The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
/ I\ l/ '
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
February 1971
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
I
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
REGIONAL OFFICES AND DIRECTORS
K
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
J. D. Hodgson, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner
Ben Burdetsky, Deputy Commissioner
Leon Greenberg, Chief Statistician
Peter Henle, Chief Economist
The M onthly Labor Review is for sale by
the regional offices of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
a n d b y th e S u p e r in t e n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts ,
U.S. Government P rinting Office
W ashington, D. C. 20402
S ubscription price per year —
$9 dom estic; $11.25 foreign.
Single copy 75 cents.
Correspondence regarding subscriptions
should be addressed to the Superintendent of Documents.
Com m unications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington, D. C. 20212
Phone: (202) 961-2327.
Use of funds for p rin tin g this publication
approved by the Director of the Bureau
of the Budget (October 31, 1967)
Region I — Boston: W e n de ll D. M a c d o n a ld
1603-A Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6727
C onnecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region il — New York: H e rb e rt B ie n s to c k
341 N inth Avenue, New York, N.Y, 10001
Phone: (212) 971-5405
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III — Philadelphia: F re d e ric k W. M u e lle r
Phoneen(21S5q)U597 7795 ing’ 1317 Filbert s treet, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107
Delaware
D istrict of Columbia
M a ry la n d
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV — Atlanta: B ru n s w ic k A. B a g do n
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30309
Phone: (404) 526-5416
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V — Chicago: Thom as J. M c A rd le
219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353-7226
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI — Dallas: Ja c k S tric k la n d
411 N. Akard Street, Dallas, Tex. 75201
Phone: (214) 749-3516
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
{ f t * '“ " * VIJ c*nd y 1!] — Kansas City: E llio tt A. B ro w a r
911 W alnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2378
February cover:
“ Troub le in Frisco,”
lith o g ra p h by Fletcher M a rtin,
cou rtesy o f N ational C ollection of
Fine A rts, S m ithso nian In s titu tio n
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
,x a *111 x — San Francisco: C harles R ou m a sse t
Phone°^(415°'5 *5 6 ^ 1 7 8 ^ ’ B° X 36017, San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
Editor-in-Chief, Herbert C. Morton
Executive Editor, Henry Lowenstern
I
G. H. Moore, J. N. Hedges
3
Trends in labor and leisure
In 1970, the average American worker had 50 hours more
free time than in 1960
P. 0. Flaim, P. M. Schwab
I
It
I
12 Employment and unemployment in 1970
Special Labor Force Report indicates that impact of slowdown
fell unevenly among major industries and labor force groups
Raymond 0. Konstant 20 Job vacancies in 1970
E. Jay Howenstine 24
Programs for providing winter jobs in construction
Subsidies and scheduling of public works projects
help foreign governments cut seasonal unemployment
|1i1
Sol Swerdloff 33
i
Surveying the gaps in construction statistics
Cabinet subcommittee offers proposals for improving data
on manpower requirements and industrial relations
W. J. Layng, T. Nakayama 38
The anatomy of price change in 1970
Lucretia M. Dewey 42 Women in labor unions
Increase in membership lags behind growth in employment of
women; only a few women hold office in international unions
‘
Joseph P. Goldberg 49 Seamen and modernization of merchant shipping
Labor problems arising from technical improvements
are debated at ILO maritime conference
Vera C. Perrella
55
Students and summer jobs
Special Labor Force Report describes the work experience
of the students who enter the labor force each summer
George L. Perry 68
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Inflation versus unemployment: the worsening trade-off
DEPARTMENTS
2
63
68
72
74
78
86
Labor month in review
Significant decisions in labor cases
Communication
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews and notes
Current labor statistics
FEBRUARY 1971
VOLUME 94, NUMBER 2
Work stoppages. Work time lost as a result of
labor-management disputes increased sharply in
1970. Preliminary data show 62 million man-days
idle, nearly 50 percent more than in 1969. (See
Current Labor Statistics, table 32, page 119).
Although the number of work stoppages was
slightly less than the record 5,700 in 1969, many
more workers (3.3 million) were involved. Time
lost because of strikes and lockouts was 0.34
percent of all working time (about 1 day idle for
every 294 worked). Not since 1959, the year of
the 116-day steel strike, has time lost been so
high.
Of the 5,600 work stoppages beginning during
the year, 31 accounted for approximately one-half
of the workers and man-days idle. By far the
biggest was the strike of the United Auto Workers
against General Motors, involving 329,000 work
ers. It lasted 71 days and resulted in nearly 16
million idle man-days.
One-half of all stoppages occurred in trans
portation and contract construction.
Construction bargaining. The severity and frequency
of work stoppages in construction focused
renewed attention on that industry. President
Nixon met with union and management leaders
on January 18, asked them to report back in 30
days with a plan to stabilize wages, prices, and
bargaining in the construction industry.
One wide-ranging proposal was put forward by
John C. Garvin, an industry labor relations con
sultant. Mr. Garvin would reduce the industry’s
employment instability by hiring a basic work
force “on a minimum annual basis of 225 work
days.” Work would be assigned by computer.
Union shop clauses would be written into all labor
agreements. The industry would be organized into
10 to 15 regions for bargaining and training pur
poses and to administer consolidated pension and
health and welfare programs. The entire program,
including a research and development center,
would be financed by a cents-per-hour amount in
all building contracts.
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Professor John T. Dunlop of Harvard Univer
sity recently told a meeting of construction
industry executives that—after 25 years of re
sisting the idea—he now favors legislation to deal
with collective bargaining in the construction
industry. The legislation would provide for (a) a
tripartite body, made up of labor, management,
and government, to determine the geographical
scope of bargaining; (b) a procedure that would
prevent the breakup of bargaining units once
formed; and (c) machinery for settling contract
disputes.
Two other issues affecting the construction
industry are discussed in this issue of the Review:
European and Canadian programs to reduce
winter unemployment (page 24) and the gap in
U.S. statistics (page 33.)
Rebased BLS indexes to appear in March Review
The reference year of indexes published in
the Monthly Labor Review and other b l s
publications will be changed from the 1957-59
base to a 1967 base beginning with data for
January 1971. The Office of Management and
Budget established the new reference base
for use by all Government statistical agencies
in line with a longstanding policy that index
bases should be updated periodically.
Rebasing an index does not alter the
percentage change between index figures over
time (except for rounding differences). A
note on rebasing is scheduled for the March
Review.
The base change will affect price, pro
ductivity, and earnings indexes. Current
and historical data published in the Review
will use the 1967=100 base beginning
next month. The c p i all items index also
will continue to be reported on a 1957-59 =
100 basis. Rebasing factors for other
indexes will be available on request.
GEOFFREY H. MOORE AND JANICE NEIPERT HEDGES
L e i s u r e is intrinsically bound up in the quality
of life. Its distribution—among the population and
over lifetimes—and the uses to which it is put are
indicative of the well-being of a society. Yet the
increase in the United States in time free of work
and available for leisure activities has been far less
widely noted than the upward march of the output
of goods and services.
The relative neglect of leisure as a measure of
the Nation’s advance in living standards is related
to its elusive quality. Worktime, and its reduction
over a period of years, can be measured statis
tically. It is more difficult to tell whether leisure
has actually grown. Even to define leisure is diffi
cult. “Free, unoccupied time” expresses one com
mon definition. Students of leisure, however, are
likely to think of it as a state of being, rather than
as time. De Grazia expressed this concept: “Lei
sure is a state of being in which activity is per
formed . . . for its own sake.”1
Significantly, most current definitions of leisure
use work as the reference point. That is, leisure
time or leisure activities are contrasted, implicitly
or directly, with worktime or productive activities.
In some other societies, leisure has been the refer
ence point. In Greece, in the 5th century B.C., for
example, “business” was the negative form of the
word we translate as leisure, “schole.” And the
Latin word for business, “negotium,” is the anto
nym of “otium,” which is leisure. In Athens or
Rome, the Bureau of Labor Statistics would have
been the Bureau of Leisure Statistics. But times
have changed.
Geoffrey H. Moore is Commissioner of Labor Statistics.
Janice Hedges is an economist in the Division of Economic
Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Susie Scandrett as
sisted in developing the statistical data. Mr. Moore pre
sented an earlier version of this paper to a seminar on “The
Economics of Leisure,” sponsored by the National Asso
ciation of Business Economists and the University of Den
ver, Denver, Colo., October 26-27, 1970.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Trends
in labor
and
leisure
Leisure in ancient Greece and leisure in “ad
vanced” societies such as ours differ in another
important aspect. The Greek concept of leisure was
time to develop human capacities through contem
plation and music. Webster’s New World Dic
tionary defines leisure for our age as “time in
which to indulge in rest and recreation.” One
writer has labeled the Greek concept “full time”
and the modern concept “empty time.”2
Nor are the perimeters of modern leisure clearly
established. To some they encompass nonworking
time, to others, only time that is free of all com
mitments. “Discretionary time” expresses for still
others the boundary between work and leisure. In
recent years some economists, notably Becker and
Linder, have thought of the allocation of time not
as a dichotomy but as a continuum, and have
treated it as a scarce resource whose allocation
among different activities is governed by economic
principles.3 The activities that occupy one’s time
are not always easy to classify as work or leisure—
commuting, for example, or sleeping, shopping,
eating, caring for one’s children, or seeking a job.
But all such activities have a cost in terms of
opportunities foregone, and they confer benefits of
one kind or another. This kind of cost-benefit
analysis applied to time promises to illuminate
many of the choices people make, and the ec
onomics of leisure will in due course be profoundly
affected by it.
Composition and growth of leisure
In this paper, leisure is discussed largely as time
free of the necessity to earn a living. With the aid
of data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
we shall try to present a picture of the size and
shape of American leisure, and answer such
questions as: Who gets it? How has it grown in the
past? How mighf it grow in the future?
The best indicator of the long-term swing toward
more leisure hours in the past century is the
3
4
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
Chart 1. Average weekly hours per worker, civilian economy, selected years, 1869-1970
shortening workweek. Paid vacations and other
forms of free time have assumed major importance
only in recent years.
w o r k w e e k . In the 1870’s the average
workweek was about 53 hours. Today the average
is close to 40 hours—about 13 hours less than a
century ago. (See chart 1 and table 1.) The decline
during the 1960’s was about 40 minutes for all
workers, and about 30 minutes for full-time
workers. 4 (See table 2.)
Factors other than the desire for leisure have
been important in achieving this reduction in the
workweek. The concept of shorter hours as a work
sharing device, for example, has played a large role
in reducing hours of work, as illustrated by the
National Industrial Recovery Act and the Fair
Labor Standards Act, under which the sub
stantial hours reductions of the 1930’s and 1940’s
were accomplished. Other important factors include
Shorter
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
changes in the industrial and occupational struc
ture, such as an increase in service industries,
which employ significant proportions of part-time
workers, and a decrease in agricultural workers,
who characteristically work long hours. Some
reductions in scheduled hours have been for the
purpose of increasing overtime earnings, rather
than increasing time free of work. It is significant
that between 1956 and 1968, while the straighttime workweek in manufacturing fell from 37.6
to 37.1 hours, overtime hours rose from 2.8 to
3.6 hours, more than canceling out the reduction.
v a c a t io n s
a nd
h o l i d a y s . Although
the
movement toward shorter hours was dominated
for many years by reductions in the workweek and
the workday, vacations and holidays have become
increasingly important. Paid vacations and holi
days were extended first to managers, officials,
and professional workers. Most wage earners, at
P a id
TRENDS IN LABOR AND LEISURE
5
least until the 1940’s, were paid for the number of
hours they worked or the number of pieces they
produced; their earnings ceased if they stopped
working to take a vacation because of a holiday or
any other reason.
Since 1960, paid vacations have spread rapidly.
In 1968, two-thirds of all workers in the private
nonfarm economy received a paid vacation. (See
table 3.) Of the remainder, some were newly hired
employees, and the rest worked in firms that made
no provision for paid vacations.
The recent growth in the number of vacation
weeks has been spectacular. In 9 years, from 1960
to 1969, the total number of weeks that workers
spent on vacation increased almost 50 percent, or
from 87 to 129 million weeks. (See table 4.) The
average length of a worker’s vacation increased
from 1.3 to 1.7 weeks, while vacations for full
time workers increased from about 1.8 to 2.2
weeks.
The practice of paying workers for holidays and
for time lost for personal reasons also has been in
creasing in recent years. Between 1960 and 1968,
paid holidays for office workers increased by threeTable 1. Average weekly hours per
economy, selected years, 1869-1970
Table 2. Hours worked by full-time workers, May 1955,
1960, and 1965-70 1
[Numbers in thousands]
Hours at work
Year
1955_______________
1960_______________
1965.______ _________
1966_______________
1967______ ____ ____
1968_______________
1969_______________
1970_______________
National Bureau of
Economic Research
Bureau of Labor
Statistics
i 53.2
1 53.4
53.7
53.2
52.1
49.8
47.7
43.9
1943____________________________
1944_________
1945_________________
1946___________________
.
1947 ________
1948_________________
1949____________________________
1950.. ...........
46.6
47.0
45.7
43.5
42.5
42.0
41.6
41.2
48.5
47.8
46.1
44.3
43. 5
42.8
42.1
41.7
1951____________________________
1952_________________
.
1953_________________
...
1954____________________________
1955_________________
____
.
1956____________________________
1957_____________
1958____________________________
1959___________
. _
1960___________________
.
.
41.0
41.0
40.6
42.2
42.4
41.9
40.9
41.6
41. 5
41.0
40.6
40. 5
40.5
1 Decade average.
2 May 1970.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
46.0
45.8
46.2
45.7
45.3
45.2
45.3
45.1
Total
35-39
40
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
49
52
49
51
51
51
52
53
41-48 49 and
over
21
17
18
17
17
17
16
15
23
23
25
24
24
23
24
22
tenths of a day on the average; for plant workers,
by seven-tenths of a day. In 1968, office workers
received an average of 8 paid holidays; plant
workers, about 7.5.
The terms of choice between work and leisure
are, of course, altered drastically when the cost of
an hour’s or a day’s or a week’s less work is shifted
from the employee to the employer. The trends
mentioned above show the effect of the shift in
those terms.
worker, civilian
1869-78_________________________
1879-88_________________________
1890.......................
.
1900____________________
.
.
1910____________________________
1920____________________________
1930____________________________
1940____________________________
1961____________ _______________
1962________________________ .
1963_______________________
1964_________________
1965___________
1966_______________
1967_______________
_
1968________ .
1969_________________
. .
1970___________
51,008
52,723
56,483
57,195
56, 527
57,839
58, 679
58, 360
Percent istributic>n
1 Persons 14 years and over for 1955-66, 16 years and over for 1967 forward.
NOTE: Columns may not add due to rounding.
e x p e c t a n c y a n d w o r k l i f e . Reductions in
the workweek and increases in vacations, holidays,
and time off for personal reasons tell only part of
the story, for the growth in leisure has not been
limited to the worklife. The widening gap between
the worklife and total life expectancy is responsible
for a significant share of the growth in time free of
paid work.
Life expectancy for men at birth increased by
18 years (to almost 67 years) between 1900 and
1960. (See table 5.) Their worklife expectancy in
the same period increased by 9 years (from 32 to
41 years). The net effect of changes in life and
worklife expectancy was an increase of 9 years of
work and 9 years of time out of the labor force.
Women gained more than men, both in life
expectancy and in worklife expectancy, but about
the same as men in time out of the labor force.
Between 1900 and 1960, women’s life expectancy
rose by 22 years (from 51 to 73 years), their worklife expectancy by 14 years (from 6 to 20 years),
and their time out of the labor force by more than
8 years, compared with 9 years for men. The rise
in the earning power of women is one of the induce
ments, no doubt, that caused them to split their
L if e
Year
Number
of
workers Aver
age
40. 5
40. 5
40.4
40.0
40.5
40.4
40.4
40.1
39.9
2 39.6
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
6
Table 3. Percent distribution of workers by weeks of paid
vacations, private nonfarm economy, 1968
Weeks of paid vacations
Without
paid
vacation Under 1 and 2 and 3 and
1
under under over
2
3
Industry
Total
All workers:
All industries________________
Manufacturing_______________
Nonmanufacturing____________
100
100
100
34
18
43
2
3
2
16
18
16
28
30
26
20
32
14
Office workers:
All industries________________
Manufacturing_______________
Nonmanufacturing____________
100
100
100
20
10
24
2
2
2
13
9
14
39
40
39
25
38
21
Nonoffice workers:
All industries________________
Manufacturing_______________
Nonmanufacturing____________
100
100
100
40
20
52
3
4
2
18
21
17
22
27
20
16
28
9
22-year increase in life expectancy 14 to 8 in
favor of paid employment, while men split their
18-year increase 9 to 9.
G a i n s o v e r t h e c e n t u r y . What does the addi
tional time free of work in the past 100 years add
up to in terms of the lifetime of the full-time
worker? And what gains were made in the 1960’s?
During the past century, reduction of the
average workweek by about 13 hours amounts
to a gain of about 675 hours of free time annually.
bls
data indicate that workers average about
1.7 weeks vacation. With an average workweek
of about 40 hours, vacations account for about
70 more hours of free time a year, compared with
the worker a century earlier. Similarly, b l s data
indicate that all workers receive an average of
about 5.5 holidays a year, which can be translated
into approximately 45 hours of additional free
time annually. Vacation and holiday time for
workers thus add to about 115 hours per year, or
a total gain in time free of work of nearly 800
hours annually—roughly 1 month out of 12.
The additional years of nonworking time in youth
and old age represent a further gain of about 18,000
hours during a man’s lifetime. Altogether, the
lifetime gain for all workers in the past 100 years
comes to about 50,000 hours free of work.
T r e n d s o f t h e 1960’s . Since 1960, all workers
have gained about 50 hours a year in time free
of work—about 30 hours from a reduction in the
workweek, 15 hours in additional vacation time,
and 4 hours in additional holiday time. Full-time
workers have gained about the same total, al
though changes in vacation and holiday time have
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
been relatively more important in reducing the
total worktime.
