.4
3.3
3.6

1.3
3.3
2.8

1.2
3.3
2.9

1.2
3.2
3.3

1.2
3.0
2.9

1.2
2.8
2.6

1.0
2.4
3.3

1.0
3.1
2.9

1.0
2.7
3.3

1.0
3.0
2.6

1.0
2.7
2.9

1.2
3.0
2.9

1.1
3.0
2.8

Blue-collar workers........................
Craftsmen and foremen___
Operatives..........................
Nonfarm laborers...............

4.3
2.1
5.0
7.2

4.2
2.2
4.9
7.0

4.3
2.4
5.0
6.8

4.4
2.6
4.8
7.7

3.8
2.2
4.1
6.9

3.8
1.9
4.2
7.5

3.7
1.9
4.3
5.9

3.8
2.4
4.0
6.4

4.1
2.2
4.6
6.8

3.7
2.2
3.9
7.0

3.6
2.1
4.2
5.5

3.8
2.1
4.2
6.6

3.6
1.9
4.2
6.1

3.9
2.2
4.4
6.7

4.1
2.4
4.5
7.2

Service workers..............................

3.6

3.9

4.4

4.9

4.5

4.3

4.5

4.2

4.5

3.8

3.8

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.4

3.5
5.6
3.7
3.7
3.8

3.6
5.6
3.8
3.7
3.8

3.8
7.3
3.7
3.3
4.2

4.0
7.6
3.7
3.3
4.4

3.6
7.4
2.9
2.3
3.8

3.6
5.7
3.2
3.2
3.2

3.5
5.0
3.3
3.3
3.3

3.5
5.5
3.1
2.9
3.4

3.6
6.2
3.2
3.0
3.4

3.4
6.2
3.1
2.7
3.7

3.3
5.5
2.9
2.4
3.6

3.4
5.5
3.2
2.7
3.9

3.3
5.4
2.8
2.6
3.3

3.5
6.0
3.3
3.0
3.7

3.6
6.9
3.3
3.0
3.7

2.4
3.9

2.4
3.9

2.8
4.3

2.0
4.7

2.0
4.4

1.9
4.1

1.9
4.2

2.8
3.9

2.3
4.2

2.4
3.8

1.8
3.9

1.8
3.8

1.6
4.1

2.2
4.1

2.0
4.0

2.8

3.1

3.2

3.5

3.5

3.7

3.2

3.4

3.3

2.9

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.2

3.4

Government wage and salary
workers..................................

2.0

2.1

2.5

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.7

1.9

•1.8

Agricultural wage and salary
workers...................................

6.3

5.0

6.6

7.4

7.0

9.1

5.5

4.9

5.7

5.9

4.1

5.8

5.7

6.0

6.3

INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage
ana salary workers4...............
Construction........................
Manufacturing....................
Durable goods.................
Nondurable goods...........
Transportation and public
utilities............................
Wholesale and retail trade..
Finance and service indus­
tries.................................

2 Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons
as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours.
4 Includes mining, not shown separately.

> Unemployment rate calculated as a percent of civilian labor force.
2 Insured unemployment under State programs as a percent of average covered
employment.

9.

Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[in thousands]
1969

1968

Annual average

Period

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1969

1968

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

1,436
910
382
262
120

1,564
910
384
244
140

1,857
948
370
240
130

1,818
1,000
389
233
156

1,636
861
382
244
138

1,677
830
419
244
175

1,591
813
383
258
125

1,777
629
409
278
131

1,724
737
393
254
139

1,646
757
355
237
118

1,436
829
346
237
109

1,476
741
316
193
123

1,363
825
322
177
145

1,629
827
375
242
133

1,594
810
412
256
156

15 weeks and over as a percent
of civilian labor force.............

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.4

.4

.4

.4

.5

.5


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

H O U S E H O L D D ATA

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
10.

93

Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 1
[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1969

1968

Item

Employment service: 2
Now applications for work
______________
Nonfarm placements
_______________

711
372

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

763
463

750
471

801
503

May

June

July

874
469

822
454

Mar.

Apr.

850
437

822
454

Feb.

745
397

Jan.

794
373

Dec.

849
392

Nov.

608
360

687
426

Rate unemploymentinsurance programs:
1,105
710
709
613
890
655
731
756
1,240
788
1,161
745
866
1nitial claims 3 4
______________________
insured unemployments (average weekly
1300
1,021
852
906
1,090
948
1,459
1,491
1,172
840
864
913
1,030
volume)8
___________________
2.0
1.7
1.8
26
1.8
2.2
2.9
3.0
2.3
1.8
1.6
2.0
1.6
Rate of insured un employment ?____________
4,998
3,626
3,123
3,519
5,159
3,104
3,496
4,496
5,547
3,896
2,853
3, 054
3,156
Weeks of unemploy ment compensated_______
Average weekly benefit amount for total un$46. 47 $46. 25 $45.70 $46.16 $45.30 $44.88 $45.14 $46.03 $46.71 $46.80 $46.16 $45.34 $44.72
employment
___________________
Total benefits paid
_________________ $136,585 $139,536 $136,182 $156,707 $159,161 $135,0u4 $152,966 $200,052 $226,516 $234,199 $246,117 $170,340 $122,494
Unemployment compensation for ex-servicemen: «2
Initial claims88
___________________
insured unemployment« (average weekly
volume)
_______________________
Weeks of^unemployment compensated______
Total benefits paid
_________________

30

29

26

27

32

26

20

2.2

24

27

32

29

26

38
126
$6,240

32
3 127
$6, 256

32
133
$6,514

37
148
$7,156

36
143
$6,946

30
114
$5,511

29
122
$5,847

35
155
$7,425

40
163
$7,794

43
169
$7,997

44
191
$9,046

38
151
$7,218

32
111
$5,305

Unemployment compensation for Federal civilian em­
ployees: »1»
Initial claims 3
___________________
insured unemployment« (average weekly
____________________
volume)
Weeks of unemployment compensated______
Total benefits paid
_________________

13

11

10

8

11

10

8

8

8

9

13

10

9

22
75
$3, 465

18
76
$3, 494

17
74
$3,163

18
76
$3,497

19
78
$3,597

18
69
$3,155

17
72
$3,318

20
88
$4,038

23
94
$4,2bb

24
97
$4,362

24
102
$4.595

22
95
$4,246

21
81
$3,637

Railroad unemploymentinsurance:
Applicationsu
_ __________________
Insured unemployment (average weekly
volume)
_____________________

5

10

6

7

17

11

11

5

5

6

12

11

6

14

15

13

13

13

10

18

17

21

23

24

19

18

NnmhRr of payments 12
________ _____ _____
Average amount of henefit payment 13_______
Total benefit paid 14
_______________

28
$96.28
$2, 513

36
$89.31
$2,918

28
$93.64
$2,478

28
$94.12
$2,375

26
$91.74
$2,113

25
$90.69
$2,043

39
$75.65
$2,804

41
$88.32
$3,386

46
$91.06
$4,056

47
$92.20
$4,251

54
$91.23
$4,797

42
$87.90
$3, 590

39
$91.89
$3,404

All programs: >«
Ipctirorl nnpmplnymentio

$1,105

929

902

1,015

1,088

911

970

1,162

1,384

1,550

1,584

1,252

984

_________ _____

1 Includes data for Puerto Rico.
2 Includes Guam and the Virgin Islands.

4 FnWaTclaims are notices filed by workers to indicate they are starting periods of
unemployment. Excludes transition claims understate programs.
« Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands.
« Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unemployment.
7 initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program
for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers.
s The rate is the number of insured unemployed expressed as a percent of the average
covered employment in a 12-month period.
• Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
>o Includes the Virgin Islands.
» Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs.


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

'2 An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning of his first
period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is required for subsequent
periods in the same year.
is Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods.
i<The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for
recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments,
is Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments,
in Represents an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under the State,
Ex-servicemen and UCFE programs and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Manpower Management Data Systems
for all items except railroad unemployment insurance which is prepared by the U.S.
Railroad Retirement Board. Data for latest month are subject to revision.

94
11.

PAYROLL DATA

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Employees1 on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947 to date
[In thousands]

Year

TOTAL

Mining

Contract
construc­
tion

Manufac­
turing

Transpor­
tation and
public
utilities

Total

Wholesale
trade

Retail
trade

Finance,
insurance,
and real
estate

Government
Services
Total

Federal

State
and local

1947............
1948______
1949______
1950..........

43,881
44,891
43,778
45,222

955
994
930
901

1,982
2,169
2,165
2,333

15,545
15,582
14,441
15,241

4,166
4,189
4,001
4,034

8,955
9,272
9,264
9,386

2,361
2,489
2,487
2,518

6,595
6,783
6,778
6,868

1,754
1,829
1,857
1,919

5,050
5,206
5,264
5,382

5,474
5,650
5,856
6,026

1,892
1,863
1,908
1,928

3,582
3,787
3) 948
4,098

1951............
1952............
1953............
1954............
1955............

47,849
48, 825
50,232
49,022
50,675

929
898
866
791
792

2,603
2,634
2,623
2,612
2,802

16,393
16,632
17, 549
16,314
16,882

4,226
4,248
4,290
4,084
4,141

9,742
10,004
10,247
10,235
10, 535

2,606
2,687
2,727
2,739
2,796

7,136
7,317
7,520
7,496
7,740

1,991
2,069
2,146
2,234
2,335

5,576
5,730
5,867
6,002
6,274

6,389
6,609
6,645
6,751
6,914

2,302
2,420
2,305
2,188
2,187

4,087
4; 188
4,340
4; 563
4; 727

1956............
1957............
1958...........
1959 2..........
1960...........

52,408
52,894
51,363
53,313
54,234

822
828
751
732
712

2,999
2,923
2,778
2,960
2,885

17,243
17,174
15,945
16,675
16,796

4,244
4,241
3,976
4,011
4,004

10,858
10,886
10,750
11,127
11,391

2,884
2,893
2,848
2,946
3,004

7,974
7,992
7,902
8,182
8,388

2,429
2,477
2,519
2,594
2,669

6,536
6,749
6,806
7,130
7,423

7,277
7,616
7,839
8,083
8,353

2,209
2,217
2,191
2,233
2,270

5,069
5,399
5,648
5,850
6,083

1961........ .
1962______
1963............
1964............
1965............

54,042
55,596
56,702
58, 331
60,815

672
650
635
634
632

2,816
2,902
2,963
3,050
3,186

16,326
16,853
16,995
17,274
18,062

3,903
3,906
3,903
3,951
4, 036

11,337
11,566
11,778
12,160
12,716

2,993
3,056
3,104
3,189
3,312

8,344
8,511
8,675
8,971
9,404

2,731
2,800
2,877
2,957
3,023

7,664
8,028
8,325
8,709
9,087

8,594
8,890
9,225
9, 596
10,074

2,279
2,340
2,358
2,348
2,378

6,315
6,550
6,868
7,248
7,696

1966............
1967............
1968............

63,955
65,857
67,860

627
613
610

3,275
3,208
3,267

19,214
19,447
19,768

4,151
4,261
4,313

13,245
13,606
14,081

3,437
3, 525
3,618

9,808
10,081
10,464

3,100
3,225
3,383

9,551
10,099
10, 592

10,792
11,398
11,846

2,564
2,719
2,737

8,227
8,679
9,109

» The industry series have been adjusted to March 19S8 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to August 1969. For comparable back data, see Employment and Earnings, United
States, 1909-69 (BLS Bulletin 1312-7) to be released this fall.
These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all full- and part-time
employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked during, or recei ved pay for
any part of the pay period which includes the 12th of the month. Therefore, persons who

12.

Wholesale and retail trade

worked in more than one establishment during the reporting period are counted more
than once. Proprietors, self-employed persons, unpaid family workers, and domestic
servants are excluded.
2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. This inclusion has resulted in an
increase of 212,000 (0.4 percent) in the nonagricultural total for the March 1959 bench­
mark month.

Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by State
[In thousands]
State

Nov. 1969

Oct. 1969

Nov. 1968

State

Nov. 1969

Oct. 1969

Nov. 1968

Alabama.........................
Alaska............................
Arizona..........................
Arkansas........................
California ‘ ......................

990.5
83.8
532.7
532.2
7,009.9

989.8
87.6
525.1
536.4
7, 011.4

969.4
78.9
491.4
516.8
6, 778.1

Montana *.......................
Nebraska........................
Nevada...........................
New Hampshire.............
New Jersey....................

197.2
481.2
192.5
254.2
2,575.8

199.8
481.8
193.7
258.5
2, 574.2

195.4
469.3
182.1
250.9
2,525.9

Colorado.........................
Connecticut....................
Delaware........................
District of Columbia___
Florida........... ............. .

(2>
1,187.7
212.0
( 2)
2,064.3

(2)
1,179.3
211.4
681.3
2,028.3

701.6
1,177.3
209.0
676.0
1,983.9

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

291.2
7,207.7
1,709.4
159.8
3,950.3

289.3
7,207.4
1,705.2
160.5
3,964.1

281.3
7,083.0
1,681.0
156.8
3,837.2

Georgia............ .............
Hawaii............................
Idaho..............................
Illinois............................
Indiana______ ______

1,515.4
273.0
201.6
4,423.9
1,880.2

1,508.0
271.1
203.4
4,415.4
1,892.1

1,463.0
257.7
195.9
4,363.1
1,850.8

Oklahoma.......................
Oregon •..........................
Pennsylvania..................
Rhode Island..................
South Carolina...............

759.4
711.3
4, 358.9
343.7
793.2

756.6
717.1
4,347.5
346.1
792.5

740.6
691.5
4, 298.3
349.8
781.1

Iowa...............................
Kansas............................
Kentucky ......................
Louisiana.......................
Maine.............................

885.6
690.5
881.9
1,071.8
328.2

885.9
690.5
900.4
1,068.8
330.2

871.7
681.4
892.8
1,060.6
328.0

South Dakota 1...............
Tennessee......................
Texas.............................
Utah_______ ________
Vermont.........................

172.7
1,320.2
3,632.4
352.9
145.5

174.1
1,319.4
3,610.4
353.8
148.5

168.2
1,299.5
3,497.5
348.3
140.0

Maryland........................
Massachusetts................
Michigan ..................
Minnesota.........
Mississippi.................
Missouri..................

1,307.1
2, 246. 7
3,130.9
1,315.3
567.4
1,665.1

1,301.9
2,258.7
3,115.1
1,312.2
570.2
1,660.9

1,256.5
2,231.5
3, 065.6
1,268.7
' 560.2
1,649.0

Virginia.........................
Washington....................
West Virginia..................
Wisconsin.......................
Wyoming........................

1,438.1
1,137.5
514.3
1,530.5
106.0

1,438.1
1,145.2
513.7
1,537.5
108.2

1,413.7
1,119.3
514.1
1,506.1
102.9

1 Revised series: not strictly comparable with previously published data.
2 Not available.
NOTE: Data for the current month are preliminary.


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

SOURCE: State agencies in cooperation with U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. More detailed industry data are available from the State agencies.
For addresses, see inside back cover of Employment and Earnings.

P A Y R O LL D ATA

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
13.

95

Employees 1 on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[In thousands]
1969

1968

Annual average

Industry division and group
Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1968

TOTAL.........................................

71,588

71,244

71,198

70,814

70,607

70,347

70,980

69,929

69,462

68,894

68,403

68,196

69,805

67,860

MINING......................................

632

631

632

639

647

645

638

624

619

610

610

611

619

610

613

3,663

3,707

3,681

3,601

3,404

3,255

3,077

2,999

3,024

3,247

3,267

3,208

1967
65,857

CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION........

3,360

3,529

3,623

MANUFACTURING
.........
Production w orkers*... . .

20,039
14; 645

20,156
14; 750

20,339
14,918

20,421
14,997

20,435
14,971

20,114
14,665

20,336
14,923

19,982
14,624

19,952
14,604

19,978
14,644

19,891
14,584

19,803
14,509

20.008
14,701

19,768
14,505

19,447
14,308

Durable goods....................... 11,780
Production workers*... 8; 546

11,833
8; 588

11,991
8,733

12,014
8,755

11,976
8,691

11,874
8,600

12,036
8,781

11,846
8,615

11,835
8,612

11,841
8,623

11,785
8,585

11,760
8,555

11,793
8,595

11,624
8,456

11,439
8,364

298.7
585.0
493.2

306.9
588.8
493.5

307.7
593.9
496.9

315.1
605.3
495.9

323.4
617.8
497.9

331.7
616.3
485.0

335.3
624.4
496.0

338.7
604.1
489.6

341.2
M3.4
490.7

345.5
594.2
490.6

346.8
590.1
491.1

350.3
587.8
488.5

352.0
598.0
490.1

341.5
597.8
474.2

317.2
596.8
455.4

657.0

667.0

669.6

674.2

679.1

676.2

676.1

657.2

654.8

646.6

639.2

639.2

650.1

Ordnance and accessories..
Furniture and fixtures.........
Stone, clay, and glass
products..........................

Primary metal industries... 1,357.9 1,358.0
Fabricated metal products.. 1,471.8 1,471.5
Machinery, except
2, 017.3 2,006.7
Electrical equipment--------- i; 977.2 1; 979. 5
Transportation equipment.. 2 ,002.4 2,028.6
Instrumentsand related
467.5
470.7
products..........................

637.0

628.3

1,355.9
1,468.0

1,365.5 1,367.9 1,366.7 1,375.6 1.346.1 1,336.8 1,333.3 1,326.0 1,311.9 1,302.5 1,314.3
1,472.5 1,461.9 1,441.7 1,469.1 1,445.5 1,441.6 1,441.1 1,435.4 1,432.5 1,437.2 1,393.7

1,322.1
1,363.1

2, 011.9
2, 094. 9
2,054.8

2,009.7 1,999.3 2.009.3 2,025.6 2.000.9 2,007.0 2,005.2 2,002.6 1,983.4 1,965.3 1,960.5
2,083.1 2,074.2 2,047.7 2, 058.7 2. 035.8 2,027.7 2,025.9 2,026.1 2,019.1 2,019.6 1,981.9
2,053.8 2,023.4 1,991.0 2,053.7 2,018.9 2,037.3 2,057.8 2,037.8 2,061.3 2,069.3 2,028.4

1,969.6
1,958.9
1,948.5

469.2

469.8

475.7

470.9

474.1

470.3

469.6

469.3

467.1

465.0

467.5

459.9

450.8

Miscellaneous
manufacturing.................

451.7

462.1

467.7

458.9

455.8

437.5

447.6

439.2

435.3

431.0

422.7

421.1

441.6

434.6

428.4

Nondurable goods...... .............
Production workers*...

8,259
6,099

8,323
6,162

8,348
6,185

8,407
6,242

8,459
6,280

8,240
6,065

8,300
6,142

8,136
6,009

8,117
5,992

8,137
6,021

8,106
5,999

8,043
5,954

8,215
6,106

8,144
6,049

8,008
5,944

Food and kindred products. 1,774.6 1,831.0 1,860.4
91.3
85.0
83.3
982.3
984.6
981.9
Textile mill products--------Apparel and other textile
products.......................... 1,415.9 1,422.1 1,428.6

1,920.2 1,932.0 1.827.6 1.785.3 1,725.3 1,710.8 1,706.7 1,710.9 1,720.3 1,776.7 1,780.8
79.3
88.0
75.6
83.1
83.8
71.9
71.3
72.1
93.9
90.0
71.6
990.8
992.1
987.5
990.6
980.7 1,000.9
984.7
997.7
988.4
984.7
988.1

1,786.3
86.5
958.5

1,411.2 1,426.5 1,414.7 1,397.1 1,411.0 1,407.9

1,397.5

720.6
725.2
725.3
Paper and allied products..
Printing and publishing----- 1,106.7 1,106.0 1,100.5
Chemicals and allied
products.......................... 1,051.2 1,048.8 1,046.2
Petroleum and coal
192.7
191.7
191.8
products_____________
Rubber and plastics
587.2
587.2
586.1
products, nec---------------Leather and leather
338.3
342.6
341.2
products----------------------

706.2
703.5
707.3
708.5
692.5
719.8
707.6
722.2
725.0
703.5
726.8
1,091.6 1,091.1 1,085. 4 1,085.0 1,071.1 1,077.3 1,077.0 1,073.6 1,070.1 1,079.9 1,063.1

679.1
1,047.8

1,046.9 1,043.2 1,036.9 1,030.9 1,035.1 1,026.1

1,001.4

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES.................................

1,427.3 1,433.3 1,375.8 1,440.1 1,419.1

1,052.2 1,064.4 1,064. 5 1,060.9 1,045.1
192.9

196.0

196.3

193.7

188.9

187.8

183.9

166.3

124.8

186.1

187.0

183.2

585.8

586.2

576.1

586.2

577.0

575.7

575.8

574.9

572.3

576.2

557.1

516.4

336.2

351.0

341.4

350.3

345.5

343.8

348.5

352.2

352.9

356.0

355.5

350.9

4, 502

4,510

4,502

4,529

4,533

4, 528

4,512

4,431

4,403

4,346

4,303

4,288

4,370

4,313

4,261

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE. 15,655

15,077

14,847

14,702

14,660

14,662

14,717

14,517

14,398

14,201

14,097

14,189

15,113

14,081

13,606

3,875
11,780

3,851
11,226

3,834
11,013

3,806
10,896

3,821
10,839

3,818
10,844

3,793
10,924

3,709
10,808

3,688
10,710

3,678
10,523

3,666
10,431

3,671
10,518

3,715
11,398

3,618
10,464

3,525
10,081

Retail trade...................... — FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND
REAL ESTATE..........................

3,601

3,596

3,591

3,597

3,642

3,629

3,585

3,534

3,517

3,490

3,467

3,448

3,449

3,383

3,225

11,220

11,231

11,255

11,183

11,253

11,266

11,243

11,131

11,044

10,913

10,792

10,693

10,773

10,592

10,099

829.2
825.9
, 023.0 1,036.0

719.4
669.8
681.2
675.3
691.7
727.4
714.6
763.0
1,042.2 1,031.1 1,025.4 1,016.6 1,012.7 1,017.6 1,037.0 1,031.3

695.7
1,027.8

\ 891.0 2, 889.3 \ 866.6 2,816.9 2,804. 3 1.789.5 2,772.1 2,748.2 2.728.9 2,637.7
967.2 :.,062.5 1,158.3 1,159.8 1,164.7 1,157.6 1,127.5 1,144.3 1,065.9
951.1

2,434.3
1,008.4

SERVICES............................... -Hotels and other lodging
696.7
690.3
places.......... ........... —
Personal services________ 1,018.7 1,026.1
Medical and other health
2,949.1 2,935.7
Educational services............ 1,175.8 1,174.4

718.8
.,028.0

743.5
1,021.8

’ ,913.7
,155.4

2,893.8
1,053.4

GOVERNMENT...........................

12,579

12, 514

12,409

12, 080

11,730

11,822

12,348

12,306

12,274

12,279

12,244

12,140

12,226

11,846

11,398

State and Local.......... ...........

2,749
9,830

2 ,70r
9,80S

2,715
9,694

2,73?
9,347

2,804
8,926

2,841
8,981

2,832
9,516

2,740
9,566

2,747
9,527

2,737
9,542

2,739
9,505

2,735
9,405

2,769
9,457

2,737
9,109

3,719
8,679

1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, and
coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11.
2 Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers
(including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assembling,
inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance,
repair, janitorial, and watchman services, product development, auxiliary production
for plant’s own use (e.g., powerplant), and recordkeeping and other services closely
associated with the above production operations.


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

s Beginning January 1969, Federal employment includes approximately 39,000
civilian technicians of the National Guard, who were transferred from State to
Federal status in accordance with Public Law 90-486.
NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary.

96
14.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

PAYROLL DATA

Employees 1 on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
1969

1968

Industry division and group
Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

TOTAL........................................................................ 70,639

70,653

70,651

70,390

70,500

70,247

70,300

70,013

69,789

69,710

69,487

69,199

68,875

MINING............................................ -.......................

636

632

631

631

631

629

622

622

624

626

628

626

623

CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION.............................. ........

3,446

3,460

3,418

3,420

3,410

3,434

3,466

3,407

3,363

3,374

3,366

3,338

3,330

MANUFACTURING.______ ____ ____ ___________
Production workers2-------- ------- -------------------

19,988
14,582

20,018
14,603

20,156
14,732

20,197
14,772

20,334
14,922

20,164
14,772

20,198
14,811

20,118
14,740

20,111
14,739

20,122
14,771

20,061
14,731

19,999
14,684

19,958
14,635

Durable goods......................... .............................
Production workers2..................................
Ordnance and accessories.......... .......................
Lumber and wood products...............................
Furniture and fixtures— ......... — .......... .
Stone, clay, and glass products--------- ------------

11,732
8,491
298
590
488
665

11,758
8, 509
304
590
487
664

11,932
8,674
306
589
491
662

11,965
8,701
314
595
492
660

12,081
8,823
325
598
493
659

11,912
8,668
332
600
491
658

11,931
8,687
337
607
496
662

11,874
8,630
342
610
496
656

11,868
8,634
343
604
496
658

11,881
8,654
346
608
494
664

11,839
8,628
346
607
494
666

11,819
8,606
349
606
490
664

11,744
8,536
351
603
485
658

Prmary metal industries...-----------------------Faibricated metal products.............................
Machinery, except electrical------------------------Electrical equipment-------- --------------------------Transportation equipment.................................
Instruments and related products— ...............

1,369
1,460
2,023
1,954
1,965
465

1,379
1,457
2, 015
1,956
1,997
469

1,381
1,456
2,030
2, 076
2, 030
469

1,378
1,468
2,020
2,075
2,054
469

1,361
1,465
2,005
2, 076
2,183
473

1,348
1,456
2,007
2, 070
2,032
471

1,347
1,456
2,010
2,063
2,035
473

1,333
1,453
1,999
2, 058
2, 009
474

1,326
1,450
1,999
2,046
2,029
472

1,332
1,451
1,993
2, 036
2, 042
470

1,330
1,444
1,997
2,026
2,020
468

1,321
1,437
1,981
2,013
2,045
466

1,313
1,426
1,971
1,996
2,031
465

Dec.

Miscellaneous manufacturing.............................

455

440

442

440

443

447

445

444

445

445

441

447

445

Nondurable goods.............. .......... ........................
Production workers2..................................
Food and kindred products............................ .
Tobacco manufactures.......................................
Textile mill products.............. .........................
Apparel and other textile products----------------Paper and allied products............ ............ ........

8,256
6,091
1,787
77
982
1,417
722

8,260
6,094
1,806
78
979
1,408
722

8,224
6, 058
1,777
78
977
1,410
720

8,232
6,071
1,791
80
979
1,412
718

8,253
6,099
1,797
83
979
1,414
718

8,252
6,104
1,787
81
988
1,423
716

8.267
6,124
1,789
81
990
1,429
717

8,244
6,110
1,793
82
987
1,426
714

8,243
6,105
1,795
81
991
1,425
710

8,241
6,117
1,793
83
995
1,417
714

8,222
6,103
1,801
8?.
999
1,409
713

8,180
6,078
1,792
84
1,000
1,424
709

8,214
6,099
1,789
81
998
1,412
706

Printing and publishing.....................................
Chemicals and allied products___ _____ ____
Petroleum and coal products------------------------Rubber and plastics products, nec....................
Leather and leather products.............................

1,100
1,056
194
580
341

1,103
1,054
192
580
338

1,099
1,050
191
583
339

1,093
1,051
189
583
336

1,089
1,052
190
586
345

1,084
1,054
191
585
343

1,083
1,055
191
584
348

1,075
1,046
190
581
350

1,078
1,044
190
579
350

1,078
1,045
187
579
350

1,077
1,044
170
577
350

1,076
1,040
128
573
354

1,074
1,040
189
571
354

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES..............

4,493

4,488

4,480

4, 480

4,484

4,483

4,467

4,444

4,439

4,399

4,373

4,353

4,360

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE.............................

14,785

14,823

14,809

14,716

14,702

14,671

14,665

14,609

14,533

14,508

14,468

14,412

14,271

Wholesale trade.............. ............................. ........
Retail trade_____ ___________________ ____

3,837
10,948

3,817
11,006

3,807
11,002

3,787
10,929

3,776
10, 926

3,773
10,898

3,774
10,891

3,758
10,851

3,737
10,796

3,726
10,782

3,714
10,754

3,701
10,711

3,678
10,593

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE................