The reduction in hours worked since 1960
accounts for only a small fraction of the gain in
productivity that the economy has achieved
since 1960. b l s estimates of output per man-hour
indicate that to produce the 1969 output with the
1960 productivity would have required an addi
tional 650 hours of working time for each person
employed in 1969. Thus, the reduction of about
50 hours in worktime amounted to only about 8
percent of the hours that have been made available
by the Nation’s increased productivity in the past
decade.
Limits on leisure
The gains that workers have made in time free
of work have been substantial. Why then do so
many people feel they have so little leisure?
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f w o r k h o u r s . Contributing to a
feeling of a lack of leisure is the distribution of
total hours worked among employed persons.5
Although the 40-hour week is regarded as the
‘'standard” workweek, the standard is by no
means universal. Many full-time workers today
work much longer than 40 hours, either because
their job normally exceeds the standard, or because
of overtime, or because they hold more than one
job. Total hours worked by full-time workers in
May 1970 averaged 45 hours a week, according
to the household survey conducted by the Bureau
of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.6
Little more than half of all full-time workers
actually worked a 40-hour week. (See table 6.)
Table 4.
Vacation weeks, 1960 and 1969
Item
Number of weeks (in millions),............................
1960
1969
86.7
129.0
Average weeks per worker.,
____ . . . ............... ...
Average weeks per full-time worker_________________
1.3
1.8
1.7
2.2
Percent distribution_________________________ ____
January................................ ........................................
February...... ..................... .
........ ...... ........
March ______________ .
April________ ______ _______________________
May.............................................
June____ _ _ ........ ................................
J u ly .......................
August...... ................ .
.
September__________
October_______________________ ____________
November. . . .....................
December...................................................................
100.0
1.8
2.1
1.8
4.9
3.6
12.1
29.2
27.3
7.2
4.5
3.0
2.3
100.0
1.7
2.3
2.3
5.5
3.6
11.6
28.4
26.0
7.4
5.2
3.2
2.8
NOTE: This table understates vacation weeks since the survey week, which includes
the 12th of the month, generally avoids all major holidays whereas vacations tend to
occur more frequently during holiday weeks.
7
TRENDS IN LABOR AND LEISURE
Table 5. Life and worklife expectancy at birth, by sex,
1900, 1940, and 1960
[Number of years]
Increase
Life and worklife expectancy
1900
1940
1960
1900- 194060
60
MEN
Life expectancy__________________________
Worklife expectancy______________________
Difference___________________________
48.2
32.1
16.1
61.2
38.3
22.9
66.6
41.4
25.2
18.4
9.3
9.1
5.4
3.1
2.3
50.7
6.3
44.4
65.9
12.1
53.8
73.1
20.1
53.0
22.4
7.2
13.8
8.0
8.6 - 0 . 8
WOMEN
Life expectancy__________________________
Worklife expectancy_____________ ____ ____
Difference___________ ____ __________
Nine percent worked less, the balance worked
more—some, much more. Over one-fifth were at
work 49 hours or more and over 1 in 10 worked
60 hours or more. Who are these workers who put
in long workweeks? Hours data by worker charac
teristic and occupation give some answers.
Among male full-time workers in May 1970, 14
percent worked 49-59 hours and another 14 per
cent worked 60 hours or more. (See table 7.) In
the 20-24 year age group, about one-fifth worked
49 hours or more. In every older age group, in
cluding workers 65 years of age and over, about 3
out of 10 men employed full time worked 49 hours
or more a week.
Among all full-time women workers in May
1970, 6 percent worked 49-59 hours and 4 percent
worked 60 hours or more. The proportion work
ing long hours increased in each successive age
group.
Marital status also affects hours at work. In the
survey week in May 1970, about 30 percent of all
married males compared with 19 percent of all
single males worked 49 hours or more. (See table 8.)
Occupation is another factor associated with
working hours. Among managers, officials, and
proprietors, more than two-fifths worked 49 hours
or more a week last May. A smaller but still
substantial proportion of professional workers—
about one-fourth—were at work 49 hours or more.
(See table 6.)
About 3 out of 10 salesworkers and private
household workers reported working 49 hours or
more. Most farm workers reported long hours.
Over three-fifths of the farmers and farm managers
and more than one-thiird of the farm laborers
worked 60 hours or more in the May survey week.
Among those who work long
hours are the “moonlighters,” those who hold two
M o o n l ig h t in g .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
or more jobs.7 In May 1969, about 4 million per
sons, more than 5 percent of all workers, held two
jobs or more at the same time. About half of them
worked 55 hours or more during the survey week.
Most moonlighters work at two jobs or more
because they value additional income over leisure.
In 1969, 2 out of 5 moonlighters cited the need for
additional income for regular household expenses.
Another 1 out of 5 said they worked at two jobs
or more either to pay debts or to save for the
future. The importance of economic reasons for
multiple job holding is supported by data on
marital and family status. The moonlighting rate
was less than 4 percent for single men. Among
married men, rates were about 6 percent for those
with no children under 18 and rose as the number
of children in the family increased. The rate for
men with five children or more under 18 was 11
percent.
The number of workers who put in
overtime on their regular job is much larger than
the number of moonlighters. In May 1970, 14.5
million workers were on extended workweeks. The
prevalence of overtime work has been increasing
as scheduled overtime for day-to-day operations
has become an integral part of the wage-hour
structure. Management decisions to schedule over
time are affected by factors that include economic
conditions, alternative costs of hiring and training
new workers, requirements of manufacturing
O v e r t im e .
Table 6. Percent distribution of hours worked by full
time workers, by major occupation, May 1970
[Numbers in thousands]
Occupation
Hours at work
Number
of
workers Total 35-39 40 41-48 49-59 60 or
more
100
9
53
15
12
11
While-collar workers______________
Professional and technical______
Managers, officials, and
proprietors_________________
Clerical workers____ __________
Sales workers________________
29,371
8,990
100
100
11
9
51
51
14
16
13
15
11
11
7,428
9,951
3,000
100
100
100
5
18
11
35
66
45
17
10
15
19
4
18
24
2
11
Blue-collar workers______
_____
Craftsmen and foremen________
Operatives______ _ _________
Nonfarm laborers.. _ . . . . ___
21,408
8,395
10,675
2,340
100
100
100
100
6
5
7
5
60
57
62
64
18
19
16
18
10
12
9
8
6
6
7
5
Service workers_____ _____ _______ 5,259
Private household_____________
435
Other service workers_________ 4,823
100
100
100
10
14
9
57
45
58
15
16
15
9
12
9
9
14
9
2,321
1,437
883
100
100
100
7
4
10
12
9
17
12
9
17
16
15
18
53
63
37
Total___________ ____ _____ 58,360
Farm workers________________ . . .
Farmers and farm managers.........
Farm laborers and foremen_____
NOTE: Columns may not add due to rounding.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
8
Table 7.
Percent distribution of hours worked, by sex and age, May 1970
[Numbers in thousands]
Part time
Full time
Hours at work
Sex and age
Total
MEN
Major activity:
School
.
Other _ ______
- __________________________ ______ _
___________________________ .
WOMEN
Major activity:
Hours at work
Number
Number
1-4
5-14
15-29 30-34
Total 35-39
40
41-48 49-59 60 or
more
7,150
2,126
1,015
974
700
695
375
324
941
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
4
6
2
2
2
1
3
5
8
22
34
23
11
9
10
13
17
31
46
50
50
42
40
41
44
48
48
27
10
25
45
49
48
41
30
13
39,904
1,078
3,926
9,634
9,252
9,030
3,499
2,360
1,122
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
5
12
7
4
4
4
5
5
12
50
51
54
48
48
51
53
51
43
17
20
18
18
17
16
15
16
15
14
8
12
16
15
14
13
14
14
14
9
10
13
16
15
14
14
17
2,617
100
5
32
50
12
2,149
100
10
54
18
8
10
1,790
829
100
100
7
3
38
20
49
52
6
25
136
2,014
100
100
36
8
38
55
11
18
7
8
9
10
9,707
1,651
1,149
1,719
1,849
1,687
645
503
505
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
5
9
4
5
4
3
3
3
9
24
41
23
21
19
17
18
21
31
47
41
45
46
50
52
50
50
49
24
9
28
27
27
28
29
26
11
18,456
843
3,052
3,455
3,696
4,305
1,698
965
443
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
18
20
18
17
19
17
18
18
22
61
67
65
64
61
61
57
53
47
11
9
11
12
11
12
11
13
12
6
3
4
5
6
6
7
9
8
4
1
2
2
4
5
6
6
12
2,164
100
8
38
42
12
2, 025
100
20
67
10
3
1
1,327
838
100
100
11
4
48
22
38
47
3
27
46
1,979
100
100
46
19
30
68
13
10
11
3
1
NOTE: Columns may not add due to rounding.
processes, and union-management agreements. For
workers, a reduction in scheduled hours with no
reduction in time worked may be a device for
securing higher wages through premium pay.
p e o p l e
in
t h e
la b o r
f o r c e . The high
proportion of men and women in the labor force
also contributes to a lack of leisure. Among the
population 16 years and over in 1969, 81 percent
of the men and 43 percent of the women were
working or looking for work. Although labor force
participation rates for men have declined, the
decline has been concentrated among younger and
older men. To illustrate, the proportion of young
men age 18 and 19 who were in the labor force fell
from about 81 percent in 1947 to 70 percent in
1969, reflecting longer periods of formal education.
During the same years, the proportion of men age
65 and over who were in the labor force fell from
48 to 27 percent, reflecting reduction in retirement
ages. In contrast, labor force participation of men
in the prime working age (45-54 years) remained
substantially the same, at about 95 percent.
Moreover, labor force participation rates for
women have risen substantially—despite Veblen’s
M ore
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
observation at the turn of the century that
“propriety requires respectable women . . . to
make more of a show of leisure than men of the
same social classes.”
Insufficient data on worktime and free time for
women performing unpaid housework and child
care at home make it impossible to calculate the
loss in leisure for married women and their families
when they take paid employment. Advances in
technology and small family size are widely as
sumed to have reduced the working hours of
housewives, facilitating their entry into paid em
ployment. However, a recent survey indicates that
the worktime of full-time homemakers is not less
than it was 40 years ago—about 8 hours a day. For
employed homemakers, it is about 5 hours a day.8
The high proportion of
the population in the labor force and the unequal
distribution of hours worked are major factors in
the scarcity of leisure. Other factors include the
popularity of “do-it-yourself,” which to some ex
tent represents a substitution of unpaid labor for
the earning of income, rather than leisure-time
activities. Instead of taking a second paid job, the
D o-it -y o u r s e l f p r o je c t s .
9
TRENDS IN LABOR AND LEISURE
worker performs a variety of skilled trades in his
own home, such as television and radio repair,
painting, wallpapering, and carpentry. “Do-ityourself” extends beyond the home; in stores, it
goes under the name of “self-service.”
M aintenance
and servicing of durable goods.
In addition, economic growth and higher living
standards cause an increasing variety of demands
upon time. Roy Harrod first drew attention to a
growing scarcity of time due to the servicing and
maintenance required by consumption goods.9 In
1965, the general theory of time allocation devel
oped by Gary Becker, referred to earlier, included
time spent in using consumer goods. Linder, in
The Harried Leisure Class,10 follows the same basic
approach. He observes that the material riches of
advanced societies are apparently incompatible
with the superfluity of time that is characteristic
of materially poor cultures. An example is the
economic commitment to maintain and service
durable goods, such as automobiles and washing
machines, that goes with their ownership.
What is the future of leisure
In past periods, the strength of the movement
toward shorter hours has been influenced by fac
tors that include increases in productivity; the
value workers and their unions place on shorter
hours versus larger earnings; the needs of employ
ers or the technical constraints imposed by indus
trial equipment; and changes in the occupational
and industrial structure. These same influences
Table 8.
will continue to determine trends in leisure hours.
Productivity gains over the past two decades
averaged 3.1 percent annually, bls has projected
a similar growth rate for the next decade. Thus,
the potential for increased leisure and/or increased
income should continue to be about the same
during the 1970’s as in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
If the entire gain in output per man-hour ex
pected during this decade were taken in leisure time,
then hours for workers would be reduced by an
average of 3 percent a year, and the workweek in
1980 would be 29 hours. However, this is most
unlikely. Gains in productivity in the 1970’s prob
ably will be divided, as in the past, between shorter
worktime and higher real incomes.
The economic answer to the distribution of gains
in productivity lies in the combination of leisure
and goods (or purchasing power) that will maxi
mize the satisfaction of individuals. Workers of
course have individual preferences between extra
leisure and additional income, although these
preferences cannot always be realized. Younger
workers, older workers, and married women seem
to prefer shorter hours to additional income. Most
of the part-time workers who do not wish full
time work are in these groups. In contrast, males
in the prime working years, especially those who
are married, are more likely to choose income
rather than leisure, as evidenced by the extensive
moonlighting of this group referred to earlier.
Social sciences other than economics provide
perspective on the choice of work or leisure.
Sociologists, social anthropologists, and psycholo
gists point to the satisfaction and status that men
Percent distribution of hours worked by male workers, full time, by age and marital status, May 1970
[Numbers in thousands]
Single
Number
55-59 years__________________ ______ _______ ___ . ..
60-64years------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- . .
65 years and o v e r...___________________________________
6-21 years___________________ ____ _______ ______________
Major activity:
Other____ _______________________________________
NOTE: Columns may not add due to rounding.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Hours at work
Hours at work
Age
5 years and over____ ____ ___ __________________________ " 16-19 years.
__________
_______________________
20-24 years. ________ _________________________ ____
25-34 years.
.......................................
....
35-44 years__________________________________________
Married, wife present
Number
Total 35-39
4,801
890
1,598
1,071
486
442
147
105
61
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1,493
100
132
1,363
100
100
40
41-48 49-59 60 or
more
Total 35-39
40
41-48 49-59 60 or
more
57
51
63
57
55
55
45
48
49
15
17
14
16
16
15
9
16
7
9
8
8
11
9
11
6
7
13
10
10
7
11
12
12
26
16
21
33,064
176
2,205
8,162
8,332
8,083
3,117
2,065
924
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
4
6
6
4
4
4
4
5
12
49
48
48
47
47
50
53
52
42
17
36
20
18
17
17
16
15
16
15
6
14
17
16
14
13
14
14
15
5
12
14
17
16
14
14
16
11
56
16
8
9
629
100
8
48
23
9
13
34
9
39
57
11
16
7
8
9
9
4
626
100
100
7
48
23
9
13
9
14
9
5
7
8
14
13
10
10
find in work or in the work situation. Although the
work ethic has been a strong influence on choices
for work or leisure, some weakening in it has be
come evident. Margaret Mead, expressing the
change, remarked that “As once it was wrong to
play so hard that it might affect one’s work, now it
is wrong to work so hard that it may affect family
life.” 11 Nevertheless, the attitude that work gives
purpose to life is much more widely held today than
is Aristotle’s view that “the goal . . . of business
is leisure.”
Collective bargaining and legislation also will
play a role in determining the amount of time free
of work in the 1970’s. On the whole, legislation has
been most effective in reducing hours in industries
that lag far behind the norms. Labor-management
agreements have been pace setters in the move
ment for shorter hours. The collective bargaining
policies adopted by resolution at the a f l - c i o
convention in October 1969 indicate that unions
will continue seeking to reduce working hours
through reduction in scheduled hours, longer
vacations, and additional paid holidays.
Changes in the industrial and occupational struc
ture of the economy also will automatically in
fluence the leisure time of workers. The reduction
in farm employment and the rise in employment in
the service industries will in the future, as in the
past, tend to reduce the average workweek.
A further reduction in working hours over the
long term seems to be assured. Although the
increasing proportion of part-time employees,
due to the growth of employment in trade and
services, will be a contributing factor, small
reduction in the workweek of full-time workers
also is expected during the 1970’s. Increased
holidays, vacations, and shorter worklife will add
to a decrease in worktime.
Forms leisure will take
Although productivity increases, choices be
tween income and leisure, and the mix of employ
ment by industry and occupation will determine to
a large extent the a m o u n t of additional leisure, the
f o r m leisure will take involves other considerations.
“Lumps of leisure,” 12 in contrast to small bits of
leisure added to each day, have been gaining in
favor.
Retirement years represent one such “lump of
leisure” that is growing. By 1980, the labor force
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
participation rate for men 65 and over is expected
to decline to 22 percent, down 4 percentage points
from 1968. Improvements in social security bene
fits and private pension plans are enabling increas
ing numbers of older workers to choose retirement
over work. For long-service employees, total re
tirement income (including private pension and
social security payments) is approaching preretire
ment income after taxes.
Longer vacations and longer weekends also
represent lumps of leisure that are gaining favor.
A 5-day (or even more, a 4-day) week offers
economies of scale, such as a saving in commuting
time, over a 5 or a 6-day week. In addition, it
provides a wider selection of leisure-time activities,
increasing the utility of free time. Longer vaca
tions offer similar benefits. Although the 4-day
week may be distant for most workers, slow
advances in that direction continue. About 7,000
workers in a small number of firms distributed
throughout the United States were on a 4-day
week in 1970.13 Many companies that have gone
to the 4-day week require their workers to put
in 9 or even 10 hours a day. Growing interest in
a 4-day week is reflected in a Federal law that,
effective in 1971, shifts five mid-week holidays to
Mondays.
Another development is the use of working
time for education, training, or retraining. This is
not strictly leisure time, representing rather the
reunification of work and education. One observer,
who would maintain the standard 40-hour week at
work, but schedule part of it for education, draws
on the example of the Boimondau watchcase
factory in France.14 In this factory, owned and
managed by the workers, the work force studies
engineering, literature, music, and other subjects
on company time. The same workers have an inter
esting approach to the use of free time. They and
their families spend three 10-day periods each
year working on a farm owned in common.
The sabbatical is another form of leisure that
may become more extensive in the future. The
utility to a worker of a year’s leisure may be
greater at age 50 or 55 than at the end of his life.
Or it may be greater than a reduction of 1 hour in
the workweek over an entire worklife, which is
roughly equivalent to a year’s leisure. The sab
batical, first established for college teachers in the
1880’s, was adopted in the steel industry in 1963.
Negotiations in that year provided 3 months of
TRENDS IN LABOR AND LEISURE
11
s u m m a r y , tremendous shifts in the worklife of
the average man have occurred during the past
century, and time free of the necessity of earning a
living has increased spectacularly. Reductions in
the average workweek, longer vacations, more holi
days, greater opportunities for part-time work, the
shift away from farming, changes in educational
and retirement opportunities all have played a role.