3,615

3,610

3,595

3, 586

3,581

3,568

3,557

3, 541

3,531

3,515

3,502

3,490

3,463

SERVICES................. ......................... ...................... . 11,288
745
Hotels and other lodging places...................... .
1,014
Personal services................................................. .
2,958
Medical and other health services______ ______
Educational services............................ ............. . 1,126

11,265
743
1,022
2,936
1,117

11,244
740
1,025
2,917
1,113

11,150
721
1,026
2,897
1,092

11,120
704
1,026
2,874
1,094

11,067
706
1,030
2, 861
1,099

11,066
724
1,026
2,850
1,102

11,065
730
1,025
2,831
1,120

11,044
741
1,024
2,813
1,119

11,034
745
1,026
2,795
1,117

10,967
733
1,027
2,778
1,112

10,900
733
1,028
2,762
1,090

10,838
729
1,032
2,737
1,096

GOVERNMENT.......................................... ................

12,388

12,357

12,318

12,210

12,238

12,231

12,259

12,207

12,144

12,132

12,122

12,081

12,032

Federal3____ __________ __________ _____
State and local___ ________ _______ ___ ___

2,713
9,675

2,721
9,636

2,729
9,589

2,749
9,461

2,752
9,486

2,777
9,454

2,790
9,469

2,754
9,453

2,758
9,386

2,759
9,373

2,767
9,355

2,760
9,321

2,724
9,308

‘ For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969,
and coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11.
2 For definition of production workers, see footnote 2, table 13.


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

3 See footnote 3, table 13.
NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary.

LA B O R T U R N O V E R

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
15.

97

Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1959 to date 1
[Per 100 employees]
Jan.

Year

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Annual
average

T o ta l accessions

1959......................................
I960
1961.................... ..................
1962......................................
1963 ...................................

3.8
4.0
3.7
4.1
3.6

3.7
3.5
3.2
3.6
3.3

4.1
3.3
4.0
3.8
3.5

4.1
3.4
4.0
4.0
3.9

4.2
3.9
4.3
4.3
3.9

5.4
4.7
5.0
5.0
4.8

4.4
3.9
4.4
4.6
4.3

5.2
4.9
5.3
5.1
4.8

5.1
4.8
4.7
4.9
4.8

3.9
3.5
4.3
3.9
3.9

3.4
2.9
3.4
3.0
2.9

3.6
2.3
2.6
2.4
2.5

4.2
3.8
4.1
4.1
3.9

1964_____ _____________
1 9 6 5 ...................................
1966___________________
1967________ ___ _______
1968
.................... ..........

3.6
3.8
4.6
4.3
4.2
4.6

3.4
3.5
4.2
3.6
3.8
3.9

3.7
4.0
4.9
3.9
3.9
4.4

3.8
3.8
4.6
3.9
4.3
4.5

3.9
4.1
5.1
4.6
4.6
4.8

5.1
5.6
6.7
5.9
5.9
6.6

4.4
4.5
5.1
4.7
5.0
5.1

5.1
5.4
6.4
5.5
5.7
5.6

4.8
5.5
6.1
5.3
5.7
5.9

4.0
4.5
5.1
4.7
5.0
4.9

3.2
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.6

2.6
3.1
2.9
2.8
3.0

4.0
4.3
5.0
4.4
4.6

1969

N e w hires

1959............................... .
1960______ ____________
1961............... .....................
1962.....................................
1963............. ........................

2.0
2.2
1.5
2.2
1.9

2.1
2.2
1.4
2.1
1.8

2.4
2.0
1.6
2.2
2.0

2.5
2.0
1.8
2.4
2.3

3.7
2.3
2.1
2.8
2.5

2.7
3.0
2.9
3.5
3.3

3.0
2.4
2.5
2.9
2.7

3.5
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.2

3.5
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.2

2.6
2.1
2.7
2.5
2.6

1.9
1.5
2.0
1.8
1.8

1.5
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.4

2.6
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.4

1964______ ____________
1965............. ........................
1966_________ _________
1967.....................................
1968___________________
1969

2.0
2.4
3.2
3.0
3.0
3 3

2.0
2.4
3.1
2.7
2.7
3.0

2.2
2.8
3.7
2.8
2.9

2.4
2.6
3.6
2.8
3.2
3.5

2.5
3.0
4.1
3.3
3.6
3.8

3.6
4.3
5.6
4.6
4.7
5.4

2.9
3.2
3.9
3.3
3.7
3.9

3.4
3.9
4.8
4.0
4.3

3.5
4.0
4.7

2.8
3.5
4.2
3.7
4.0

1.6
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.2

2.6
3.1
3.8
3.3
3.5

3 .4

4.3

4.5
4.8

4.0

2.2
2.9
3.1
2.8
2.9
2.8

4.1

T o ta l separations

1959......................................
1960................................. .
1961......................................
1962___________________
1963................................. .

3.7
3.6
4.7
3.9
4.0

3.1
3.5
3.9
3.4
3.2

3.3
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.5

3.6
4.2
3.4
3.6
3.6

3.5
3.9
3.5
3.8
3.6

3.6
4.0
3.6
3.8
3.4

4.0
4.4
4.1
4.4
4.1

4.6
4.8
4.2
5.1
4.8

5.3
5.3
5.1
5.0
4.9

5.5
4.7
4.2
4.4
4.1

4.7
4.5
4.0
4.0
3.9

3.9
4.8
4.0
3.8
3.7

4.1
4.3
4.0
4.1
3.9

1964___________________
1965____________ _______
1966............................ .........
1967___________ ________
1968......................................
1969

4.0
3.7
4.0
4.5
4.4
4.5

3.3
3.1
3.6
4.0
3.9
4.0

3.5
3.4
4.1
4.6
4.1
4.4

3.5
3.7
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.5

3.6
3.6
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.6

3.5
3.6
4.4
4.3
4.1
4.5

4.4
4.3
5.3
4.8
5.0
5.3

4.3
5.1
5.8
5.3
6.0
6.2

5.1
5.6
6.6
6.2
6.3
6.6

4.2
4.5
4.8
4.7
4.9
5.3

3.6
3.9
4.3
4.0
4.1
4.3

3.7
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.8

3.9
4.1
4.6
4.6
4.6

Q u its

1959......................................
1960......................................
1961......................................
1962......................................
1963.....................................

1.1
1.2
.9
1.1
1.1

1.0
1.2
.8
1.1
1.0

1.2
1.2
.9
1.2
1.2

1.4
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.3

1.5
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.4

1.5
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.4

1.6
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4

2.1
1.8
1.7
2.1
2.1

2.6
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4

1.7
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5

1.2
.9
1.1
1.1
1.1

1.0
.7
.9
.8
.8

1.5
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.4

1 9 6 4 ...................................
1965......................................
1 9 6 6 ...................................
1967......................................
1 9 6 8 ...................................
1969

1.2
1.4
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.3

1.1
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.9
2 1

1.2
1.5
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.4

1.3
1.7
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.6

1.5
1.7
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.7

1.4
1.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.6

1.5
1.8
2.5
2.1
2.3
2.6

2.1
2.6
3.6
3.2
3.7
4.0

2.7
3.5
4.5
4.0
4.1
4.4

1.7
2.2
2.8
2.5
2.8
2.9

1.2
1.7
2.1
1.9
2.1
2. 1

1.0
1.4
1.7
1. 5
1.6

1.5
1.9
2.6
2.3
2.5

La yoffs

1959....................................
1960............. ...................
1961......................................
1962......................................
1963.......................................

2.1
1.8
3.2
2.1
2.2

1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
1.6

1.6
2.2
2.3
1.6
1.7

1.6
2.2
1.9
1.6
1.6

1.4
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5

1.4
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4

1.8
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.0

1.8
2.4
1.8
2.2
1.9

2.0
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.8

3.2
2.8
2.0
2.2
1.9

2.9
3.1
2.2
2.3
2.1

2.4
3.6
2.6
2.5
2.3

2.0
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8

1964......................................
1965......................................
1966.......................................
1967.................... ..................
1968......................................
1969......................................

2.0
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.2

1.6
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.0

1.6
1.2
1.0
1.5
1.1
1.0

1.4
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
.9

1.4
1.1
.9
1.1
1.0
.9

1.3
1.1
1.0
1.1
.9
.9

2.1
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.6

1.4
1.6
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1

1.5
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1

1.8
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.3

1.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.4

2.1
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4

1.7
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.2

i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11.
Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufac­
turing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the
changes shown by the Bureau’s employment series for the following reasons: (1) The

373-106 0

-

70 - 7


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

labor turnover series measures changes during the calendar month, while the employ­
ment series measures changes from midmonth to midmonth and (2) the turnover
series excludes personnel changes caused by strikes, but the employment series
reflects the influence of such stoppages.
NOTE: Data for the current month are preliminary.

98

16.

LABOR TURNOVER

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Labor turnover rates 1 in manufacturing, by major industry group
[Per 100 employees]
Accession rates
Total

M a jo r industry group

Nov.
1969
M A N U F A C T U R I N G ................................................
Seasonally ad ju ste d ......................................
D urable go o ds__________________

Ordnance and
accessories...............
Lumber and wood
products......... ........
Furniture and fixtures__
Stone, clay, and glass
products..................
Primary metal industries.
Fabricated metal
products..................
Machinery, except
electrical.................
Electrical equipment......
Transportation equipment___________
Instruments and related
products___ _____
Miscellaneous manufacturing...............
Nondurable goods......................................

Food and kindred
products..................
Tobacco manufactures...
Textile mill products.....
Apparel and othertextile
products.................
Paper and allied
products................
Printing and publishing..
Chemicals and allied
products.................
Petroleumand coal
products.................
Rubber and plastics
products, n.e.c..........
Leather and leather
products...... ..........

Oct.
1969

Separation rates
Newhires

Total

Layoffs

Nov.
1968

Nov.
1969

Oct.
1969

Nov.
1968

Nov.
1969

Oct.
1969

Nov.
1968

Nov.
1969

Oct.
1969

Nov.
1968

Nov.
1969

Oct.
1969

Nov.
1968

3.6
4.4
3.2

4.9
4.7
4.5

3.8
4.6
3.6

2.8
3.4
2.6

4.0
3.6
3.6

2.9
3.5
2.8

4.3
4.8
4.0

5.3
5.0
5.0

4.1
4.5
3.7

2.1
2.6
1.9

2.9
2.7
2.6

2.1
2.6
1.9

1.4
1.3
1.2

1.3
1.3
1.2

1.2
1.1
.9

1.2
4.6
4.6
3.4
2.8
4.1
2.9
3.0
2.9
2.7

2.3
5.8
7.0
5.1
3.9
5.5
3.8
4.2
4.3
3.4

2.4.
4.8
5.4
3.7
3.7
4.4
3.0
3.2
3.5
2.8

.8
4.0
4.2
2.8
2.2
3.6
2.3
2.2
1.9
2.1

1.5
5.2
6.3
4.2
3.1
4.7
3.1
3.3
2.8
2.9

1.9
4.2
4.9
3.0
2.1
3.8
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.4

3.7
6.2
5.7
4.2
3.0
4.7
2.6
3.6
4.0
2.8

3.8
6.9
6.9
5.5
4.1
6.0
3.8
4.6
4.9
3.8

2.6
5.7
5.1
4.3
2.9
4.5
2.6
3.4
3.7
2.5

1.2
3.5
3.4
2.1
1.4
2.4
1.3
1.8
1.3
1.4

1.7
4.5
4.8
3.3
2.1
3.3
1.9
2.5
1.9
2.4

1.4
3.5
3.5
2.3
1.3
2.4
1.3
1.7
1.4
1.5

1.8
1.9
1.2
1.4
.6
1.2
.5
.9
1.9
.7

1.4
1.3
.6
1.0
.8
1.3
.9
1.0
1.9
.6

.6
1.4
.6
1.1
.7
1.1
.5
.7
1.4
.4

4.6
4.0

6.7
5.5

4.4
4.1

3.9
3.1

5.8
4.4

3.7
3.1

8.3
4.8

6.9
5.9

6.5
4.6

3.0
2.4

4.4
3.4

3.0
2.4

3.9
1.6

1.2
1.6

2.4
1.5

5.5
3.8
4.6
4.1

8.1
4.9
6.0
5.5

5.6
4.8
4.5
4.4

4.0
2.3
3.6
2.9

6.2
4.0
4.9
3.9

3.9
2.5
3.7
3.1

7.5
7.9
4.9
5.3

9.3
6.3
6.1
5.8

7.3
7.7
4.5
4.9

3.2
1.8
3.2
2.4

4.5
2.9
4.3
3.2

3.1
1.7
3.1
2.4

3.5
5.3
.8
2.3

3.8
2.2
.7
1.7

34
55
.5
1.8

3.2
3.2
2.0
1.6
4.4
5.2

4.8
4.1
2.5
2.7
6.2
7.0

3.5
3.2
2.1
1.6
4.4
5.3

2.8
2.7
1.7
1.4
3.7
3.8

4.3
3.7
2.1
2.5
5.4
4.9

3.0
2.7
1.8
1.4
3.7
4.0

3.4
2.9
2.1
2.3
5.2
5.1

4.7
4.0
2.7
2.6
6.3
7.2

3.4
3.0
2.1
2.3
4.8
5.0

1.9
1.8
1.0
.9
2.8
3.1

3.0
2.6
1.4
1.4
4.0
4.4

2.1
1.8
1.0
1.0
2.6
3.1

.6
.5
.5
.8
1.3
1.1

.6
.6
.5
.4
.9
1.7

.4
.5
.5
.7
1.1
.9

i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11. For relationship to employment series see footnote 1, table 15.


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

Quits

NOTE: Data for the current month are preliminary. For additional detail see Employ­
ment and Earnings, table D-2.

H O U R S A N D E A R N IN G S

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

99

17. Gross hours and earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers 1on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry
division, 1947 to date

Year

Weekly
earnin g s

W eekly
hours

Averages

Averages

Averages

H ourly
earnings

Weekly
e a r nin g s

W eekly
hours

Hourly
ea r n in g s

W eekly
earnings

Hourly
earnin g s

Weekly
e ar nin g s

D ur ab le goods

Manufacturi ng

T ot a l private

W eekly
hours

Averages

W eekly
hours

Hourly
e a r nin g s

N ond urab le goods

1947
1948
194 9
1 9 5 0 . ....................................................................

$ 4 5 . 58
49. 00
50 .2 4
5 3 .13

4 0 .3
40 .0
3 9 .4
3 9 .8

$ 1 .1 3 1
1.225
1.2 75
1.3 35

$ 49 .17
5 3 .12
53.88
58.32

4 0 .4
40 .0
3 9 .1
4 0 .5

$ 1 .2 1 7
1.3 28
1.3 78
1.440

$ 5 1.7 6
56.36
5 7 .2 5
6 2.43

4 0 .5
4 0 .4
3 9 .4
4 1 ,1

$ 1 .2 7 8
1.3 95
1.4 53
1.5 19

$46.03
49. 50
5 0 .3 8
5 3. 4 8

4 0 .2
3 9.6
3 8 .9
3 9 .7

$ 1 .14 5
1.250
1.2 9 5
1.3 4 7

1951
19 52
1953
19 54
1 9 5 5 . . . . .........................................................

5 7 .8 6
60.65
6 3.76
6 4 .5 2
6 7.72

3 9.9
39.9
3 9.6
3 9.1
39.6

1.4 5
1.5 2
1.6 1
1.6 5
1 .7 1

6 3.3 4
6 7.16
70. 47
7 0 . 49
75 .70

4 0 .6
4 0 .7
40 .5
3 9.6
4 0 .7

1.5 6
1.6 5
1.74
1.78
1.8 6

6 8 .4 8
72 .6 3
76 .6 3
76 .19
8 2.19

4 1.5
4 1.5
4 1.2
4 0 .1
4 1.3

1.6 5
1.75
1.8 6
1.9 0
1.9 9

56.88
59.95
62. 57
6 3 .18
66.63

3 9.5
3 9.7
3 9.6
3 9 .0
3 9.9

1.4 4
1.5 1
1.5 8
1.6 2
1.6 7

1956
1957
19 58
................ ..................
1959 2
1 9 6 0 .......................................................................

70 .74
73 .3 3
75 .0 8
7 8 .78
80 .6 7

3 9 .3
3 8 .8
3 8 .5
3 9 .0
3 8 .6

1.8 0
1.8 9
1.9 5
2.02
2.09

78 .78
81.59
8 2 .71
8 8. 2 6
8 9. 7 2

4 0 .4
3 9 .8
3 9 .2
40 .3
3 9.7

1.9 5
2 .0 5
2 .11
2 .19
2.26

85.28
88.26
8 9 .2 7
96. 05
9 7.4 4

4 1.0
4 0 .3
3 9 .5
4 0 .7
4 0 .1

2 .0 8
2 .19
2 .2 6
2.3 6
2 .4 3

70.09
72 .5 2
74 .11
78 .6 1
80.36

3 9.6
3 9 .2
3 8 .8
3 9 .7
3 9 .2

1.77
1.8 5
1.9 1
1.9 8
2.0 5

19 6 1
...............................
196 2
1963
___________
1964
...........................
1 9 6 5 ........................................................................

82.60
8 5 .9 1
88.46
91.3 3
95.06

3 8 .6
3 8 .7
3 8 .8
3 8 .7
3 8 .8

2 .14
2. 22
2. 28
2 . 36
2 .4 5

9 2 .34
96.56
99.63
1 0 2 .9 7
1 0 7 . 53

3 9 .8
4 0 .4
40 .5
4 0 .7
4 1.2

2.3 2
2 .3 9
2.4 6
2 . 53
2.6 1

10 0 .3 5
10 4 .70
10 8 .0 9
11 2 .1 9
11 7 .1 8

40.3
4 0 .9
4 1.1
4 1.4
4 2 .0

2.4 9
2 .5 6
2 .6 3
2 .71
2 .79

82.92
8 5.93
8 7.9 1
90.91
9 4 .6 4

3 9 .3
39.6
3 9.6
3 9 .7
4 0 .1

2 .11
2 .17
2 .2 2
2.29
2 .3 6

1966
___________
1967
................ ..................
1 9 6 8 ........................... ...........................................

9 8 .8 2
1 0 1 .8 4
10 7 .7 3

3 8 .6
3 8 .0
3 7.8

2 .5 6
2 .6 8
2.85

11 2 .3 4
11 4 .9 0
12 2 .5 1

4 1.3
4 0 .6
4 0 .7

2 .72
2.8 3
3 .0 1

12 2 .0 9
123.6 0
13 2.0 7

4 2 .1
4 1.2
4 1.4

2.9 0
3 .0 0
3 .1 9

9 8 .49
1 0 2 .0 3
10 9.05

4 0 .2
3 9 .7
3 9 .8

2 .4 5
2 .5 7
2 .74

3 6.9
3 6.7
3 7.1
3 7.3
3 7.2

1.78
1.8 4
1.8 9
1.9 5
2 .0 2

6 7.4 1
69.9 1
72 .0 1
74 .2 8
7 6 . 53

3 8 .3
3 8 .2
3 8 .1
3 7.9
3 7.7

1.76
1.8 3
1.8 9
1.9 6
2 . 03

7 7 .12
80.94
84. 38
8 5 .79
8 8 .9 1

3 6.9
3 7.3
3 7.5
3 7.3
3 7.2

2.09
2 .17
2 .2 5
2.3 0
2.3 9

79 .0 2
8 1.76
8 6 .4 0

3 7.1
3 6.5
3 6 .0

2 .13
2 .2 4
2 .4 0

9 2 .13
95. 46
1 0 1 .7 5

3 7.3
3 7.0
3 7.0

2 .4 7
2 . 58
2 .75

3 6.9
3 7.0
3 7.3
3 7.2
3 7.4

3 .2 0
3 .3 1
3 .4 1
3 . 55
3 .7 0

146 .26
15 4 .9 5
1 6 4 . 56

3 7.6
3 7.7
3 7.4

3 .8 9
4 .11
4 .4 0

40 .5
40.9
4 1.6
4 1.9
4 2.3

2 .6 4
2 .70
2 .75
2 .8 1
2.9 2

13 0 .2 4
1 3 5 . 89
1 4 3 . 05

4 2 .7
42.6
4 2 .7

3 .0 5
3 .1 9
3 .3 5

1 9 6 6 . . . ................ ...................................
1 9 6 7 ______ i ...........................................
1 9 6 8 ........................... ........................................

65 .68
6 7 . 53
70 .12
72 .74
7 5 .1 4

1 1 8 .0 8
1 2 2 .4 7
1 2 7 .1 9
13 2.0 6
1 3 8 . 38

10 6.9 2
1 1 0 .4 3
1 1 4 . 40
1 1 7 .7 4
1 2 3 . 52

1 9 6 1 . . . ............................................................
1 9 6 2 . . . .............................................................
1 9 6 3 . . . .........................................................
1 9 6 4 . . . .......................................................
1 9 6 5 . . . .....................................................

1.4 7
1.5 4
1.6 0
1.6 6
1.7 1

5 7 .4 8
59.60
6 1.76
6 4 .4 1
6 6.0 1

96.3 8
10 0 .2 7
10 3 .78
10 8 .4 1
1 1 3 . 04

95.06
9 8 .6 5
96.0 8
10 3.6 8
10 5. 44

3 9 .1
3 8 .7
3 8 .6
3 8 .8
3 8 .6

2 .5 7
2 .71
2.8 2
2.9 3
3 .0 8

2.3 3
2. 46
2 .4 7
2.56
2 .6 1

1 9 5 6 .....................................................................
1957
........................
1 9 5 8 ........................................................................
1 9 5 9 2..................................................................
I 9 6 0 . . . .............................................................

1.4 5
1.5 1
1.5 8
1.6 5
1.70

3 7.5
3 7.0
3 6 .8
3 7.0
3 6.7

40 .8
4 0 .1
3 8 .9
40 .5
4 0.4

3 8 .4
3 8 .6
3 8 .8
3 8 .6
4 0 .7

3 7.7
3 7.8
3 7.7
3 7.6
3 7.6

4 0 .5
40 .0
3 9 .5
3 9 .5
3 9 .4

3 8 .1
3 8 .9
3 7.9
3 7.2
3 7.1

74 .11
77.5 9
8 3 . 03
82.60
8 9 . 54

54 .6 7
5 7 .0 8
59.57
6 2 .0 4
6 3.9 2

4 7.79
4 9 .2 0
5 1 .3 5
5 3. 3 3
5 5 .1 6

76 .96
8 2 . 86
8 6 .4 1
8 8.91
90.90

1 9 5 1 ..
.........................................................
1 9 5 2 .......................................... ........................
1 9 5 3 ........................................................................
1 9 5 4 ........................................................................
1 9 5 5 ....................................................................

1.18
1.2 3
1.3 0
1.3 5
1.4 0

2 .0 2
2 .13
2 .2 8
2 .3 9
2 .4 5

1.9 3
2 .0 1
2 .14
2 .14
2 .2 0

$ 1.4 6 9
1.6 64
1 .717
1.772

$ 1 .1 4 0
1.200
1.26 0
1.3 4 0

$ 0 .9 4 0
1.0 10
1.06 0
1.10 0

$ 1 . 541
1.713
1.79 2
1.86 3

4 0 .8
3 9.4
3 6.3
3 7.9

3 7.9
3 7.9
3 7.8
3 7.7

4 0 .5
4 0 .4
40 .5
40 .5

3 8 .2
3 8 .1
3 7.7
3 7.4

$5 9.94
65.56
6 2.33
6 7.16

i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11.
Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction
workers in contract construction, and to nonsupervisory workers in wholesale and
related trade, finance, insurance, and real estate; transportation and public utilities
and services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employ­

Finance, I nsurance, and real estate

$ 4 3 .2 1
4 5 .4 8
4 7.6 3
5 0 .5 2

$38. 07
4 0 . 80
4 2.93
4 4 . 55

$ 5 8 .8 7
6 5 .2 7
6 7.56
69.68

1 9 4 7 .......................................................................
......................................
1948.
. .
1 9 4 9 .................................................................... ...
1 9 5 0 ........................... ...........................................


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

Whol esale and retail trade

Contract construction

Mini ng

ment on private nonagricultural payrolls. Transportation and public utilities, and serv­
ices are included in total private but are not shown separately in this table.
2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959.
NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C -l.

10 0

18.

H O U R S A N D E A R N IN G S

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry
division and major manufacturing group
1969

Industrydivision andgroup
TOTALPRIVATE.....................
MINING.............................
CONTRACTCONSTRUCTION.......
MANUFACTURING..................

Dec.

Nov

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1968

Annual average

Dec.

1968

1967

37.7

37.5

37.7

38.0

38.2

38.1

38.0

37.7

37.5

37.6

37.2

37.5

37.8

37.8

38.0

43.6

43.0

43.4

43.5

43.7

43.1

42.5

43.5

43.6

42.2

42.5

42.9

43.3

42.7

42.6

37.7

37.1

38.4

39.3

39.2

38.8

38.5

38.2

37.6

37.2

36.6

36.7

37.1

37.4

37.7

40.9
3.5

40.6
3.6

40.7
3.7

41.0
4.0

40.6
3.7

40.5
3.5

40.9
3.7

40.7
3.6

40.5
3.5

40.7
3.5

40.0
3.3

40.4
3.6

41.1
3.9

40.7
3.6

40.6

41.6
3.6

41.2
3.7

41.4
3.9

41.7
4.2

41.1
3.8

40.9
3.6

41.5
3.9

41.4
3.7

41.2
3.6

41.4
3.7

40.8
3.6

41.1
3.7

41.7
4.1

41.4
3.8

41.2
3.5

Ordnance and accessories___
Lumber and wood products...
Furniture and fixtures............
Stone, clay, and glass
products................. ............

40.8
40.6
40.9

40.8
39.9
40.3

40.3
40.4
40.6

40.6
40.4
40.7

40.2
40.2
40.8

39.8
39.7
39.7

40.8
40.7
40.8

40.6
40.7
40.4

40.5
40.2
40.1

40.6
40.7
40.4

40.1
40.0
39.7

40.4
39.6
40.0

41.8
40.9
41.3

41.5
40.6
40.6

41 7
40 ?
4o! 4

41.9

42.1

42.2

42.6

42.6

41.9

42.4

42.4

41.9

41.7

41.3

41.1

41.9

41.8

41.6

Primary metal industries........
Fabricated metal products___
Machinery, except electrical..
Electrical equipment and
supplies_______________
Transportation equipment___
Instruments and related
products............................ .

41.5
42.1
43.0

41.4
41.6
42.4

41.7
41.7
42.4

42.1
42.1
42.7

41.8
41.7
42.0

41.6
41.2
41.8

42.0
42.0
42.6

41.9
41.7
42.6

42.1
41.4
42.6

42.0
41.6
43.0

41.5
40.8
42.4

41.8
41.4
42.4

41.6
42 0
42.7

41.6
41.7
42.1

41 5
42.6

40.8
41.7

40.5
41.4

40.4
41.9

40.7
42.3

40.3
40.5

39.8
41.6

40.7
41.6

40.5
41.3

40.3
41.0

40.6
41.2

39.7
41.0

40.3
41.5

40.8
42.6

40.3
42.2

40 ?
41.4

42.1

41.2

40.9

41.2

40.7

40.5

41.0

40.7

40.5

40.7

39.7

40.5

40.9

40.5

41.3

Overtime hours...................

DurableGoods.............. ......
Overtime hours...................

Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries............................

3.4

41 1

39.0

39.2

39.3

39.2

39.1

38.4

39.2

39.0

39.1

39.1

37.7

38.7

39.2

3.93

39.4

Nondurablegoods.... .............

40.0
3.4

39.7
3.4

39.7
3.5

40.0
3.7

39.9
3.5

39.8
3.4

39.9
3.4

39.7
3.3

39.4
3.2

39.7
3.2

38.9
3.0

39.4
3.3

40.1
3.5

39. 8
3.3

39.7
3.1

Food and kindred products...
Tobacco manufactures............
Textile mill products_______
Apparel and other textile
products..............................