The choice between work and leisure has been
profoundly altered as these changes have oc
curred.
In the past decade, many of these changes have
continued. The reduction in the average workweek
has been at a slower rate, however, than in pre
vious periods. A significant share of the reduction
has been due to an increasing proportion of parttime workers and a decreasing proportion of farm
workers. Scheduled hours for full-time workers
showed little change.
Paid vacations and holidays also continued to
increase during the 1960’s and contributed to a 50percent increase in the number of vacation weeks
enjoyed by employees.
Workers took about 8 percent of the increased
productivity during the 1960’s in leisure, somewhat
less than during preceding decades.
Although leisure time has increased overall,
some groups have increased their labor force par
ticipation, hold more than one job, and work long
hours. Groups that work long hours include execu
tives and proprietors, professional workers, farm
workers, and married men. And if household work
is added to the workweek of married women in the
labor force, we have another group that puts in a
long workweek.
For the 1970’s, the potential for increased leisure
and/or income is expected to continue at about the
level of the 1960’s. The actual change in time free
of work will depend largely on preferences for
leisure versus goods, and changes in the industrial
and occupational structure. However, further
reductions in working time are likely to be small
during the 1970’s, with attention centering on the
reshuffling of time free of work in order to provide
larger blocks of leisure.
□
1 Sebastian de Grazia, O f T im e , W o r k a n d L e is u r e (New
York, Twentieth Century Fund, 1962).
2 A. R. C. Duncan, T h e C o n c e p t o f L e is u r e (Ontario,
Canada, Queen’s University, Industrial Relations Centre,
1963).
3 Gary Becker, “A Theory of the Allocation of Time,”
T h e E c o n o m ic J o u r n a l , September 1965, pp. 494-517,
and Staff an Burenstam Linder, T h e H a r r i e d L e is u r e C la s s
(New York, Columbia University Press, 1970).
4 In analyzing changes in the workweek, trends for full
time workers and for all workers need to be distinguished.
The trend for all workers is affected by the growing relative
importance of part-time workers, especially of women,
students, and partially retired workers who do not appear
in the full-time count.
5Peter Henle, “Leisure and the Long Workweek,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , July 1966, pp. 721-727. Reprint
No. 2500.
6 The customary reference month for trend data on
hours obtained through the household survey is May.
This practice is followed for two reasons: (1) May is
considered a normal month for hours data since the survey
week does not include a holiday, while annual average
data may be distorted because of the varying incidence
of holidays in other months of the year; and (2) for some
of the earlier years, data on hours are available only for
the month of May, when special surveys were made.
7 Vera C. Perrella, “Moonlighters: Their Motivations
and Characteristics,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , August 1970,
pp. 57-64.
8 Kathryn E. Walker, “Homemaking Still Takes Time,”
J o u r n a l o f H o m e E c o n o m ic s , October 1969, pp. 621-624.
9 Roy F. Harrod, untitled paper in P r o b le m s o f U n ite d
S ta te s E c o n o m ic D e v e lo p m e n t, Vol. 1 (New York, Com
mittee for Economic Development, January 1958), pp.
207-213. Mimeographed.
10 Linder, op. cit.
11 See “The Pattern of Leisure in Contemporary Ameri
can Culture,” A n n a l s o f th e A m e r ic a n A c a d e m y o f P o li t i c a l
a n d S o c ia l S c ie n c e , Vol. 313, 1957, p. 14.
12 Juanita Kreps, “Lifetime Tradeoffs Between Work and
Play,” P r o c e e d in g s o f th e T w e n ty - f ir s t A n n u a l W in te r
M e e tin g , I n d u s t r i a l R e la tio n s R e s e a r c h A s s o c ia tio n , 1968,
pp. 307-316.
13 Riva Poor, ed., F o u r D a y s , F o r ty H o u r s (Cambridge,
Mass., Bursk and Poor, 1970).
14 Sidney Lens, “A Shorter Work Week,” Fogel and
Kleingärtner, eds., C o n te m p o r a r y L a b o r I s s u e s (Belmont,
Calif., Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1966), pp. 169-176.
paid vacation every 5 years for workers in the top
half of the seniority roster. Those with lesser serv
ice became eligible under the 1968 negotiations for
3 weeks of paid vacation every 5 years in addition
to their regular paid vacation time. (It is inter
esting to note that office workers in the steel
industry—who, unlike the plant workers, had the
option of a sabbatical or added income—generally
preferred the income.)
In
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Changes in
employment and
unemployment
in 1 9 7 0
G rowth in employment in 1970 was held back by
a general slackening of private demand for goods
and services resulting, at least in part, from
Government anti-inflationary measures, a sharp
reduction in Government spending for defense and
aerospace activities, and a major strike in the
automobile industry. As a result, the number of
employed persons showed only a moderate rise of
700,000 between 1969 and 1970. In contrast, be
tween 1968 and 1969 employment rose by about
2 million.
This limited employment growth was inadequate
to accommodate the substantial rise in the labor
force, which, boosted by a reduction in the Armed
Forces as well as by normal growth of the popula
tion and the gradually rising job-market participa
tion of women, rose by nearly 2 million to 82.7
million. The outcome was a sharp rise in unem
ployment, the average number of jobless persons
rising from 2.8 to 4.1 million, and the jobless rate
going from 3.5 to 4.9 percent.
These developments affected major industrial
sectors, labor force groups, and geographic areas
rather unevenly. Although most industries were
affected to some degree, the decline in manufactur
ing, particularly in defense and aerospace plants,
was larger than in other industries. Many workers
who lost their jobs, particularly in the early stages
of the slowdown, had been engaged in relatively
skilled work. The Pacific coast, New England, and
the East North Central region (or industrial Mid
west), which contain large concentrations of the
affected industries, experienced a disproportion
ately large share of the increase in unemployment.
Joblessness among whites rose more rapidly than
among Negroes, partly because there were fewer
Paul O. Flaim and Paul M. Schwab are economists in
the Division of Employment and Unemployment Analysis,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
12
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Special Labor Force Report
indicates that job growth
leveled off
while unemployment
rose sharply
PAUL 0. FLAIM AND PAUL M. SCHWAB
Negroes in some of the industries and areas most
Total employment averaged 78.6 million in
1970, up from 77.9 million in 1969. This 700,000
rise, modest in relation to those of previous years,
masked a significant shift in trend during 1970.
The upward trend in employment which char
acterized the late 1960’s came to a halt early in
1970. After hitting a peak of 79.1 million in March,
total employment began to recede sharply. By
June, the employment level had dropped nearly
1 million below the March peak. After the sharp
March-to-June decline, employment stabilized,
indicating that the wave of layoffs had subsided.
By October, the total employment level had, in
fact, recovered about half of the March-to-June
drop. At this point, however, the employment
picture became clouded by a major strike in the
automobile industry. (See chart 1.)
Although the impact of the auto strike on the
total employment level is difficult to measure, it
is clear that many workers were displaced—at
least temporarily—because of the secondary strike
effects.1 An indication of this is provided by the
factory layoff rate. Prior to the strike, the layoff
rate had reached a 7-year high (of 20 per 1,000
workers) in April 1970, but had then receded.
In October, the first full month of the strike, the
layoff rate moved up sharply to 22 per 1,000
workers.
Just as the sharpest reductions in employment—
exclusive of strike effects—took place in the first
half of 1970, the steepest increases in joblessness
were registered then. In the first 4 months, for
example, the jobless rate jumped from 3.5 to 4.8
percent. After that, unemployment continued to
rise, but more moderately.
The composition of the increase in unemploy-
13
EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1970
ment also changed over the year. In the early
part of 1970, the contraction in employment was
generally confined to durable goods industries, in
which a large proportion of the work force has
traditionally consisted of men of prime working
age. Layoffs among these men thus accounted for
a relatively large share of the unemployment in
crease in the first half. By mid-year, the slowdown
in employment began shifting, with women and
youths bearing a larger share of rising unemploy
ment. The following tabulation shows the number
of persons added to the unemployment count each
quarter (seasonally adjusted) and the proportion
of the increase accounted for by men 25 years and
over and by other workers:
Chart 1. Employment and unemployment, 1969-70 (sea
sonally adjusted)
1st
2d
3d
quarter quarter quarter
Total increase in unemployment (in
thousands).........................
494
Percent of increase accounted for by:
Men 25 years and over__________
34.2
Other workers.............................................. 65.8
4th
quarter
566
353
495
44.9
55.1
20.1
79.9
32.3
67.7
Most of the persons who became unemployed in
1970 managed to find work after a relatively short
period of job hunting. Thus, the average duration
of unemployment increased only moderately dur
ing the year. At an 8.8-week average, it was only
1 week higher than in 1969, but well below the
levels that, in earlier years, had been associated
with unemployment rates of the magnitude
reached in 1970. Nevertheless, a gradually higher
proportion of the unemployed (about one-fifth
at year’s end) had been jobless for at least 15
weeks, while a limited number apparently had left
the labor force.
Industry developments
Millions of persons
The goods-producing sector was clearly the
hardest hit in terms of employment cutbacks in
1970. The service-producing sector, on the other
hand, was not as severely affected. In fact, this
sector posted substantial job gains through early
1970. By spring, however, the economic slowdown
became more pervasive, and from April to Septem
ber employment remained at a virtual standstill
even in service-oriented industries. After Septem
ber, it resumed moderate growth.
84
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1969
1970
G oods- producing industries . The largest cut
backs in employment within the goods-producing
sector occurred in the highly cyclical manufactur
ing industry group. Table 1 shows that manufac
turing employment, which grew rapidly since the
mid-1960’s, leveled off during the summer of 1969
and later that year began to decline rapidly. The
decline continued well into 1970, lowering the
annual level of factory employment to 19.4 million,
about three-fourths of a million below the 1969
level. Part of the year-to-year decline, however, is
attributable to the strike in the automobile in
dustry. (The general weakness of manufacturing
employment during 1970 was also clearly reflected
by some newly developed data on job vacancies
for factory workers. The number of such vacancies
declined almost steadily in 1970. See the discussion
on pages 20-21.)
14
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
The initial decline in manufacturing employ
ment was confined entirely to the durable-goods
sector. The industries most affected were those
heavily engaged in defense and aerospace activities,
where employment spurted upward during the
Viet Nam escalation of the mid-1960’s. These in
dustries began to reduce their work forces in early
1969 as the Nation gradually disengaged from
Viet Nam and reduced the tempo of space activity.
The annual level of employment in three in
dustries heavily affected by defense and aerospace
spending—aircraft and aircraft parts, radio and
television communication equipment, and ord
nance—dropped about 250,000, or nearly onesixth, between 1969 and 1970. Although they make
up less than one-tenth of factory employment,
they accounted for nearly one-third of the 1969 to
1970 net decline in factory jobs.
Other factors underlying job cutbacks in the
durable-goods sector in 1970 were: (1) Weakness
in automobile sales, exclusive of the effects of the
strike; (2) the slowdown in construction activity,
especially in new housing starts, which affected
the building material industries as well; (3) a
gradual weakening of capital investments; and
(4) efforts by employers to meet rising costs by
trimming the number of nonproduction workers.
The impact of all of these factors was reflected in
the rising rate of unemployment for durable-goods
workers, which jumped from 3.0 to 5.7 percent
between 1969 andl970 (table 2).
Table 1.
In nondurable-goods manufacturing, employ
ment was relatively stable entering 1970 and
declined only moderately during the year. Nondurable-goods employment was down about
100,000 from the 1969 average. Over half of this
decline occurred in the textile and apparel fields
and could be attributed to reduced purchases by the
Armed Forces, weakening private demand, and
increased foreign competition.
Adjustment to lower levels of production in
manufacturing industries also involved reductions
in the average workweek. In fact, in line with
historic patterns,2 average weekly hours started
edging down in early 1969 several months before
employers began laying off workers. (See chart 2.)
By mid-1970, when the economy began to
brake its downward slide, the factory workweek
also halted its rapid contraction. Although the
level of manufacturing employment continued to
decline in the following months, the workweek
firmed up, an indication that a return to relative
job stability for factory workers might not be too
distant. However, the picture became clouded by
the effects of the automobile strike, which caused
some further reduction in employment and short
ening of the workweek.
Construction is another cyclically sensitive
industry in which employment was also reduced
considerably during 1970. The increasingly tight
money market which prevailed during 1969 had
lowered the rate of new housing starts to a 3-year
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls by industry, 1969 and 1970 (seasonally adjusted)
[In thousands]
Annual averages
Quarterly averages
Industry
1970 1
1970
1969
4th i
3d
1969
2d
1st
4th
3d
2d
1st
Total_______________
70,669
70, 274
70,207
70,510
70, 872
71,123
70, 829
70, 488
70,170
69,595
Goods-producing_____________
Mining________________
Construction_____________
Manufacturing.. _ ___ .
Durable goods__________
Nondurable goods_________
23,369
622
3,346
19,401
11,210
8,190
24, 225
619
3,437
20,130
11,893
8, 277
22, 636
624
3,295
18,717
10,633
8, 084
23, 232
619
3, 294
19,319
11,165
8,154
23, 602
621
3,367
19,614
11,400
8,214
24, 039
626
3, 447
19,966
11,651
8,316
24,227
624
3, 471
20,132
11,840
8,292
24,301
621
3, 432
20, 248
11,958
8, 291
24, 258
614
3, 436
20, 208
11,925
8, 283
24,120
617
3, 408
20' 095
11 851
8; 244
Service-producing___________
Transportation and public utilities___
Wholesale and retail trade_______
Wholesale trade________
Retail trade___________
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Services_______________
Government__________
Federal_________
State and local_______
47, 300
4,499
14,947
3,849
11,098
3,679
11,577
12, 599
2,707
9, 893
46, 048
4, 431
14,645
3,738
10,907
3,557
11,211
12, 204
2,758
9, 446
47,571
4,482
14,923
3, 856
11,067
3,709
11,693
12, 764
2,656
10,109
47,278
4, 523
14, 936
3, 849
11,087
3,677
11,552
12, 591
2,659
9,932
47, 270
4,486
14, 962
3,854
11,108
3,676
11,556
12, 590
2,765
9, 825
47, 084
4,502
14, 970
3,836
11,133
3,655
11,513
12,445
2,734
9,711
46, 600
4, 465
14, 807
3,788
11,019
3,611
11,392
12,325
2, 730
9, 595
46 187
4, 457
14’ 708
3,752
10,957
3, 577
11,247
12,198
2, 754
9, 444
45 912
4 426
14’ 600
3[ 722
10, 878
3, 542
11,163
12’ 181
2,767
9,414
45 474
4 371
14, 458
3’ 688
10 770
3, 500
lii 048
12' 097
2, 762
9,335
iThe 1970 annual averages and the data for the 4th quarter of the year are preliminary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1970
15
Chart 2. Employment and average weekly hours of production workers on manufacturing payrolls, 1968-70, monthly
averages (seasonally adjusted)
low as 1970 began. This sharp reduction, coupled
with a more moderate contraction in nonresidential
construction, eventually led to a decline in jobs.
Because of the considerable timelag before a
change in the rate of new housing starts shows up
in changes in employment, the job decline did not
materialize until 1970.
Despite some recovery in new housing starts
during 1970, construction employment dropped
about 100,000, or 3 percent, below the 1969 aver
age, and the jobless rate for the industry rose
sharply from 6.0 to 9.7 percent. As 1970 ended,
however, the rate began to show signs of improve
ment, and prospects for resumed employment
growth, based on the rising rate of new housing
starts, looked considerably better.
Mining employment was not heavily affected by
1970’s economic developments. Although this
industry has been the source of much unemploy
ment in the post-World War II period, its employ
ment situation has stabilized considerably since
the early 1960’s. The revitalized coal mining
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
segment, now enjoying a boom in demand from
electric utilities, has in fact been contending with
a novel problem: a manpower shortage.
The exodus of workers from agriculture con
tinued. Employment in this industry declined
another 150,000 in 1970 to 3.5 million.3 With the
mechanization of farming and the elimination of
marginal operations continuing to displace some
workers, agricultural employment has now shrunk
to only 4.5 percent of total employment, compared
with 10 percent of total employment 15 years ago.
S e r v ic e - p r o d u c in g
in d u s t r ie s .
Jobs in the
service-producing sector of the economy were not
as heavily affected by the economic slowdown as
were those in goods-producing industries. Employ
ment in this sector—which includes transportation
and public utilities, wholesale and retail trade,
services, government, and finance, insurance, and
real estate—continued to grow vigorously through
the first few months of 1970, more than offsetting
16
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
the employment declines which were taking place
elsewhere.
The effects of the economic slowdown, however,
spread gradually even among service-oriented in
dustries, first reducing the rate of employment
growth and then temporarily halting it. After
September, however, employment in the serviceproducing sector exhibited some renewal of growth.
Service-producing industries visibly affected by
the economic slowdown were wholesale and retail
trade. After rising almost uninterruptedly during
the 1960’s, the number of employees in these
industries leveled off in early 1970 and remained
basically unchanged to year’s end. The employ
ment slowdown, however, affected wholesale trade
differently than retail trade. In wholesale trade,
employment growth did not stop until mid-year,
although the workweek was being reduced sharply.
In retail trade, which over the years had become
an increasingly large user of part-time help, both
the employment level and the average workweek
remained essentially unchanged throughout the
year. With sales slowed, retailers apparently
stopped hiring additional part-time workers and
relied more on their full-time work force, a factor
that tended to halt the long-term decline in the
average weekly hours.