40.8
37.4
41.4

40.9
37.4
41.1

40.7
38.4
40.9

41.8
38.9
41.0

41.4
37.5
41.0

41.2
37.7
40.7

40.9
39.9
41.4

40.6
37.6
40.9

40.1
35.8
40.4

40.3
35.6
40.9

40.0
36.2
39.9

40.3
36.2
40.4

41.1
37.7
41.6

40.8
37.8
41.2

40.9
38 6
40.9

Overtime hours...................

Paper and allied products___
Printing and publishing_____
Chemicals and allied products.
Petroleum and coal products.
Rubber and plastics products, nec______________
Leather and leather products.

WHOLESALEANDRETAILTRADE.
Wholesale trade_____ __
Retail trade______ ____
FINANCE, INSURANCE, ANDREAL
ESTATE............................

36.1

35.8

35.8

35.8

36.3

35.9

36.3

36.1

35.9

36.3

35.2

35.7

36.0

36.1

36.0

43.1
39.2
42.1
42.3

43.0
38.3
41.9
42.7

43.0
38.4
41.7
42.7

43.2
38.6
41.7
42.6

43.0
38.6
41.7
42.9

43.0
38.4
41.7
43.6

43.0
38.4
41.8
42.5

43.0
38.3
41.9
43.3

42.9
38.1
41.9
43.2

43.0
38.3
41.7
42.7

42.1
37.7
41.5
41.7

42.9
37.9
41.6
41.3

43.6
38.9
42.1
42.1

42.9
38.3
41.8
42.5

42.8
38.4
41.6
42.7

41.5
38.1

41.1
37.4

41.3
37.0

41.5
36.8

41.0
37.1

40.8
37.4

41.3
37.8

41.2
37.3

41.0
36.5

41.1
37.3

40.3
35.7

41.3
37.7

41.9
38.4

41.5
38.3

41 4
38.1

35.6

35.2

35.3

35.7

36.6

36.5

35.9

35.4

35.3

35.4

35.3

35.5

35.9

36.0

36.5

40.5
34.2

40.2
33.6

40.3
33.7

40.3
34.2

40.5
35.3

40.3
35.2

40.1
34.5

40.0
33.9

40.0
33.8

40.0
33.9

39.9
33.8

40.0
34.0

40.3
34.6

40.1
34.7

40.3
35.3

37.0

37.2

37.1

37.0

37.0

37.1

37.1

37.0

37.1

37.1 J

37.1 J

37.2

37.1

37.0

37.0

i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969,
see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.


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

NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. For additional detail, see
Employment and Earnings, table C-2

H O U R S A N D E A R N IN G S

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

10 1

19. Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry
division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
1969

1968

Industrydivisionandgroup
Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Dec.

Nov.

37.5

37.6

37.6

37.8

37.8

37.8

37.8

37.8

37.8

37.8

37.5

37.6

37.6

43.6

43.4

42.9

43.2

43.2

42.6

42.0

43.4

43.8

42.8

43.3

43.3

43.2

38.2

38.2

37.5

38.1

37.9

37.5

37.6

38.1

38.0

37.9

38.0

37.6

36.2

40.6
3.4

40.5
3.5

40.5
3.5

40.8
3.7

40.6
3.7

40.7
3.6

40.7
3.6

40.7
3.6

40.8
3.7

40.9
3.7

40.1
3.5

40.8
3.7

40.8
3.8

__ ________________

41.2
3.4

41.1
3.5

41.2
3.7

41.5
3.9

41.3
3.8

41.2
3.8

41.3
3.9

41.4
3.8

41.4
3.8

41.5
3.9

40.9
3.8

41.3
3.9

41.6
4.0

Ordnance and accessories............................. .
Lumber and wood products_______________
Furniture and fixtures............................ ........
Stone, clay, and glass products--------------Primary metal industries_________ ______
Fabricated metal products...... .............. ..........
Machinery, except electrical_________ ____ _
Electrical equipment and supplies.....................
Transportation equipment---------------------------Instruments and related products................

40.3
40.8
40.1
42.0
41.5
41.8
42.5
40.2
41.0
41.7

40.5
40.3
39.9
42.1
41.6
41.4
42.4
40.1
40.5
41.0

40.1
40.0
39.9
41.7
42.2
41.4
42.4
40.2
41.3
40.7

40.4
40.1
40.1
42.1
42.2
41.5
42.7
40.5
41.8
41.0

40.4
39.8
40.3
42.1
42.0
41.6
42.6
40.4
41.2
40.9

40.2
39.7
40.1
41.7
41. b
41.6
42.2
40.3
42.3
40.9

40.9
40.2
40.7
41.9
41.7
41.8
42.5
40.6
41.6
40.9

40.6
40.3
40.9
42.1
41.7
41.6
42.6
40.6
41.1
40.8

40.9
40.2
40.9
42.0
41.8
41.8
42.6
40.9
41. 5
40.8

40.8
40.9
40.7
42.3
41.9
41.9
42.7
40.7
41.6
40.7

40.3
40.8
40.1
42.2
41.6
41.2
42.3
39.7
41.6
39.7

41.3
41.1
40.5
42.0
41.6
41.7
42.2
40.2
41.8
40.5

41.4
40.6
40.5
41.8
41.4
42.1
42.3
40.3
42.3
40.7

Miscellaneous manufacturing industries............

38.8

38.8

38.8

39.0

39.0

39.1

39.2

39.1

39.5

39.0

37.6

39.0

39.2

39.8
3.4

39.8
3.4

39.8
3.4

39.9
3.4

39.1
3.2

39.9
3.4

39.7
3.4

TOTAL PRIVATE------ ----- ---------- ------MINING............. -..... ------------------------CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION..............................
MANUFACTURING .........................................
Overtime hours____________________

Durable Goods

Overtime hours----- -------- ----- —

Nondurable Goods--------- ------------------Overtime hours-----------------------

39.8
3.3

39.5
3.3

39.5
3.3

39.7
3.3

39.6
3.4

39.7
3.4

Food and kindred products________________
Tobacco manufactures.......... ............. . . . .
Textile mill products...... ................ ......... .....
Apparel and other textile products.................. .

40.6
36.8
41.0
36.2

40.7
37.4
40.8
35.8

40.5
37.2
40.6
35.7

41.0
37.4
40.8
35.8

40.9
37.2
40.9
35.9

40.6
38.2
41.2
36.0

40.7
39.5
41.2
36.2

40.8
38.1
41.0
36.1

40.9
36.4
41.1
36.0

40.9
36.5
40.9
36.0

40.7
36.6
39.9
35.2

40.9
37.1
41.2
36.1

40.6
37.5
41.1
36.0

Paper and allied products.............................. .
Printing and publishing------- ------------ . .
Chemicals and allied products.................. . .
Petroleum and coal products................ ........
Rubber and plastics products, nec..... .......... .
Leather and leather products..--------- ------------

42.7
38.8
41.9
42.9
41.1
37.5

42.8
38.3
41.8
42.7
40.8
37.4

42.7
38.3
41.7
42.6
40.9
37.3

42.8
38.3
41.6
42.0
41.0
37.1

42.8
38.4
41.9
42.8
40.9
36.8

43.0
38.5
41.9
42.9
41.2
37.0

42.9
38.4
41.8
42.2
41.3
37.4

43.0
38.4
41.8
43.0
41.4
37.6

43.4
38.3
41.6
42.9

43.2
38.3
41.7
43.2
41.4
37.6

42.5
37.9
41.7
42.6
40.7
35.3

43.2
38.5
41.9
42.7
41.5
37.8

43.0
38.4
41.9
42.6
41.4
37.9

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE......................
Wholesale Trade......... ......................... .....
Retail trade...... ..................... ......... ........
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE.............

35.4

35.5

35.5

35.7

35.8

35.7

35.7

35.7

35.6

35.7

35.7

35.7

35.8

40.3
33.9

40.2
34.0

40.3
33.9

40.3
34.2

40.3
34.3

40.0
34.2

40.0
34.2

40.1
34.3

40.2
34.1

40.1
34.3

40.1
34.2

40.0
34.3

40.0
34.5

36.9

37.2

37.1

37.1

37.0

37.0

37.2

37.0

37.1

37.1

37.1

37.0

36.9

i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August, 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.


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

41.4
37.7

NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary,

10 2

20.

H O U R S A N D E A R N IN G S

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Gross average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls by
industry division and major manufacturing group
’
1969

Industry and division group

1968

Annual average

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1968

$3.11

$3.12

$3.11

$3.10

$3.05

$3.04

$3.03

$3.01

$2.98

$2.97

$2.96

$2.94

$2.92

$2.85

$2 .6 8

3.70

3.69

3.68

3.63

3.59

3.58

3.55

3.57

3.55

3.52

3.52

3.50

3.49

3.35

3.19

4.99

4.95

4.95

4.91

4.79

4.74

4.71

4.71

4.64

4.62

4.56

4.58

4.55

4.40

4.11

3.28

3.26

3.24

3.24

3.19

3.19

3.17

3.16

3.15

3.13

3.12

3.12

3.11

3.01

2.83

3.48

3.45

3.44

3.44

3.39

3.37

3.36

3.35

3.33

3.32

3.31

3.31

3.30

3.19

3.00

3.54

3.54

3.50

3.49

3.46

3.44

3.45

3.42

3.41

3.38

3.38

3.36

3.38

3.27

3.18

2.81
2.71

2.84
2.70

2.82

2.83
2 .6 8

2.74
2.62

2.71
2.62

2 . 68

2.6 8

2.78
2.64

2.60

2.64
2.58

2.65
2.56

2.61
2.54

2.59
2.54

2.62
2.55

2.57
2.47

? 37
2.33

3.26

3.28

3.26

3.25

3.21

3.18

3.17

3.17

3.14

3.10

3.06

3.05

3.06

2.99

2.82

3.87

3.85

3.85

3.87

3.84

3.79

3.76

3.75

3.74

3.71

3.69

3.70

3.67

3.55

3.34

3.43

3.40

3.39

3.39

3.33

3.32

3.33

3.31

3.29

3.28

3.26

3.26

3.25

3.16

2.98

3.70

3.67

3.67

3.63

3.57

3.55

3.56

3.56

3.54

3.52

3.51

3.48

3.47

3.36

3.19

3.17

3.12

3.13

3.13

3.09

3.09

3.08

3. 07

3.05

3.04

3.04

3.04

3.03

2.93

2.77

4.03

3.98

3.96

3.95

3.93

3.91

3.86

3.83

3.84

3.82

3.83

3.86

3.87

3.69

3.44

3.29

3.24

3.22

3.20

3.16

3.14

3.15

3.13

3.11

3.10

3.10

3.08

3.08

2.98

2.85

Miscellaneous manufacturing industries.............

2.75

2.71

2.6 8

2.67

2.64

2.64

2.65

2.64

2.62

2.61

2.61

2.60

2.58

2.50

2.35

Nondurable Goods....... .......

2.99

2.97

2.96

2.95

2.92

2.92

2.89

2.8 8

2.87

2.85

2.84

2.83

2.82

2.74

2.57

3.04
2.69
2.42

3.00
2.64
2.42

2.97
2.52
2.41

2.96
2.54
2.41

2.93
2.52
2.39

2.97
2.77
2.35

2.94
2.79
2.31

2.95
2.74
2.30

2.93

2.30

2.29

2.91
2.63
2.27

2.91
2.57
2.28

2.87
2.55
2.28

2.80
2.49
2.21

7
7 77
2.06

2.35

2.35

2.34

2.35

2.31

2.29

2.30

2.29

2.28

2.29

2.27

2.28

2.26

2.21

2.03

3.32
3.81

3.32
3.78

3.31
3.77

3.31
3.75

3.28
3.70

3.26
3.68

3.22
3.68

3.19
3.6 6

3.17
3.64

3.15
3.63

3.14
3.61

3.15
3.59

3.14
3.59

3.05
3.48

2.87
3.28

3.58

3.55

3.54

3.52

3.49

3.49

3.46

3.43

3.40

3.38

3.37

3.37

3.36

3.26

3.10

4.04

4.08

4.06

4.04

4.00

4.04

4. 00

4.03

4.03

3.95

3.87

3.69

3.79

3.75

3.58

3.14

3.13

3.13

3.13

3.09

3.09

3. 05

3.04

3.02

3.00

3.01

3.02

3.01

2.92

2.74

TOTAL PRIVATE....................
MINING....................-.........
CONTRACTCONSTRUCTION......
MANUFACTURING..................
Durable Goods________
Ordnance and accessories......... .......... ..........
Lumber and wood
products_____________
Furniture and fixtures.........
Stone, clay, and glass
product’s.......... ................
Primary metal industries........... ................... .
Fabricated metal
products..........................
Machinery, except
electrical.........................
Electrical equipment and
supplies— ......................
Transportation equipmenL........... ................
Instruments and related
products........................

Food and kindred
products_____________
Tobacco manufactures____
Textile mill products...........
Apparel and other textile products....................
Paper and allied
products.........................
Printing and publishing___
Chemicals and allied
products..........................
Petroleum and coal
products...................
Rubber and plastics
products, nec..................
Leather and leather
products............... .........

WHOLESALEANDRETAILTRADE.
Wholesaletrade________
Retailtrade.....................
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND
REAL ESTATE................. .

2 .6 8

2.6 6

2.43

2.43

2.40

2.38

2.35

2.34

2.35

2.35

2.35

2.34

2.33

2.32

2.30

2.23

2.07

2.60

2.63

2.61

2.59

2.56

2.55

2.55

2.54

2.52

2.51

2.51

2.49

2.45

2.40

2.24

3.34
2.33

3.33
2.36

3.29
2.35

3.29
2.33

3.24
2. 30

3.23
2.30

3.24
2.30

3 .2 0

2.29

3.18
2.27

3.16
2.26

3.16
2.26

3.12
2.24

3.12
2.21

3 05
2.16

2.01

2.97

2.98

2.94

2.93

2.92

2.91

2.93

2.90

2 .8 8

2.89

2.90

2.87

2.83

2.75

2.58

• For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.


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

2.94

1967

7

as

NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. For additional detail see
Employment and Earnings, table C-2.

H O U R S A N D E A R N IN G S

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

10 3

21. Gross average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonagrlcultural payrolls, by
industry division and major manufacturing group
1969

1968

Annual average

Dec.

1968

Industry division and group
Dec.

TOTAL PRIVATE.....................
MINING..... ........................
CONTRACTCONSTRUCTION.......
MANUFACTURING..................
Durable goods...................

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

$117.25 $117.00 $117.25 $117.80 $116.51 $115.82 $115.14 $113.48 $111.75 $111.67 $110.11 $110.25 $110.38 $107.73

Ordnance and
accessories..................
Lumber and wood
products....................
Furniture and fixtures---Stone, clay, and glass
products.....................
Primary metal industries...
Fabricated metal
products....................
Machinery, except
electrical...................
Electrical equipment
and supplies................
Transportation
equipment..... ............
Instruments and related
products.....................
Miscellaneous manufac­
turing industries..........
Nondurable goods...............
Food and kindred
products....................
Tobacco manufactures......
Textile mill products........
Apparel and other
textile products............
Paper and allied
products....................
Printing and publishing....
Chemicals and allied
products.....................
Petroleum and coal
products....................
Rubber and plastics
products, n e c.............
Leather and leather
products.....................
WHOLESALEANDRETAILTRADE.

1967
$101.84

161.32

158.67

159.71

157.91

156.88

154.30

150.88

155.30

154.78

148.54

149.60

150.15

151.12

143.05

188.12

183.65

190.08

192.96

187.77

183.91

181.34

179.92

174.46

171.86

166.90

168.09

168.81

164.56

154.95

134.15

132.36

131.87

132.84

129.51

129.20

129.65

128.61

127.58

127.39

124.80

126.05

127.82

122.51

114.90

144.77

142.14

142.42

143.45

139.33

137.83

139.44

138.69

137.20

137.45

135.05

136.04

137.61

132.07

123.60

144.43

144.43

141.05

141.69

139.09

136.91

140.76

138.85

138.11

137.23

135.54

135.74

141.28

135.71

132.61

114.09
110.84

113.32
108.81

113.93
108.81

114.33
109.08

111.76
107.71

108.78
104.01

110.30
106.90

109.08
105.04

106.13
103.46

107.86
103.42

104.40
100.84

102.56
101.60

107.16
105.32

104.34
100.28

95.27
94.13

136.59

138.09

137.57

138.45

136.75

133.24

134.41

134.41

131.57

129.27

126.38

125.36

128.21

124.98

117.31

160.61

159.39

160.55

162.93

160.51

157.66

157.92

157.13

157.45

155.82

153.14

154.66

152.67

147.68

137.27

135.89

144.40

141.44

141.36

142.72

138.86

136.78

139.86

138.03

136.21

136.45

133.01

134.96

136.50

131.77

123.67

159.10

155.61

155.61

155.00

149.94

148.39

151.66

151.66

150.80

151.36

148.82

147.55

148.17

141.46

135.89

129.34

126.36

126.45

127.39

124.53

122.98

125.36

124.34

122.92

123.42

120.69

122.51

123.62

118.08

111.35

168.05

164.77

165.92

167.09

159.17

162.66

160. 58

158.18

157.44

157.38

157.03

160.19

164.86

155.72

142.42

138.51

133.49

131.70

131.84

128.61

127.17

129.15

127.39

125.96

126.17

123.07

124.74

125.97

120.69

117.71

107.25

106.23

105.32

104.66

103.22

101.38

103.88

102.96

102.44

102. 05

98.40

100.62

101.14

98.25

92.59

119.60

117.91

117.51

118.00

116.51

116.22

115.31

114.34

113.08

113.15

110.48

111.50

113.08

109.05

102.03

124.03
100.61
100.19

122.70
98.74
99.46

120.88
96.77
98. 57

123.73
98.81
98.81

121.30
94. 50
97.99

122.36
104.43
95.65

120.25
111.32
95.63

119.77
103.02
94.07

117.89
95.94
92.92

118.08
94.70
93.66

116.40
95.21
90.57

117.27
93.03
92.11

117.96
96.14
94.85

114.24
94.12
91.05

107.98
87.62
84.25

84.84

84.13

83.77

84.13

83.85

82.21

83.49

82.67

81.85

83.13

79.90

81.40

81.36

79.78

73.08

143.09
149.35

142.76
144. 77

142.33
144.77

142.99
144.75

141.04
142.82

140.18
141.31

138.46
141.31

137.17
140.18

135.99
138.68

135.45
139.03

132.19
136.10

135.14
136.06

136.90
139.65

130. 85
133.28

122.84
125.95

150.72

148.75

147.62

146.78

145.53

145. 53

144.63

143.72

142.46

140.95

139.86

140.19

141.46

136.27

128.96

170.89

174.22

173.36

172.10

171.60

176.14

170.00

174.50

174.10

168.67

161.38

152.40

159.56

159.38

152.87

130.31

128.64

129.27

129.90

126.69

126.07

125.97

125.25

123.82

123.30

121.30

124.73

126.12

121.18

113.44
78.87

92.58

90. 88

88.80

87. 58

87.19

87.52

88.83

87.66

85.78

87.28

83.18

87.46

88.32

85.41

92.56

92.58

92.13

92.46

93.70

93. 08

91.55

89.92

88.96

88.85

88.60

88.40

87.96

86.40

81.76

Wholesale trade................ .............................
Retail t r a d e . . ...................................................

135.27
79.69

133.87
79.30

132. 59
79.20

132. 59
79.69

131.22
81.19

130.17
80.96

129.92
79.35

128.00
77.63

127.20
76.73

126.40
76.61

126.08
76.39

124.80
76.16

125.74
76.47

122.31
74.95

116.06
70.95

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND R EAL
E S T A T E ...........................................................................

109.89

110.86

109.07

108.41

108.04

107.96

108.70

107.30

106.85

107.22

107.59

106.76

104.99

101.75

95.46

i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.


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

NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. For additional detail see
Employment and Earnings, table C-2.

10 4

22.

H O U R S A N D E A R N IN G S

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural
payrolls, in current and 1957-59 dollars, 1960 to date
Total private

Manufacturing

Spendable average weekly earnings
Gross average
weekly earnings

Gross average
weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents

Year and month

Current
dollars

1957-59
dollars

Current
dollars

1957-59
dollars

I960_______________________
1961_______________________
1962_______________________
1963.______________________
1964_______________________

$80.67
82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33

$78.24
79.27
81.55
82.91
84.49

$65.95
67.08
69.56
71.05
75.04

$63.62
64.38
66.00
66.59
69.42

1965______________________
1966_______________________
1967_______________________
1968_______________________

95.06
98.82
101.84
107.73

86. 50
87.37
87. 57
88. 89

78.99
81.29
83.38
86.71

1968:
November______________
December_______________

109.50
100.38

88.74
89.23

1969:
January________________
February_______________
March______________ .
April___________________
May___________________
June_________________
July___________________
August___ _____________
September______________
October_________________
November_______________

110.25
110.11
111.67
111.75
113. 48
115.14
115.82
116.51
117.80
117.25
117.00

88. 84
88.37
88.91
88.41
89. 50
90.24
90.34
90. 53
91.11
90. 33
89.66

Worker with 3
dependents
Current
dollars

Worker with no
dependents

Worker with 3
dependents

1957-59
dollars

Current
dollars

1957-59
dollars

Current
dollars

1957-59
dollars

Current
dollars

$72.96
74.48
76.99
78. 56
82.57

$70.77
71.48
73.05
73.63
76.38

$89.72
92.34
96.56
99.63
102.97

$87.02
88.62
91.61
93.37
95.25

$72.57
74.60
77.86
79.82
84.40

$70.39
71.59
73.87
74.81
78.08

$80.11
82.18
85.53
87.58
92.18

$77.70
78.87
81.15
82.08
85.27

71.87
71.87
71.69
71.54

86.30
88.66
90.86
95.28

78.53
78.39
78.13
78.61

107.53
112.34
114.90
122. 51

97.84
99.33
98. 80
101. 08

89.08
91.57
93.28
97.70

81.06
80.96
80.21
80.61

96.78
99.45
101.26
106.75

88.06
87.93
87.07
88.08

87.64
88.29

71.02
71.37

96.55
97.22

78.24
78.59

125.97
127.82

102. 08
103.33

99.80
101.17

80.88
81.79

109.22
110.65

88.51
89.45

87.76
87.65
88.80
88.86
90.13
91.35
91.85
92.35
93.30
92. 89
92.71

70.72
70.35
70.70
70.30
71.08
71.59
71.65
71.76
72.16
71.56
71.04

96.68
96. 57
97.76
97.82
99.13
100. 40
100.92
101.45
102.44
102.01
101.82

77.90
77.50
77.83
77.39
78.18
78.68
78.72
78.83
79.23
78. 59
78. 02

126.05
124.80
127.39
127.58
128.61
129.65
129.20
129. 51
132.84
131.87
132.36

101. 57
100.16
101.43
100.93
101.43
101.61
100.78
100.63
102. 74
101.59
101.43

99.36
98. 44
100. 34
100. 48
101.24
102. 00
101.67
101.90
104.34
103.63
103.99

80.06
79. 00
79.89
79.49
79.84
79.94
79.31
79.18
80.70
79.84
79.69

108.78
107.82
109.81
109.95
110.74
111.54
111.20
111.44
114.01
113.25
113.63

87.66
86. 53
87.43
86.99
87.33
87.41
86.74
86.59
88.17
87.25
87.07

1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
Spendable average weekly earnings are based on gross average weekly earnings as
published in table 21 less the estimated amount of the workers’ Federal social security
and income tax liability. Since the amount of tax liability depends on the number of
dependents supported 6y the worker as well as on the level of his gross income, spend­
able earnings have been computed for 2 types of income receivers: (1) A worker with
no dependents and (2) a married worker with 3 dependents.


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

Spendable average weekly earnings

1957-59
dollars

The earnings expressed in 1957-59 dollars have been adjusted for changes in pur­
chasing power as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index.
These series are described in “ The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note
on its Calculation,” in Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor
Force, February 1969, pp. 6-13.
NOTE: Data for the most recent month are preliminary. For additional detail see
Employment and Earnings, table C-5.

CONSUMER PRICES

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

23.

105

Consumer Price Index—general summary

IThe official name of the index is, “ Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.” It measures the average change in prices of goods and services purchased
by families and single workers. The indexes shown below represent the average of price changes in 56 metropolitan areas, selected to represent all U.S. urban placeshaving
populations of more than 2500.1
,
..
.r
Hv
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified!
1969

1968

Annual average

I tem and group

All items......................................
All items (1947-49=100)................

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1969

1968

131.3
161.1

130.5
160.1

129.8
159.3

129.3
158.6

128.7
157.9

128.2
157.3

127.6
156.6

126.8
155.6

126.4
155.0

125.6
154.1

124.6
152.9

124.1
152.3

123.7
151.8

127.7
156.7

121.2

122.4
118.5
141.3

121.9
118.1
140.7

122.0
118.3
140.3

121.2
117.4
139.9

125.5
121.5
144.6

119.3
115.9
136.3

148.7

Food------ -----------------------------Food at home__________
Food away from home___

129.9
125.8
149.9

128.1
123.8
149.0

127.2
122.9
148.1

127.5
123.6
146.7

127.4
123.6
145.8

126.7
123.0
144.8

125.5
121.8
143.7

123.7
119.8
142.8

123.2
119.3
142.2

Housing.............................. —
Rent........... - ..................... Homeownership---------------

130.5
121.0
145.4

129.8
120.5
144.5

129.2
120.1
143.6

128.6
119.7
142.6

127.8
119.3
141.3

127.0
118.8
140.0

126.3
118.5
138.7

125.8
118.1
138.0

125.3
117.8
137.1

124.4
117.5
135.7

123.3
117.2
133.6

122.7
116.9
132.7

122.3
116.7
132.0

126.7
118.8
139.4

119.1
115.1
127.0

Apparel and upkeep................
Transportation_______ ____ Health and recreation------------Medical care.........................

130.8
126.4
139.6
158.1

130.7
125.6
139.1
157.4

129.8
125.7
138.6
156.9

128.7
123.6
138.4
157.6

126.6
124.2
137.7
156.8

126.8
124.3
137.0
155.9

127.0
124.6
136.3
155.2

126.6
124.0
135.7
154.5

125.6
124.6
135.1
153.6

124.9
124.3
134.3
152.5

123.9
122.0
133.7
151.3

123.4
120. 7
133.3
150.2

124.3
120.2
132.8
149.1

127.1
124.2
136.6
155.0

120.1

Special groups:
All items less shelter............
All items less food.................
All items less medical care...

129.5
131.9
129.7

128.6
131.4
128.9

128.1
130.8
128.2

127.6
130.0
127.6

127.1
129.3
127.0

126.7
128.8
126.5

126.3
128.4
126.0

125.4
127.9
125.2

125.0
127.5
124.7

124.4
126.8
124.0

123.5
125.6
123.0

123.1
124.9
122. 5

122.7
124.7
122.2

126.3
128.6
126.1

1 2 0 .6

Commodities..............................
Nondurables....... .............. .
Durables.-........................
Services....................... - .......... .

123.6
127.7
113.6
148.3

122.9
126.7
113.5
147.2

122.4
126.1
113.2
146.5

121.7
125.8
111.6
146.0

121.4
125.2
111.9
145.0

121.0
124.7
111.9
144.0

120.5
124.1
111.7
143.3

119.6
123.0
111.3
142.7

119.3
122.5
111.4
142.0

118.7
121.8
111.1
140.9

117.8
121.1
109.7
139.7

117.4
121. 0
108.6
139. 0

117.2
120.7
108.7
138.1

120.5
124.1
143.7

115.3
118.4
107.5
134.3

116.8
121.4
124.3

115.7
120.5
123.1

115.0
120.1
122. 6

115.2
120.3
123.7

118.0
123.0
126.5

113.2
117.7
119.3

121.9
119.7

120.3
125.7
130.3

120.2
125.5
130.4

119.8
125.1
129.3

118.7
124.4
128.1

118.2
123.3
125.9

118.1
123.1
126.2

118.0
123.0
126.4

117.5
122.4
126.0

117.2
121.9
124.9

127.5

127.7

126.6

125.3

122.8

123.5

123.7

123.4

122.2

121.6

120.5

119.9

121.2

123.7

116.8

120.3
105.6
108.8

120.2
105.0
108.3

119.7
104.4
107.8

118.9
103.7
107.1

118.6

121.0

106.6

118.3
103.0
106.6

105.5
109.0

116.8
101.4
104.7

148.1
145.0
141.8
168.2
144.7

147.4
144.2
141.4
167.2
144.2

146.1
142.5
140.9
165.8
143.2

144.6
140.6
139.8
164.3
142.7

143.9
139.8
139.2
162.8
142.3

142.9
139.2
136.8
161.4
142.0

149.2
146.4
142.9
168.9
145.5

138.6
134.5
133.5
156.3
138.8

Commodities less food-----------Nondurables less food___
Apparel commodities___
Apparel commodities
less footwear_____
Nondurables less food
and apparel............. .
Household durables..........
Housefurnishings............ .

123.0
106.5
110.6

122.6
106.5
110.4

122.6
106.4
110.2

122.2
106.2
109.9

121.7
106.0
109.4

121.3
106.0
109.3

121.0
105.8
109.0

Service less r e n t................ .
Household services less rent
Transportation services—
Medical care services------Other services.......... ..........

1?4. 3
152.4
148.4
172.8
148.9

153.1
151.4
145.8
171.8
148.2

152.3
150.4
145.1
171.2
147.6

151.7
149.5
144.0
172.2
147.2

150.7
148.2
143.1
171.1
146.5

149.6
146.9
142.5
170.1
145.7

148.8
145.7
142.3
169.1
145.2

24.

111.6

119.6
130.0
145.0

ÌU3. 3

Consumer Price index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items
11957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]

Other
index
bases

I tem or group

FOOD

....................................................................................... ........................................

F ood away f ro m h o m e ________ ________________

Restaurant meals . ...................
Snacks
............. .............. ... ........... ...

F ood a t h ome
Cereals and bakery p r o d u c t s .

Flour___ _ * .........................
Cracker meal
..............
Corn flakes
............
Rice_______ _______ ___ - - Bread, white. . . _______ ______
Bread, whole wheat ______ _____
Cookies............................ .............. ... ..........
Layer cake
......- -Cinnamon rolls .............. .........

M e a t s , poult ry, and fish............. .....................................................
...
..................
..............
...

Meats ..................................
Beef and veal.......
............
Steak, round....................
Steak, sirloin................ ......
Steak, porterhouse................
Rump roast ..........................
Rib roast ..........................
Chuck roast...... ... ......... ........
Hamburger...........................
Beef liver......... ...................
Veal cutlets..........................


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

Dec. 63

.........................................
__________
.

Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63

Apr. 60
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1968 Annual
average
1969
Dec.

129.9
149.9
150.2
129.9
125.8
124.9
110.9
127.9
130.0
113.4
131.1
124.1
100.9
118.0
115.8
127.2
131.3
130.6
123.2
119.0
123.9
118.8
140.5
123.2
137.8
118.6
162.0

128.1
149.0
149.3
129.2
123.8
124.1
111.2
127.2
129.7
113.0
129.7
123.4
99.8
117.1
115.1
127.2
131.1
131.5
125.2
121.1
125.9
119.5
140.9
122.7
138.4
117.9
162.1

127.2
148.1
148.3
128.8
122.9
123.7
111.6
126.9
129.6
113.0
129.1
122.5
99.8
115.4
115.2
127.6
132.0
132.9
126.8
123.4
129.0
121.1
140.8
125.3
139.1
117.8
162.8

127.5
146.7
147.2
126.2
123.6
123.0
111.2
125.8
129.4
112.9
128.8
121.6
101.0
113.2
113.2
129.0
133.1
135.0
128.1
128.3
132.9
122.1
145.9
127.2
140.9
117.8
162.8

127.4
145.8
146.2
125.6
123.6
122.6
111.4
124.7
129.4
112.6
128.1
120.3
100.9
113.8
112.8
127.9
131.9
135.4
129.9
127.4
132.7
123.4
146.5
128.7
140.5
116.8
162.1

126.7
144.8
145.1
125.1
123.0
122.6
111.6
123.3
129.0
112.3
128.2
120.9
100.9
113.6
113.4
127.6
131.7
136.8
132.5
131.1
135.5
125.0
150.1
131.0
140.0
115.4
161.1

125.5
143.7
144.0
124.4
121.8
122.0
112.1
122.1
129.0
112.1
127.2
119.6
100.1
114.1
113.2
125.3
129.5
134.6
131.0
129.6
133.0
123.0
147.1
127.9
137.9
112.1
159.8

123.7
142.8
143.0
124.1
119.8
121.6
112.2
119.3
127.9
112.0
127.1
119.6
100.9
113.9
111.9
119.9
123.4
127.9
124.1
120.7
125.2
117.2
138.1
121.5
131.4
109.6
154.2

123.2
142.2
142.3
123.7
119.3
121.3
111.7
117.9
128.4
111.7
127.2
119.5
101.1
112.3
112.1
118.4
121.2
125.1
121.4
117.2
121.6
115.4
133.6
119.2
128.3
110.1
150.6

122.4
141.3
141. 4
123.0
118.5
121.2
111. 5
117.8
129.3
111.6
127.4
119.2
100.8
111.1
111.8
116.5
119.1
121.4
116.8
113. 5
118. 5
112.3
129.3
114.3
125.0
107.7
147.7

121.9
140.7
140.8
122.4
118.1
120. 8
111.7
117.6
129.4
111.6
126.8
118.5
99.5
111.3
111.5
116.2
119.0
121.3
117.0
113.8
118.6
111.9
130.8
114.0
124.4
108.1
146.1

122.0
140.3
140.4
122.2
118.3
120.5
110.4
117.6
129.6
111.2
126.6
117.1
101.1
110.5
111.1
115.6
118.6
121.1
116.8
114.7
119.4
111.5
132.5
113.1
124.0
106.4
145.0

121.2
139.9
140.0
121.6
117.4
120.1
110.2
117.5
129.3
111.1
126.0
117.9
100.6
110.5
109.0
114.4
117.1
118.7
112.7
111.1
116.7
108.8
129.3
110.4
123.1
106.2
143.8

1969

125.5
144.6
144.9
125.4
121.5
122.4
111.5
122.3
129.2
112.3
120.5
100.6
113.7
113.1
123.2
126.8
124.4
121.7
126.4
118.4
139.7
134.0
113.2
156.4

106

CONSUMER PRICES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

24. Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index er group

Other
index
bases

1969

Annual
average
1969

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

FOOD— Continued
Meats, poultry, and fish— Continued
Meats— Continued
P o rk......................... ....................
Chops................................ ..........
Loin roast............................ ....... Apr. 60
Pork sausage________________ Dec. 63
Ham, whole".......... .......................
Picnics................ ........... .......... Dec. 63
Bacon..........................................

133.3
l3b. 7
143.4
146.8
130.7
134.7
133.1

132.0
134.1
140.4
148.3
124.8
136.0
132.4

132.7
134.0
141.8
149.1
123.9
136.5
134.9

133.7
137.6
143.0
149.6
121.8
135.5
135.6

130.2
135.7
141.3
146.0
117.0
134.5
128.7

129.0
136.4
141.9
143.6
114.2
130.9
126.8

126.1
134.8
139.7
137.2
114.2
124.8
124.1

118.8
122.4
129.8
130.0
111.1
121.5
118.4

117.5
122.0
128.1
127.4
108.0
121.1
117.3

116.4
121.0
126.6
125.7
113.1
118.3
114.3

116.6
121.9
127.8
125.5
112.4
118.4
113.6

115.7
120.1
126.2
124.5
114.5
117.9
112.6

114.9
118.0
124.6
125.4
112.4
117.2
113.0

125.2
129.6
135.8
137.8
117.1
127.5
124.3

Other meats__________ ________
Lamb chops_________________
Frankfurters________________
Ham, canned________________
Bologna sausage..........................
Salami sausage............................
Liverwurst................... ................

63
63
63
63

134.4
140.4
134.6
130.4
136.6
127.9
129.9

133.6
139.4
134.7
127.8
136.1
127.1
129.8

133.3
139.9
134.7
125.1
136.2
127.2
129.9

132.6
139.7
135.4
122.6
136.2
127.0
128.0

131.2
139.3
133.7
120.6
134.5
126.0
126.3

128.8
140.9
129.4
115.6
132.0
123.7
125.0

127.2
139.1
127.6
117.6
128.8
121.5
122.2

124.0
136.2
122.2
116.6
123.7
118.6
120.6

122.2
133.7
120.4
115.3
122.4
116.6
118.8

122.0
132.4
119.2
117.2
121.8
116.6
118.3

121.4
131.9
118.5
115.0
121.8
116.7
118.4

121.2
130.6
118.1
116.4
121.5
116.8
117.5

120.7
129.9
117.9
115.5
121.3
116.1
117.6

127.7
137.0
127.4
120.0
129.3
122.1
123.7

Dec. 63
Dec. 63

97.9
97.9
110.4
110.3

99.1
99.5
110.8
110.0

98.2
98.6
112.0
107.2

102.0
103.8
113.8
105.9

101.4
103.3
113.0
104.7

100.4
103.1
109.4
101.8

97.3
99.2
107.6
101.1

93.3
94.7
104.4
98.7

95.3
97.9
106.7
93.4

94.2
95.5
105.3
99.7

92.3
93.0
103.9
100.5

90.8
90.9
103.6
100.4

90.8
91.2
103.6
98.4

96.9
98.1
108.4
102.8

135.4
124.4
143.4
117.9
125.4

134.0
122.9
141.1
116.7
125.0

133.4
122.5
139.9
116.2
124.9

132.2
121.0
138.6
114.9
124.2

131.5
120.8
137.2
114.4
123.5

130.6
119.7
134.5
113.6
124.4

129.8
118.3
133.1
113.8
124.0

129.5
118.2
132.0
114.0
123.7

128.4
116.8
130.2
113.1
123.7

127.7
116.5
128.6
112.4
123.5

127.7
115.6
128.3
113.3
123.9

127.0
114.5
128.1
112.4
123.6

126.3
112.5
127.5
112.1
123.6

130.6
119.3
134.6
114.4
124.2

127.6
125.0
132.3
126.0
125.0

126.3
123.4
130.4
125.0
124.3

125.8
122.8
130.1
124.3
123.8

125.5
122.8
129.4
124.8
124.1

125.0
122.3
128.7
124.3
124.1

124.4
121.7
128.0
122.9
123.9

124.0
121.3
127.6
122.3
124.0

123.6
120.7
127.3
121.7
123.8

122.9
120.5
126.8
121.5
122.9

123.0
120.7
127.0
121.4
122.4

122.8
120.3
126.7
121.1
121.8

122.7
120.5
126.4
120.3
121.7

122.6
120.7
126.3
121.0
121.5

124.5
121.8
128.4
123.0
123.5

Ice cre a m .................................. .......
Cheese, American process_________
B u tte r.......................... ....................

102.0
152.4
119.6

100.7
151.0
119.4

99.9
149.9
119.9

100.1
148.9
118.3

99.5
148.5
118.0

99.0
147.7
118.0

99.8
146.6
117.8

98.8
146.1
117.9

97.0
143.6
117.4

98.9
142.5
117.4

99.4
142.7
117.6

99.4
142.1
117.8

99.0
141.2
117.1

99.5
146.8
118.3

Fruits and vegetables_________________
Fresh fruits and vegetables________
Apples............................................
Bananas........................................
Oranges................ ...................... .
Orange juice, fresh........... ..............

132.1
144.1
129.3
93.3
125.0
91.5

127.0
135.4
125.7
93.9
132.4
91.8

124.0
130.1
131.7
100.7
131.9
92.0

126.8
134.9
174.6
99.6
132.1
92.1

130.2
141.0
190.5
97.4
132.7
92.0

132.3
145.0
192.9
97.7
127.9
91.4

130.8
142.4
185.3
94.5
125.4
91.8

130.0
140.9
171.4
96.3
126.2
91.2

127.9
137.6
167.4
91.7
126.4
91.7

127.6
137.2
164.7
91.4
126.9
90.2

124.7
132.3
160.1
94.7
126.6
88.0

127.0
136.4
156.0
92.9
127.1
87.4

126.4
135.2
150.0
87.8
131.5
88.1

128.4
138.1
162.5
95.3
128.4
90.9

Grapefruit__________ __________
Grapes__________________ ____
Strawberries..................... ..............
Watermelon___________ _____ _

142.0
0
<>)
(')

144.1
154.3
0
0)

184.0
144.0
0
0

205.9
137.8
0
0

194.6
147.4
0
116.1

156.6
188.3
0
119.6

143.5
0
126.8
159.9

137.3
0
121.5
0

134.5
0
147.5
0

134.3
(>)
0
0

141.6
0
0
0

143.1
(i)
(i)
( ')

151.3
0
0
0

155.1
154.4
131.9
131.9

Potatoes...... ...................................
Onions....................................... .
Asparagus........................................ Dec. 63
Cabbage............. .........................
C arrots............... ..........................

142.0
136.4
(')
173.4
146.6

140.1
133.2
0
150.6
127.1

137.6
134.2
0
145.9
129.6

144.5
139.0
( ‘)
135.6
128.3

159.0
152.2
0
138.3
139.6

165.2
141. 5
129.6
145.7
129.5

154.5
135.0
121.1
155.6
119.8

143.8
130.5
118.9
152.6
109.7

141.2
124.3
152.2
148.8
114.0

139.1
123.6
171.5
149.7
113.0

136.4
128.2
0
153.8
114.3

133.7
131.5
( ')
174.3
114.2

133.4
132.0
0
156.3
112.6

144.8
134.1
138.7
152.0
123.8

Celery........................ .......... ..........
Cucumbers..................................... Dec. 63
Lettuce........ ............................... .
Peppers, green....... ......................... Dec. 63
Spinach........... ........................ ....... Dec. 63
Tomatoes........................................

132.2
176.5
189.5
217.2
121.8
177.5

131.2
122.5
177.9
160.9
116.5
146.7

115.5
118.5
133.3
145.7
120.1
119.0

120.1
111.7
130.8
147.8
118.0
103.2

130.2
122.5
124.2
146.4
117.2
116.3

151.8
123.0
126.8
165.6
118.8
131.0

139.2
124.6
120.2
180.7
111.1
158.0

134.3
161.1
149.3
188.0
109.6
173.8

113.2
161.9
166.1
163.7
113.4
118.7

110.6
145.3
156.0
192.9
110.0
144.3

111.6
171.5
115.3
192.1
110.3
133.2

117.7
237.8
143.9
167.2
110.2
135.9

110.7
217.1
138.6
160.1
107.1
166.0

125.6
148.1
144.4
172.4
114.8
138.1

117.1
106.2
106.4
102.4
97.4

116.8
105.4
106.9
102.6
97.2

116.6
105.6
107.6
102.2
98.2

116.9
106.6
108.2
101.8
99.4

116.7
106.3
108.8
101.0
100.0

116.4
107.1
108.6
100.4
100.4

116.3
106.3
108.9
99.9
101.0

116.3
106.0
109.0
99. l
103.7

115.9
106.5
109.4
99.6
102.1

115.8
106.6
110.1
99.4
99.5

115.3
106.9
110.1
98.7
94.8

115.3
107.2
110.9
98.4
92.6

115.7
107.9
111.5
98.5
91.8

116.3
106.4
108 7
100.5
98.9

94.7
113.6
122.4
126.6
123.3
109.6

94.1
113.3
123.1
125.5
123.6
108.0

93.8
112.8
122.9
124.8
124.3
106.7

93.3
113.1
122.9
124.1
125.0
107.5

92.5
112.8
122.7
124.6
125.0
106.7

90.6
113.3
121.7
124. 5
124.7
105.4

92.3
112.7
121.0
124.1
124.9
104.9

92.5
113.4
121.1
123.8
125.4
103.2

92.3
113.1
121.3
123.6
124.6
101.1

91.4
113.5
120.6
124.3
124.8
101.3

91.2
113.2
120.1
124.9
125.3
100.7

|90.7
113. 3
120.7
125.7
124.9
101.2

90.6
113.2
121.6
126.4
125.5
101.2

92. 5
113.2
121.7
124.7
124.7
104.7

116.6
140.6

112.9
122.3

111.0
114.5

110.5
113.8

110.5
114. 4

107.2
9b. 6

106.6
92.5

107.1
97.4

109.0
109.8

108.5
108.5

109.4
116.2

109.8
119.8

108.4
112.2

109.9
112.1

Dec. 63
Dec. 63

105.0
102.6
124.8

103.7
102.5
123.9

102.7
102.8
123.0

102.2
102.3
123.6

102.4
102.3
123.6

103.1
102.4
123.5

103.5
103.4
123.3

102.8 ! 102.6
103.2 102.9
122.7 | 122.3

103 0
102.6
122.8

102.3
102.3
123.5

102.6
101.6
123.2

102.7
101.3
122.4

103 0
102.6
123.4

Dec. 63

127.5
116.2
128.7
127.4
107.1

126.6
116.2
126.5
126.6
106.9

126.4
116.3
125.6
126.7
106.8

126.0
116.4
124.7
126.5
106.5

125.4
116.5
123.9
125.1
106. 5

125.3
116.2
123.9
124.9
106.4

125.2
115.6
124.1
124.8
106.5

124.7
115.0
123.1
124.5
106.4 i

124.4
114.4
122.5
124.5
106.3

123.8
114.1
122.4
123.7
105.4

123.1
113.5
121 6
123.1
104.7

122.7
113.5
121.6
123.0
103.7

122.0
113.5
120.6
122.9
102.2

125.1
115.3
124.1
125 1
106.1

Poultry................................................
Frying chicken......... .......................
Chicken breasts........................... .
Turkey........... ............................. .
Fish................................... .................
Shrimp, frozen....... ....................
Fish,fresh or frozen____________
Tuna, fish, canned_____________
Sardines, canned............. ...............
Dairy products....................
Milk, fresh, grocery..... ................... .
Milk, fresh, delivered_____________
Milk, fresh, skim_____ _____ _____
Milk, evaporated...................... ..........

Processed fruits and vegetables____ _______
Fruit coctail, canned....................... .
Pears, canned________________ ..
Grapefruit-pineapple juice, canned...
Orange juice concentrate, frozen........
Lemonade concentrate, frozen______
Beets, canned........................ .
Peas, green, canned________ . . .
Tomatoes, canned.........................
Dried beans........ ............................
Broccoli, frozen...... .......... .................
Other food at home..............................
Eggs........................................................
Fats and oils:
Margarine.................
Salad dressing, Italian.......................
Salad or cooking oil.................
Sugar and sweets.................
Sugar_______ _____
Grape jelly............. .
Chocolate bar______
Syrup, chocolate flavored.........
See footnotes at end of table.


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

Dec. 63
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.

Dec. 63
Dec. 63

Dec. 63

Dec. 63

Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Apr. 60
Dec. 63

Dec. 63

j

CONSUMER PRICES

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

107

24. Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued

bases

FOOD—Continued
Otherfood at home—Continued

Nonalcoholic beverages...
Coffee, can and bag----Coffee, instant...............
Tea................................
Cola drink....... .............
Carbonated fruit drink..

July 61
Dec. 63
Dec. 63

Bean soup, canned—
Chicken soup, canned.
Spaghetti, canned___

Dec. 63
Apr. 60

Potatoes, french fried, frozen.
Baby foods, canned.........—
Sweet pickle relish................
Pretzels...................................

Dec 63
Dec. 63

HOUSING.
Shelter................

Rent............. .
Homeownership.
Mortgage interest rates..
Property taxes.................
Property insurance rates.
Maintenance and repairs.
Dec 63

Commodities................
Exterior house paint.
Interior house paint.

Dec. 63
n PC 63

Services.........................................
Repainting living and dining room:
Reshingling roofs......................
Residing houses.........................
Replacing sinks..........................
Repairing furnaces....................

Hpr 63
Dec. 63

Fuel andutilities.............................

Fuel oil and coal...........................
Fuel oil, #2.................................
Gas and electricity.........................
Gas.............................................
Electricity...................................
Other utilities:
Residential telephone services..
Residential water and sewerage.

Householdfurnishingsandoperation.
Housefurnishings............ .

Textiles..............................................
Sheets, percale or muslin.............
Curtains, tailored, polyester mar­
quisette......................................
Bedspreads, chiefly cotton, tufted.
Drapery fabric, cotton or rayon/
acetate.......................................
Slipcovers, ready made, chiefly
cotton.............................

Dec. 63

Furniture and bedding......................
Bedroom suites, good or inexpen­
sive quality................................
Living room suites, good and inex­
pensive quality..........................
Lounge chairs, upholstered...........
Dining room suites........................
Sofas, upholstered.........................
Sofas, dual purpose.......................
Sleep sets, Hollywood bed typ e .. .
Box springs..................................
Cribs.............................................. .
Floor coverings.........
Rugs, soft surface..
Rugs, hard surface.
Tile, vinyl...............


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

Annual
average
1969

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

107.4
92 3
108.0
102.9
158.4
124.8

106.1
90.0
106.0
102.2
158.7
124.7

104.3
87.0
104.2
102.1
158.0
124.5

103.7
86.6
103.8
102.0
156.8
123.4

103.8
83.7
103.9
102.2
156.6
123.1

103.3
86.3
103.6
102.0
155.3
122.7

103.4
86.8
103.7
102.0
155.1
121.9

102.7
86.6
103.0
100.8
153.8
120.4

102.6
86.8
102.1
101.0
153.8
119.8

102.5
87.0
101.2
101.6
152.8
119.3

102.2
87.0
99.7
101.5
152.4
119.1

102.3
87.2
99.7
101.8
152.1
119.2

102.3
87.4
100.6
101.2
Ib i. 6
119.0

103.7
87.5
103.2

108.2
108.8
100.3
120.4

107.6
107.2
99.5
119.8

107.4
106.3
98.3
118.9

106.9
105.6
98.1
117.2

106.7
105.4
98.3
117.3

106.2
105.1
98.0
117.0

105.9
105.1
97.8
116.4

106.0
105.2
98.2
116.2

105.8
104.5
97.5
116.0

105.1
103.5
96.7
115.7

104.5
102.4
96.2
115.1

104.3
101.2
96. b
114. 6

103.9
100.8
95.9
114.4

106.2
105.0
98.0
117.1

109.6
92.5
111.9
115.0
107.5

110.0
92.1
111.4
114.3
107.0

108.9
92.7
112.7
112.6
107.6
128.6

108.5
92.5
112.1
112.0
107.6

108.1
91.8
111.7

107.7
90.6
110.9
112.5
106.8

104.5
90.7
111.1
112.8
106.7
124.4

103.2
89.0
111.8
112.3
106.9
123.3

102.6
89.7
111.8
112.4
106.7

102.7
89.0

107.2
91.4

111.1

101.8
155.3
121.9

130.5

129.8

109.6
92.8
111.7
114.2
107.6
129.2

127.8

127.0

107.7
90.8
110.7
111.8
107.0
126.3

125.8

106.4
91.2
111.1
113.2
106.9
125.3

122.7

111.9
1U6. b
122.3

138 5
121 0
145.4

137.7
120.5
144.5

137.0
120.1
143.6

136.1
119.7
142.6

135.1
119.3
141.3

134.0
118.8
140.0

133.0
118.5
138.7

132.4
118.1
138.0

131.6
117.8
137.1

130.5
117.5
135.7

128.9
117.2
133.6

128.2
116.9
132.7

127.6
116.7
132.0

133.6
118.8
139.4

139.6
132.0
153.3
145.8

139.3
131.5
152.3
144.9

138.8
130.5
150.7
144.5

138.2
130.4
149.5
143.8

137.1
129.9
150.3
142.4

135.8
128.7
149.6
141.5

134.9
128.2
147.4
140.8

134.3
128.3
146.9
139.6

133.5
128.1
146.0
138.4

129.5
127.7
146.1
137.4

126.1
126.4
146. U
135.4

125.4
126.1
145.7
134.3

125.3
125.1
145.6
133.5

134.4
129.0
148.7
140.7

115.9
119 1
114.3

116.0
118.7
113.6

116.2
118.0
113.8

116.7
117.6
113.1

117.2
116.5
113.1

117.5
115.7
112.3

117.8
115.6
112.2

117.5
115.9
111.6

117.0
116.2
111.7

115.9
115.5
111.6

113.9
114.6
111.2

112.1
114.0
109.9

111.2
113.4
110.2

116.1
116.5
112.4

143.5
183 6
164 1
134.0
144.5
149.7

142.2
182.6
163.0
134.2
142.6
145.2

141.6
181.8
162.3
133.7
142.0
144.1

140.4
179.7
161.4
133. 0
140.4
142.8

138.2
178.3
157.6
130.0
139.0
141.2

136.9
176.1
155.4
129.3
137.8
139.7

135.7
174.0
154.2
128.6
137.2
137.7

134.2
171.5
152.3
127.6
135.3
136.4

132.9
167.9
151.4
126.5
134.7
135.0

132.0
167.1
150.4
125.3
133.7
134.5

130.1
166. b
149.4
123.3
131.1
131. b

129.6
165.5
148.5
122.9
130.8
130.8

129.0
164.9
147.5
122.3
130.0
130.4

136.4
174.6
155.8
129.0
137.4
139.1

114 6
119 2
116 2
113 7
119 8
107.2

114.2
118.9
116.0
113.2
118.8
107.2

113.5
118.4
115.5
112.2
116.9
106.9

113.3
118.1
115.4
112.0
116.7
106.8

113.0
117.7
115.2
111.5
116.1
106.4

112.6
117.4
115.0
110.9
115.7
105.6

112.7
117.5
115.0
111.3
116.4
105.7

112.6
117.5
114.9
111.2
116.4
105.5

112.6
117.4
114.8
111.2
116.5
105.4

112.2
117.2
114. 5
110.6
116.2
104.5

111.8
116.9
114.3
110.2
116.1
104.0

111.7
116.7
114.0
110.2
116.0
104.0

111.5
116.2
113.5
110.0
115.6
103.9

112.9
117.8
115.1
111.5
116.8
105.8

103.8
147.5

103.7
147.5

103.6
145.3

103.6
145.3

103.6
145.3

103.6
145.3

103.6
143.4

103.4
143.4

103.3
143.4

103.1
143.4

103.1
141.6

103.0
141.6

102.9
141.6

103.5
144.4

120.0
110.6

119.6
110.4

119.3
110.2

119.0
109.9

118.5
109.4

118.2
109.3

117.9
109.0

117.4
108.8

116.9
108.3

116.4
107.8

115.8
107.1

115.2
106.6

115.1
106.6

117.9
109.0

116.1
122.2

115.7
121.7

115.0
120.1

115.2
119.8

113.8
116.2

114.8
118.7

114.8
120.2

114.4
118.3

114.6
121.0

113.6
119.6

112.7
119.6

111.7
117.5

113.7
121.2

114.4
119.6

112.3
117.6

112.1
117.7

112.0
117.1

112.0
116.9

112.0
115.7

111.6
116.5

111.5
116.9

111.1
117.3

110.4
117.3

109.3
116.3

108.0
113.5

108.1
111.2

107.9
113.7

110.9
116.2

126.6

126.0

124.1

124.5

125.0

124.8

122.2

122.1

121.3

121.1

120.1

119.7

119.3

123.1

110.0

111.1

110.0

110.3

110.1

109.6

109.4

109.3

108.6

108.0

108.4

108.9

109.6

123.7

123.6

122.9

122.4

122.1

121.8

121.6

120.5

119.7

118.3

117.6

117.4

121.5

128.0

127.6

127.2

125.8

125.3

124.8

124.4

123.0

122.3

121.2

120.6

120.7

124.9

125.8
118.6
129.4
115.7
120.2

125.9
118.9
128.7
115.9
118.9

123.9
116.5
126.6
114.3
117.9

123.3
114.6
126.7
114.3
116.2
111.6
122.8
117.1

122.4
113.3
125.7
113.3
116.0
110.9
121.6
115.8

121.9
112.7
125.0
112.7
114.8
110.0
120.4
115.1

121.2
112.0
124.5
112.0
114.1
109.3
119.7
113.2

120.4
111.3
123.6
112.1
113.2
108.2
117.2
113.4

120.3
111.7
121.2
111.6
113.0
108.8
116.8
113. b

123.7
115.8
126.6
114.2
117.2
110.3
122.0
117.0

106.1
104.4
110.0
107.2

106.1
104.5
110.0
106.8

105.8
104.0
110.0
107.3

105.5
103.6
109.6
107.2

106.5
104.5

110.4
123.9
128.0

111.0
107.4

111.6
112.8
107.1
126.7

Dee 63
Dec 63
Der. 63

126.3
118.8
129.5
116.5
120.0

Dee 63
Der. 63
Dec. 63

122.6
119.8

122.5
119.5

124.1
119.2

123.7
117.1

123.2
118.0

123.0
117.7

123.4
116.2
126.1
113.8
117.1
111.6
123.0
117.5

107.1
104.8
112.5
110.1

107.1
104.9
112.1
109.6

107. 0
104.9
11.1.8
109.3

106.3
104.1
111.6
108.5

106.4
104.4
111.5
108.2

106.2
104.1
111.2
103.0

106.2
104.2

. Dec. 63

107.1
104.7
112.5
110.3

108.0

106.2
104.4
110.3
107.7

86.4

86.3

86.2

86.0

86.0

85.9

85.8

85.6

85.6

85.4

85.4

85.5

85.5

85.8

91.2
91.5
81.4 1 81.4

90.9
81.5

91.0
81.3

90.8
82.1

90.5
82.0

90.5
81.8

90.2
81.4

90.1
81.2

90 0
89.9
81.1 1 81.1

90.0
81.2

89.8
80.9

90.6
81.5

Appliances........................................
Washing machines, electric, auto­
matic..........................................
Vacuum cleaners, canister ty p e ... .
See footnotes at end of table.