In the miscellaneous services industries (hotels,
hospitals, laundries, and so on), employment,
which had also grown steadily during the 1960’s,
leveled off in early 1970 and did not resume its
growth until the fall. Only in medical services was
there any sustained employment growth. This was
partly a reflection of increased demand for health
services generated by Government-sponsored
Table 2. Unemployment rates by industry, 1969 and 1970
(seasonally adjusted)
Annual
averages
Quarterly averages
Industry
1970
1970 1969
Private wage and salary
workers1____________
Construction___________
Manufacturing_________
Durable goods_______
Nondurable goods____
Transportation and public
utilities_____________
Wholesale and retail trade_
Finance and service
industries___________
Government wage and
salary workers_________
Agricultural wage and salary
workers............................-
1969
3d
2d
1st
5.2
9.7
5.6
5.7
5.4
3.5 6.2 5.7 5.1 4.2 3.7 3.7
6.0 10.7 12.3 10.3 7.7 6.2 6.8
3.3 7.1 5.9 5.1 4.4 3.7 3.3
3.0 7.7 5.9 5.0 4.4 3.5 2.9
3.7 6.3 6.0 5.3 4.3 4.0 3.8
3.5
5.6
3.2
3.0
3.4
3.4
5.7
3.1
2.7
3.6
3.2
5.3
2.2
4.1
4th
3.7
6.1
3d
2d
1st 4th
3.1
5.6
3.5 2.8 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.0
5.3 4.6 4.0 4.3 4.2 3.9
4.0 3.4 3.0 3.5 3.3 3.1
4.2
3.2
4.7
4.8
2.2
1.9
2.8
2.0
2.1 2.1 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.7
7.5
6.0
8.7
9.0
6.9 6.2 6.0 7.3 5.6 5.4
1 Includes mining, not shown separately.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
health programs. The average workweek of service
workers behaved similarly to that of retail trade
workers, its stability reflecting a curbing in the
hiring of part-time workers.
State and local government employment con
tinued to post substantial gains throughout 1970.
The average number of employees in this field
increased about 450,000, with over half of the gain
being accounted for by teachers and other educa
tional personnel.
Federal Government employment, on the other
hand, has been steadily declining since mid-1969
except for the hiring of temporary workers to
assist with the 1970 census. Despite the temporary
pickup, Federal civilian employment dropped
about 50,000 between 1969 and 1970, with the
reduction concentrated among defense agencies.
Impact by sex and age
Given the uneven pattern of employment
changes by industry, it is not surprising that some
labor force groups experienced greater difficulties
than others. Adult men, for example, saw their
employment growth halted by the sharp job cut
backs in the goods-producing sector. Adult women,
on the other hand, being concentrated largely in
the less affected service sector, managed to post
a relatively sizable employment gain despite the
economic slowdown.
men . Employment of men (20 years and
over) had registered a healthy rise of about half a
million in 1969 but showed hardly any growth in
1970. This stemmed largely from reduced activity
in industries traditionally staffed mostly by men,
particularly in contract construction and durable
goods manufacturing.
Because of sharp employment cutbacks in these
goods-producing industries, unemployment among
adult men turned sharply upward in 1970, after
having declined almost uninterruptedly from 1962
to 1969. A substantial rise in joblessness among
men in their prime working years, who typically
are a family’s chief earner, was a sharp departure
from recent trends. For example, the unemploy
ment rate for married men, generally considered
to have the strongest attachment to the labor
force, fluctuated around a record low of 1.5 per
cent during all of 1969, but had more than doubled
by the end of 1970. It averaged 2.6 percent for
A dtjlt
EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1970
Chart 3.
17
Unemployment rates for major labor force groups and geographic areas, 1969 and 1970 averages
Unemployment rate (%)
16
over
over
Unemployment rate (%)
8
Total
United
States
New
England
Middle
Atlantic
East
North
Central
West
North
Central
the year. (See chart 3.)
For all men 20 years of age and over, the unem
ployment rate rose from 2.1 percent in 1969 to
3.5 in 1970. Unemployment among men 25 years
of age and over, who are employed in large num
bers in goods-producing industries, rose very
steeply early in the year, then remained relatively
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
4 12 -8 2 4 0 - 71 - 2
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
South
Atlantic
East
South
Central
West
South
Central
Mountain
Pacific
stable until fall, when it advanced again, largely
because of the secondary effects of the automobile
strike. For men 20 to 24 years old, in contrast,
joblessness rose steadily throughout the year.
Their unemployment averaged 8.4 percent in
1970, compared with 5.1 percent in 1969. Unem
ployment among this age group was partly a
18
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
function of the reduction in draft calls, along with
the return to civilian life of several hundred
thousand young men released from the Armed
Forces. These two factors increased the labor force
of 20- to 24-year-olds at a time of curtailed em
ployment opportunities.
Traditionally employed in the
service-producing industries (which were not
severely affected by the recent slowdown), women
20 years and over managed to post an employ
ment gain of about 550,000 in 1970. But even this
advance—largely in part-time employment—was
considerably below the average job gains achieved
by women in recent years. The result was a 350,000
increase in female unemployment and a rise in
their jobless rate from 3.7 to 4.8 percent. On
balance, however, the year-to-year increase in
unemployment among women, although substan
tial, was relatively less sharp than among males.
(See table 3.)
A dult
women .
T eenagers . The employment of youths (16 to 19
years of age) increased only slightly between 1969
and 1970. The labor force group most short in
skill and work experience, young workers found it
increasingly difficult to obtain jobs. Male youths,
some of whom tend to look for work in those indus
tries which were particularly hard hit in 1970, were
especially affected by the slowdown.
Unemployment among teenagers, which had
been disturbingly high even during the full-emTable 3. Employment status by color, age, and sex, 1969
and 1970
[In thousands]
Total
White
Employment status, sex, and age
1970
1969
1969
1970
Total, 16 years and over:
Civilian labor force________ 82,715 80,733 73,518 71,779
Employment____ _____ 78,627 77 ,902 70,182 69,518
Unemployment............. 4, 088 2,831 3, 337 2,261
Unemployment rate_______
3.5
3.1
4.9
4.5
9,197
8,445
752
8.2
8,954
8,384
570
6.4
Men, 20 years and over:
Civilian labor force________ 47,189 46,351 42, 463 41,772
Employment______ ___ 45, 553 45 ,388 41, 093 40 ,978
Unemployment_______ 1,656
963 1,371
794
Unemployment rate_______
3.5
2.1
3.2
1.9
4,726
4,461
265
5.6
4,579
4,410
168
3.7
Women, 20 years and over:
Civilian labor force_______ 28,279 27 ,413 24,616 23,839
Employment__________ 26, 932 26 ,397 23, 521 23 ,032
Unemployment________ 1,347 1,015 1,095
806
Unemployment rate_______
4.8
3.7
4.4
3.4
3,664
3,412
252
6.9
3,574
3,365
209
5.8
807
573
235
29.1
801
609
193
24.0
Both sexes, 16-19 years:
Civilian labor force............
7,246
Employment__________ 6,141
Unemployment_______ 1,105
Unemployment rate_______
15.3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6,970
6,117
853
12.2
1970
Negro and
other races
6,439
5, 568
871
13.5
6,168
5,508
660
10.7
1969
Table 4. Occupational distribution of employment, by
color, 1969 and 1970
Total
White
Occupation
1970
1969
1970
1969
Negro and
other races
1970
1969
THOUSANDS OF PERSONS
Total employment....... ....... 78,627 77,902 70,182 69, 518
White-collar workers__________
Professional and technical
workers...............................
Managers, officials, and
proprietors_____________
Clerical workers. ________
Sales workers.........................
Blue-collar workers___________
Craftsmen and foremen____
Operatives_______________
Nonfarm laborers_________
Service workers______________
Farm workers________________
8,445
8,384
37,997 36, 844 35,641 34,647
2,356
2,197
11,140 10,769 10, 374 10, 074
766
695
7,987 7,992 7,733
13,397 12,601 12,314
4,692 4,674 4, 527
28, 237 24,230 24,647
10,193 9,466 9,484
14,372 11,905 12,368
3,672 2,859 2,795
9, 528 7,514 7,289
3,292 2,797 2,935
297
1,113
180
3, 561
692
2, 004
866
2,199
328
254
1,083
166
3,591
709
2, 004
877
2,239
356
8,289
13,714
4,854
27,791
10,158
13,909
3, 724
9,712
3,126
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Total employment_______
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
White-collar workers__________
Professional and technical
workers_______________
Managers, officials, and
proprietors_____________
Clerical w orkers...................
Sales workers____________
Blue-collar workers___________
Craftsmen and foremen____
Operatives_______________
Nonfarm laborers...................
Service workers______________
Farm workers________________
48.3
47.3
50.8
49.8
27.9
26.2
14.2
13.8
14.8
14.5
9.1
8.3
10.5
17.4
6.2
35.3
12.9
17.7
4.7
12.4
4.0
10.3
17.2
6.0
36.2
13.1
18.4
4.7
12.2
4.2
11.4
18.0
6.7
34.5
13.5
17.0
4.1
10.7
4.0
11.1
17.7
6.5
35.5
13.6
17.8
4.0
10.5
4.2
3.5
13.2
2.1
42.2
8.2
23.7
10.3
26.0
3.9
3.0
12.9
2.0
42.8
8.5
23.9
10.5
26.7
4.2
ployment years of the late 1960’s, increased further
in 1970—from 12.2 to 15.3 percent. Although pro
portionately smaller than the rise experienced by
adult workers, there were nonetheless 250,000
more unemployed teenagers in 1970 than in 1969.
This most recent increase in unemployment among
teenagers occurred mostly among male teens. As a
result, 1970 jobless rates were practically the same
for both boys and girls, unlike previous years when
girls typically had higher rates.
Occupational developments
The sluggish performance of the goods-producing industries reduced employment and increased
unemployment among blue-collar workers. The
average annual number of employed blue-collar
workers declined almost half a million in 1970 (table
4). This drop, which offset nearly all the 700,000
gain of the preceding year, could be traced largely
to the reduced pace of manufacturing and construc
tion activity. As a consequence of cutbacks in these
industries, the jobless rate for blue-collar workers
rose from 3.9 to 6.2 percent between 1969 and 1970
(table 5).
The “operatives” group, which consists largely
of semiskilled workers employed in factories, w-as
EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1970
most affected among blue-collar workers. Their
average employment level dropped about 450,000
(3 percent) between 1969 and 1970. The more
skilled “craftsmen and foremen” group was also
affected, though to a lesser degree; their employ
ment declined by 50,000 (less than 1 percent). The
least-skilled blue-collar group, laborers, posted a
slight increase in employment in 1970 although
their unemployment rate rose from 6.7 to 9.5
percent.
In the first half of the year, sharp job cutbacks
took place in some “sophisticated” industries,
where workers in high-skill jobs were apparently
as vulnerable to a layoff as those in low-skill jobs.
Because of this, the unemployment rate for crafts
men and foremen rose very sharply during the first
half of the year. It then leveled off, however, while
the unemployment rate for the operatives group
rose rather steadily throughout the year, reflecting
the general weakness pervading the durable-goods
sector and the effects of the automobile strike.
(See table 5.)
Unemployment among laborers also rose con
siderably in 1970. However, in contrast to the situ
ation for skilled and semiskilled workers, the rise
in unemployment among laborers began somewhat
later in the year and was relatively less severe.
Nevertheless, nearly 1 out of 10 laborers was job
less on the average in 1970 compared with 1 in 25
among craftsmen and foremen, and 1 in 14 among
operatives.
In contrast to the decline in blue-collar employ
ment, the number of white-collar workers rose by
more than 1 million between 1969 and 1970. This
increase, which brought the total number of whitecollar workers to 38 million (48.3 percent of the
total employed), was only slightly smaller than the
annual average gains of recent years. Nevertheless,
even the growth in white-collar employment was
also slowed considerably during the course of the
year, as many firms reduced office staffs as well as
production forces in order to cut costs. As a conse
quence, the unemployment rate for white-collar
workers rose from 2.1 percent in 1969 to 2.8 percent
in 1970.
One of the more significant features of the un
employment rise in 1970 was a relatively sharp
rise in joblessness among high-skill personnel, such
as scientists and engineers, for whom there had
been an almost insatiable demand during most of
the 1960’s. In the past 2 years, job opportunities
for these highly skilled workers have been reduced
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
19
substantially due to spending cutbacks in the de
fense and aerospace fields and in Governmentfinanced research activities. The rise in the unem
ployment rate for engineers (from 0.7 percent in
1968 to 2.2 percent in 1970) is a clear reflection of
these cutbacks.
A rather modest increase in service employment,
coupled with the unusually poor showing of bluecollar employment, had the effect of raising the
proportion of workers engaged in white-collar
tasks. This was evident both among white and
Negro workers. In 1970, for the first time, about
half (50.8 percent) of all white workers were
employed in white-collar occupations. Although
Negroes continued to lag behind whites in this
respect, they still made encouraging progress in
white-collar employment despite the problems
which beset the economy. About 28 percent of
Negroes were in white-collar occupations in 1970,
up from 26 percent in 1969 and 24 percent in 1968.
Geography of unemployment
Increases in joblessness in 1970 fell unevenly not
only among industrial sectors and labor force
groups, but also among geographical areas. Weak
ness in durable-goods production, especially in
transportation equipment, machinery, and metals,
adversely affected the Midwestern (East North
Central) employment situation, while the rise in
joblessness in New England and the Pacific coast
primarily resulted from sizable reductions in
aerospace and defense-related production. In
Seattle, for example, the unemployment rate rose
from 4.9 to 11.3 percent over the year, a striking
illustration of the effects of employment furloughs
Table 5. Unemployment rates by occupational group,
1969 and 1970 (seasonally adjusted)
Annual
averages
Quarterly averages
Occupational group
1970
1970 1969
4th
White-collar workers___
Professional and technical
workers_________ .
Managers, officials, and
proprietors............
Clerical workers__
Sales workers______ . .
Blue-collar workers__ .
Craftsmen and foremen
Operatives___
Nonfarm laborers___ .
Service workers_______ . . .
Farm workers...................... .
3d
1969
2d
1st 4th
3d
2d
1st
2.8
2.1
3.5
2.9 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.0
2.0
1.3
2.5
2.0 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1
1.3
4.0
3.9
6.2
3.8
7.1
9.5
5.3
2.6
0.9 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.0
3.0 5.0 4.1 4.0 3.3
2.9 4.6 3.9 4.0 3.2
3.9 7.4 7.0 6.0 4.9
2.2 4.4 4.9 3.9 2.6
4.4 8.7 7.6 6.6 5.7
6.7 10.5 10.6 9.4 7.9
4.2 5.9 5.6 5.0 4.7
1.9 2.9 3.2 2.5 2.1
0.9
3.2
2.8
4.3
2.2
5.0
6.9
3.9
1.8
1.0
3.2
3.0
4.0
2.2
4.4
7.2
4.5
2.2
0.9
2.8
2.9
3.8
2.1
4.3
6.5
4.4
1.9
0.9
2.9
2.9
3.7
2.1
4.1
6.4
4.0
1.6
20
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
in aerospace industries.
In other large metropolitan areas in the Nation,
the impact of the economic slowdown upon unem
ployment closely approximated the regional
pattern. As of December 1969, for example, only
five major labor areas in the continental United
States—Fresno and Stockton, Calif., New Bedford,
Mass.; Muskegon, Mich.; and Seattle, Wash.—
were classified by the U.S. Labor Department’s
Manpower Administration as areas of “substantial
unemployment.” 4 By mid-1970, 29 major areas
JOB VACANCIES IN 1970
RAYMOND KONSTANT
T h e n e w s e r i e s on job vacancies introduced in 1970
provides, for the first time, some partial information on
the shape and size of unfilled demand for labor. Al
though the series eventually will be extended to include
data on all industries, it presently covers only manufac
turing industries, which are typically more sensitive to
fluctuations in economic activity and have been most
affected by the recent economic slowdown, defense cut
backs, and cost-saving retrenchments by employers.
The series on manufacturing job vacancy rates (table 17,
Current Labor Statistics) clearly reflects this. Vacancy
rates (unadjusted for seasonal variation) reached their
peak in August 1969 and have been exhibiting a per
sistent downward trend since then. The lower level of
job vacancies mirrored such other indications of declining
demand for labor in these industries as increasing un
employment and layoffs, and lower levels of new hires,
overtime hours, and employment.
Monthly changes
Seasonal factors undoubtedly affect job vacancies
just as they do many other economic series. Increases
in the number of vacancies in July and August, for
example, occurred in both 1969 and 1970. The same is
true for the June decline. The data have not been avail
able for along enough period to permit seasonal adjust
ment, but such adjustment would not substantially
alter the downward trend of the data over the year.
In April 1970, when it became possible to make yearto-year comparisons, it was evident that the job market
had become less favorable for those seeking work. The
job vacancy rate in April 1970, at 8 per 1,000 employees,
Raymond Konstant is Special Adviser on Job
Vacancy Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
were so classified, with nearly one-half located in
either the East North Central region, the Pacific
coast, or New England. As the year progressed,
however, the rise in unemployment became more
general.
Although unemployment rose in both urban
poverty and nonpoverty areas, the rise in the
poverty neighborhoods was somewhat less rapid
than the rise in other urban neighborhoods.
Between 1969 and 1970, the jobless rate of povertyarea residents in the Nation’s 100 largest metro-
was 40 percent lower than it had been a year earlier
(14 per 1,000). In June it was half what it had been
in June 1969, and it has fallen increasingly behind pre
vious year levels since then. Although all industries,
for which data are available had vacancies below the
level of a year earlier, over-the-year declines have
been more pronounced in the durable goods industries
than in the nondurable goods industries, a difference
also exhibited by employment data. In October, the
vacancy rate in durables was down by 67 percent over
the year compared with a 45-percent decline in non
durables. Over-the-year declines in the durable goods
industries in that month ranged from 60 percent in
transportation equipment to over 70 percent in primary
metals, machinery, and electrical equipment. Among
nondurable goods industries for which data are avail
able, declines from October 1969 levels were smallest
in textiles at about a third, and greatest in chemicals
and allied products, where the rate declined 60 percent.
It may be noted that the job vacancy data provide a
measure of the stock of vacancies as of a particular
point in time and reflect the interaction of supply and
demand at that point. The greater the supply of labor
in relation to demand (that is, the higher the level of
unemployment), the more likely it is that vacancies
will be filled quickly, and hence, the less likely that
vacancies will be available for reporting.
New hires and job vacancies
The new hires component of the labor turnover series
provides a measure of all new workers hired over the
course of the month. The definitions of job vacancies
and new hires are such that new hires may be thought of
as vacancies filled during the month. Thus, if vacant
jobs were being filled more quickly because of a larger
number of job applicants available, the number of un
filled jobs will decline relative to new hires. Declines in
new hires from levels of a year ago have, in fact, been
substantially less than declines in job vacancies. New
hires have ranged from about a fifth to a third less than
21
EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1970
politan areas rose from 5.5 to 7.6 percent, a pace
at roughly the national average. For persons
residing in the nonpoverty urban areas, the jobless
rate rose from 3.1 to 4.6 percent over this period.