1968

1969

Other

Itemor(roup

( 2)

( 2)

<2)

124.9
119.0
127.5
114.8
118.8
<2)

124.8
117.9
126.0
115.1
118.6
<2)

( 2)

111.1

111.2

108.4

108

C O N S U M ER PR ICES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

24. Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Indexor (roup

Other
index
bases

1969
Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

1968

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Annual
1969

HOUSING—Continued
Householdfurnishings andoperation—Con.
A ppliances— Contin ued
Refrigerators
or
refrigeratorfreezers, electric...... .................
Ranges, free standing, gas or
electric................... ................
Clothes dryers, electric, automatic.
Air conditioners, demountable___
Room heaters, electric, portable...
Garbage disposal units_________
Other house furnishings:
Dinnerware, earthenware.
Flatware, stainless steel...
Table lamps, with shade..

Dec.
June
Dec.
Dec.

Shirts, work, cotton..........................
Shirts, business, cotton___________
T-shirts, chiefly cotton___________
Socks, cotton.................. .................
Handkerchiefs, cotton___ ________
Boys’ :
Coats, all purpose, cotton or cotton
blend........................ ....................
Sport coats, wool or wool blend____
Dungarees, cotton or cotton blend.
Undershorts, cotton......................

85.8

85.7

85.4

85.2

84.9

84.8

84.7

84.7

84.6

84.6

85.3

98.1

98.2

97.6

97.4

97.0

97.1

97.1

96.5

96.6

96.7

97.7

100.6

99.6
(0

99.5
99.7
(')
103.9

99.5
99.5
(0
103.9

99.1
99.2
0)
103.6

98.9
99.3
(«)
103.1

98.8
(2)
98.0
102.8

98.6

97.5
103.2

97.7
103.0

( 2)

98 7
(2)
97.2
102.9

qq 4
99 S
98 8
103.9

114'6

100.5
0)
99.8
105.0

99.8
0)
99.6
104.7

104.3

99.7
99.8
(*)
103.9

Dec. 63
Dec. 63

135.6
119.0
118.7

135.2
119.6
118.3

134.8
119.6
117.8

134.3
119.8
116.0

133.5
119.6
115.4

133,6
119.5
115.3

132.7
118.9
114.0

132.5
118.1
113.6

132.2
118.1
113.0

132.0
117.0
112.4

131.8
117.0
111.3

130.9
118.2
109.6

130 0
118.2
109.3

107.1
131.0
120.3

106.2
130.0
121.2

106.8
129.0
121.2

107.4
128.6
120.7

107.4
128.0
119.1

106.4
127.2
119.5

106.5
128.1
119.8

106.1
127.1
118.0

105.7
127.0
117.7

105.6
127.5
116.8

105.3
127.6
116.5

105.3
127.0
116.1

105.4
126.5
115.5

10fi 9
1?8 ?

177.6

175.1
135.6
165.5
142.7

173.9
134.9
165.5
141.4

172.9
134.5
165.5
140.6

172.2
133.7
165.5
140.2

171.9
133.1
165.5
139.6

171.1
131.9
165.5
139.0

170.2
131.0
165.5
137.9

169.8
130.1
165.5
136.6

168.7
129.4
165.5
134.4

168.4
129.0
165.5
133.4

173.5
133.7
165. 5
140.6

130.3
134.4

129.7
133.5

128.4
133.0

128.1
131.6

127.2
131.0

125.3
129.2

124.1
129.0

123.7
127.3

123.4
125.8

123.3
125.2

127.9
131.7

( ')

Dec. 63

179.9
137. 4
165. 5
146.8

144.3

165. 5
143.2

Dec. 63
Dec. 63

131.8
135. 4

131.8
135. 1

130.7
135.2

Dec. 63

June 64
Dec. 63

Dec. 63

Dec. 63
Dec. 63

Women'sandgirls’.
Women’s:
Coats, heavyweight, wool or wool
blend............................................
Skirts, wool or wool blend..................
Skirts, cotton or cotton blend______
Blouses, cotton................... ........... .
Dresses, street, chiefly manmade
fiber............................... .......
Dresses, street, wool or woof blend.
Dresses, street, c o tto n .....................
Housedresses, cotton.....................

85.8
98.5

100.4
105.0

APPARELANDUPKEEP.
Men'sandboys'.
Men's:
Topcoats, wool........... .................
Suits, year round weight..............
Suits, tropical weight__________
Jackets, lightweight.____ _____
Slacks, wool or wool blend..........
Slacks, cotton or manmade blend.
Trousers, work, cotton.................

85.8
98.8

63
64
63
63

Housekeeping supplies:
Laundry soaps and detergents.
Paper napkins..___________
Toilet tissue.............................
Housekeeping services:
Domestic service, general house­
work..................... ............... .
Baby sitter service____ ________
Postal charges__________ ____ _
Laundry, flatwork, finished service.
Licensed day care service, pre­
schoolchild................... .............
Washing machine repairs........... .

86.0
99.0

Sept. 61
Mar. 62

178.7
136.6
165. 5

135. /

(*)

130.7

129.8

128.7

126.6

126.8

127.0

126.6

125.6

124.9

123.9

123.4

124.3

127.1

131.0

130.0

128.7

128.1

128.5

128.1

127.3

126.4

125.3

124.9

125.3

128.5

147.4
158. 2
(0
125.7
131.2
117.6
117.2

148.5
158.2

145.9
156.4
P)
125.4
130.4

0)
150.1
130.0
125.3
126.3
114.3
116.5

(>)
148.1
128.1
124.6
126.5
114.2
116.0

137.7
146.8
126.2
123.1
125.3
112.9
115.5

140.1
146.1
(n

lib . 6

(>)
150.0
130.8
125.6
126.6
114.3
116.7

( 2)

116.9

0)
149.6
127.7
125.1
126.1
112.1
116.9

137.5
144.6
(2)
122.7
123.4

117.0

(')
150.7
(')
125.0
127.1
114.5
116.8

139.4
144.1

1 1 /. 1

144.0
154.5
(0
125.2
128.9
115.2
116.9

111.0

115.1

122.3
125.1
107.7
115.2

120.6
126.3
108.9
114.4

142.9
150.9
128 6
124 6
127.4
113 9
116.4

124.2
122.3
131.9
120.9
113. 8

124.7
122.2
131.8
120.4
113.3

124.2
122.2
131. 5
121.1
112.9

123.2
121.8
130.6
121.6
112.7

123.3
121.6
130.6
121.6
112.4

123.1
121.5
130.1
121.1
112.3

123.4
121.7
129.4
120.5
112.3

122.6
121.3
128.8
119.4
111.5

122.2
120.5
129.0
118.9
111.6

121.8
120.4
129.2
118.1
111.4

121.1
120.1
128.7
117.5
110.9

120.7
120.5
127.9
116.6
109.9

120.6
120.1
127.3
116.9
109.2

122.9
121.3
130.0
119.8
112.1

116.1
130.3
127.1
130. 3

115.9
131.0
127.9
130.3

115.2
126.4
126.9
129.0

113.5
122.5
127.4
128.9

(>)

(0
127.2
127.9

(0
(0
127.0
126.6

( ')

127.4
128.4

0)
126.0
126.1

(')
125.2
125.6

108.7
(>)
124.3
125.0

108.2
(0
124.9
124.0

109.2
117.6
123.8
123.1

111.5
118.4
123.1
122.2

112.4
125.6
126.3
127.1

127.2

127.4

126.2

124.6

120.8

122.5

122.7

122.4

121.0

120.6

119.3

118.7

120.8

122.8

136.2
144.6
0)
127.6

139.9
145.3

139.9
133.9

(0
<0
130.7
122.4

0)
135.0
122.7

(')
(*)
134.4
123.4

0)
(*)
124.4
123.2

<‘)
( ')
( 2)
123.1

0)
104.4

125^4

(>)
(')
121.8
122.2

(*)

127.2

136.0
129.4
(')
122.7

121.2

119.9
118.3
0)
12L9

130.0
127.9
( l)
122.5

134.4
129.3
129.3
123.6

158.3
145.7
0)
153.0

158.8
144.8

155.9
145. 7

148.4

149.9
148.8

150.6
149.6

150.5
147.3

148.5
146.4

143.7
128.0

145.2
136.8

150.7

136.6
150.0

146.3
(0

152.1

152.5
140.8
(0
149.0

148.8

CO

0)
144.2

(i)

( i)

142.5

( l)

14L3

139.8

150.2
141.0
147.2
147.9

112.2
111.4
120.5
123.8

111.9
110.5
120.2
123.1

111.9
109.9
119.5
122.9

111.6
109.1
119.4
122.5

109.7
108.6
119.0
122.2

110.5
108.4
118.7
122.0

110.1
108.8
119.0
120.8

110.3
108.5
119.1
120.7

109.4
107.9
118.2
119.4

109.4
108.1
118.2
119.1

109.8
107.9
116.4
118.8

109.6
108.1
113.9
118.8

110.8
109.2
119.1
121.7

99.8

99.0
117.6
108.9
113.7

99.1
116.6
108.6
113.0

98.7
115.2
108.4
112.1

99.1
114.7
107.8
111. 4

98.0
114.6
106.7
110.8

98.2
114.0
105.7
109.7

99.5
113.9
105.5
109.1

99.1
117.2
108.6
113.6

(0

118.3

118.9

116.3
115.0

117.1
118.9

120.9
121.4

C1)

125.6
131.7

O

C1)

( ')
(>)

147.3
(>)

147.6
( ')

Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63

99.8
121. 5
110. 5
117.3

109.8
117.2

99.4
118.5
109.2
115. 5

99.2
118.4
109.0
114.8

98.8
118.2
109.3
114.1

99.6
118.1
108.9
113.8

125.6
123.2

124.4
123.4

121.7
124.0

120.8

(*)
(>)

(')


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

118.9

132.1

Hose, nylon, seamless....................
Anklets, cotton...........
Gloves, fabric, nylon or c o tto n ...” "
Handbags, rayon faille or plastic____

See footnotes at end of table.

199 9
1187

130.8

112.3
111. 2
120.8
124.9

Dec. 63

<2)

132.0

Slips, nylon....................................
Panties, acetate_______ _____
Girdles, manmade blend.........
Brassieres, cotton..............................

Girls’ :
Raincoats, vinyl plastic or chiefly
cotton..............................
Skirts, wool or wool blend..................

98.4

118. b

(0

0)

147.3
(>)

(0

(»)

C1)

147.7
(»)

(l)
0)

( ')

(«)

(>)

(2>

C1)

<2>

C O N S U M ER PR IC ES

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

10 9

24. Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or group

APPAREL AND UPKEEP-Continued
Women’s and {iris’— Continued
Girls’ Continued
Dresses, cotton___________ _____ Slacks, cotton_____ _____ _______ Slips, cotton blend_______________
Handbags...... .......................... . ........

Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63

Footwear.... ............ ....... .................... .........Men’s:
Shoes, street, oxford_____________
Shoes, work, high_______________

1968

1969

Other
index
bases

Annual
average
1969

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

133.6
131.8
108.0
114.2

136.3
131.7
108.6
114.7

137.4
127.9
108.5
111.1

136.9
<2)
107.7
108.9

135.4
0)
108.0
108.3

134.2
<‘ >
108.1
108.2

133.9
(O
107.2
106.5

134.1
(0
107.0
108.5

134.1
(O
107.0
108.8

133.5
<2)
106.9
108.0

132.5
117.7
106.6
107.7

130.6
119.9
106.0
106.6

131.2
123.9
106.1
107.4

134.4
125.8
107.5
109.3

144.4

143.9

143.3

142.3

141.5

139.9

140.1

139.6

138.4

137.6

136.8

136.3

136.3

140.3

142.6
139.8

142.1
139.5

141.5
139.0

140.1
138.4

138.7
138.1

137.5
137.3

138.6
136.8

138.2
136.1

136.7
135.2

136.0
134.5

134.4
133.5

134.0
132.6

135.0
131.9

138.4
136.7

Women's:
Shoes, street, pump______________
Shoes, evening, pump____________
Shoes, casual, pump____ _________
Houseslippers, scuff______________

Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63

152.7
123.2
134.0
127.5

152.5
122.9
133.4
127.1

152.0
122.9
132.0
126.6

150.8
122.3
129.6
126.4

149.9
121.8
128.9
125.4

147.3
121.0
126.8
123.9

147.9
120.0
128.2
124.0

148.0
119.1
127.1
123.9

147.2
118.0
125.5
123.4

145.9
117.9
123.3
123.0

144.9
117.4
122.5
122.7

144.0
117.1
121.5
122.1

144.8
116.3
123.1
121.5

148.6
120.3
127.7
124.7

Children’s:
Shoes,, oxford___________________
Sneakers, boys', oxford type_______
Dress shoes, girls’, strap.............. . . .

Dec. 63
Dec. 63

144.3
119.5
136.4

143.3
119.3
135.7

142.3
119.1
134.6

141.4
118.9
134.1

140.7
118.1
133.1

140.2
116.9
130.6

139.8
116.2
131.9

139.4
115.8
130.7

138.2
115.8
129.1

137.6
115.7
127.6

137.1
115.7
127.7

137.2
115.5
127.0

136.7
114.9
126.8

140.1
117.2
131.5

Miscellaneous apparel:
Diapers, cotton gauze._ ............ ............
Yard goods, cotton............ ................... .

104.0
123.5

104.1
123.1

103.8
123.5

103.9
123.2

104.0
123.2

103.5
122.1

103.2
123.2

102.7
120.5

102.3
119.3

101.7
118.1

101.9
115.8

101.3
115.0

101.9
114.8

103.0
120.9

Apparel services:
Drycleaning, men’s suits and women's
dresses........................................... .
Automatic laundry service.................... Dec. 63
Laundry, men's shirts______________ Dec. 63
Tailoring charges, hem adjustment____ Dec. 63
Shoe repairs, women's heel lift_______

133.3
112.0
126.7
127.4
123.7

132.9
111.8
124.3
127.6
123.6

132.2
111.4
123.8
127.5
122.7

132.0
111.3
123.4
126.5
123.1

131.7
111.0
123.2
125.4
121.3

130.5
111.0
123.0
125.2
121.1

130.2
110.4
122.5
125.1
120.4

129.8
110.3
122.1
123.5
120.1

129.9
108.4
122.2
122.7
120.1

129.4
108.4
121.9
121.8
119.6

129.1
107.9
121.3
121.3
119.6

128.3
107.8
120.7
120.1
120.7

128.0
107.9
119.9
119.9
120.4

130.8
110.1
122.9
124.5
121.3

TRANSPORTATION................. ............................

126.4

125.6

125.7

123.6

124.2

124.3

124.6

124.0

124.6

124.3

122.0

120.7

120.2

124.2

Private_________ ____________ _____ _
Automobiles, new_________________
Automobiles, used________ ____ ____
Gasoline, regular and premium_______
Motor oil, premium____ _____ ______

123.4
104.9
123.9
116.9
140.2

122.7
105.1
124.9
116.3
140.1

122.8
104.2
125.8
118.0
139.6

120.5
99.5
121.4
117.7
139.1

121.3
101.0
125.4
118.0
138.7

121.4
101.6
127.0
117.7
138.1

121.8
101.8
128.2
118.6
137.4

121.2
101.8
126.8
117.3
136.7

121.9
101.9
131.2
117.8
136.0

121.6
102.4
130.5
117.2
135.5

119.3
102.3
122.6
114.5
134.6

117.9
102.3
115.5
114.5
134.1

117.5
102.7
118.7
113.3
134.0

121.3
102.4
125.3
117.0
13/. 5

Tires, new, tubeless_______________
Auto repairs and maintenance. _ ...........
Auto insurance rates_______________
Auto registration_______ ______ ____

118.2
137.3
171.5
134.2

118.0
136.6
164.6
134.2

117.4
136.1
163.7
134.2

117.0
135.2
163.2
134.2

116.0
134.5
160.3
134.2

116.3
133.8
159.0
134.2

115.5
133.3
158.7
134.2

115.6
132.9
158.1
134.2

115.7
132.3
157.2
134.2

114.8
132.0
156.1
133.5

114.9
131.1
155.7
130.7

115.0
130.3
154.7
131.0

114.3
128.9
150.0
127.4

116.2
133.8
160.2
133.6

153.0
163.2
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9

151.1
163.0
127.5
115.5
111.6
127.0

150.3
161.7
127.5
115.1
111.6
127.0

150.3
161.7
127.5
115.1
111. 6
127. 0

149.7
160.8
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9

149.5
160.5
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9

149.1
159.9
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9

148.0
159.6
124.8
114.6
110.7
118.6

148.0
159.6
124.8
114.6
110.7
118.6

147.5
158.6
124.8
114.6
110.7
118.6

145.5
158.4
124.8
108.4
103.3
117.8

144.8
157.3
124.8
108.4
103.3
117.8

144.3
156.5
124.8
108.4
103.3
117.8

148.9
160.4
126.7
114.0
110.6
122.4

Public________ _________ ___________
Local transit fares_________________
Taxicab fares____ ______ _________ Dec. 63
Railroad fares, coach_______________
Airplane fares, chiefly coach.. ______ Dec. 63
Bus fares, intercity........... ................... . Dec. 63
HEALTH AND RECREATION________________
Medical care....______________________
Drugs and prescriptions.........................
Over-the-counter items___________ Dec. 63
Multiple vitamin concentrates____ Dec. 63
Aspirin compounds_____ ____ _
Dec. 63

139.6

139.1

138.6

138.4

137.7

137.0

136.3

135.7

135.1

134.3

133.7

133.3

132.8

136.6

158.1
99.6
107.1
92.8
106.6

157.4
99.6
107.1
92.4
106.2

156.9
99.4
106.9
92.5
106.1

157.6
99.3
106.9
92.4
105.5

156.8
99.3
107.0
92.4
106.8

155.9
99.2
106.9
92.1
106.4

155.2
99.3
107.1
92.2
106.6

154.5
99.3
107.0
92.4
106.2

153.6
99.0
105.8
92.2
105.3

152.5
98.8
106.6
92.2
106.5

151.3
98.6
106.4
92.2
105.6

150.2
98.6
106.7
92.9
105.2

149.1
98.5
106.6
92.2
105.7

155.0
99.2
106.9
92.4
106.2

Liquid tonics............ .......................
Adhesive bandages, package_____
Cold tablets or capsules_________
Cough syrup--------------- ---------------

Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.

63
63
63
63

101.3
117.7
110.5
112.9

101.3
117.1
110.0
114.7

100.8
117.4
109.6
113.7

100.9
117.0
109.1
115.1

100.9
116.5
109.2
114.8

100.8
116.7
109.1
114.8

100.9
117.0
109.5
115.2

100.9
116.9
109.3
115.1

100.9
116.6
103.3
114.5

100.9
116.4
108.8
113.5

101.0
116.5
108.1
113.8

100.9
116.4
107.8
115.5

100.9
116.3
107.7
lib . 6

101.0
116.9
109.2
114. 5

Prescriptions____________ _______
Anti-infectives.............................. .
Sedatives and hypnotics.................
Ataractics...... ..................................
Anti-spamodics................................

Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.

60
60
60
60

89.1
62.8
110.4
89.8
101.3

89.0
62.8
109.6
89.8
101.3

89.0
63.0
108.9
89.8
101.3

88.8
62.9
107.8
89.8
101.2

88.7
62.9
107.6
89.7
101.0

88.6
62.8
107.1
89.9
101.0

88.6
63.1
106.9
90.0
101.2

88.6
63.1
106.4
90.0
101.1

88.3
62.5
105.1
89.7
100.9

88.2
62.5
105.9
89.7
101.1

88.0
62.4
105.0
89.8
101.1

87.8
62.4
104.3
89.8
101.1

87.6
62.2
103.4
89.8
100.7

88.6
62.8
107.2
89.8
101.1

Cough preparations.........................
Cardiovascular and antihypertensives.......................................
Analgesics, internal........................
Anti-obesity................................ .
Hormones...... ..................................

Mar. 60

112.0

111.7

111.4

111.1

110.8

110.2

109.7

109.3

108.5

106.7

106.4

105.1

104.5

109.4

Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.

97.7
103.1
103.6
93.9

97.6
103.1
103.3
93.9

97.1
102.9
102.9
93.8

97.0
102.8
102.6
93.9

96.9
103.0
102.6
94.9

96.9
103.0
102.4
94.7

96.5
102.4
102.8
94.3

95.9
102.1
102.1
94.7

95.4
101.8
101.9
94.9

95.1
101. 5
101.4
95.5

97.1
102.8
103.1
94.3

158.0
160. 3
165.6
153.2
144.1
131.7

156.8
158.7
163.9
152.8
142.8
130.9

156.0
158.3
163.8
150.1
140.9
129.3

155.5
157.6
163.4
149.4
140.3
129.6

154.3
155.8
162.9
148.6
140.2
129.2

153.3
154.9
162.4
147.4
139.9
126.6

152.6
154.1
161.5
146.5
139.6
125.5

151.1
152.0
158.8
145.9
139.0
125.2

149.7
151.0
157.6
144.1
134.7
123.7

149.1
150. 5
157.0
142.9
133.3
123.3

155.4
157.2
163.3
150.2
141.4
129.1

60
67
67
67

98.0
103.3
104.3
94.2

98.0
103.2
104.3
93.9

97.9
103.1
104.2
94.3

Professional services:
Physicians’ fees________ _____ ___
Family doctor, office visits...............
Family doctor, house visits.............
Obstetrical cases........... ..................
Pediatric care, office visits.............. Dec. 63
Psychiatrist, office visits.................. Dec. 63

160.0
162.4
167.6
155.0
145.9
132.6

159.0
161.0
166.2
154.9
145.5
132.6

158.3
160.6
165.9
153.9
144.2
131.7

See footnotes at end of table.


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

110
24.

C O N S U M ER PR IC ES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Other
influx
bases

Indexor group
HEALTH AND RECREATION— Continued
Medical care— Continued
Professional services— Continued
Physicians’ fees— Continued
Herniorrhaphy, adult.....................
Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy.
Dentists' fees....................................
Fillings, adult, amalgam, one
surface............................. ..........
Extractions, adult........................ .
Dentures, full upper......................
Other professional services:
Examination, prescription, and dis­
pensing of eyeglasses................ .
Routine laboratory tests..................
Hospital service charges:
Daily service charges.........................
Semiprivate rooms.......... ............. .
Private rooms................ ..............
Operating room charges__________
X-ray, diagnostic series, upper G.I....
Personal care.................................................
Toilet goods_______________ ____
Toothpaste, standard dentifrice..
Toilet soap, hard milled..............
Hand lotions, liquid.....................
Shaving cream, aerosol..........
Face powder, pressed..................
Deodorants, cream or roll-on___
Cleansing tissues....... ..................
Home permanent refills...............
Personal care services.........................
Men’s haircuts......................... .
Beauty shop services...................
Women’s haircuts.................
Shampoo and wave sets,
plain..................................
Permanent waves, cold.........
Reading and recreation......................................
Recreational goods..............................
TV sets, portable and console___
TV replacement tubes.................
Radios, portable and table
model........................................
Tape recorders, portable..............
Phonograph records, stereo­
phonic.......................................
Movie cameras, Super 8, zoom
lens..........................................
Film, 35mm, color............... .........
Bicycle, boys’...............................
Tricycles.................... .................
Recreational services...........................
Indoor movie admissions___
Adult....................................
Children’s......... ................
Drive-in movie admissions, adult.
Bowing fees, evening..... .......... .
Golf greens fees..........................
TV repairs, picture tube re­
placement.................................
Film developing, black and white.
Reading and education:
Newspapers, street sale and
delivery..................................
Piano lessons, beginner...............
Other goods and services...................................
Tobacco products.......................... . . "
Cigarettes, nonfilter tip, regular
size..........................................
Cigarettes, filter tip, king size___
Cigars, domestic, regular size___
Alcoholic beverages..........
Beer........................... " ..............
Whiskey, spirit blended and
straight bourbon.....................
Wine, dessert and table...............
Beer, away from home...............