The difference in rates of increase in unemploy
ment between poverty and nonpoverty areas was
primarily a reflection of the situation we have
outlined. Since a large proportion of workers from
poverty areas are employed in relatively lowskilled and service-related jobs, they were not as
heavily affected by the first-half layoffs as were
they were a year ago, while over-the-year declines in
job vacancies have ranged from two-fifths to well over
half. This suggests that the vacancies that do occur
are being filled more quickly than in the relatively
tight labor market of a year ago.
The declining proportion of long-term job vacancies
(those which continue unfilled for 30 days or more)
also suggests that vacant jobs are not remaining unfilled
as long as they did a year ago. The long-term job
vacancy rate, as a percentage of the total vacancy
rate declined steadily from the last quarter of 1969
through August 1970, then rose slightly in September
and October. In November 1969 almost half of all
vacancies had remained unfilled for 30 days or more;
in October 1970, only about a third of the existing
vacancies were long term.
Occupational vacancies
Based on data for 11 metropolitan areas (which during
1970 represented about 15 percent of manufacturing
employment and job vacancies), the occupations most
in demand in manufacturing industries were in benchwork, which includes assemblers, inspectors, and re
pairmen. This occupational group averaged almost a
quarter of the reported unfilled openings. Occupations
in the machine trades and structural work occupations
(welders, transportation equipment assemblers, elec
tricians, and so on) accounted for about a third of
reported vacancies. White-collar occupations (pro
fessional, technical, managerial, clerical, and sales
jobs) represented over 25 percent. These ratios are
similar to those for nationwide employment in manu
facturing industries.
As the number of vacancies declined during 1970, the
occupational distribution shifted somewhat. The per
centage of vacancies in benchwork occupations and
occupations in the machine trades both declined from
February to August; the former going from 26 to 23
percent of reported vacancies and the latter from 19 to
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
more skilled workers who generally live in non
poverty neighborhoods. Nevertheless, unemploy
ment within the Nation’s poverty areas did worsen
considerably in 1970.
The Negro employment situation
Although Negroes 5 did not escape the effects
of the economic slowdown, their employment
situation did not deteriorate as much as it has in
previous economic downturns. In fact, their un-
15 percent. The demand for clerical workers and for
workers in structural occupations each increased from
15 percent of reported vacancies in February to 18
percent in August. The proportion of vacancies for
professional, technical, and managerial occupations
remained about the same during the year.
Manufacturing job vacancy rates in those metro
politan areas for which data are available reflect local
conditions and have been found to vary considerably
from area to area. For example, in September 1969,
Dallas had the highest vacancy rate at 34 vacancies
per thousand jobs; Miami had the lowest at 7 per
thousand. Changes in vacancy rates for the areas
studied have tended, however, to conform generally
to the trends observed in the national vacancy rates;
that is, their rates peaked in the summer and early
fall of 1969 and have fallen since then. As area vacancy
rates declined, differences in vacancy rates among
areas tended to narrow. In September 1970, the highest
vacancy rate among the areas was 12 per thousand
jobs in Greensboro, N.C., and the lowest was 3 per
thousand in Jersey City, N.J., and Kansas City and
St. Louis, Mo.
The picture presented by the job vacancy estimates
during 1970 was one of considerably less unfilled
demand for labor in the manufacturing industries
than during 1969. As was noted earlier, the manu
facturing industries are more sensitive to cyclical
changes than most other industries, and cutbacks
in defense expenditures had an especially large effect
on manufacturing in 1970. Moreover, employment data
indicate that manufacturing industries have been
hardest hit by the recent economic slowdown, with
the number of employees declining from 20.4 million
in October 1969 to 18.9 million in October 1970.
Employment in nonmanufacturing industries has
continued to grow, however, rising from 50.9 million
in October 1969 to 51.8 million a year later. It is likely
that if vacancy and turnover data were available for
them, they would present a more favorable picture
than that obtained from data for manufacturing
industries only.
22
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
employment rate rose at a somewhat slower pace
than did the white rate. Moreover, they continued
to make encouraging upward progress on the
occupational ladder during 1970.
Negro employment registered a modest increase
between 1969 and 1970, rising by about 60,000
despite the slowdown in economic activity.
This increase, which was proportionately equal
to the rise in white employment, was about equally
divided between adult men and women. The
number of employed Negro teenagers declined
slightly between 1969 and 1970. (See table 3.)
The Negro labor force, however, increased at a
much faster pace than Negro employment, rising
about 250,000 to 9.2 million despite the apparent
withdrawal of some workers discouraged over job
prospects. Thus, the number of jobless Negroes
rose substantially between 1969 and 1970—from
570,000 to 750,000—and their jobless rate climbed
from 6.4 to 8.2 percent, the highest annual level
since 1964. The white jobless rate, however, rose
at a relatively faster pace—from 3.1 to 4.5 percent.
As a result, the ratio between the two rates, which
has averaged at least 2 to 1 since the Korean War,
was reduced. The following tabulation shows how
the white and the Negro rates have compared
over the past 5 years:
1970
White jobless rate________ ____ ___
Negro jobless ra te.._____ _________
Negro-white rate ratio____________
4. 5
8.2
1.8
1969
1968
1967
1966
3.1
6.4
2.1
3.2
6.7
2.1
3.4
7.4
2.2
3.3
7.3
2.2
At least four factors may have contributed to
the relatively slower rise in Negro joblessness and
the consequent narrowing of the relative gap be
tween the white and the Negro unemployment
rate: (1) The rise in the education and skill level
of Negroes, which has enabled many of them to
enter occupations where joblessness tends to be
low; (2) the impact of Government manpower
programs, which have enrolled a relatively large
proportion of Negro participants; (3) some lessen
ing of discrimination by employers in the hiring
and retention of Negro workers; and (4) the rela
tively smaller proportion of Negroes employed in
industries experiencing the sharpest reduction in
employment. The effects of these four factors are
difficult to disentangle.
It is quite clear that Negroes have continued to
make significant occupational progress despite the
economic slowdown. Although total Negro employ
ment rose by only 60,000, or nearly 1 percent,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
between 1969 and 1970, the number of Negroes
employed in white-collar occupations rose by 150,000, or 7 percent. Even more significantly, there
was a measurable increase in Negro employment
in the professional, technical, and managerial fields.
(See table 4.)
Within the blue-collar sector, however, Negroes
did not make any upward progress in 1970. With
employment in construction and manufacturing
being hard hit by the slowdown, the number of
black craftsmen and foremen declined slightly,
while the number of blacks employed as opera
tives and laborers remained at the 1969 level.
In the services field and in farmwork, the number
of Negroes continued to decline in 1970, but at
a slightly lower rate than in recent years, which
may reflect the decreased availability of jobs in
other fields.
It should finally be noted that despite the rela
tively slower upturn in Negro unemployment in
1970, the gap between white and Negro unemploy
ment rates for men, women, and teenagers re
mained very wide. This was especially the case for
the teenage group, where the Negro rate (29.1
percent) continued to be more than double the
white rate (13.5 percent). For Negro adult men
and adult women, however, the jobless rates (5.6
and 6.9 percent, respectively) were considerably
less than double those of their white counterparts
(3.2 and 4.4 percent).
Labor force growth
The Nation’s civilian labor force grew irregularly
during 1970, but still posted a healthy gain of 2
million over the 1969 level. This gain, roughly
equal to that posted between 1968 and 1969, was
achieved largely through normal increases of the
population of working age. Part of the rise, how
ever, reflected the gradual reduction in the size of
the Armed Forces. Because of this, the composi
tion of the 1970 gain was significantly different
than the makeup in recent years. The following
tabulation shows the labor force increases (in
thousands) accounted for by the major age-sex
groups in both 1969 and 1970.
1970
1969
All persons, 16 years and over.......
1,982
1,996
Men 20-24 years_____ _____ _
Men 25 years and over..............
427
413
212
285
Women 20-24 y e a r s..................
Women 25 years and over____
277
589
362
785
Both sexes, 16-19 years....... ......
277
350
EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1970
23
The flow of workers into the labor force varied
considerably during the course of 1970. In the
early months, the labor force grew very rapidly.
Nearly 1 million additional workers were added
in the first quarter, despite an already weakening
job market. It was during this period of very
rapid labor force growth that the year’s unemploy
ment rise was steepest.
After this strong first-quarter spurt, the flow
of workers into the labor force subsided. Adult
men, particularly those in the 20-to-24 and 25-to34 age groups, continued to enter the job market
in steady numbers, but the participation of adult
women and teenagers, as well as that of men over
60, declined noticeably. This decline may have
been linked to growing awareness on the part of
these workers of the scarcity of job opportunities
even in the service-oriented industries in which
most of these persons tend to work. Whatever the
reason, the labor force level remained essential^
unchanged during the second quarter, helping to
brake, at least temporarily, the steep rise in
unemployment. In the third quarter, however,
the labor force began to grow again.
On balance, it appears that a limited number of
persons may have been discouraged from entering
the labor force or induced to leave it as job oppor
on nonparticipants in the labor force show a
noticeable increase during 1970 in the number of
persons who want a job but have given up the
quest, convinced that a suitable job could not be
found in their occupational field or geographic
area. By the fourth quarter of 1970, the number of
such persons stood at nearly half a million, about
150,000 higher than at the end of 1969.
V eterans . About 750,000 Viet Nam War veterans
entered the labor force in 1970. A recent study of
the employment experience of these young men
found that the great majority of them (over 90
percent) entered the job market soon after return
ing to civilian life. Of those age 20 to 29 years, who
had been discharged prior to October 1969, only
about 15 percent were enrolled in school that fall.6
For young veterans in the job market, the
unemployment rate in 1970 was somewhat higher
than it was for other men of the same age group.
Veterans 20 to 24 years old had an unemployment
rate of 9.3 percent, while the unemployment rate
for nonveterans of the same age was 8.0 percent.
Given the weakened job market brought on by the
economic slowdown, the transition to civilian life
for hundreds of thousands of young men recently
discharged from the Armed Forces has not been
easy.
□
tu n itie s b eca m e scarce d u rin g 1970. D e ta ile d d a ta
-F O O T N O T E S ■
1 In terms of the total employment figures discussed
here, workers directly involved in a strike are still con
sidered as employed—with a job but not at work. Those
who are laid off because of the secondary effects of the
strike, on the other hand, are not counted as employed,
unless they begin working in other fields.
About 325,000 workers participated directly in the
automobile strike, which lasted from mid-September to
late November. The number of workers temporarily laid
off due to the indirect effects of the strike was still open to
conjecture at year’s end.
obtained from a household survey and apply to all work
ers, including those who are self-employed or unpaid em
ployees of family enterprises.
4 The Department of Labor classifies an area as one of
“substantial unemployment” when unemployment in the
area is equal to 6 percent or more of its work force, dis
counting seasonal or temporary factors. See A r e a T r e n d s ,
Manpower Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
2 See Hazel M. Willacy, “The factory workweek as an
economic indicator,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October 1970,
pp. 25-32.
5 Because Negroes make up over 90 percent of racial
groups other than white in the United States, data which
apply to the entire category of persons (which include
American Indians and Oriental Americans) are used to
delineate the Negro situation.
3 The figures discussed for nonagricultural industries are
derived from payroll data and include only wage and
salary workers. The data on agricultural employment are
6 See Elizabeth Waldman, “Viet Nam war veterans—
transition to civilian life,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , Novem
ber 1970, pp. 21-29.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Programs
for providing
winter jobs
in construction
I n the postwar years , foreign governments have
hammered out a construction employment policy
for all seasons. Recognizing that winter construc
tion is technically feasible,1 they have tried to
remove the institutional barriers to year-round
work. More recently, European governments have
tried to cool summer demand in the industry as
part of the fight against inflation.
As in the United States,2 custom and tradition,
as well as cost, have sharply curtailed building
activity in the winter months, throwing hundreds
of thousands out of work. Moreover, since World
War II, winter unemployment in Europe has been
more of a problem than cyclical joblessness,
historically the main target of full-employment
policies. In stepping up their attack on the for
mer, policymakers have relied on two major
weapons: compensatory employment and com
pensatory income policies.
Most European countries using a compensatory
employment policy have attempted to reduce
seasonal unemployment in construction through
programing of regular public works projects,
adoption of emergency public works programs,
stimulation of the private construction sector,
scheduling of private projects, and an active
manpower policy.
Public works programs
Governments have incorporated seasonal sta
bilization objectives into their own regular con
struction programs in a number of ways. Perhaps
the simplest device is to concentrate maintenance
E. Jay Howenstine is director of the Division of Foreign
Research and Analysis, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development. More details on the subject of this
article appear in a research report, “Action Against
Seasonal Unemployment in the Construction Industry:
Lessons of Foreign Experience,” which the Department’s
Office of International Affairs will publish in the near future.
24
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Subsidies and scheduling
of public works projects
help foreign governments cut
industry unemployment
in the winter months
E. JAY HOWENSTINE
and repairs, particularly inside work such as paint
ing, during the off season. Dating from 1955, the
Canadians have succeeded in setting aside a large
amount of such work for the winter. Denmark
has adopted a policy of prohibiting the start of
most maintenance and repair work on public
buildings before October 1 or between March 1 and
May 1, and of requiring that work in progress be
completed by or interrupted on May 1. The
United Kingdom regularly reminds ministries of
the need to have as much interior decorating work
as possible carried out in winter.
The programing of new public construction so
as to help counteract the traditional seasonal
decline is a more important, though more compli
cated, use of public authority. Such a policy has
taken several forms. For example, in 1960 the
Federal Republic of Germany decided that 30
percent of Federal construction in a 4-year pro
gram should be undertaken between November 1
and March 31.
Beginning in 1965, Sweden directed ministries
engaged in construction activities to restrict the
labor force on public works by 10 percent until
October 31 in each year. Similarly, both Canada
and Norway have set up interministerial machin
ery to plan construction programs with a view to
maximum winter employment.
In some countries, specifications in public works
contracts have been a useful tool for promoting
seasonal stabilization. For example, all contracts
awarded by the Canadian Department of Public
Works specify that, except for road construction,
work cannot be stopped in winter without the
Department’s permission. In Belgium, construc
tion firms working on public projects may claim
reimbursement for extra costs involved in measures
for promoting winter construction. Likewise, in
the United Kingdom, although it is recognized
that some increase in contract prices may result,
authorities invite bids on the basis that contractors
WINTER JOBS IN CONSTRUCTION
will be required to take all necessary precautions
to maintain continuity of work during winter
except in the most severe weather.
Emergency programs
A second major type of compensatory employ
ment action has been the adoption of emergency
public works programs. In some cases, national
governments have financed and administered
compensatory public works programs directly;
in others, they have extended financial assistance
to provincial and municipal governments which
have administered the programs.
Sweden has the most sophisticated compensa
tory public works program. The National Labor
Market Board has a fund of approximately 450
kroner (almost $90 million)—or roughly 1 percent
of gross national product—to undertake jobcreation programs and other manpower programs
promoting training, retraining, and labor mobility.
In overemployment conditions its main emphasis
has been on coping with seasonal unemployment.
With its authority and techniques, the Board,
through its regional structure, can search out and
eliminate pockets of unemployment which de
velop anywhere in the economy.3
Norway also has a National Labor Board, operat
ing through 20 regional boards, which administers
a seasonal employment stabilization program. It
has standing discretionary authority to spend
without further legislative action 35 million
kroner (approximately $5 million) directly on
emergency public works and manpower activities,
as the need arises.
In Belgium, the National Employment Office
has employed an average of 6,000 persons in recent
years on emergency public works, mostly road
building and maintenance and mainly during the
winter season.
In a number of countries, national governments
have carried out emergency public works programs
by offering various types of grants to local govern
ments as an incentive to maintain or expand winter
construction activities. The Canadian Government
pays local governments 50 percent (60 percent in
areas with particularly high unemployment during
winter) of direct payroll costs for approved works
projects during a winter period varying (from year
to year) from 6 to 7>2 months. Norwegian policy
provided originally for a 25- to 40-percent direct
payroll subsidy for local public works undertaken
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
25
in winter; in 1965 the subsidy was changed from a
fixed percentage of wages to a bonus based on
man-hours.
In Austria, the productive unemployment as
sistance program aids projects of national impor
tance, that is, public works, workers’ housing
projects, repairs on residential buildings, and in
dustrial construction in development areas involv
ing the creation of permanent new employment
opportunities. Financial assistance is extended
mainly to other public bodies, but private sponsors
are included, provided the general conditions are
fulfilled. Aid is given in the form of loans, interest
subsidies, or grants for the initial purchase of
machinery, tools and other equipment for winter
building operations; shelters, protective materials
and other precautions for winter building sites;
and work clothes, fare to the worker’s principal
place of residence, and costs incurred when he is
unable to live at home.
The Austrian grants are calculated on the basis
of savings made in unemployment insurance bene
fits and social assistance payments. As a rule, a
grant does not exceed the amount of financial
savings, nor does a loan exceed 3 times the amount
saved. During December and March, grants
amount to between 14 and 20 percent of the
official wage rate of an unskilled building worker
but increase to between 29 and 40 percent during
January and February, when the weather is more
severe. Financial assistance is designed only as an
offset to the extra costs of winter construction,
and in principle only for projects that would not
normally be undertaken during winter.
Stimulation of private sector
The private sector accounts for one-half to twothirds of total construction activity in Europe. Be
cause it is inherently more unstable than the public
sector, success in reducing seasonality is in a very
large measure dependent on public action to stim
ulate activity in the private sector. Governments
have attempted to do this through the provision of
subsidies toward the extra costs of winter construc
tion, technical assistance to contractors, and
publicity campaigns.
Unquestionably, the most important deterrent
to a high level of winter construction is the extra
cost to firms. To overcome this, various subsidy
programs have been undertaken.
26
The most comprehensive subsidy system has
been developed by the Netherlands Government
in its Lay-Off Prevention Scheme, which provides a
“continuation-of-work” allowance to cover the
extra costs of winter work in all types of private
construction. Conditions for payment of the allow
ance are that the contractor prepare the site in
accordance with regulations designed to ensure
winter work; that he work a minimum of 3 months
between November 15 and March 25; and that he
ensure continued work on bad weather days.
The elaborate formula of the Dutch for calculat
ing employer allowances is divided into a basic
allowance per person employed to cover additional
costs of a general character, and a supplementary
allowance paid for days worked which are deter
mined by the meteorological service to be below
freezing temperature. The system is financed by
an allocation of 75 percent of the savings which
two bad-weather insurance funds (one operated
for the building industry and a separate one for the
painters’ trade) enjoy in the form of a reduction in
benefits paid as a result of a continuation of build
ing activity. A subsidy from the Ministry of
Housing and Physical Planning makes up any
deficit.
Another comprehensive incentive scheme is
found in Germany. The plan, covering both public
and private construction, is financed by the Ger
man unemployment insurance system and com
pensates for roughly two-thirds of the additional
costs involved in winter construction. Firms are
eligible for subsidies during January and February
if they adopt winter construction techniques and
provide reasonable protection for workers. The local
employment office is responsible for reviewing the
adequacy of the protective measures in advance
and for deciding on payment of subsidies.4
The German winter subsidy scheme, which will
be legislatively reviewed in 1973, after a test period
of 4 years, has not been exploited to the extent
envisioned, primarily because the extra costs are
only partially reimbursed. In 1970, however, the
Finance Minister agreed to permit inclusion of
extra allowances for winter construction in the
appropriations for all major Federal construction
projects.
A number of countries have adopted special
indirect subsidy programs to facilitate the pur
chase of equipment required for winter building.
Germany provides 5-year loans at a 2-percent rate
of interest. Japan extends similar loans through
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
its Employment Promotion Projects Corporation.
The Swedish program of providing loans at 5 per
cent interest for 4 years for the general promotion
of mechanization in the industry has proved to be
an important indirect stimulus for winter construc
tion. The British Government goes further and
provides grants toward the cost of winter building
equipment, with additional subsidies being pro
vided for firms operating in development areas.
Special subsidy schemes have also been adopted
to promote housebuilding during the winter sea
son. In Germany, homeowners receive a grant
amounting to 11 percent of onsite wages paid
between December 1 and March 31, on condition
the contractor has taken the necessary steps to
prepare the site for winter work. In Austria, during
December and March the grant available for
workers’ housing projects varies between 14 and
20 percent of the official wage rate of unskilled
building workers, while in January and February,
it ranges between 29 and 40 percent. Financial
aid is also granted for the repair of residential
buildings.
Canada provides a flat $500 payment to the
owner-builder or the first purchaser of a house if
the major part of construction is completed during
the winter period. In the winter of 1968-69, the
Norwegian Ministry of Municipal and Labor Af
fairs adopted a subsidy plan in four northern coun
ties based on the Canadian model. Achieving
success, it was expanded to four other countries
the following winter.
Sweden stimulates winter housing construction
by extending a third mortgage which is based not
on actual, but on “necessary and functional” costs,
and includes a subsidy to absorb “additional”
costs attributable to winter construction. The sub
sidy per square meter varies according to the size
of the project, climatic zone, and so on. The Danish
Government does not subsidize winter work di
rectly, but the costs of winter measures may be
included in the approved costs for state-subsidized
housing projects.
Tax concessions and rebates constitute another
type of subsidy system for stimulating winter con
struction. The Belgian subsidy system, applicable
to all types of private construction, provides that
employers who keep their labor force on the j ob as
long as possible may reclaim a portion of their
contribution to the social insurance fund. In both
Finland and Sweden, the anticyclical investment
reserve funds, which industrial firms are permitted
WINTER JOBS IN CONSTRUCTION
to establish by deducting a part of their net profits
before taxes, have also been used to reduce con
struction unemployment in the winter season.
Two other interesting uses of tax reduction for
seasonal stabilization purposes have been pro
posed. The National Winter Employment Con
ference in Canada recommended that the Govern
ment study the possibility of offering allowances
for accelerated depreciation and obsolescence in
the case of capital investments undertaken during
the winter months.5 A Working Party on Winter
Building in Germany, consisting of representatives
of the ministries and trade groups, has suggested
that consideration should be given to special tax
relief for winter building and special terms for
writing off costs of machinery used during winter
months.6
Another more modest form of assistance is the
provision of technical assistance to contractors to
promote private winter construction. Special win
ter building consultants have been made available
to the construction industry in Denmark, Ger
many, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
Such consultants are useful in giving advice, par
ticularly to the small firm, on such matters as
special winter equipment and materials, schedul
ing work operations and adequate advance site
preparations.
A final type of measure consists of the educa
tional and publicity campaigns which have been
launched to change the habits and attitudes of
consumers and producers. Campaigns in Belgium,
Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands,
and the United Kingdom have made wide use of
radio, television, and film programs, lectures, semi
nars, evening courses, traveling and permanent
exhibits, pamphlets, research publications, and
general advertising materials to acquaint the pub
lic and persons in the industry with the technical
feasibility of winter activity in most kinds of
construction and the general advantages of doing
as much work in the winter shason as possible.
Generally, such campaigns are carried out with
the collaboration of employers’ and workers’ orga
nizations in the industry.
Canada undertakes probably the most extensive
efforts. Each year, the Department of Manpower
and Immigration launches a national promotional
campaign, utilizing all communications media and
backed up by local campaigns in more than 250
manpower center areas across the country. It is
also heavily supported by voluntary promotional
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27
efforts on the part of all segments of business and
industry.
Scheduling and manpower policy
Not content with the more or less piecemeal
types of measures discussed above, some govern
ments have embarked on a more direct and com
prehensive approach to the full utilization of the
construction labor force, that is, construction
scheduling. This approach does not rely on spon
taneous or stimulated collaboration by construc
tion firms; rather, it aims to stabilize construction
throughout the year by introducing administra
tive regulations controlling the timing of starts and
completions for various types of projects. By
scheduling construction activity in the light of
specific occupational, material, and geographical
requirements, the Government—generally through
the appropriate labor market authority—is able
to match the supply of and demand for construc
tion resources and thus eliminate the bulk of
seasonal unemployment. Clearly, such an approach
depends for its success on the maintenance of full
employment.
It received its original impetus during World
War II, when governments were seeking to achieve
an optimum utilization of scarce manpower resources.
More recently, the concept of an active manpower
policy, the main elements of which were clarified
and systematized in the early 1960’s,7 has been
elaborated by governments for the same general
objective in seeking to cope with the pressures
stemming from production ceilings placed on re
sources in an inflationary economy.
Several systems of construction scheduling have
been followed in Europe. In Sweden, scheduling,
carried out through the issuance of permits, is
based upon detailed appraisals of local require
ments and resources which are eventually inte
grated into a national program. Seasonal demand
is leveled off in the peak season by issuing building
permits which require work to begin in November,
and often to be completed by April. If construction
does not begin in the month specified, the permit
is void.
The Swedish system requires a county labor
market board permit for all construction projects
costing over $19,340. Representatives of the con
struction employers’ federations and of the con
struction trade unions, as well as of the public, sit
on the boards in 24 counties. These boards act on
28
the recommendations of 70 building labor com
mittees which operate within local labor market
areas. Their objective is to work out a program
that will ensure full and continuous utilization of
the area’s construction resources. The committees
discuss the general timing of projects with con
sumers, examine occupational requirements and
availability of workers for the proposed projects,
and fit the projects into a manpower map made
up by the board with a view to adjusting projects
to the area’s available manpower.
Under an agreement with the National Labor
Market Board, the employers’ federations expel
and the trade unions boycott any contractor who
starts a project earlier than the date recommended
by the committees.
The Finnish Government has a scheme which
provides for comprehensive manpower planning
for two types of construction: normal public works
administered by 14 public agencies; and statesubsidized private construction. As regards public
works, each agency is required to submit to the
Ministry of Labor a manpower program along
with its budget proposals for the coming year.
The Ministry consolidates these programs into a
national construction plan, which allocates labor
and establishes dates for project starts and com
pletions, particularly between May and August.
The public construction agencies are required to
follow these manpower guidelines.
As regards the state-subsidized private con
struction sector, contractors submit work plans to
the chiefs of the 11 local Manpower Districts. The
plans must conform to certain “employment con
ditions,” such as the timing of starts and com
pletions and the size of the labor force.
On every public works project and on every
private project receiving financial assistance in
the form of a loan, grant or interest subsidy, a
biweekly manpower report to the Manpower
District is used to coordinate scheduling of proj
ects and allocation of manpower. In addition,
firms working on public works contracts are re
quired to employ 60 percent of their work force
from the available local labor force allocated by
the District. Government payments are condiditional on a District certificate of compliance
with the employment conditions. Under this
system, the extra costs of winter construction
techniques are borne by the state, since bidding
on a particular project is linked to “employment
conditions.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
In the Netherlands, the overall building capacity
is first estimated at the national level, then broken
down into sectors and allocated to provinces, which
in turn finally divide it among local authorities.
Until the slackening of industry activity in
1968-69, the Netherlands Ministry of Housing
and Physical Planning prepared, first, an indicative
building program a year ahead, based on assump
tions relating to the labor force available, the
number of productive hours expected, changes in
productivity, and so on. Second, an allocation of
total building capacity into major sectors of
activity, such as housing, schools, hospitals and
commercial buildings, was made on the basis of
political priorities and other relevant considera
tions, subject to revision after consultation with
relevant government ministries. Third, the build
ing program was allocated among the 12 provinces,
which in turn made allocations to local authorities
on the basis of estimated needs. Large urban
municipalities were, however, invited to submit
multi-year programs of their building requirements
and to suggest suitable priorities.
The above construction scheduling policies have
been credited with coping with excess construction
demand in an orderly and equitable manner and
with helping to iron out seasonal patterns in con
struction activity. Their applicability tends to be
limited, however, to economies where there is
widespread agreement on the appropriateness of
administrative controls for achieving objectives
deemed socially desirable.
Two countries—Austria and Germany—have
experimented with a voluntary approach to co
ordination of construction scheduling in the public
and private sectors. In Germany, the effort failed
to achieve notable results and was confined to the
public building sector. In Austria, however, the
Advisory Council for the Construction Industry,
which was organized in 1967, was reported in 1970
as having received satisfactory cooperation of all
parts of the industry in its program to coordinate
public and private construction activity in an
attack on the seasonality problem.8
An active manpower policy in many countries
has also been responsive to the needs of workers
through the provision of more comfortable working
conditions as an additional incentive for winter
work; the financing of some of the “out-of-pocket”
costs involved in achieving greater geographic
mobility; and financial assistance in the acquisition
of specially designed winter clothing. Travel grants
WINTER JOBS IN CONSTRUCTION
to assist workers employed away from home are
paid in Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Nether
lands, Norway, and Sweden. Allowances to help
defray the extra costs involved in maintaining two
households are available in Canada, Germany, and
Sweden. Grants and/or loans for the purchase of
specially designed winter clothing are extended in
Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
Special vocational training programs for the
seasonally unemployed have also been established
in a number of countries, including Austria,
Canada, Denmark, and Sweden.
Another quite unrelated aspect of manpower
policy is that the presence of a large number of
foreign workers in the construction labor force of
many European countries offers an easy kind of
“solution” to seasonality in the host country. All
or most of these workers can, as in Austria, France,
and Switzerland, be issued onty temporary work
permits which require that they return to the home
country before the Christmas season. New tem
porary work permits can then be issued with the
return of good weather the following spring. This
policy, which in reality exports the problem of
seasonal unemployment to the country of origin,
has another important effect. It prevents the
migrant worker from establishing permanent
residence, often a condition for acquiring full
equality with domestic workers under national
legislation.
The compensatory income approach
Second only to a preoccupation with job security
has been the longstanding concern of European
trade unions and political parties with social
security. As social insurance systems improved in
adequacy, it was only logical that attention should
turn to the provision of special income security for
construction workers, who perhaps of all members
of the labor force suffer the greatest instability of
income. Schemes providing special compensation
for time lost on account of bad weather have taken
three major forms: statutory systems; contractual
systems; and contractual systems given the force
of law.9
To qualify for bad-weather benefit payments,
workers are generally required to report for duty
at the usual time and to remain available for any
other “reasonable” alternative work which may be
assigned to them by the employer—either on the
same site or on another. The amount of compensa
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
29
tion usually ranges between 60 and 75 percent of
the basic wage, but in some cases is as high as 90
percent. The length of time for which compensa
tion is paid also varies. In some countries, such as
Austria, Norway, Sweden, and the United King
dom, a limit is placed on the period for which bad
weather is compensated, ranging from 192 hours
to 48 working days a year. In other countries, such
as Germany, Ireland, Poland, and the Soviet
Union, no time limit has been fixed.
As regards financing, schemes in France, the
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzer
land, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union
provide only for contributions from employers. In
other instances, such as Austria and Ireland,
workers also pay contributions on top of their
unemployment insurance contributions. In general,
government grants are confined to occasions when
funds prove inadequate.
Whether compensatory income schemes promote
or impede fundamental stabilization of the in
dustry at a high level of production is somewhat
in dispute. The potential deterrent effect of com
pensatory income on employment stabilization
depends a great deal on the nature of the worker’s
motivation and on his response to his immediate
social environment. There is much evidence to
indicate that basically the construction worker
prefers work to idleness, and that he prefers
higher income with work rather than less income
which he may receive through a compensatory
income policy, even though the latter may con
stitute a substantial portion of his regular income.
Furthermore, bad-weather compensation schemes
appear—at least in some cases and in some
respects—notably Austria, Germany, and Italy,
to have been a stimulus to a high level of winter
employment. First, they have discouraged largescale dismissals, which have been traditional in
some countries at the onset of winter, and they
have encouraged the contractor to keep his labor
force intact and to continue work as long as
possible. Second, one of their main purposes, as in
Belgium and Germany, has been to promote
utilization of the warm spells between periods of
frost rather than lose the whole winter period.
Third, they have had in Germany and Italy, for
example, the effect of promoting an earlier than
“normal” spring upswing of building activity,
since contractors are no longer so disposed to wait
until signs of spring are definite.
In other cases and in other respects the com-
30
pensatory income approach has not had a positive
effect in promoting winter construction. In Japan
it is reported that the ease of obtaining unemploy
ment insurance has been an obstacle to the elimina
tion of seasonal unemployment. Moreover, in
some countries with fairly temperate winters and
reasonably adequate “bad weather” allowance
systems, such as Belgium and France, there is a
widespread disposition to accept seasonality and
to concentrate energies on combating other more
important inflationary factors, such as the rising
costs of land, credit, and construction materials.
The United Kingdom has approached income
security for the construction worker in an alto
gether different manner, namely the guaranteed
workweek. The scheme provides for the payment
of the ordinary wage for half the time lost during
a normal workweek (that is, 42 hours in building
and 40 hours in civil engineering), but at the same
time the worker is guaranteed his normal pay for
a minimum of 36 hours in the week. He is also
entitled to the same guaranteed 36 hours of pay
during a following week which may be completely
lost for the same reasons. Thereafter, however, if
the work stoppage continues, he is required to
register as unemployed under the unemployment
compensation system. The purpose of this scheme
is to place the cost of idleness directly on the
shoulders of the employer, thus creating an incen
tive for him to take full account of his overhead
costs and thereby stabilize production at the
highest possible level.
Consumer orientation
A major factor influencing Governments’ atti
tude toward seasonality has been the development
in the postwar European milieu of what might be
called a new consumer orientation. European
countries have been faced not only with wartime
destruction of capital and the backlog of construc
tion demand inherited from the Great Depression,
but also with the rising construction requirements
for economic growth. In this situation, the wastage
of construction capacity involved in seasonal un
employment becomes unconscionable. For ex
ample, the Austrian tripartite National Advisory
Committee on the Construction Industry has
insisted that output could be increased roughly
50 percent with existing resources, mainly through
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
the elimination of seasonal unemployment. The
attack on the wastage of productive capacity in
volved in seasonal unemployment has thus become
one of the focal points in postwar construction
policy, especially in Austria, France, Germany,
the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, and
the United Kingdom.
A second strong interest which consumers have
had in the reduction of seasonality is its importance
as an instrument of anti-inflation policy. Idleness
in winter and excess demand in the summer have
been potent factors in causing construction prices
in most European countries to rise more rapidly
than prices in general.10 In Italy, for example, the
shortage of skilled building workers during the
summer season has forced contractors to pay as
much as double the minimum wage rates nego
tiated by trade unions. Moreover, rapidly rising
construction costs have seriously limited con
sumers’ capacities to satisfy critical demands,
particularly for housing. Consequently, anti
inflation objectives have played an important role
in seasonal stabilization programs in most coun
tries, but particularly in Austria, Germany, the
Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries.11
Results and conclusions
The results of seasonal stabilization programs
have been fairly impressive. In Finland, employ
ment on government projects has been from 20 to
75 percent higher in the winter than the summer,
while in Sweden employment in the controlled
building sector is regularly somewhat higher in
February than in August. There has been a sub
stantial drop in winter construction unemployment
in Denmark, but much remains to be done.
In Canada, seasonality in housebuilding has been
virtually eliminated, whereas formerly the level of
winter activity was only half that of summer.
Moreover, between 1960 and 1967, from 120,000
to 167,000 onsite jobs were created each winter
under the municipal winter works incentive pro
gram. The addition to total construction output
from winter programs in the Netherlands was cal
culated to be equivalent, in the winter of 1963-64,
to 4,800 houses; the following winter it was some
what less, and the subsequent winter somewhat
more. In Norway, most progress has been achieved
WINTER JOBS IN CONSTRUCTION
in the civil engineering sector, where careful
planning and financial aids to construction have
contributed substantially to more year-round
programs.
The seasonal stabilization program in Germany
has virtually abolished mass dismissals by mediumand large-size firms, while in Italy the bad weather
compensation scheme is reported to have induced
contractors to continue work during the winter as
long as possible.
Several major conclusions emerge from foreign
experience. First, from the geographical point of
view, seasonal stabilization in the construction
industry has achieved its greatest success in
countries with the longest and hardest winters,
that is, the Scandinavian nations and Canada.