1969
Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

125.4
lb l. b

125.2
lb l. 3

147.6

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

124.6
149.3

124.6
149.1

124.3
149.0

124.3
148.1

124.1
147.8

123.9
147.3

147.2

146.9

146.0

145.5

144.9

141.2

143.6

Dec 63

148.7
14/. U
130.2

148.3
146.7
129.7

148.3
145.9
129.5

147.1
145.3
128.9

146.4
144.7
128.8

145.7
144.5
128.3

145.1
143.4
127.7

144.6
142.6
127.3

Dec 63

133.9
119. 5

133.8
119.4

132.8
118.5

132.4
118.5

132.2
118.6

131.7
118.0

131.2
117.9

267.9
264.1
258.7
170.9
124.7
128.1

265.4
261.7
256.1
170.6
124.5

263.8
260.1
254. 7
170.9
124.8

261.9
258.4
252.6
168.7
124.6

256.7
253.0
247.9
166.4
122.7

127.8

127.3

127.3
111.7
113.8
126.3

259.9
251.3
250.8
167.6
123.2
126.8
111.4
113.4
123.3

253.8
250.0
245.5
165.6
122.3
126.2
110.9
113.6
123.6
109.0

Dec 63

Dec 63
Dec 63

111.6

Dec. 63

Dec. 63

Dec. 63

114. b
123. 4
109.1
101.9
127.6
94. 5
112. 5
98.7
148.5
157.8
138.8
125.2
156.3
107.2

111.8

111.6

114.7
124.8
109.7

114.4
125.1
110.7

111.1

111.2

101.6

102.0

102.1

127.5
95.0

127.2
95.1
109.2
98.5

102.1

111.8

126.8
95.3
108.4
99.2
146.5
154.8
137.5
123.2

126.6
95.5
109.3
99.1
145.8
154.5
136.6
121.9

154.6
107.0

126.6

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

123.2
146.5

123.1
146.4

122 8

146.3

121 3
145.5

142.9

140.1

139.4

138.9

137.3

123.9
148.2
143.9

144.0
141.8
126.5

141.1
138.9
124.3

140 2
138 4
124.1

139 1
na 3
1241Ò

137 3
137 6
122.5

144.9
143.1
127.4

130.8
117.6

129.5
115.6

128.9
115.4

128 5
115.1

J?7 8
11413

127 6
114.2

131.1
117.4

252.4
248.4
244.4
164.8

251.4
247.4
243.5
163.0

249.2
245.1
241.6
160.4
121.4
124.8
109.8
113.9
123.9
106.4
101.9
123.1
94 9
107.1
96.6
143.2
151.7
134.2
120.7

246.2
242 2
238 4
158 1
120.3
124.1
109.2
113.3
123.5
105.4
102.4
121.4
93.9
106.8
96.0
142.5
150.5
133.9
120.5

243 1 239 3
239 O 235 1
235 8 232 3
155 1 150 9
119.9 119! 0
123.7 1?3 A
108.7 108 fi
112.8
1113
122 6
122 9
105.1 104! 3
107 8
102.6
120.4 1?0 fi
93 9
94 7
106.2 106 5
95.4
94.6
142.1 141 6
150.0 149 7
133.5 133 O
120.3 119! 7

256.0
252.1
247.5
165.2
122.7
126.2
110.7
113.7
124.1
108.6

150.1
105.4

149.0
105.1

128.7
97.9
79.8
114.8

149.7
105.3
128.4
97.7
80.1
114.7

128.4
97.8
80.3
114.8

148 3
104! 9
128 ?
97 9
80 5
114! 0

76.3
91.1

76.7
90.6

76.8

76.5

91.2

91.3

122.1

121.8

125.8
110.4
113.2
123.9
107.7
102.3
124.0
95.4
107.9
98.4

121.2

102.3
125.0
94.9
108.7
99.3
144.9
153.8
135.6
120.9

125.5
110.4
114.1
124.2
107.0
101.9
124.4
95.1
108.0
97.5

144.7
153.1
135.7
121.7

144.2
152.3
135.4
121.4

152.8
106.7
130.7
98.7
79.8
115.6

152.3
106.5
130.4
98.6
80.0
115.8

152.1
106.5
130.2
98.6
80.1
115.6

151.7
106.1
129.6
98.4
80.1
115.3

111.2

112.9
125.1
110.4
101.4
126.1
95.0
109.3
98.8
145.5
154.7
136.0

1968 Annual
average
1969
Dec.

98.6
147.5
156.4
138.0
124.0

146.7
155.2
137.7
123.4

155.3
107.2
132.3
99.2
80.3
116.3

154.9
107.1
132.0
99.1
80.2
115.9

131.6
99.0
80.0
115.7

153.6
106.9
131.2
98.8
79.7
115.4
76.5

76.5

91.4

91.5

76.6
91.9

76.6
91.7

91.7

76.3
91.2

121 2

145.3

102.0

125.0
94.9
108.8
98.0
145.2
153.7
136.1

122.0
152.7
106.4
130.5
98.6
80.1
115.5

Dec. 63

132.7
99.1
80.2
116.3

Dec. 63

90.1

76.5
91.2

76.6
91.4

76.9
91.5

98.0

98.0

98.1

97.6

97.7

97.9

97.5

97.5

96.6

96.4

95.9

95.6

96.7

97.2

82.3
99.1
110.4

83.4
99.1

83.1
99.4
109.7
111.9
132.1
207.0
201.9
224.5

83.5
99.6
109.9

83.4
99.2
109.5

83.5
99.1
109.7
109.4
130.1

84.1
99.0
109.1
109.2
129.7
198.3
192.9
216.7
160.1

85.0
99.0
109 0
108.5
129.2
197.4
192.0
215.6
157.0

84.9
98.9
108.6
107.9

84 8
98.9
107.8
107.5
127.1
193.2
188.6
208.6
153.1
110.4
127.3

84.5
98.6
107.3
107.2
126.7
192.6
188.2
207.4

85 3
98 fi
106 7
107.'7
126 .3
190 .3
185 3
207.0
153.7
1(19 ?
127.2

84.0
99.0
109.0
109.6
129.9

125.0

85.0
98.6
107.2
107.8
126.6
192.6
187.9
208.5
153.9
109.8
124.8

120.2

102.6
120.0

102.6
120.1

102.6
120.2

101.7
119.1

152.3

152.1
121.3
125.6
141.6

151 .3

125.8
141.7

125 6
141.3

154.7
123.7
129.0
146.5

Dec. 63

76.5

Dec. 63
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.

63
63
63
63
63

Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63

Dec. 63

111.6

110.0

0)

111.4
132.6
208.3
203.2
225.4
165.0
113.6
<‘>

100.2

100.0

133.2
210.3
205.4
227.1
165.5
113.7

117.7

158.2
127.3
133.5
153.8
161.4
153. 5

117.9

156.7
126.7
133.1
153.1

111.6

111.2

131.7
206.5
201. S
223.2
164.1
110.9
135.9

131.1
204.2
198.8
163.5
110.3
135.8

194.4
219.6
161.9
110.4
134.7

101.4
117.9

101.0

101.0

118.3

118.4

156.4
126.5
132.2
151.5

155.9
126.1
131.3
150.6

155.8
123.8
130.1
148.7

158.9
151.0
109.4

158.0
150.0
109.6

120.0

116.3

119.1
116.4

155.8
148.1
108.7
118.2
115.3

111.3
113.6
125.0

123.0

164.5
112.1

135.5

222.1

200.2

76.5

128.7
196.3
191.5
212.5
156.0

153.6

110.6

110.6

110.8

134.6

133.8

130.9

101.0

102.2

102.3

118.9

119.2

120.0

103.3
120.5

155.2

153.7

153.2

122.2

122.2

129.1
146.7

154.3
122.3
127.9
144.0

126.9
142.3

126.6
142.1

152.7
121.7
126.1
141.8

153.7
146.2
107.1
117.7
114.8

150.8
143.4
106.5
117.4
114.5

149.3
141.0
106.1
116.8
114.2

149.1
140.9
106.0
116.5
113.9

148.7
140.7
105.9
115.9
113.5

148.6
140.5
105.9

148.5
140.5
105.6

148 0
140 4
105.4

115.6
113.0

115.3
112.8

115 6
112.6

109.8

109.4
109.5
121.5

109.2
108.8
120.5

109.2
108.6
119.9

108.9
108.0
118.9

108.9
107.8
118.8

109.0
107.4
118.1

109 0
107.1
119.3

122.8

102.7

110.1

121.6

121.1

200.6

195.5
217.6
159.9

111.1
131.8

116. 5

160.7
152.6
109.9
120.4
116.6

Dec. 63
Dec. 63

111.5
115.2
125.9

111.4
114.5
125.6

Financial and miscellaneous personal
expenses:
Funeral services, adult................. Dec. 63
Bank service charges, checking
accounts........ .......
Dec. 63
Legal services, short form w ill.
Dec. 63

117.4

117.3

116.9

116.5

115.9

115.5

115.2

114.6

114.0

113.6

113.1

112.5

112.3

115.2

110.3
141.2

109.9
139.5

109.1
139.5

108.3
138.8

10?. 4
137.8

108.2
135.0

108.2
134.5

107.9
132.9

107.8
130.8

107.5
129.5

107.4
128.2

106.9
128.3

106.6
127.6

108.3
134.7

1 Priced only in season.


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

110.0
120.6

110.4
112.0

110.1
110.6

122.3

110.2
121.8

NOTE: Monthly data for individual nonfood items not available for 1968.

* Not available.
8 7 0 -3 3 6 0 — 71

Mar. 59

-8

153.6
145.7
107.6
117.8
114.8
109.9
110.5

121.8

CONSUMER PRICES H l

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

25.

Consumer Price Index1—U.S. city average, and selected areas
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual

avg.

1968

1969

Area3
Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

Ju ly

June

May

Apr.

M ar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

19 6 8

12 6 .4

12 5 .6

12 4 .6

12 4 .1

12 3 .7

123 .4

1 2 1 .2

(4)
(4)

( 4)
<4)
1 2 7 .9

1 2 2 .1
124 .0

(4)
(4)

( 4)
( 4)
1 2 1 .0
1 2 1 .1

( 4>
116 .9
1 2 0 .3

(4)

119 .6
12 0 .9
12 4 .7
1 1 4 .8
1 1 8 .5
11 8 .9

(4>
, ( 4)
122.5
113.9
«
125.5

121.8
115.4
122.1
(4)
(4)
(4)

119.6
113.0
119.8
111.9
119.3
123.5

124.2
(4)

122.2
116.8
121.2
124.1
122.4
120.4
122.3

All items

13 0 .5

129 .8

( 4)

(4)
(4)

( 4)
( 4>
13 4 .7

12 8 .6
13 0 .4

(*)
12 8 .3
1 2 7 .7

12 3 .2
1 2 7 .7

( 4)
126.9

( 4)
1 2 7 .2
1 2 5 .5

( 4)
( 4)

12 9 .5

U.S. cityaverage3

13 1.3

Atlanta, Ga...............................
Baltimore, Md..........................
Boston, Mass...........................
Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963 = 100).
Chicago, Ill.-Northwestern Ind.
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky------

12 9 .9
13 1.9

Cleveland, Ohio...............................
Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963 = 100).........
Detroit, Mich...........................- - - - Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963=100).
Houston, Tex..................................
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas— .............

(4)

( 4)

( 4)
( 4)
( 4)

130.8
119.7
(4)
133.2

123.7
129.8
(4)
(4)
(4)

Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif—
Milwaukee, Wis............- ................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn -------New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J.
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J....................
Pittsburgh, Pa................................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.».................

131.1
(4)

130.0
127.0

( 4)

( 4)

136.0
132.2
(4)
(4)

134.6
131.7
(4)
(4)

St. Louis, Mo.—Ill- .................... —
San Diego. Calif. (Feb. 1965=100).
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif-------Scranton, Pa.»................................
Seattle, Wash.................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va..............

130.7
(4)
134.5
(4)
(4)
(4)

(4)
117.0

(4)
(4)

( 4)

( 4)

127.3
130.0
132.0

(4)
(4)
(4)

129.2
(4)
129.8
(4)
130.1
(4)
130.3
134.1
131.2
128.5
130.1

129 .3

(4)

1 2 8 .7

1 2 8 .2

12 7 .6

126 .8

( 4>
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 1 .2
12 6 .1

(4)
(4)

12 6 .1
12 7 .9

( 4)

13 2 .1

(4)

( 4)
12 5 .3

( 4>

( 4>

124 .9
1 2 5 .7

( 4>

(4)
(4)

129 .8

(4)

( 4)
12 4 .6
12 4 .6

1 2 0 .2
123 .6

<4>
123 .2
( 4)

( 4)
12 2 .9
1 2 2 .7

( 4)
1 1 7 .3
1 2 1 .9

( 4)

(4)

( 4)
1 2 1 .4

( 4)

( 4)

(4)
(4)
125.7
(4)
125.5
(4)

(4)
(4)
125.1
115.6
(4>,
128.1

123.1
116.8
123.4
(4)
(4)
(4)

( 4)

(')
122.8
(4)
123.2
(4)

126.6
(4)
(4)
129.6
127.0
(4)
(4)

125.2
120.8
, ( 4)
128.3
126.0
(4)
(4)

124.7
(4)
122.9
127.8
125.2
124.0
125.3

127.2
125.1
(4)
(4)

124.2
118.7
(4)
126.9
124.9
(4>
(4)

( 4)

1 2 7 .3

( 4)

( 4)

(4)
128.6
118.1
(4>
131.4

121.2
128.5
(4)
( 4)
( 4>

(4)
127.6
(4)
127.0
(4)

(4)
127.3
116.6
(4)
130.4

125.3
119.4
126.4
(4)
(4)
(4)

129.6
(4)

128.9
123.9

128.6
(4)
128.0
132.1
129.2
127.7
128.4

127.9
(4>

126.9
122.8

( 4)

( 4)

131.6
128.2
(4)
(4)

130.8
127.5
(4)
( 4)

126.9
<4>
125.1
130.5
127.6
126.0
127.9

(4)
(4)

127.0
(4)
130.8
(4)
(4)
(4)

(4)
114.4
(4)
128.1
127.6
128.8

(4)
(4)
(4)
<4)
(4)
(4)

125.4
(4>
128.9
(4)
(4)
(4)

(4)
112.8
O)
126.2
125.9
126.3

(4)
( ‘)
(4>
(4)
t 4)
(4)

123.4
(4)
126.7
<‘)
(4)
(4)

111.2
(4)
124.9
124.5
124.9

121.5
109.4
124.3
122.8
122.3
122.0

123.2

122.4

121.9

122.0

121.2

120.5

119.3

119.7
124.8
125.1
117.5
124.0
118.7

119 1
123.9
124.6
117.0
122.5
118.4

118.6
122.6
123.7
115.7
121.7
117.9

117.2
121.3
122.7
114.6
120.4
116.3

( 4)

( 4)

133.5
131.0
( 4)
(4)

132.5
130.2
( 4>
(4>

129.2
( 4)
132.8
(4)
(4)
(4)

(4)
116.0
( 4)

130.5
129.5
130.8

( 4)

(4)
(4)
(4)

( 4)

Food

U.S. city average3

129.9

128.1

127.2

127.5

127.4

126.7

125.5

Atlanta, Ga............................... .
Baltimore, Md..........................
Boston, Mass......... .................
Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963=100).
Chicago, Ill.-Northwestern Ind.
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky.......

128.4
134.1
133.1
125.1
131.3
126.6

126.9
132.3
131.6
122.8
129.4
125.1

126.5
131.5
131.2
121.9
128.3
124.1

126.7
131.8
131.4
121.8
130.2
123.6

126.3
130.8
131.8
122.5
130.5
123.2

124.4
130.1
130.2
122.4
129.0
123.3

122.8

Cleveland, Ohio...............................
Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963=100).........
Detroit, M ich .......................... .......
Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 100).
Houston, Tex...................................
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas................

128.5
124.2
129.3
120.8
131.2
134.4

125.7
122.8
126.8
119.5
129.2
132.9

125.0
121.7
126.1
119.7
128.7
131.2

125.1
122.0
126.5
119.1
129.2
131.9

125.2
121.9
127.3
118.0
129.0
131.3

123.3
120.6
126.5
116.9
127.7
130.7

123.2

Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif—
Milwaukee, W is............................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn--------New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J.
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J....................
Pittsburgh, Pa...............................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.».................

125.8
128.4
128.2
132.9
129.7
127.1

124.7
127.8
127.2
130.6
128.0
125.7

124.0
127.6
126.5
129.6
127.0
123.3
124.4

124.0
127.9
125.9
129.1
127.2
123.2

123.9
127.6
126.4
128.7
127.2
123.9

124.0
126.5
125.4
128.1
126.0
124.2
125.2

123.0
125.1

St. Louis, M o.-ill.............................................
San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965=100)..................
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif..........................
Scranton, Pa...................................................
Seattle, Wash...................................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va.....................................

135.5
120.0
127.2

133.5
119.1
126.2
131 9
126.2
131.2

132.4
117.8
125.6

132.6
118.3
124.9

129.8
118.7
125.9

128.6
118.1
124.3

125.2
130.5

125.9
131.6

131.2
118.6
124.9
127. 5
126.2
132.5

125.8
131.3

125.0
129.1

127.6
133.5

1 See table 23. Indexes measure time-to-time changes in prices. They do not indicate
whether it costs more to live in one area than in another.
3 The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire urban portion of the
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1960 Census of Population;
except that the Standard Consolidated Area is used for New York and Chicago.


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

127.9
129.5

121.2
127.5
121.9

120.1
124.5
116.3
126.8
129.8

122.8
126.6
124.5
123.2

123.7
121.2
126.2
127.8
118.9
125.3
120.7

121.8
126.3
127.5
118.2
124.4
120.2

120.7
125.3
126.3
117.4
123.9
119.1

120.0
124.1
126.0
117.2
123.0
118.8

122.3
118.2
122.7
116.1
125.2
127.5

120.1
116.9
121.9
115.8
124.3
126.6

119.6
116.5
120.8
115.7
124.3
125.6

120.0
116.2
119.9
115.7
123.8
125.5

119.9
116.7
119.5
115.6
123.4
125.0

119.2
115.9
118.4
113.9
122.9
124.4

118.6
114.9
118.3
114.1
122.1
124.1

116.7
113.7
117.6
112.2
119.7
122.7

121.6
123.3
121.3
124.9
123.1
120.9

121.2
122.9
120.7
124.7
124.3
119.6
122.7

120.3
122.0
120.2
123.6
123.2
119.2

119.6
121.4
119.3
123.1
122.9
118.7

119.6
121.4
120.5
123.3
122.7
119.6
122.5

119.3
120.4
119.3
122.3
121.9
118.8

118.4
119.5
118.7
121.8
121.1
117.2

117.5
118.2
117.3
120.2
119.6
115.9
119.3

126.9
116.4
122.7
123.4
123.6
128.3

126.4
115.3
122.3

125.8
114.5
121.4

125.8
113.4
120.1

124.9
112.9
119.6

123.2
127.6

122.3
126.3

125.2
113.8
120.2
121.6
121.5
126.0

121.4
125.5

120.5
124.9

123.9
112.5
119.3
119.8
119.8
124.1

123.5
111.3
118.4
118.4
118.8
121.3

»Average of 56 "cities” (metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan urban places
beginning January 1965).
* A ll items indexes are computed monthly for 5 areas and once every 3 months on a
rotating cycle for other areas.
» Old series.

112

26.

W H O LE S A L E PR ICES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]2

Code

02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-71
02-72
02-73
02-74
02-8
02-9

03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-41
03-5
03-6
03-7

1968

Annual
average
1968

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

115.1

114.7

114.0

113.6

113.4

113.3

113.2

112.8

111.9

111.7

111.1

110.7

109.8

108.7

116.4

115.7

114.3

114.3

114.6

115.5

115.5

114.1

110.9

110.7

110.0

109.8

108.4

107.6

114.6

114.2

113.8

113.2

112.8

112.4

112.2

112.2

112.1

112.0

111.4

110.9

110.2

109.0

111.7
112.4
82.9
Livestock..................................................... 120.2
Live poultry......................... ............. ..........
86.9
65.7
Plant and animal fibers.................................
Fluid m ilk____ ______________________ 138.3
155.8
Eggs........................... ..........
Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds_____________ 105.1
Other farm products....................................... 113.1

111.1
125.3
81.7
116.6
86.3
66.0
13/. 6
139.8
103.4
115.9

107.9
101.3
84.8
118.7
85.3
66.1
136.8
113.8
101.2
116.7

108.4
103.4
83.4
119.2
89.0
66.4
135.6
122.5
105.7
110.6

108.9
106.7
81.9
123.6
92.3
66.9
135.1
100.5
107.3
109.5

110.5
103.1
83.7
126.8
90.2
67.7
134.9
117.0
111.3
106.9

111.2
112.9
85.6
130.4
89.8
67.7
134.6
85.9
110.6
106.2

110.5
126.7
86.7
123.0
90.7
67.7
134.1
80.6
115.1
105.6

105.6
106.8
83.1
113.8
87.0
67.3
133.5
97.3
113.8
106.1

106.5
112.1
81.6
112.5
95.5
67.3
132.8
110.9
112.5
106.8

105.0
108.7
82.0
109.2
94.3
67.7
132.6
108.1
112.4
106.4

104.9
112.0
82.5
106.1
90.5
68.8
131.8
122.3
111.5
105.9

103.3
109.3
80.4
104.2
82.9
69.0
132.3
117.8
108.8
107.7

102.2
108.2
81.9
104.8
84.9
75.4
128.8
93 9
111.5
103.1

122.6
122.0
121.9
133.9
116.4
127.1
116.1
115.6
86.1
97.9
108.0
126.4
121.8

121.8
121.9
120.5
131.2
116.3
127.9
116.0
123.0
97.0
91.1
106.5
127.2
119.5

121.6
121.2
120.2
130.7
116.0
127.7
115.0
118.3
88.4
88.9
104.7
131.6
119.9

121.3
120.4
122.9
133.4
116.6
127.2
113.1
104.0
79.8
85.0
102.1
121.2
119.3

121.5
120.1
124.5
133.0
116.8
127.2
112.6
105.0
80.0
84.7
102.1
119.8
118.2

122.0
119.9
127.5
133.0
116.6
122.3
112.6
96.4
80.0
89.4
102.1
119.5
118.7

121.4
119.7
126.5
133.0
115.6
123.0
112.4
91.2
81.9
89.4
103.3
113.6
116.9

119.4
119.4
121.0
132.5
115.7
122.7
111.8
89.0
81.0
89.4
103.3
118.6
114.9

117.3
119.3
114.0
131.4
115.4
120.2
111.4
90.8
80.6
89.4
103.3
119.0
118.3

116.4
119.3
112.2
130.4
115.1
119.5
111.3
96.1
83.0
91.6
103.1
119.3
115.7

116.3
119.3
111.4
130.2
114.5
119.2

111.1

90.3
83.4
95.0
102.9
119.1
117.5

116.0
119.3
111.1
130.1
113.6
119.2
110.8
84.0
80.4
91.5
101.1
118.2
118.2

114.7
119.3
107.3
130.4
113.3
118.8
110.6
74.1
78.0
90.0
100.5
118.2
118.2

114.1
118.2
108.3
127.7
114.1
115.8
109.6
69.6
84.5
94.4
100.2
115.5
118.5

109.2
106.1
104.3
91.1
191.1
116.9
108.1
127.8

109.2
106.0
104.6
91.5
184.6
116.7
108.0
129.6

109.1
105.8
104.5
91.6
183.9
116.5
108.0
127.2

109.0
105.9
105.0
92.1
181.2
116.2
107.3
121.4

108.7
105.7
104.8
92.7
177.1
115.8
104.7
119.6

107.7
105.3
105.0
92.6
168.2
113.9
104.2
120.3

107.2
104.5
105.0
92.7
164.6
113.3
104.2
118.0

106.9
104.6
104.3
92.6
157.9
112.9
103.2
114.7

107.1
104.5
104.3
92.4
155.4
113.0
107.7
119.7

107.1
104.6
104.2
92.1
155.0
112.8
107.7
121.9

107.2
104.8
104.4
92.3
156.4
112.7
107.6
127.1

107.4
104.8
104.7
92.8
160.8
112.7
110.2
126.2

107.1
105.1
104.6
92.9
165.2
111.9
110.2
125.3

105.7
105.1
103.7
90.8
183.0
110.3
110.5
115.5

ALLCOMMODITIES.............................
FARMPRODUCTSANDPROCESSEDFOODS
ANDFEEDS__________ _______
INDUSTRIALCOMMODITIES..................

01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9

1969

Commodity Group

FARM PRODUCTS, AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
Farmproducts__ ________ ________ __
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables_____
Grains.................. .................................. .

Processedfoodsandfoods_____ ___________

Cereal and bakery products................... .......
Meats, poultry, and fish............................... .
Dairy products___________ _____ _______
Processed fruits and vegetables...................
Sugar and confectionery_________ _______
Beverages and beverage materials________
Animal fats and oils________ ____ ____
Crude vegetable oils.................................. .
Refined vegetable oils____ ____ _________
Vegetable oil end products............................
Miscellaneous processed foods___________
Manufactured animal feeds_____________

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
Textileproductsandapparel.................................
Cotton products...................... ................... .
Wool products................................................
Manmade fiber textile products........ ............
Silk yarns.......................................................
Apparel_____________________ ______
Textile housefurnishings______________
Miscellaneous textile products................... .

04
04-1
04-2
04-3
04-4

Hides,skins, leather, andrelatedproducts............... ..
Hides and skins_______________________
Leather................. ..... ....................... ..........

126.5
108.9
119.7
135.0
118.5

126.8
110.4
119.6
135.5
118.6

127.4
118.0
120.3
135.2
118.4

128.2
128.7
121.7
134.9
117.9

126.4
123.1
121.0
132.7
117.6

126.4
123.0
121.2
132.7
117.5

125.7
117.4
121.5
132.3
117.2

126.1
122.6
121.7
132.1
117.0

126.0
125.8
122.3
131.9
116.0

123.4
109.1
116.4
131.5
115.3

123.4
106.3
116.5
132.2
114.8

123.5
109.2
116.8
132.1
114.2

122.8
106.8
115.8
131.7
113.8

119.5
99.6
112.6
128.0
112.7

05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7

Fuelsandrelatedproductsandpower.................... ..

106.1
124.6
126.9
131.8
103.4
104.5
102.2

105.5
123.5
126.9
128.8
103.4
104.5
101.6

105.4
120.6
126.9
128.7
103.7
104.5
101.6

104.7
115.9
120.3
123.0
103.5
104.5
101.8

104.7
115.5
120.3
121.8
102.4
104.5
102.5

105.0
115.4
120.3
121.6
102.5
104.5
103.2

105.0
114.2
120.3
121.8
102.6
104.5
103.3

104.5
113.5
120.3
121.6
102.5
104.7
102.4

104.5
112.8
120.3
121.8
102.3
104.8
102.5

104.2
112.7
120.3
124.6
102.3
103.7
101.7

102.7
112.7
120.3
124.0
102.2
99.9
99.5

102.4
112.7
120.3
124.4
102.0
99.7
98.9

102.2
112.7
120.3
120.9
102.1
99.7
99.0

102.4
106.7
116.0
123.8
101.5
99.4
100.3

06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7

Chemicalsandalliedproducts............... ....... .......

98.8
Industrial chemicals........................... ..........
97.8
Prepared paint....... .............................. ......... 120.3
Paint materials_____ _____ _____ _______
93.4
Drugs and pharmaceuticals.................... ....... 94.6
Fats and oils, inedible........ .......................... 92.8
Agricultural chemicals and chem. products..
86.7
Plastic resins and materials____ _________
80.1
Other chemicals and allied products............. 115.1

98.9
97.8
120.3
93.1
94.2
100.5
86.7
79.6
114.9

98.6
97.6
120.3
93.9
94.0
98.9
86.3
80.2
114.3

98.9
98.2
119.2
93.3
94.0
102.1
87.4
81.0
113.9

98.7
98.2
119.2
93.3
93.8
99.3
88.4
80.7
112.9

98.2
97.7
119.2
93.2
93.8
90.5
88.6
80.2
112.8

98.3
97.0
119.2
92.8
93.8
86.8
92.1
80.8
112.8

98.1
96.9
118.7
92.8
93.8
83.3
92.1
80.8
112.7

97.9
96.7
118.7
92.2
93.7
83.7
92.1
80.9
112.2

98.0
97.9
118.7
91.9
93.6
80.4
92.3
81.3
111.2

97.8
98.1
118.2
92.0
93.4
73.6
92.2
81.5

111.1

97.6
98.1
118.2
92.0
93.4
72.2
92.9
80.8
110.4

97.7
97.9
115.9
91.9
93.6
69.8
96.4
80.5
110.3

98.2
98.4
114.6
92.2
93.3
73.9
99.7
82.0
110.0

07
07-11
07-12
07-13

Rubberandrubberproducts.............................

104.5
88.1
101.7
113.4

104.4
88.7
101.7
113.0

103.5
89.7
100.6
111.7

102.7
90.6
99.2
110.7

103.0
92.5
99.2
110.8

102.5
90.7
98.4

111.0

101.2
89.7
96.3
110.2

101.1
89.5
96.3
110.2

101.2
90.1
96.3
110.1

100.9
88.9
96.3
109.7

100.5
87.5
96.3
109.5

100.0
86.4
96.3
108.7

101.1
86.8
99.5
108.3

100.3
84.9
99.2
107.4

08
08—1
08-2
08-3
08-4

Lumberandwoodproducts..............................

122.5
128.2
131.7
96.9
118.4

123.9
129.3
133.2
99.6
116.7

122.6
128.0
133.9
95.8
116.7

123.2
129.5
134.4
94.4
116.5

124.0
131.1
135.1
93.6
116.8

125.3
133.4
135.6
93.9
115.6

129.8
142.3
136.0
94.2
115.1

138.0
155.9
134.3
103.5
114.7

143.3
164.9
132.3

149.5
164.7
128.8
146.9
112.4

144.5
155.8
126.7
146.5
111.2

137. 8
147.9
124.8
135.0

133.5
142.2
123.8
128.9
110.3

119.3
127.2
118.5
103.1
106.7

Footwear__________________________ _
Other leather and related products_______

Coal_________________ __________ ___
Coke___________ _____ __________ ___
Gas fuels (Jan. 1958=100)...........................
Electric power (Jan. 1958=100)....................
Crude petroleum______________________
Petroleum products, refined..........................