This fact perhaps mainly reflects the practical
necessity that in view of relatively short summers
northern countries must somehow maintain a
high level of winter activity if they are to obtain
the public and private construction works which
they want; but it also confirms the conclusion that
the principal obstacles to winter construction are
institutional, not technological, in character.
Second, crucial factors in the success of winter
construction programs are the pressure of demand
and the ceiling on available resources that ac
company full employment. Neither the collabora
tion of the employers and workers in the industry
nor the legislative support of public policies is
likely to be forthcoming if there is general under
employment in the construction industry.
Third, seasonal stabilization of the public con
struction sector has been most effective when
conceived as one element in a long-term public
works planning program. Emergency, piecemeal
efforts tend to be costly and a poor utilization of
resources.
Fourth, seasonal stabilization measures have
been most productive when conceived as an in
tegral part of an active manpower policy. Such a
policy framework not only utilizes all manner of
means to achieve an optimal use of the construction
labor force, but also promotes a construction policy
which from the output point of view is conducive
to a high rate of economic growth.
Fifth, to overcome the inertia of traditional
attitudes and the deterrent of additional direct
costs involved in private winter construction,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
31
positive financial incentives appear to be essential,
at least in the early phases of implementation.
Once producer and consumer attitudes toward
winter construction have become more favorable,
there is a tendency under conditions of continuing
full employment for patterns of winter construc
tion to persist, as in Denmark, even though sub
sidies may be reduced or withdrawn.
Sixth, construction scheduling, that is, admin
istrative control over the timing of construction
starts and completions through the construction
permit system, has—under conditions of full
employment—proved to be probably the most
effective single means of promoting optimal uti
lization of the construction labor force. Such a
solution is practicable, however, only in societies
which can accept such controls for purposes
deemed socially desirable.
Seventh, the long-term effect which compensa
tory income schemes have on promoting winter
employment is unclear. In some countries, such as
Austria and Germany, “bad weather” benefit
systems have not thwarted the compensatory
employment approach in its attempt to achieve
year-round employment and production in the
industry; rather the one approach has tended to
reinforce the other, not only in giving the con
struction worker greater job and income security
but also in helping to ensure maximum utilization
of the industry’s resources. In other countries,
such as Belgium and France, which enjoy relatively
mild winters and where bad weather benefit
schemes provide a generous measure of income
protection to the seasonally unemployed con
struction worker, a diminution of interest in
employment stabilization measures has been
evident in recent years. In this connection, the
British system of a guaranteed weekly wage is of
special interest for its dual effect of income pro
tection and employment stabilization.
Finally, the reduction of seasonal instability has
made a significant and well-recognized contribu
tion to consumers’ welfare. Not only has it yielded
a higher output of urgently needed construction,
but it has made a considerable contribution to
greater general price stability by reducing in
flationary pressures in the construction industry
and thereby their importance in creating inflation
in the economy as a whole.
□
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
32
-F O O T N O T E S 1 “ A review of the present state of development in
construction methods and techniques indicates that,
although certain extreme climatic conditions place absolute
limits on the possibilities of winter construction, by and
large, winter construction on most types of work and in
most climates is technically feasible.” Quoted from S e a
s o n a l U n e m p lo y m e n t i n th e C o n s tr u c tio n I n d u s t r y (Geneva,
International Labor Office, 1951), p. 88.
2 See Joe L. Russell and Michael J. Pilot, “Seasonality in
construction: a continuing problem,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e
v ie w , December 1969, pp. 3-8.
3 See L a b o r M a r k e t P o li c y i n S w e d e n (Paris, Organiza
tion for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1963),
pp. 34-41.
4 Robert Schmidt,
W in te r
N e w R e g u la tio n s o n th e P r o m o tio n o f
C o n s tr u c tio n
[in Germany] (Bonn, Ministry of
Labor, 1970).
5 N a tio n a l
P r o c e e d in g s
W in te r E m p lo y m e n t
(Ottawa,
C o n fe re n c e , S u m m a r y
of
Canada Department of Labor,
1958), p. 53.
6 “Report of the Working Party on Winter Building
[in Germany],” B u lle tin o f th e I n te r n a tio n a l F e d e r a tio n o f
B u i l d i n g a n d W o o d w o r k e r s (Copenhagen), February 1959,
p. 53.
7 See Recommendation on Manpower Policy as a Means
for the Promotion of Economic Growth adopted by the
Council of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development in May 1964, “Active Manpower
Policy: International Management Seminar” (Paris,
o e c d , 1965), pp. 119-124; and the Employment Policy
Recommendation adopted by the International Labor
Conference in June 1964, O ffic ia l B u lle tin , i l o , Vol.
XLVII, No. 3, Supplement I, July 1964, pp. 54-66.
8 Bundesministerium fiir Bauten und Technik, V o r s c h a u
1 9 7 0 (Vienna, 1969).
9 See “Social Services Provided by Unemployment
Insurance Institutes,” R e p o r t V I , prepared for the XVIth
General Assembly (1968); B u lle tin o f th e I n t e r n a t i o n a l
S o c ia l S e c u r ity A s s o c ia tio n , February, March, April 1965
issues, “Particular Aspects of Unemployment Insurance
for Seasonal Workers,” R e p o r t X I V , prepared for the
XVth General Assembly; and “Administrative Problems
of Protection Against Unemployment for Building Work
ers,” R e p o r t V I I I , prepared for the X U Ith General
Assembly (1959). (International Social Security Associa
tion, 154 Rue de Lausanne, Geneva, Switzerland.)
10 Mary S. Painter, “Construction in OECD Countries,”
O E C D O b s e rv e r , April 1966, p. 13.
11 E. Jay Howenstine, “Rising construction costs and
anti-inflation policies: a report on Western Europe,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , June 1969, pp. 3-10.
A note on communications
The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supplement,
challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered for
publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not polemical
in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly
Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C. 20212.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Report of Cabinet Subcommittee
includes proposals for improving
data on prices and costs,
manpower requirements,
and industrial relations
SOL SWERDLOFF
T he c r i t i c a l n e e d for good statistical intelligence
on the relationship between the health of construc
tion activities and the health of the economy
recently has received the expert attention of many
of the Federal Government’s leading statisticians.
Such attention reflects a growing awareness that
statistical shortcomings have handicapped the
development of effective policies to combat con
struction inflation and to meet future construction
needs.1
Some—even a good bit of—statistical informa
tion about construction is available from the
decennial censuses, from the housing surveys, and
from other sources at the Census Bureau, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Reserve
Board, and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. These sources provide many of the
more essential facts about construction activities
and the relationship between the workers and the
contractors. In good times, the data—while far
from providing 20-20 vision—have been sufficient
to indicate that the industry was growing, that
housing starts seemed likely to keep up with
demand. But when problems arise, the need for
data with which to analyze these problems becomes
imperative. Such is the case today.
The Nation’s housing shortage remains acute,
as high interest rates have priced many buyers
right out of the market. Other costs are rising
rapidly. For example, wage settlements in this
$100 billion industry are running double the na
tional average for all manufacturing. Yet many
construction workers are unemployed.
Sol Swerdloff is director of Research and Program Plan
ning, Bureau of Labor Statistics. This article is adapted
from a speech he delivered to the Federal Statistics
Users’ Conference on October 21, 1970. Copies of the
Subcommittee report and recommendations may be ob
tained from Nick Tiedeman, Council of Economic
Advisers, Room 328, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, D.C. 20506.
4 1 2- 82 4 0 - 71 - 3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Surveying
the gaps in
construction
statistics
Recognizing the urgent need for better statistics
the President asked the Cabinet Committee on
Construction for recommendations on improving
the statistical information on ‘'prices and costs,
industry compensation and fringe benefit patterns,
industrial relations . . . mortgage financing and
construction loan commitments, industry employ
ment, manpower requirements, training and safety
. . . and changes in the housing stock including
mobile homes.” To develop these recommenda
tions, the Committee set up a Subcommittee on
Construction Statistics, chaired by Geoffrey H.
Moore, Commissioner of Labor Statistics.2
The Subcommittee’s report, approved by the
Cabinet Committee in December, contains a
lengthy list of recommendations. A summary of
major recommendations follows, with emphasis on
the manpower and industrial relations proposals.
Compensation statistics
The Subcommittee noted that the conduct of
labor management relations and the measurement
of wage changes require much more detailed infor
mation than is now available. For example, b l s
currently obtains information on minimum wage
rates and maximum straight-time hours negotiated
in union contracts. But little or no data are avail
able on occupational wage rates paid or hours
worked that may be above the union contract
specifications. Neither are data collected on wage
rates paid nonunion workers. Thus, there is scant
information on the wages paid in the residential
building sector, because this area is largely
unorganized.
The study recommended that b l s initiate a
program to obtain, for contract construction,
information on the straight-time hourly and
weekly earnings of employees in selected occupa
tions, on their weekly hours of work, and on such
supplementary wage practices as overtime pay,
33
34
paid holidays and vacations, and health insurance
and pension plans.
One of the arguments for the relatively high
hourly wage rates for construction workers, the
report noted, is that the intermittent character of
their work results in their averaging far fewer
hours of work a year than workers in other indus
tries. Social security records provide some limited
data on annual earnings, but the information
lacks detail on occupations and hours worked.
The information suggests that annual earnings
and hours of contract construction workers vary
significantly by craft, union status, locality, and
nature of construction. More detailed data are
needed to indicate not only what the annual
earnings are, but how they vary by these factors,
the Subcommittee said. Although the earnings of
some construction workers are augmented by
unemployment insurance benefits, the extent of
such payments is currently unknown.
The report suggested b l s consider the feasi
bility of obtaining information every 5 years on
annual earnings, unemployment insurance bene
fits, and the annual number of hours paid by
craft, union, and type of construction usually
worked on.
Industrial relations
Some observers, the panel noted, have blamed
unions for shortages of skilled workers in some
occupations and in some areas, citing restrictive
admissions policies and union devotion to the
apprenticeship system, which requires lengthy
training.
The Subcommittee recommended that details
on union policies be obtained through an analysis
of union constitutions and major contracts, as
well as interviews with union officials, members
and employers, and a review of national publica
tions of selected unions. Specific items would
include apprenticeship procedures, standards, and
policies, the operation of joint apprenticeship
committees, union work permits, transfer card
procedures, requirements to hire workers locally,
requirements to hire older workers, the use of
union publications as a clearinghouse for labor
market information, hiring halls and referral
systems, and initiation fees, citizenship, noncraft
and craft requirements, admission tests, and other
qualifications necessary to attain full union
membership.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
Because of strikes, the industry has lost in
excess of 4 million man-days of labor in each year
since 1965; in 1969, the figure was almost 10.4
million man-days. Time lost because of work
stoppages as a proportion of estimated total time
worked was 5 times the average rate for all indus
tries in 1969. The level, trend, and intensity of
construction stoppages, however, differ widely
from area to area and within areas by craft.
The Subcommittee recommended that b l s
analyze information on work stoppages “to iden
tify strike-prone localities; tabulate work stoppage
statistics by contract status and issue; examine
public and private dispute settlement machinery
available to, or adopted by, the construction in
dustry; and, finally, analyze the success or failure
of the parties to conclude a new agreement or to
resolve disagreements with a minimum of
disruption.”
Recognizing that data summarizing the provi
sions of collective bargaining contracts would be
helpful in labor-management relations, the Sub
committee recommended analyses of the contract
provisions covering all major crafts and geo
graphic regions. Such major characteristics as
contract duration, wage provisions (deferred in
creases, progression, escalator clauses), holidays,
vacations, health, welfare, and pension funds
would be studied. Also examined would be provi
sions for union security and dues checkoff, daily
and weekly hours and overtime, operation of
shifts, travel and transportation allowances, call-in
and callback pay, rest periods, limitations on sub
contracting and préfabrication, grievance pro
cedures, seniority, and promotions. The findings
would be kept current, and results would be
published periodically.
Employment and related statistics
Despite increasing attention being given to the
supply of skilled workers and their need for train
ing, little statistical information is available for
estimating the supply of and demand for construc
tion workers by craft, type of construction, and
locality.
The deficiencies of available statistical data
about labor requirements and supply and produc
tivity have been repeatedly singled out by private
users, Congressional committees, Presidential com
missions, and many others.
The panel proposed a comprehensive program
THE GAP IN CONSTRUCTION STATISTICS
analyzing manpower requirements. Such a pro
gram would provide comprehensive projections of
requirements for craftsmen by type of activity and
would include annual studies of how well the
industry utilizes its workers. In terms of supply,
studies of geographical and industrial mobility of
craftsmen would be conducted.
Productivity information for the industry as a
whole is based on construction output measures
that are of uncertain accuracy because of defective
price deflators. Also, these productivity indexes
depend on output measures and measures of labor
input which are not conceptually consistent. And,
finally, except for a few sectors, no measures of
productivity change exist for major types of con
struction, such as multifamily dwellings, office
buildings, and industrial buildings.
The current bls labor and material requirements
studies provide estimates of the total amount of
35
employment per dollar of expenditures generated
directly and indirectly by various types of con
struction projects. By comparing results from
surveys taken at different periods, changes in
labor requirements per unit of output, that is,
productivity, are measured. With present re
sources, only one type of construction can be
surveyed each year. The panel recommended that
this program be enlarged so that several types of
construction would be surveyed annually. The
Subcommittee also proposed a series of intensive
studies of industry sectors undergoing significant
technological changes. Detailed information about
such innovations as modular housing and advances
in material-handling equipment would be obtained
through in-depth interviews with contractors.
With the passage of the construction safety act
in 1969 and the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970, comprehensive data are needed to
Principal recommendations of the subcommittee on construction statistics
A. Compensation and industrial relations statistics
1. Survey of straight-time hourly earnings by
occupation in the contract construction
industry
2. Survey of union wages and hours in the heavy
construction industry
3. Quinquennial survey of annual earnings and
hours in the contract construction industry
4. Analysis of union contracts and constitutions
to obtain statistics on union practices.
5. Examination of the major characteristics of
collective bargaining agreements
6. Analysis of information on work stoppages and
examination of dispute settlement machinery
7. Analysis of health insurance and pension plans
in the industrjr
B. Price and cost statistics
1. Development of output price indexes for major
types of construction activities
2. Development of price indexes for mobile homes
3. Development of price indexes for construction
materials
C. Financial statistics
1. Public construction: Development of a series
of statistics to measure flows of intergovern
mental payments to aid construction
2. Private construction: Development of an ex
ploratory series to show the sources of
financing for new private multifamily and
nonresidential construction
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
D. Employment, manpower requirements and supply,
training, and safety statistics
1. Additional studies of labor and material
requirements
2. Analysis of supply of and demand for construc
tion manpower
3. Development of data on the number and types
of work injuries; their causes and costs
E. Statistics on inventory of structures and inventory
changes
1. An annual housing inventory
2. An inventory of nonresidential buildings and
structures and the uses of land
3. Development of measures to identify substan
dard housing
4. Development of data on housing vacancies
5. Studies to measure the use, durability and life
cycle of mobile homes
F. Output statistics
1. Improvement of data on value of new construc
tion put in place
2. Surveys of characteristics of new nonresiden
tial construction projects
3. Review of series on the outlook for housing
construction
4. Development of information on new methods
or systems of construction
5. Surveys of maintenance and repair of non
residential buildings
6. Survey of geographic location of new mobile
homes
G. Industry statistics
1. Annual survey of construction firms
36
measure the magnitude of the work injury prob
lem in the construction industry and to indicate
where safety programs should be concentrated.
A three-phased program would provide data on
the number and types of injuries and their causes
and costs.
Prices and costs
“Although construction activity is one of the
more volatile sectors of the economy, no satis
factory indexes are available for evaluating the
extent and sources of inflation in construction/’
the panel observed. This need would be met by
the adoption of several programs. One recom
mendation was to develop and compile a set of
price indexes covering construction inputs, pri
marily materials purchased for use in construc
tion. Also recommended was a program to provide
quarterly national and annual regional price
indexes for each major type of construction output.
With regard to new mobile homes, the report
recommended the compilation of monthly indexes
of the wholesale price of mobile homes and the
collection and publication of information on the
distribution of the retail prices of mobile homes
sold and the average or median of such prices on
an annual basis.
Although the operations of the Federal Reserve
System, the Federal Home Loan Bank System,
and the Department of Housing and Urban Devel
opment provide a great deal of information on
the financing of construction, the presently avail
able financial data are inadequate to pinpoint
potential trouble spots. For example, no available
data show volume of funds going into construction,
other than housing, in terms of geographic flow,
types of institutions, and sources of funds. Nor
are there adequate data for assessing how the
Federal and State governments, through direct
aid, loans, and loan insurance, influence demand
for types of construction.
To better assess the effects of financing in
terms of public construction, the development of a
consistent series measuring the quarterly flows of
intergovernmental payments to aid construction
was recommended. The Subcommittee also called
for the development of quarterly data showing
the relationship between the short-term and long
term borrowings by State and local governments
and their outlays for construction.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
With regard to financial data relating to private
construction, it recommended a number of explora
tory programs, involving development of a series
indicating sources of financing for new private
multifamily and nonresidential building construc
tion. Another exploratory series would be aimed
at developing information on the lender-borrower
property characteristics of mortgages, both con
ventionally financed multifamily and nonresi
dential properties. Although multifamily units
now account for nearly half of all housing starts,
there is no direct way of determining how much
mortgage credit is required to underwrite a typical
multifamily unit as compared with a typical single
family unit. A benchmark for nonresidential
financing would also be developed that would be
consistent with the decennial benchmark for
residential financing.
Inventory changes
In his First Annual Report on National Housing
Goals, the President said, “It is essential as a
minimum to have adequate data about annual
changes in our housing stock rather than relying
on decennial data if we as a Nation are going to
be able to evaluate properly the need for adequate
housing . . . ” The lack of current information
on characteristics of housing and occupancy
seriously limits government and private industry
assessments of housing needs, establishment of
housing goals, and the determination of the effec
tiveness of the industry in meeting these goals.
An annual housing survey, recommended by the
Subcommittee, would help to eliminate this
information gap by providing data on the inven
tory and market activity. It would also update the
benchmark data of the decennial census.