Crude rubber______ ____________ _____
Tires and tubes............ ..................... ..........
Miscellaneous rubber products___________
Lumber.................................................
Millwork.................................................
Plywood...............................................
Other wood products (Dec. 1966=100)____

See footnotes at end of table.


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

111.0

112.6

111.0

W H O L E S A L E PR IC ES

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

113

26. Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities—Continued
[1957=100 unless otherwise specified]3

1969
Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1968 Annual
average
1968
Dec.

109.5
110.1
98.0
106.7
117.4
96.0
110.7
93.9
123.8
113.9
116.4
150.1
120.6

109.3
109.9
98.0
107.0
117.0
96.0
110.6
94.4
122.9
113.7
116.4
146.4

108.8
109.3
98.0
108.4
116.5
95.9
109.8
95.1
121.7
113.2
115.5
143.5

108.7
109.2
98.0
110.3
117.2
95.8
109.2
95.2
120.4
112.7
115.4
139.5

108.0
108.3
98.0
109.1
116.4
93.5
108.3
100.4
116.5
108.9
111.9
132.4

107.4
107.7
98.0
108.1
116.1
93.6
107.6
99.6
115.8
108.8
111.7
129.9

106.8
107.1
98.0
107.8
115.7
92.6
106.8
98.2
115.2
108.0
110.7
128.9

106.2
106.6
98.0
107.4
115.0
92.2
106.3
97.3
114.4
107.5
110.4
127.2

105.2
105.6
98.0
109.6
113.4
91.4
105.4
94.8
112.8
106.1
109.1
123.5

105.2
105.6
98.0
101.5
112.7
92.2
105.9
92.8
112.4
105.5
108.5
125.3

123.0
122.8
99.7
113.7
124.5

119.7
120.6
119.4
97.7
112.6
123.2

108.1
108.3
98.0
107.1
116.7
93.5
108.4
100.7
117.5
109.9
112.7
134.2

120.3
121.0
120.2
98.0
112.8
124. 2

108.4
108.9
98.0
111.2
117.1
93.7
109.0
95.9
118.7
111.1
113.6
136.1

108.3
108.6
98.0
108.8
117.0
93.5
108.7
99.4
117.9
110.3
112.8
135.5

120.6
122.7
122.2
99.3
113.6
124.4

109.0
109.6
98.0
107.2
116.5
95.9
110.3
94.6
122.4
113.7
116.4
144.8

121.9
136.4
139.8
138.0
124.8

121.0
135.8
138.6
136.5
123.7

120.5
133.2
137.7
135.4
123.4

119.9
133, 0
136.1
134.4
122.6

119.1
132.3
134.9
133.5
121.8

119.0
132.3
134.8
133.3
121.5

118.6
132.0
134.5
132.3
121.2

118.3
131.9
134.3
132.1
120.3

118.0
131.8
134.1
131.8
120.0

117.8
131.7
134.0
131.4
119.8

117.3
131.6
133.6
131.1
119.1

117.0
131.2
133.5
131.0
118.5

116.7
130.1
132.7
130.5
118.3

115.2
127.1
129.6
128.6
117.2

(Jan 1961-100)
________ _______
Electrical machinery and equipment.........
Miscellaneous machinery..................... ........

132.8
106.2
121.0

130.6
106.0
120.4

130.2
105.6
120.0

129.6
105.4
119.2

129.2
104.7
118.5

129.2
104.8
118.1

128.1
104.7
117.8

128.0
104.5
117.6

127.2
104.3
116.6

126.9
104.2
116.5

126.6
103.5
116.1

125.6
103.5
115.7

125.0
103.5
115.6

122.2
103.0
114.0

12
1212-2
12-3
12-4
1212-6

Furnitureandhouseholddurables..........................

107.2
123.6
124.1
93.1
93.6
77.8
133.3

106.9
123.6
124.0
93.1
93.6
77.7
131.1

106.5
123.3
122.4
93.1
93.1
77.9
131.2

106.4
123.0
121.7
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.4

106.2
123.0
119.5
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.4

106.1
122.8
119.5
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.2

105.9
122.3
119.3
93.8
92.9
78.1
130.2

105.9
121.9
119.0
94.6
93.0
78.1
130.0

105.8
121.5
118.0
95.0
93.0
78.5
130.0

105.7
121.3
117.8
95.5
92.8
78.6
129.6

105.4
121.0
117.2
95.5
92.5
73.7
129.1

105.3
120.7
117.0
95.5
92.6
78.7
128.9

105.0
119.2
117.0
94.8
92.9
79.8
127.3

104.0
117.2
115.4
95.0
92.2
81.0
124.9

13
1313-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9

Nonmotallicmineral products.............................

114.5
117.8
116.7
114.2
118.5
120.9
101.2
104.3
116.1
110.6

113.9
116.2
116.7
113.6
118.5
117.2
94.0
109.8
116.1
110.6

113.8
116.2
116.6
113.5
117.8
117.2
96.7
105.9
116.1
110.6

113.5
116.2
116.5
113.2
117.5
117.2
96.7
106.1
116.1
109.6

113.0
116.2
116.1
112.4
117.0
117.0
96.7
103.2
116.1
109.2

113.0
116.2
116.1
112.3
116.9
113.6
100.9
104.9
116.1
109.0

112.8
115.2
115.9
111.6
116.9
113.6
100.2
108.7
116.1
109.0

112.6
114.6
115.6
111.6
116.8
113.6
97.9
108.7
116.1
109.0

112.3
113.4
115.6
111.3
116.7
113.6
99.2
106.2
116.1
109.0

111.9
112.3
115.5
111.2
116.0
112.6
99.2
106.2
116.1
107.6

111.2
110.8
113.8
110.8
115.9
112.6
99.6
106.2
116.1
107.6

110.6
109.9
112.2
110.7
115.8
112.6
96.8
106.2
116.1
107.2

109.3
110.0
110.2
109.5
115.4
112.6
96.8
106.2
110.3
106.8

108.1
109.5
109.2
108.1
113.1
112.1
97.5
105.5
108.4
105.0

14
1414-4

Transportationequipment (Dec. 1968=100)..............

Motor
vehicles and equipment.....................
1
Railroad equipment (Jari. 1961 = 100)...........

102.7
109.0
115.7

102.7
109.0
115.1

102.3
108.7
115.1

100. 0
106.1
114.4

99.9
106.0
114.3

100.4
106.6
114.3

100.3
106.6
111.8

100.2
106.5
111.1

100.1
106.4
110.2

100.0
106.3
110.2

100.1
106.4
108.5

100.1
106.5
108.5

100.0
106.6
108.5

104.9
106.6

15
15-1

Miscellaneousproducts.....................................

117.0

117.0

116.7

116.4

115.9

115.5

115.1

112.8

112.7

112.5

112.5

112.5

112.5

111.8

112.7
124.0
107.2
115.3
114.9

112.8
124.0
107.2
115.0
114.9

112.3
123.8
106.7
114.9
114.8

112.1
123. 8
106.7
113.9
114.3

111.8
123.5
106.7
111.4
114.2

111.2
123.4
102.0
111.4
114.1

110.9
123.2
102.0
112.6
112.6

110.7
117.0
102.0
112.4
111.7

110.8
116.9
100.8
112.1
111.7

110.5
116.7
100.7
112.0
111.4

110.1
116.7
100.7
112.7
111.2

110.2
116.6
100.7
112.7
111.2

109.3
116.5
100.7
113.2
112.0

108.3
115.2
103.4
113.6
110.9

Code

Commodity Group

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES—Continued
Pulp p'ip*r, andalliedproducts— ____ _____ __
09
r Puip,fpaper, and products, excluding build­
09-1
ing paper and board...................... .....
Woodpulp ....... -............................
09-11
Wastppaper
_________________
09-12
Paper
.................................
09-13
_______ _____ ____
Paperboard
09-14
Converted paper and paperboard products...
09-15
Building paper andboard____________
09-2
Metalsandmetal products............... ................
10
Iron
101 and steel......................................
Steel mill products
10-13
Nonferrous metals.... ......... ............... .
10-2
Metal containers
..........................
10-3
Hardware
. .......................... - ................
10-4
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings_______
10-5
Heating equipment
________________ _
10-6
Fabricated
structural metal products______
107
Miscellaneous metal products............ .........
10-8
Machineryendequipment
11
Agricuitural 'machinery and equipment-------11-1
Construction machinery and equipment-----11-2
Metalworking machinery and equipment----11-3
General purpose machinery and equipment..
11-4
Special industry machinery and equipment
11-6
11-7
11- 9

15-2
15-3
15-4
15-9

Household
furniture.......................................
1
Commercial fu rn itu re ............. .....................
Floor coverings
Household appliances.................................
Home
electronic equipment.........................
5
Other household durable goods.....................

Flat
11 glass . ................................................
Concrete ingredients....... ..............................
Concrete products..........................................
Structural clay products exc. refractories___
Refractories . ............................. .............
Asphalt roofing .......................... .................
Gypsum products...........................................
Glass containers____________ _________
Other nonmetal lie minerals........... ................

Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammuni­
tion
________ ____ ________
Tobacco products...........................................
Notions.
................................................
Photographic equipment and supplies...........
Other miscellaneous products.................... .

120.6
122.2
120.8
98.7
113.4
124.4

i
As of January 1967, the indexes incorporated a revised weighting structure reflect­
ing 1963 values of shipments. Changes also were made in the classification structure,
and titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this
table conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data pre­
viously published. See "Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes , January 1967 (final)
and February 1967 (final) for a description of the changes.


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

119.7
120.5
119.4
97.7
112.0
121.3

119.7
119.9
117.9
97.2
111.0
120.7

119.7
119.9
117.1
97.0
110.8
120.5

119.7
119.9
116.6
96.8
110.2
120.4

119.4
119.1
116.6
96.6
109.6
120.4

119.4
119.0
116.1
96.3
109.4
120.4

117.0
118.5
115.8
96.1
109.3
119.6

117.0
117.7
115.3
96.0
109.0
118.3

116.0
116.9
114.1
94.9
107.6
116.1

3As of January 1962, the indexes were converted from the former base of 1947-49 =
100 to the new base of 1957-59=100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1957-59
base furnished upon request to the Bureau.
NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Wholesale
Price Index, see "BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies" (BLS Bulletin
1458, October 1966), Chapter 11.

114

27.

W H O LE S A L E PR ICES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

Wholesale price indexes for special commodity groupings 1
[1957-59=100, unless otherwise specified]»
1969

Commoditypoup

1968

Annual
1968

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

All commodities— less farm products..................
All foods.......................................................
Processed foods............... . . .....................

115.4
123.3
122.8

115.0
123.1
122.1

114.7
119.8
121.8

114.1
120.1
121.6

113.8
119.9
121.9

113.6
120.7
122.5

113.3
119.9
122.0

112.9
119.0
119.9

112.5
115.4
117.0

112.3
115.7
116.2

111.8
115.0
115.8

111.3
115.5
115.4

110 5
113 8
114.0

109 4
11? ?
113.3

Textile products, excluding hard and bast
fiber products.........................................
Hosiery......................................................
Underwear and nightwear.........................
Refined petroleum products......................
East Coast...........................................
Mid-Continent.....................................
Gulf Coast...........................................
Pacific Coast.......................................
Midwest (Jan. 1961 = 100)..................

101.0
92.7
115.9
102.2
103.4
103.9
100.7
92.5
99.1

101.1
92.7
115.7
101.6
103.4
102.5'
99.8
92.5
98.4

101.1
92.7
115.7
101.6
103.4
98.7
101.4
92.3
97.4

101.3
92.7
115.6
101.8
103.4
98.0
101.4
94.9
97.0

101.3
92.7
115.6
102.5
103.4
103.9
101.4
94.9
97.0

101.0
92.7
115.6
103.2
103.4
98.8
104.8
94.9
97.0

100.8
92.7
114.5
103.3
103.4
103.9
103.2
93.6
98.7

100.6
92.7
114.3
102.4
103.4
101.0
102.4
93.6
97.4

100.9
92.7
114.2
102.5
103.4
103.2
101.8
93.6
97.6

100.8
92.7
114.3
101.7
103.4
106 9
99.5
91.0
98.4

101.0
92.4
114.2
99.5
103.4
101.1
96.8
91.0
95.8

101.5
92.5
114.3
98.9
103.4
101.8
95.2
90.9
95.8

101.6
93 2
113.6
99 0
103.4
97.1
97.3
90.9
96.4

100 6
q? s
112 6
100 3
104 9
99 6
99 8
91 8
95.3

Pharmaceutical preparations.....................
Lumber and wood products excluding
millwork and other wood products»___
Special metals and metal products»..........
Machinery and motive products................
Machinery and equipment, except elec­
trical.......................................................
Agricultural machinery, including tractors.
Metalworking machinery...........................
Total tractors.............................................
Industrial valves...................................... .
Industrial fittings.......................................
Abrasive grinding wheels..........................
Construction materials...............................

97.1

96.7

96.5

96.5

96.2

96.3

96.2

96.2

96.2

96.1

95.9

95.9

96.1

95.4

120.6
119.9
117.9

122.2
119.2
117.4

120.1
118.8
116.9

120.8
117.5
115.5

121.7
116.6
115.1

123.5
115.7
115.2

130.0
115.2
114.9

142.5
114.9
114.7

151.1
114.3
114.4

161.6
113.7
114.3

155.0
113.4
114.0

146.0
112.9
113.8

140.1
111.9
113.6

121.7
110 9
112.0

131.9
139.1
144. 6

130.6
138.5
143.6

129.9
135.5
143.4

129.0
135.3
141.7

128.3
134.6
140.9

128.1
134.7
140.9

127.5
134.3
139.2

127.1
134.3
138.9

126.6
134.4
138.6

126.4
134.4
138.1

126.0
134.1
137.8

125.5
133.7
137.7

125.0
132.6
136.9

123.0
129.4
135.3

142.5
127.3
119.4
107.1
116.9

141.3
125.8
118.6
107.0
116.9

139.4
125.8
118.0
102.6
116.3

138.4
124.8
118.0
102.6
115.9

137.1
124.8
115.3
102.6
115.7

137.0
125.8
115.3
102.6
115.9

137.0
126.5
115.9
102.6
116.9

137.0
123.5
115.9
102.6
118.9

137.0
123.1
114.7
102.6
120.2

136.8
122.4
114.7
102.6
121.6

136.8
120.4
113.0
102.6
119.8

136.8
120.6
112.0
102.6
117.4

135.6
121.0
112.0
102.3
115.4

131.5
124.6
107.7
99 0
111.1

■ See footnote 1, table 26.
»See footnote 2, table 26.
»Formerly titled "Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork.”


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

4 Metals and metal products, agricultural machinery and equipment, and motor
vehicles and equipment.

W H O LE S A L E PR IC ES

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

115

28. Wholesale price Indexes,1 by stage of processing

i11957-59=100] J
1968

1969

Commodityroup

ALLCOMMODITIES............................
CRUDE MATERIALS FORFURTHER PROC­
ESSING.......................................
Foodstuffsandfoodstuffs.....
Nonfoodmaterialsexceptfuel.
Manufacturing..............
Construction.................

Crudefuel............................

Manufacturing industries-----Nonmanufacturing industries.

INTERMEDIATEMATERIALS,SUPPLIESAND
COMPONENTS...............................
Materials and Components for Manu­
facturing—............................
Materials for food manufacturing...
Materials for nondurable manufacturing..........................................
Materials for durable manufactur­
ing.
Components for manufacturing...

MaterialsandComponentsforConstruction.
Processedfuelsandlubricants........
Manufacturing industries-----Nonmanufacturing industries.

Containers.
Supplies................................

Manufacturing industries........
Nonmanufacturing industries..
Manufactured animal feeds.
Other supplies.....................

FINISHED GOODS(Including RawFoods and
Fuels)...........................................
ConsumerGoods...............

Foods............................ .
Crude..........................
Processed...................
Other nondurable goods.
Durable goods................

ProducerFinishedGoods.............

Manufacturing industries-----Nonmanufacturing industries.

SPECIALGROUPINGS
Crudematerialsforfurtherprocessing, excluding
crude foodstuffs andfeedstuffs, plant andan­
imal fibers, oilseeds andleaf tobacco..........
Intermediate materials supplies and compo­
nents, excluding intermediate materials for
food mfg., andmfr.’danimal feeds...........
Consumer finished goods, excluding consumer
foods...........................................
i See footnote 1, table 26.
x See footnote 2, table 26.


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

Annual
average
1968

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

115.1

114.7

114.0

113.6

113.4

113.3

113.2

112.8

111.9

111.7

111.1

110.7

109.8

108.7

109.9

109.0

108.7

108.7

109.5

110.2

111.2

109.7

105.7

105.2

103.8

102.8

101.3

101.1

112.2

,

111.0

110.5

110.4

112.1

113.8

115.6

113.5

107.6

107.6

105.9

104.5

102.6

102.5

104.2
103.2
115.3

104.0
103.0
115.3

104.0
103.0
115.1

104.8
103.9
114.9

104.1
103.2
114.1

102.6

102.1

101.1

97.9
96.6

113.8

113.2

113.2

99.5
98.3
113.1

98.3
97.0

114.1

101.8
100.8

112.8

112.8

97.1
95.8
111.7

97.4
96.4
109.8

121.5
118.8
125.0

121.1

119.9
117.8

113.5

101.6

101.0

100.0

118.1
116.7

120.1

117.2
115.6
119.4

117.1
115.5
119.3

116.8
115.3
118.7

116.4
115.0
118.2

116.2
114.9
117.8

115.8
114.7
117.4

115.4
114.2
117.1

115.7
114.5
117.3

115.3
114.0
117.0

112.7

122.8

113.1

112.8

112.4

111.9

111.4

111.4

111.4

111.4

111.4

110.7

110.1

109.2

108.0

112.9
119.9

112.6
120.0

112.2

111.8

117.8

110.4
117.8

110.2

118.3

111.4
118.4

1 1 0 .6

119.2

116.3

109.8
114.1

109.6
113.4

109.1
113.1

108.5
112.7

107.8
111.5

107.1
110.7

101.6

101.7

101.5

101.7

101.7

101.2

101.1

100.9

100.8

100.7

100.6

100.5

100.5

100.2

112.9
111.4

111.7
110.5

118.6
124.5

112.2
113.5

121.4
117.0

120.4
116.7

120.0

119.6
115.1

118.7
114.3

117.4
113.9

117.1
113.4

117.5
113.1

117.3

116.1

112.6

117.0
112.4

116.0
111.9

114.8
111.5

116.8

116.7

116.2

115.8

115.5

115.4

116.0

117.6

118.4

119.7

118.3

116.3

114.6

110.7

102.3
104.8
98.4

101.0

100.13

100.8

100.5
102.4
97.5

100.3

100.4

99.6

99.5

102.4
98.4

100.9
102.4
98.5

102.2

10 2.8

102.8

102.0

96.7

94.7

102.6

97.2

94.8

99.2
101.9
94.9

113.1

112.9

112.3

111.7

110.9

109.1

109.2

113.9
116.3

112.9
115.8

113.1
115.0
111.5

112.8

112.5
113.8

110.6

110.6

108.4

108.1

102.7
105.1
99.0

102.1
104.5
98.4

103.2
97.6

102.3
97.8

114.8

114.6

114.5

114.2

113.7

113.3

113.2

116.9
119.4
115.1
114.1

115.9
118.7
113.9

115.6
118.0
113.9
112.3

114.4
117.4
112.4
110.5
109.7

114.3
116.8
112.5

113.3
116.5
107.4
109.4

110.8

109.7

113.8
116.7
111.9
109.3
109.6

109.2

108.1
108.8

113.0
115.2
111.4
109.8
108.6

99.7
96.2

111.8

111.4

111.0

115.1
117.8
113.3
111.7
110.4

118.0

117.6

116.5

116.0

115.7

115.9

115.4

114.7

113.8

113.7

113.3

113.2

112.6

111.3

116.5
124.5
129.5
123.5
114.1
107.2

116.2
123.9
131.0
122.5
113.8
107.1

115.1
121.2
114.2
122.4
113.6
106.9

114.7
121.6
116.9
122.4
113.3
105.3

114.4

114.2
121.3
111.3
123.1

113.5

112.2
117.1
117.4
116.9

113.0
105.2

112.6

1 1 2 .2

105.6

105.5

111.7
116.4
115.1
116.5
110.7
105.1

111.1

116.0
120.9
111.4
105.4

112.3
116.9
111.4
117.9
111.5
105.4

111.8

122.8

114.8
122.3
114.9
123.7

105.0

109.9
113.4
109.1
114.2
109.4
103.9

122.3
127.5
117.4

121.5
126.2
117.0

120.8

119.3
124.4
114.4

119.3
124.4
114.5

118.7
123.5
114.2

118.5
123.2
113.9

118.1
122.7
113.7

118.0

125.8
116.1

119.9
125.0
115.0

117.6
121.9
113.3

117.1
121.5

115.3
119.8

113.7

117.8
122.3
113.5

112.8

111.1

114.5

114.1

113.7

113.9

112.5

110.7

110.2

109.7

109.0

107.2

105.5

105.0

103.8

101.8

112.9

112.6

112.2

111.8

111.3

110.9

110.8

111.1 111.0 111.1

110.4

109.7

108.8

107.5

111.5

111.3

111.1

110.3

110.1

110.0

109.7

109.2

109.0

108.7

108.4

108.3

107.4

111.6

1 2 1 .2

112.4

1 1 0 .8

111.2

1 20 .1

112.1

109.2

111.0

111.2
105.3
122.6

116.8
119.7
116.2
110.4
105.1

114.6
111.3

115.2
117.6
114.7
1 1 0 .2

111.2

111.0
107.8

NOTE: For description of the series by stage of processing, see "Wholesale Prices
and Price Indexes," January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final).

116

WHOLESALE PRICES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

29. Wholesale price indexes,1 by durability of product
[ 1957-

59= 10012

1969

Commoditygroup

Allcommodities.....................

Total durable goods_____
Total nondurable goods...

Total manufactures..................
Durable....... ............... .
Nondurable___________

Total raworslightlyprocessedgoods.
Durable..... ................... .
Nondurable.......................

1968

Annual
average
1968

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

115.1
119.0
112. 4

114.7
118.4
111.9

114.0
117.9
111.2

113.6
117.1
111.1

113.4
116.5

113.3
116.1
111.3

113.2
115.9
111.2

112.8
116.1
110.3

111.9
116.0
108.8

111.7
116.1
108.6

111.1

111.1

115.4
108.0

110.7
114.6
107.8

109.8
113.6
107.1

108 7
111.8
106.5

115.3
118.8
111.9

114.9
118.3
111.6

114.6
117.9
111.4

113.9
117.0

113.6
116.4

111.0

113.5
116.1

111.0

111.0

113.2
116.0
110.6

112.8
116.2
109.6

112.4
116.2
108.9

112.2
116.3
108.3

111.7
115.6
103.0

111.3
114.8
107.7

110.5
113.9
107.2

109 4
112.0
106.9

113.9
125.3
113.3

113.1
124.0
112.5

122.8
110.3

111.6
123.7
110.9

111.5
119.7
111.1

112.2
114.8
112.1

112.6
114.9
112.4

112.1
113.3
112.0

108.6
110.6
108.5

109.1
108.1
109.1

107.8
107.1
107.8

107.6
105.0
107.7

106.2
101.3
106.5

104.9
101.1
105.2

111.0

! See footnote 1, table 26.
2 See footnote 2, table 26.

NOTE: For description of the series by durability of product and data beginning with
1947, see "Wholesale Price and Price Indexes, 1957" (BLS Bulletin 1235,1958).

30. Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries1
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise indicated!
1963

SIC
Code

Industry

1969

Other
bases

1968

Annual
age
1968

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

1311
1421

Anthracite..________________
Bituminous coal_____________
Crude petroleum and natural gas.
Crushed and broken stone_____

118.4
124.9
110.9
114. 5

114.9
124.2
110.9
114. 5

111.4
121.3
110.8
114.2

111.4
116.2
110.9
114.2

108.0
116.1
110.6
113.6

108.0
116.0
110.5
113.6

104.2
115.0
110.6
113.6

104.2
114.1
110.7
112.6

106.2
113.4
110.9
112.5

107.4
113.1
109.9
112.5

107.4
113.1
106.6
112.5

107.0
113.1
106.5
112.5

107.0
113.1
106.4
111.3

99 9
107 ?
106 0
109.5

1442
1475
1476
1477

Construction sand and gravel.
Phosphate rock___ ______ _
Rock salt_______________
Sulfur.................... ................

123.0
147. 4
107.0
115.8

123.0
147.4
107.0
115.8

123.0
147.4
107.0
124.1

122.5
147.4
107.0
165.4

121.5
147.4
107.0
165.4

121.5
147.4
107.0
165.4

120.7
147.4
107.0
165.4

120.6
147.4
107.0
165.4

120.8
147.4
107.0
165.4

120.6
147.4
100.8
165.4

119.8
147.4
100.8
165.4

119.8
147.4
100.8
173.7

118.6
147.4
100.8
173.7

116 6
147 4
100 8
171.6

2011

2033

Meat slaughtering plants___
Meat processing plants_____
Poultry dressing plants____
Creamery butter__________
Canned fruits and vegetables.

12/66
12/66

114.0
121.3
105. 7
106.3
109.8

113.5
118. b
103.3
105.1
109.7

113.8
119.1
101.7
105.1
ÌU3. 5

116.2
120.3
104.0
105.1
109.0

117.4
122.0
107.8
104.9
108.7

121.7
118.7
103.3
104.9
108.7

121.2
117.0
101.7
104.8
107.7

114.8
109.7
102.3
104.8
107.7

108.0
104.8
96.1
104.9
107.8

104.6
103.4
99.6
103.4
107.7

103.9
101.7
98.5
103.3
107.6

104.2
100.3
95.9
103.4
107.4

100.1
100.7
90.4
105.0
107.3

101.1
98.8
93 8
102.6
109.4

2036
2044
2052
2061
2062
2063

Fresh or frozen packaged fish___
Rice milling_________________
Biscuits, crackers and cookies___
Raw cane sugar______________
Cane sugar refining_______
Beet sugar__________________

12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66

150.8
94.0
109.7
107.0
108.9
106.1

154.1
94.0
109.7
110.1
109.3
106.6

146.5
94. 0
108. 0
110. 5
109.2
106.7

145.9
93.1
107.1
109.6
108.4
106.4

143.8
92.6
104.5
108.9
108.1
106.3

146.4
92.6
104.4
104.5
107.6
105.7

139.9
93.8
104.4
109.5
107.6
106.7

140.4
93.8
104.4
109.5
107.2
104.9

136.8
93.8
104.3
109.0
105.8
105.0

141.7
93.8
104.3
108.5
103.9
102.3

141.4
93.8
104.3
107.7
103.6
102.2

140.1
93.8
104.3
107.5
103.6
102.6

139.0
93.8
104.3
106.8
103.2
102.5

131.5
96.6
104.3
105.4
101.9
102.3

2073
2082
2083
2084
2091
2092

Chewing gum____________
Maltllquors_________
Mait___________ _______
Wines and brandy____________
Cottonseed oil mills_____
Soybean oil mills______

106.2
107.3
96.8
118.3
99. 4
88.6

106.1
107.3
96.8
118.3
95. 8
88.0

106.1
107.7
96.8
118.3
91. 5
91.0

106.1
107.1
96.8
115. 5
97.0
85.7

106.1
107.2
96.8
115.5
97.2
87.4

106.1
107.2
96.8
115.7
98.3
87.1

106.1
106.7
96.8
115.7
92.9
87.0

106.1
106.0
96.8
115.7
92.7
86.3

106.1
104.9
96.8
115.7
93.9
85.6

106.1
104.9
96.8
115.7
93.6
84.8

106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
93.7
83.1

106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
95.0
83.3

106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
94.5
82.2

106.0
104.6
96.8
115.2
108.9
86.9

2094
2096
2098
2131

Animal and marine fats and oils.
Shortening and cooking oils___
Macaronland noodle products
Cigarettes________________
Cigars_____________________
Chewing and smoking tobacco...

96.4
108.8
101.9
125.1
107.3
141.4

104.9
107.2
101.9
125.0
107.3
140.6

102.1
105.5
101.9
125.0
106.8
138.5

105.8
102.6
101.9
125.0
106.8
138.3

104.6
102.5
101.8
125.0
105.2
138.1

99.6
102.3
101.9
125.0
103.8
138.1

93.8
103.3
101.8
124.9
102.7
137.1

89.0
103.1
101.8
117.5
102.7
137.0

88.9
103.2
101.5
117.5
102.7
136.0

85.1
103.1
100.4
117.4
102.1
134.7

82.9
102.9
100.3
117.4
102.0
134.7

81.3
101.0
100.3
117.4
102.0
132.4

79.7
100.3
100.3
117.4
101.7
132.4

79.0
100.5
100.3
115.8
101.6
130.7

2254
2311
2321
2322
2327

Knlt underwear mills___ _______
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats...
Men's dress shirts and nightwear..
Men’s and boys' underwear_____
Men’s and boys’ separate trousers.

12/66
12/66

107.8
142.7
122.1
109.1
106.9

107.7
142.2
121.0
109. 0
106. 8

107.7
140.4
121.0
109.0
106.8

107.7
139.4
120.6
107.9
106.4

107.7
138.5
120.6
107.9
106.3

107.7
137.1
118.3
107.7
106.1

106.3
135.8
118.2
106.9
106.1

106.4
134.4
118.2
107.0
104.8

106.3
134.7
118.8
107.1
104.8

106.3
134.3
118.8
107.1
104.7

106.3
134.3
118.9
107.0
104.7

106.3
134.2
118.7
106.9
104.7

105.7
133.4
115.5
106.4
103.9

104.7
127.3
114.4
104. 5
102.8

2328
2381
2426
2442
2515

Work clothing_______________
Fabric dress and work gloves___
Hardwood dimension and flooring.
Wirebound boxes and crates____
Mattresses and bedsprings_____

12/66
12/6/
12/66

119.1
137.1
116. 5
110. 7
108. 2

119.0
135.4
116.6
110. 0
108. 7

119.0
135.4
116.7
110.0
108.5

118.3
134.8
117.2
110.0
108.5

117.7
132.1
117.3
108.6
108.5

117.4
131.9
117.8
108.3
108.3

117.4
131.9
119.0
107.4
108.2

116.6
131.9
120.7
107.4
108.2

116.6
131.7
121.1
106.5
108.3

116.6
130.8
120.6
106.4
108.2

116.6
130.6
118.8
106.4
108.2

116.5
130.1
116.5
106.3
106.7

115.1
128.4
114.7
105.6
104.3

114.3
127.5
106.6
104.6
103.7

2521
2647
2654

Wood office furniture__
Sanitary paper products.
Sanitary food containers.

12/66
12/66

139.2
115. 3
101.3

138.9
115. 3
101.2

137.6
113.9
100.6

135.9
113.5
100.4

134.3
113.1
100.4

134.3 134.3
112.3 111.5
100.1 1 100.7

133.4
111.1
100.6

132.8

132.2
111,1
100.4

131.7
110.2
100.7

131.1
108.0
100.8

131.1
108.0
100.5

128.0
107. 1
101.5

MINING
1111
1211

MANUFACTURING
2013
2015

2021

2111
2121

See footnote at end of table.


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

12/66
12/66

12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66

12/66

111.1
100.6

WHOLESALE PRICES

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
30.
1963
SIC
Code

117

Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries ^Continued
1968

1969
Industry

Other
bases

Annual
Average
1968

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

96.0
95.6
96.0

96.0
95.6
96.0

96.0
95.6
96.0

96.0
95.6
96.0

95.9
95.6
96.0

95.9
95.6
96.0

95.9
95.6
96.0

95.9
95.6
96.0

95.8
95.6
96.0

95.3
95.8
96.0

95.3
95.8
96.0

94.5
95.8
96.0

94.7
95.7
96.0

95.3
95.2
96.1

85.0
90.6
117.1
97.8
120.4
118.3

85.0
90.6
117.3
97.3
120.5
117.2

85.4
91.2
117.3
97.3
121.2
117.4

88.3
92.7
117.4
97.5
122.3
117.6

88.5
92.6
117.5
98.1
121.5
118.2

88.7
93.1
117.4
98.8
121.7
117.5

99.2
93.3
117.5
98.8
122.1
113.5

99.2
93.3
116.9
98.0
122.2
115.4

99.2
93.3
115.0
98.0
122.8
112.0

99.4
93.9
114.8
97.1
116.7
111.5

99.4
93.7
114.1
95.1
116.7
110.5

99.6
94.1
114.1
94.7
117.0
109.7

100.3
94.8
114.6
95.1
116.1
111.0

102.0
98.4
113.8
96.3
112.7
110.4

MANUFACTURING-Continued
2822
2823
2824

Synthetic rubber__________________
Cellulosic man-made fibers-------------Organic fibers, noncellulosic---------—

2871
2872
2892
2911
3111
3121

Fertilizers_________________ ______
Fertilizers, mixing only----------------------Explosives. -- - - - ----- --------Petroleum refining____________ ____
Leather tanning and fin is h in g -.-------1ndustrial leather belting_______
-—

3221
3241
3251
3255
3259

Glass containers___________________
Cement, hydraulic_________ . . —
Brick and structural clay tile_________
Clay refractories_____ . _ . .
Structural clay products, n.e.c------ —

116.1
114.9
125.1
126.2
116.4

116.1
114.9
125.1
122.2
116.4

116.1
114.9
124.4
122.2
115.9

116.1
114.9
124.4
122.2
115.1

116.1
114.8
123.5
122.0
115.0

116.1
114.8
123.5
117.8
114.4

116.1
114.8
123.4
117.8
114.8

116.1
114.8
123.2
117.8
115.3

116.1
114.8
123.0
117.8
115.3

116.1
114.7
121.5
116.7
115.3

116.1
111.7
121.5
116.7
115.1

116.1
108.5
121.4
116.7
115.0

110.3
105.9
121.2
116.7
114.1

108.4
105.7
117.8
116.0
114.3

3261
3262
3263
3271
3273
3275
3312
3315

Vitreous plumbing fixtures------------------Vitreous china food utensils_____ —
Fine earthenware food utensils-----------Concrete block and b ric k ... ------------Ready mixed concrete----- ----------------Gypsum products.___. . . . . . . _ . .
Blast furnace and steel m il ls . . . ----- --Steel wire drawing, etc------ -----------

104.6
143.7
131.2
115.4
115.7
104.7
115.3
108.6

104.2
143.7
131.2
115.0
114.9
110.1
115.3
108.5

103.4
139.8
130.9
114.9
114.7
106.2
115.2
108.4

102.4
139.8
130.9
114.6
114.4
106.4
114.4
107.5

102.4
139.8
130.9
114.5
113.7
103.6
114.3
107.0

102.4
139.8
130.9
114.5
113.5
105.2
112.5
106.4

100.9
137.2
127.0
113.7
112.7
108.9
111.8
106.3

100.8
137.2
127.0
114.2
112.6
108.9
111.7
105.9

99.8
137.2
127.0
114.2
112.3
106.5
110.8
105.1

99.8
134.3
123.3
114.5
112.0
106.5
110.6
105.1

99.7
134.3
123.3
113.4
111.8
106.5
109.5
105.1

99.5
134.3
123.3
112.9
111.7
106.5
109.3
104.5

99.1
134.3
123.3
111.7
110.3
106.5
107.7
103.7

98.2
130.8
123.1
110.8
108.6
105.8
107.6
101.5

3316
3317
3333
3334
3339
3351
3411

Cold finishing of steel shapes--------------Steel pipe and tube________________
Primary zinc______________________
Primary aluminum_________________
Primary nonferrous metals, n.e.c--------Copper rolling and drawing__________
Metal cans_________________ ______

12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66

113.6
110.5
107.7
114.0
134.8
171.4
109.0

113.7
110.4
107.7
114.0
138.9
166.4
109.0

113.7
110.4
107.4
114.0
133.9
166.4
109.0

112.1
108.4
105.6
110.0
131.8
165.9
109.0

112.1
107.8
100.9
110.0
123.8
160.6
109.0

109.0
107.7
100.6
110.0
120.5
154. 5
108.9

109.0
107.3
100.5
109.0
120.1
152.3
108.9

108.7
107.3
100.4
109.0
120.1
151.7
108.9

107.5
107.2
97.1
109.0
120.3
147.8
108.9

107.4
105.7
96.9
109.0
119.5
144.6
108.9

107.4
105.6
96.9
109.0
119.8
142.8
108.8

107.2
104.8
97.2
106.1
122.3
142.8
106.3

107.0
104.7
93.9
105.4
119.4
134.3
106.2

104.6
103.6
93.9
104.0
122.3
140.3
105.6

3423
3431
3493
3496
3498
3519

Hand and edge tools____ ____ _______
Metal plumbing fixtures______ ____ _
Steel springs_______ ________ ____
Collapsible tubes...................... .............
Fabricated pipe and fittin g s _________
Internal combustion engines----------------

12/67

110.8
100.4
107.2
103.8
130.9
110.9

110.6
100.3
107.2
103.7
130.8
110.8

109.6
99.8
107.2
103.7
130.4
110.1

108.4
99.4
106.8
103.7
130.4
109.7

108.4
98.8
106.8
103.6
130.3
109.1

107.8
98.7
106.8
103.6
130.3
108.0

107.1
97.3
106.3
103.5
129.7
108.3

106.9
96.6
106.0
103.2
129.7
108.3

107.2
95.8
105.9
103.2
129.7
107.9

106.3
95.8
105.8
103.1
123.4
107.5

105.9
95.7
105.8
103.0
123.4
106.9

105.0
95.3
105.8
102.9
123.4
106.7

104.8
95.0
105.2
101.5
122.7
106.6

102.6
93.5
102.6
100.2
119.8
104.5

3533
3534
3537
3562
3572

Oil field machinery_________________
Elevators and moving stairways..............
Industrial trucks and tractors.........—
Ball and roller bearings.......................
Typewriters___________________ _

12/66
12/66

125.1
110.5
134.0
105.7
103.9

122.7
107.7
133.9
103.7
103.8

122.5
107.7
133.6
103.7
103.2

122.4
107.6
132.6
102.6
103.1

121.8
107.6
131.2
102.6
103.1

121.5
107.6
131.2
102.2
101.5

121.0
104.5
130.5
102.2
101.4

120.8
104.5
129.1
102.1
101.3

120.4
104.5
128.6
102.1
100.5

120.0
104.5
128.6
102.1
100.6

119.1
103.9
128.2
102.1
100.6

119.0
103.9
128.1
101.6
100.6

118.0
103.9
127.2
101.6
100.6

114.6
102.8
123.7
100.8
101.3

3576
3612
3613
3624
3635
3641

Scales and balances.............................. Transformers...................... ...................
Switchgear and switchboards_________
Carbon and graphite products................
Household vacuum cleaners...................
Electric lamps....... ...............................-

12/66
12/66
12/67
12/66
12/66

133.4
100.3
107.1
104.8
99.9
98.4

133.2
99.3
106.7
104.4
99.9
98.5

133.0
100.2
105.7
104.4
99.9
99.2

133.0
101.6
105.9
104.3
99.8
101.1

129.9
101.6
103.6
104.3
99.8
100.3

129.9
101.3
104.4
104.3
99.8
99.6

128.6
101.1
104.9
103.0
99.8
104.1

127.0
100.2
104.0
101.1
99.8
103.1

127.0
100.8
103.6
101.0
99.8
103.6

126.9
102.2
104.3
101.0
99.8
102.7

126.9
102.3
104.9
101.0
99.7
103.0

126.3
104.6
104.8
101.0
99.7
103.0

126.4
104.6
104.4
101.0
99.5
103.0

123.4
106.1
104.3
100.8
101.2
104.9

3652
3671
3672
3673

Phonograph records................................
Electron tubes, receiving type________
Cathode ray picture tubes_____ ____ _
Electron tubes, transmitting..... ............ .

12/66
12/66
12/66

123.5
121.2
87.5
103.2

123.5
121.3
89.7
103.2

123.5
121.3
90.0
103.1

123.5
121.2
90.0
103.0

122.6
117.8
90.0
102.9

122.6
117.8
90.0
102.9

122.6
117.8
89.9
102.1

122.3
117.8
89.9
102.1

122.3
117.8
89.9
102.0

122.3
117.7
89.9
102.0

122.3
109.6
89.8
102.0

121.3
105.9
89.9
102.1

119.8
105.9
92.4
102.0

119.8
105.9
94. 5
101.4

3674
3692
3693
3941

Semiconductors............... .................... .
Primary batteries, dry and wet__......... .
X-ray apparatus and tubes........ ...........
Games and toys.....................................

92.7
115.4
117.4
112.1

92.8
115.4
115.6
112.2

92.7
115.3
115.4
111.4

92.6
115.2
113.1
111.4

92.7
115.2
112.8
111.4

92.6
115.2
112.8

92.6
115.2
112.5
111.1

92.7
115.2
112.6

92.7
115.2
111.2

92.4
113.8
111.4
111.2

92.4
112.5

111.1

92.6
114.9
111.3
111.1

92.5
111.3
107.7
110.1

92.3
111.3
105.1
109.3

12/66
12/66
12/66

12/66

1958
12/66

12/66

12/66
1958
12/66
12/66

12/66
12/67
12/66

1 For a description of the series, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and
Studies(BLS Bulletin 1458), Chapter 12. See also, ‘ ‘Industry and Sector Price indexes,”
in Monthly Labor Review, August 1965, pp. 974-982.


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

111.1

111.0

111.1
110.3

NOTE. Beginning in January 1967, index weights and classifications are based on the
1963 Censuses of Manufactures and Minerals. They were formerly based on the 1958
Industrial Censuses.

118
31.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1970

LABOR-MANAGEMENT DISPUTES
Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1

Workers involved in stoppages

Number of stoppages
Month and year

Beginning in
month or year

In effect during
month

Beginning in
month or year
(thousands)

In effect during
month
(thousands)

Man-days idle during month or year
Number
(thousands)

Percent of esti­
mated working
time

1945
1946
1947
1948
1949

4,750
4| 985
3,693
3,419
3,606

3,470
4,600
2,170
1,960
3,030

38,000
116,000
34,600
34,100
50,500

0.31
1.04
.30
.28
.44

1950
1951
195?
1953
1954

4,843
4,737
5; 117
5', 091
3,468

2,410
2,220
3,540
2,400
1,530

38,800
22,900
59,100
28,300
22,600

.33
. 18
.48
.22
.18

4,320
3,825
3,673
3i 694
3,708

2,650
1,900
1,390
2,060
1,880

28,200
33,100
16, 500
23,900
69,000

.22
.24
.12
.18
.50

3,333
3,367
3; 614
3; 362
3,655

1,320
1,450
1,230
941
1,640

19,100
16,300
18,600
16,100
22,900

.14
.11
.13
.11
.15

3,963
4,405
4| 595
5| 045

1,550
1,960
2,870
2,649

23,300
25,400
42,100
49,018

.15
.15
.25
.28

______

1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
195?
1963
1964

..........

196*>
19fifi
1967
1968

.............

1967: January.......................
February........ - ..........
March..'................... -

286
292
368

443
485
545

94.4
104.1
129.9

163.5
159.2
195.4

1,247.9
1,275.8
1,507.8

.09
.10
.10

A pril...........................
May........ ...................
June...........................

462
528
472

638
769
759

397.6
277.8
211.8

438.8
584.9
405.0

2,544.8
4,406. 4
4,927.4

.19
.30
.33

July.............. .............
August______ _____
September.................

389
392
415

682
689
681

664.6
91.3
372.8

865.5
233.1
473.6

4,328.7
2,859. 5
6,159.8

.32
.18
.45

October.......................
November...................
December_________

449
360
182

727
653
445

178.8
277.1
74.4

458.7
559.5
209.5

7,105.6
3,213.2
2,546.5

.47
.22
.18

1968: January......................
February.....................
March........................

314
357
381

483
569
618

187.8
275.0
174.5

275.7
451.3
368.7

2,668.5
4,104.1
3,682.0

.18
.29
.26

A p ril.........................
May.......................... .
Ju ne .........................

505
610
500

748
930
810

537.2
307.3
168.5

656.7
736.2
399.9

5,677.4
7,452.2
5,576.8

.38
.49
.40

July.............................
August......................
September.............. .

520
466
448

880
821
738

202.0
153.8
169.8

465.1
359.6
349.0

4,611.9
4, 048.9
3, 081.1

.30
.26
.22

October.............. .......
November........... .......
December................. .

434
327
183

741
617
408

279.0
129.9
64.1

414.5
306.1
189.2

3,991.7
2,430.5
1,692.5

.25
.17
.11

1969: January2 ____ _____
February2 ...................
March 2__________ _
A p ril2................... .
May2 ...... ..................June2 ..................... .
July2. . . ........ .............
August2.......................
September2............. .
October2......................
November2. . .......... .

320
330
420
570
660
560
500
500
490
510
310

480
500
600
770
870
800
760
770
740
750
550

182
137
112
253
219
181
220
160
157
317
132

255
266
261
303
329
302
307
280
215
372
323

3,380
2,590
2,080
2,740
3,530
3,370
3,420
2,890
1,830
2,850
4,050

.22
.19
.14
.18
.24
.22
.22
.19
.12
.17
.29

i The data include all known strikes or lockouts involving 6 workers or more and
lasting a full day or shift or longer. Figures on workers involved and man-days idle
cover all workers made idle for as long as 1 shift in establishments directly involved in


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

a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establishments
or industries whose employees are made idle as a result of material or service shortages.
2 Preliminary.

PRODUCTIVITY

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

119

32. Output per man-hour, hourly compensation and unit labor costs, private economy, seasonally adjusted
[Indexes 1957-59 = 100)

O utp ut per
m an-hour

M an-hours

O utput

Compensation per
m a n -h o u r*

Real compensation
per m a n -h o u r2

U n it labor
costs

Year and quarter
Private

P rivate
nonfarm

P rivate

P rivate
nonfarm

P rivate

Private
nonfarm

Private

Private
nonfarm

Private

P rivate
nonfarm

P rivate

P rivate
nonfarm

1967:

1st q u a rte r.
2d q u a rte r..
3d q u a rte r.
4th q u a rte r.
Annual average..........

146.4
147.2
148.9
150.2
148.2

148.2
148.9
150.7
152.1
150.0

110.6
109.6
110.3
110.9
110.4

115.5
114.9
115.3
116.0
115.4

132.4
134.4
134.9
135.4
134.3

128.3
129.6
130.6
131.1
129.9

147 .9
150.3
152.2
154.3
151.2

143.5
145.5
147.6
149 .7
146 .6

129.0
130.1
130.4
131.1
130 .1

125.2
126.0
126.4
127.2
126 .2

111.7
111.9
112.9
114.0
112.6

111.9
112.3
113.0
114.2
112.9

1968:

1st q u a rte r.
2d q u a rte r..
3d q u a rte r..
4th q u a rte r.
Annual average..........

152.4
155.2
156.7
158.1
1 55 .6

154.3
157.5
159.0
160.6
157.9

1 1 1 .2
112.2
112.7
112.6
112.2

116.4
117.5
118.3
118.3
117.6

137.0
138.3
139.0
140.4
138.7

132 .6
134.1
134.4
1 3 5 .8
134.2

158.5
1 6 0 .8
163.7
167.8
162.7

153 .6
155.7
158.1
162.0
157.4

133 .3
133 .7
134.5
136.3
134.4

129.2
129.4
129.8
131.5
130.0

115.7
116.3
117.8
119.6
117.4

115.9
116.1
117.6
119.4
117.3

1969:

159.1
159.9
160.8
160.6
160.1

161.5
162.3
163.1
163.4
162.6

113.7
114.6
115.0
114.3
114.4

119.6
120.7
121.4
121.0
120.6

139.9
139.5
139.8
140.5
139.9

135.0
134.5
134.4
135.0
134.8

170.5
172.7
175.8
179.3
174.6

164.4
166.5
169.1
172.1
168.0

136.7
136.2
136.8
137.5
136.8

131.8
131.3
131.5
132.0
131.7

121.8
123.8
125.8
127.7
124.8

121.8
123.8
125.8
127.5
124.7

1st q u a rte r.
2d q u a rte r..
3d q u a rte r..
4 th q ua rte r.
Annual average..........

Percent change over previous q u a rte r at annual r a te 3

1967:

1st q u a r t e r . .
2d q u a rte r..
3d q u a rte r..
4 th q u a rte r..

-1 .4
2 .3
4. 5
3 .6

-2 .2
1 .9
4 .8
3 .9

0 .0
-3 .7
2 .9
2.1

-0 .3
-2 .1
1 .7
2 .4

-1 .4
6 .2
1 .5
1 .5

-1 .9
4.1
3 .0
1 .5

3 .9
6 .7
5 .2
5 .6

4 .9
5 .5
5 .8
5 .9

3 .2
3 .7
0 .9
2.1

4.1
2 .6
1 .6
2 .3

5 .3
0 .5
3 .6
4 .1

6 .9
1 .4
2 .7
4 .4

1968:

1st q u a rte r..
2d q u a rte r..
3d q u a rte r..
4th q u a rte r..

6 .0
7 .4
4 .1
3 .5

6 .0
8 .4
4 .0
4 .0

1 .0
3 .5
1 .9
-0 .3

1 .2
3 .8
2 .8
0 .0

4 .9
3 .8
2.1
3 .8

4 .8
4 .5
1.1
4 .0

11.3
6 .0
7 .5
10.4

10.9
5 .5
6 .4
10.3

6 .8
1.1
2 .3
5 .5

6 .5
0 .7
1 .3
5 .4

6 .0
2 .1
5 .3
6 .3

5 .9
5 .3
6 .0

1st q u a rte r..
2d q u a rte r.
3d q u a rte r.
4th q u a rte r

2 .6
1 .9
2 .2
-0 .3

2 .2
2 .0
2 .0
0 .6

3 .8
3 .2
1 .3
-2 .2

4 .6
3 .5
2 .4
-1 .3

-1 .2
-1 .3
0 .8
2 .0

-2 .3
-1 .4
-0 .4
1 .9

6 .4
-5 .4
7 .4
8 .2

5 .8
5 .4
6 .2
7 .5

1 .4
-1 .4
1 .5
2 .3

0 .8
-1 .4
0 .4
1 .7

7 .6
6 .8
6 .5
6 .0

8 .3
6 .9
6 .6
5 .5

1969:

1.0

Percent change o ver previous y e a r4

1968:

3d q u a rte r..
4th q u a rte r.

5 .3
5 .3

5 .6
5 .6

2 .1
1 .5

2 .6
1 .9

3 .1
3 .7

2 .9
3 .6

7 .6
8 .8

7 .2
8 .3

3 .1
3 .9

2 .7
3 .4

4 .4
4 .9

4 .1
4. 5

1969:

1st q u a rte r.
2d q u a rte r.
3rd q ua rte r.
4th q u a rte r.

4 .4
3 .0
2 .6
1 .6

4 .6
3 .0
2 .6
1 .7

2 .2
2 .2
2 .0
1 .5

2 .8
2 .7
2 .6
2 .3

2 .1
0 .8
0 .5
0 .1

1 .8
0 .3
0 .0
-0 .6

7 .6
7 .4
7 .4
6 .8

7 .0
7 .0
6 .9
6 .2

2 .6
1 .9
1 .7
0 .9

2 .0
1 .5
1 .3
0 .4

5 .3
6 .5
6 .8
6 .7

5 .1
6 .6
7 .0
6 .8

1 Wages and salaries of employees plus e m ployers' c o n trib u tio n s fo r social insurance
and private ben efit plans. Also includes an estim ate of wages, salaries, and su pp le ­
m entary paym ents fo r the self-em ployed.

2 Compensation per m a n -ho u r adjusted fo r changes in th e consum er price index.
3 Percent change com puted fro m original data.


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

4 C u rre n t q u a rte r d ivided by com parable q u a rte r a year ago.
SOURCE: O utp ut data fro m the Office of Business Economics, U.S. D epartm ent of
Commerce. M an-hours and com pensation of a ll persons fro m th e Bureau of Labor
S tatistics.
NOTE: Data fo r 1967,1968, and firs t q u a rte r 1969 have been revised to re fle ct new
benchm ark info rm a tio n on o u tp u t, e m p lo ym e nt and com pensation.

cotions
Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1969. Bulletin 1630. 407 pp. $3.75.
ECONOMIC STABILITY
The Anatomy of Inflation. Report 373. 24 pp. Free from BLS regional offices.
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
Digest of 50 Health and Insurance Plans for Salaried Employees, Early 1969. Bulletin
1629.

126 pp. $1.25.

WAGES
Wages and Related Benefits: Part II, Metropolitan Areas, United States and Regiona
Summaries, 1967-68. Bulletin 1575-87. 127 pp. $1.25.
Area Wage Surveys (metropolitan areas):
Chicago, III., April 1969. Bulletin 1625-82. 67 pp. 65 cents.
New York, N.Y., April 1969. Bulletin 1625-88. 53 pp. 60 cents.
Akron, Ohio, July 1969. Bulletin 1625-89. 28 pp. 35 cents.
Utica-Rome, N.Y., July 1969. Bulletin 1660-1. 15 pp. 30 cents.
Little Rock-North Little Rock, Ark., July 1969. Bulletin 1660-2. 16 pp. 30 cents.
Manchester, N.H., July 1969. Bulletin 1660-3. 15 pp. 30 cents.
Rochester, N.Y., July 1969. Bulletin 1660-4. 15 pp. 30 cents.
Binghamton, N.Y., July 1969. Bulletin 1660-5. 15 pp. 30 cents.
Raleigh, N.C., August 1969. Bulletin 1660-6. 15 pp. 30 cents.
Green Bay, Wis., July 1969. Bulletin 1660-8. 15 pp. 30 cents.
Chattanooga, Tenn.-Ga., September 1969. Bulletin 1660-9. 15 pp. 30 cents.
Send check or money order to any of the Bureau's regional offices listed on the inside
front cover. Copies may also be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Gov­
ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Scheduled release dates for major BLS statistical series, March 1970
Date of press
release

T itle

Em ploym ent situation
Wholesale Price Index, sum m ary of final report
Factory labor tu rn o ve r .
Consumer Price In d e x .Wholesale Price Index, p re lim in ary
W ork stoppages____
_ _


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

March 9 ______
March 9 ____ __
_ _ _ _
_________________

March 20_______
March 25_- ___
March 25_______

Period covered

F e brua ry_______
F e brua ry_______
Ja n u a ry ________
F e brua ry_______
M arch_________
Fe brua ry_______

MLR table
num ber

1-14
26-30
15,16
23-25
26-30
31

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970

O — 3 7 3 -1 0 6

There is more

under

the cover too
o f the new
M ONTHLY LABOR
REVIEW


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

Authoritative analysis o f prices, labor force trends,
earnings, productivity, unit labor costs, and collective
bargaining developments by the professional staff
o f the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Plus articles, book reviews, and other contributions
by outstanding outside contributors. Authors who have
appeared in recent issues o f the Review include
David L. Cole, Dudley Dillard, A. Ross Eckler,
William Haber, Theodore W . Kheel, Richard A. Lester,
David A. Morse, and Philip Taft.
To enter your trial subscription to the
Monthly Labor Review, use the coupon below.

To: S u p e rin te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts

F O R U S E O F S U PT. D O C S .

U.S. G o v e r n m e n t P rin tin g O ff ic e

E n c lo s e d

W a s h in g to n , D. C . 2 0 4 0 2

To b e m a ile d la t e r
S u b s c r ip tio n

P lease s e n d m e a y e a r o f th e M o n th ly L a b o r R e vie w
P a y m e n t e n c lo s e d

Q

$9 d o m e s tic

Q

$11.25 fo re ig n

( M a k e c h e c k s p a y a b le to S u p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts )

N am e

A d d re s s

C ity, S ta te , a n d ZIP C o d e

R e fu n d
C o u p o n r e fu n d
P o s ta g e

United States
Government Printing Office
Division of Public Documents

Washington, D. C. 20402
OFFICIAL BUSINESS


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

Postage and fees paid
U.S. Government Printing Office

¡F IR S T C L A S S M A I L ]