Because meaningful measurement of the Na
tion’s housing needs requires consideration of
varying local conditions, the survey would be
designed to produce annual summaries for 50
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, the four
geographic regions, and the Nation. Data would
be provided on “(a) changes in selected char
acteristics of the housing stock; (b) characteristics
of the current year’s housing transactions, includ
ing price, rent, and terms-of-lease information as
related to the socioeconomic characteristics of
the mover households; (c) housing and socio
economic characteristics of nonmover households;
THE GAP IN CONSTRUCTION STATISTICS
(d) the magnitude and characteristics of the basic
components of change in the housing inventory—■
that is, units added, units lost, and units remaining
the ‘same’; and possibly (e) information on
changes in outstanding indebtedness secured by
properties.” As a companion to the housing survey,
an inventory of nonresidential buildings and struc
tures and land uses was also recommended.
Data on output
Output data are necessary, of course, to indicate
whether we are meeting our housing and other
construction goals both locally and nationally and
for use in national accounts. Although several dif
ferent measures are currently available, improve
ments and refinements of the existing statistics
are needed. Specifically, improved accuracy and
timeliness are essential, and greater detail is re
quired for a number of different measures of
output.
The panel proposed that the Census program on
the value of new construction put in place be im
proved and enlarged. To do this, the study
recommended that the sample for private non
residential buildings be expanded and monthly
surveys of construction progress on both new multi
family residential buildings and one-family
homes be conducted.
Surveys of characteristics of new nonresidential
projects were also recommended. “To assess
changes in construction methods,” the report
said, “measurement of the use of modules, panels,
préfabrication, complete site assembly, etc., would
be obtained through periodic surveys. In addition,
surveys of annual expenditures for maintenance
and repair of private nonresidential buildings are
recommended. Finally, since analysis of the new
additions to local housing markets is seriously
incomplete without information on mobile homes,
a survey providing a geographic breakdown of the
location of new mobile homes is recommended.”
General statistics
Turning to general industry statistics, the Sub
committee said current data “on the number, size,
and other characteristics of establishments engaged
primarily in construction . . . are now frag
mentary and not wholly consistent . . . More
comprehensive, internally consistent, and timely
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
37
data on construction establishments are required
to provide information between the quinquennial
censuses on changes in size and operating patterns
of construction establishments.
“The large number and the small size of con
struction firms are generally believed to contribute
importantly to the inefficiency of the industry and
to its inability to take full advantage of tech
nological advances which offer the prospect of
substantially lower construction costs. Particularly
at the present time, when government policy and
programs are directed specifically towards the
development of new lower cost systems of con
struction, the extent to which the nature of the
construction industry is affected requires continu
ous measurement and analysis.”
The Subcommittee called for a comprehensive
annual survey of the construction industry. The
survey “would provide summary statistics similar
to those of the quinquennial census and cover
selected special studies, such as the use of materi
als by general construction contractors or special
trades contractors.”
*
*
*
Although these recommendations cover a wide
range of statistical needs, their adoption would
not, of course, solve the problems of the construc
tion industry. They do, however, represent a major
step forward on the statistical front that may make
it easier to deal effectively with the problems
facing the industry. And certainly they would
place our knowledge of the workings of this
essential industry on a firmer foundation.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S --------1 Statement by the President on Combating Construc
tion Inflation and Meeting Future Construction Needs,
March 17, 1970.
2 Other members of the Subcommittee were: Lawrence
N. Bloomberg, assistant director, Office of Statistical
Policy, Office of Management and Budget; George Brown,
director, Bureau of the Census, Department of Com
merce; Samuel J. Dennis, chief, Construction Statistics
Division, Bureau of the Census; Robert M. Fisher, senior
economist, Division of Research Statistics, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Sidney Jones,
special assistant to the chairman, Council of Economic
Advisers; Henry Schechter, director, Office of Economic
and Market Analysis, Department of Housing and Urban
Development; and Sol Swerdloff, director, Research and
Program Planning, Bureau of Labor Statistics, D e
partment of Labor.
The anatomy
of price
change
in 1 9 7 0
T h e continued slowdown in
the pace of economic
activity in 1970 was accompanied by some modera
tion in the rate of increase in the Consumer and
Wholesale Prices Indexes. Price rises accelerated
in the fourth quarter for some nonfood items
purchased by consumers and producers, but the
rate of increase for each index was slower than
in late 1969 and early 1970. The Implicit Price
Deflator for private gnp , however, which has
changing weights and includes all components of
final demand, rose rapidly throughout 1970,
particularly in the fourth quarter. (See tables
1 and 2.)
In 1969, fiscal and monetary restraints reduced
demand pressures, but price changes continued to
reflect earlier wage and price increases and ex
pectations about future increases. Unit labor costs
continued to rise sharply, as cutbacks in the work
force and in hours of work lagged behind the re
duction in demand pressures. Eventually, unem
ployment began to rise and productivity growth
resumed, leading to much smaller increases in
unit labor costs in the second and third quarters
of 1970 than in the preceding year and a half.
Employee compensation per man-hour, however,
continued to rise sharply. Prices did not reflect
much of the slower rise in unit labor costs because
other unit costs—such as capital consumption
allowances, indirect business taxes, and net
interest—rose at a faster pace. Profits per unit of
output also rose after the first quarter of 1970,
following a sharp decline in 1969.
The Implicit Price Deflator for private gnp
rose at a rapid pace in the fourth quarter of
1970 primarily due to a faster advance for personal
consumption items, which have a large weight in
the overall deflator. Although the Consumer Price
W. John Layng and Toshiko Nakayama are economists
in the Office of Prices and Living Conditions, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
38
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
W. JOHN LAYNG AND TOSHIKO NAKAYAMA
Index differs from this deflator with respect to
product and service coverage and weighting pro
cedures, the two series moved similarly last year.
Early in the year, the cpi was increasing at an
annual rate of 7 percent—a 20-year high. By the
third quarter, the annual rate of increase had
dropped to 4.2 percent (seasonally adjusted)—the
slowest since the second quarter of 1968. In the
fourth quarter of 1970, the rate of increase ac
celerated somewhat but remained below early 1970
levels. As shown in table 2, prices of food and, to
a lesser extent, consumer services were responsible
for the generally slowing trend during the year.
Wholesale prices
The Wholesale Price Index reached its highest
rate of increase in many years in the second quarter
of 1969—5.7 percent at a seasonally adjusted an
nual rate. Prices at all major levels of production
and distribution—crude materials, intermediate
materials, and finished goods—contributed to the
advance in wholesale prices. The wpi continued
to advance at about the same pace through the
first quarter of 1970, but slowed markedly in
the second quarter to the slowest pace since
early 1968. The rise in the second half of 1970
remained moderate. (See table 2.)
Table 1. The anatomy of price change
Percent change from previous quarter1
Item
Private GNP deflator____
Unit labor costs____
Compensation
per man-hour.
Output per
man-hour___
Unit nonlabor costs2_
1969
1970
IV p
III
II
1
IV
III
II
i
5.7
6.0
4.7
3.3
4.1
1.5
5.3
9.6
4.7
7.9
4.5
6. 5
4.9
7.1
4.7
6.7
8.2
5.9
6.2
6.5
7.7
5.3
6.8
8.8
0.5
5.2
4.3
7.3
3.7 - 2 . 5
8.6 - 2 .0
0.8
- 0 .8
1Seasonally adjusted annual rate (compounded).
1.6 - 1 .1 - 0 . 5
1.4
1. 5
1.1
2 Includes profits, depreciation, interest, rental income, and indirect taxes,
p Preliminary
PRICE CHANGES IN 1970
Table 2.
39
Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes
Percent change from previous quarter1
Index or group
1970
1969
IV
III
II
1
IV
III
II
1
5.5
1.3
4.2
0
5.9
3.3
7.0
9.1
5.8
7.3
5.4
6.9
6.6
6.7
5.5
4.0
5.9
7.3
3.9
6.6
5.3
9.0
3.3
10.1
4.1
6.5
3.2
6.6
5.3
8.2
4.8
7.5
1.7
WPI: All commodities___
2.9
1.9
Crude materials........ - 3 .7 - 2 .7 - 0 .2
Intermediate
3.5
materials_______
3.9
4.4
Finished goods_____ 3.1
1.9
0.2
Producer goods. 7.2
3.3
4.3
Consumer goods. 2.3
1.3 - 0 .9
Food_____ - 4 .4
0.5 - 8 .1
Excluding
2.9
2.8
food____ 6.6
4.5
6.4
5.2
7.4
3.2
2.0
5.7
18.3
4.3
5.1
3.7
5.1
5.3
4.8
8.7
4.8
5.7
5.3
5.9
9.7
2.3
3.5
4.8
3.4
4.4
3.2
5.0
2.9
5.4
9.1
5.7
3.6
2.7
3.5
6.4
2.6
3.3
3.1
2.8
1.9
CPI: All items_________
Food_____________
Commodities less
food___________
Services 1............. .
1 Seasonally adjusted annual rate (compounded), except services, which are based on
unadjusted indexes.
Prices of crude food and nonfood materials were
the first to slow down because they are more
sensitive to changes in demand and supply than
most commodities. These prices, which had
advanced at a progressively slower rate following
their 18-percent annual rate (seasonally adjusted)
in the second quarter of 1969, declined after the
first quarter of 1970. Crude food items were an
important factor in reversing the trend, but prices
also declined for such nonfood items as crude
rubber, hides, and ferrous, and nonferrous scrap.
Major exceptions were the sharp increase through
out the year in coal prices and, at year’s end, in
crude oil prices.
Prices of intermediate materials, which include
materials for both manufacturing and nonmanu
facturing industries, as well as construction, did
not begin to decelerate until the last half of 1970.
The continued rise in prices of intermediate
materials was particularly important because these
prices are given a weight of 45 percent in the w p i ,
almost the same as finished goods (44 percent).
Crude materials account for the remaining 11
percent. The slower rise in intermediate materials
in the second half of 1970 reflected the general
slowdown in business activity and the strike in
the automobile industry.
Prices of metals and metal products, which
increased at an annual rate of over 9 percent in
1969 and the first half of 1970, rose at an annual
rate of 2 percent in the third quarter and declined
in the fourth quarter. Among other intermediate
materials, prices trended down during the year for
textile mill products, leather, gypsum, and lumber
products. Lumber prices declined to a 2-year low
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
in the fourth quarter despite a strong rise in
housing starts after mid-year. Prices rose quite
sharply, however, for some other construction
materials, such as concrete products, structural
metal products, flat glass, and plumbing fixtures.
Prices advanced rapidly in 1970 for processed
fuels and lubricants including gas, electric power,
residual fuels—the heavy oil used by utilities, and
distillate oils used for home heating. Gasoline
prices were raised last spring and again late in the
year, when crude oil prices were raised.
Prices of both consumer- and investment-type
finished goods increased at a rapid pace in 1969
and most of 1970, as earlier increases in materials
prices and other costs continued to work through
the price system. Prices of producers’ durable
goods increased more slowly in the second and
third quarters but accelerated in the fourth
quarter. Higher prices for trucks and construction
machinery were important factors in the fourth
quarter increases.
Prices of consumer finished goods increased
rapidly in 1969 and early 1970, but declined in the
second quarter. Prices increased in the third and
the fourth quarters, although not as much as
earlier in the year. Wholesale prices of consumer
goods other than food increased steadily in the
first three quarters of 1970 and accelerated
sharply in the fourth quarter. In contrast, whole
sale prices of consumer foods declined during
most of the second half of 1970 in response to
declines in prices of crude food materials.
Consumer prices
F ood. The smaller rise in wholesale prices of con
sumer foods had a significant impact on retail
food prices in 1970. All major components of the
retail food price index rose at a slower pace after
the first quarter of the year, but the meat, poultry,
and fish category registered the most dramatic
reversal in trend. Increases in retail prices of meat,
poultry, and fish were progressively smaller after
the very high 19-percent annual rate (seasonally
adjusted) recorded in the second quarter of 1969.
These prices actually declined during the last
half of 1970. (See table 3.)
Most of the deceleration in food prices was due
to a decline in hog'prices. The 1970 pig crop was
estimated to be larger than in 1969, and hog
slaughter in the late fall was considerably above
40
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
levels a year earlier. Some increase in supplies of
beef, competition from lower priced pork and
poultry, and slower growth of personal income
caused beef prices to decline during the last half
of 1970, but not as much as pork prices. Compared
with prices in the fourth quarter of 1969, beef
prices were still moderately higher in the fourth
quarter of 1970; pork, poultry, and egg prices
were lower.
Prices of fruits and vegetables declined after
mid-1970 but were still higher at the end of the
year than in the fourth quarter of 1969. Dairy
product prices moved up sharply in the first quar
ter of 1970 when agricultural support levels were
raised.
For cereal and bakery products, prices rose
sharply throughout the year. Expanded export
demand pushed flour prices up, and eventually
prices of bread and other bakery products rose.
Fears of a possible grain shortage due to blight
damage to the corn crop also caused sharp increases
in cereal prices.
The upward trend in prices of restaurant meals
and snacks also slowed quite noticeably in the
second half of 1970—down from an annual rate of
about 8 percent to about 5 percent. Smaller
increases in restaurant prices stemmed mostly from
lower food prices, but declining patronage was
also a factor. The increase, however, was still
substantial since other costs—such as wages,
equipment, taxes, and rent—have continued to
move up.
C ommodities other than food . Prices of nonfood
commodities showed little indication of moderat
ing in 1970. There was some improvement be
tween the second quarter of 1969 and early 1970,
Table 3.
CPI: Food
Percent change from previous quarter1
Group
1970
IV
III
1969
II
CPI: Food____________ 1.3
0
3.3
Food at home______ Ü.5 - 1 .3
1.9
Meats, poultry, and
fish____________ - 3 .3 - 7 .7
3.3
Cereal and bakery
products______ _ 5.8
4.7
6.9
Dairy products.. 2.9
2.3
4.1
Fruits and
vegetables___ 0.7 - 4 .5
4.9
Other food at
home_______ - 1 .1
6.9 - 6 .3
Food away from
home__________
4.9
3.9
9.1
IV
III
II
1
9.1
9.5
7.3
6.8
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.9
4.0
3.6
9.1
3.7
15.2
19.0
6.4
7.1
9.0
4.4
3.7
3.0
3.9
3.5
3.1
3.1
2.6
.3
- 3 .9
4.0
10.7
3.3
16.4
11.2
2.6
0
7.3
8.0
8.3
7.6
6.6
5.1
• Seasonally adjusted annual rate (compounded).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
Table 4.
CPI: Commodities other than food
Percent change from previous quarter •
Group or item
CPI: Commodities ojher
than food___1_______
Nondurables other
than food_______
Apparel com
modities ___
Nondurables
other than
food and
apparel_____
Durables_________
New cars_____
Household
durables____
1970
IV
III
5.9
5.2
1969
IV
II
1
III
3.9
5.3
3.3
4.1
3.2
5.3
4.8
3.0
4.7
3.0
4.3
4.3
5.1
4.1
6.2
3.0
3.0
2.9
5.8
5.1
5.6
5.4
4.7
6.8
12.8
3.3
5.4
3.6
5.4
6.1
1.1
3.4
3.2
4.2
3.2
4.1
2.0
3.9
2.2
1.5
4.7
5.2
1.1
3.6
5.4
1.8
3.4
2.7
2.9
1.6
1.7
3.4
5.6
4.1
II .
1
• Seasonally adjusted annual rate (compounded).
but the rate of increase jumped sharply in the
second quarter, subsided in the third, and rose
again in the fourth quarter. (See table 4.) To
some extent, these fluctuations reflected changes
in prices of used cars and gasoline, which often
vary widely in the short run. Nevertheless, prices
of apparel products, new cars, and household
durables accelerated at the end of the year, and
house prices continued to rise substantially.
Retail prices of apparel commodities accelerated
sharply in the fourth quarter of 1970, after in
creasing moderately during the first three quar
ters of the year. Higher wholesale prices for fall
and winter lines of clothing were primarily re
sponsible for the fourth quarter rise. Retail cloth
ing prices rose rapidly from 1965 to 1968—the rate
of increase in the second quarter of 1968 was 7.3
percent on a seasonally adjusted annual rate basis,
compared with 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter
of 1965. Wholesale prices also accelerated during
this period but not as much as retail prices. In
1969, wholesale prices continued to accelerate due
to rising wage and other costs. Increases in retail
prices, however, moderated as economic activity
started to slow down. During the first three quar
ters of 1970, continued sluggishness in the econ
omy and strong resistance to style changes in
women’s clothing caused rises in wholesale and
retail prices to slow substantially. Although prices
accelerated in the fourth quarter, retail sales and
production of apparel continued to fall short of
levels a year earlier.
In every quarter of 1970 except the second
quarter, new car prices increased substantially.
Continued strength in prices of 1970 models and
higher list prices on 1971 models accounted for the
41
PRICE CHANGES IN 1970
large increase in the cpi for new cars. Dealer
concessions on 1970 models did not increase as
much as they usually do during the summer
months or in the fall when 1971 models were in
troduced. In addition, dealer concessions on 1971
models were smaller than on comparable 1970
models in September. Both of these situations
probably reflected the general shortage of new
cars caused by the auto strike. After the strike was
settled, additional price increases were announced.
The rate of advance for household durables
moderated considerably after the second quarter
of 1969, when it reached an annual rate of 5.6
percent. The slowdown reflected primarily the
steady weakening since mid-1969 in furniture and
rug sales. The increase of 3.6 percent in furniture
prices in 1970 was the smallest in 3 years. Appli
ance prices, however, moved up at a fairly steady
rate in 1970 for an increase of 1.7 percent, some
what larger than in 1969. Further increases were
announced by some manufacturers late in the year.
services . After advancing at an
exceptionally sharp rate in the first half of 1970,
the rise in prices of consumer service moderated
in the second half of the year to about the same
rate as in the second half of 1969. As shown in
table 5, the most significant slowdown occurred
in household services other than rent. After a long
and sharp upward movement, mortgage interest
rates leveled off late in the spring, as credit condi
tions began to ease. Prices of houses, which also
influence mortgage interest costs, also increased at
a slower pace. As prospects for home mortgage
financing continued to improve, the interest rate
ceiling on fha and va loans was lowered from
8.5 percent to 8.0 percent in late 1970. The rate
was reduced again in early 1971 to 7.5 percent.
This will have a dampening effect on the cpi.
C onsumer
Table 5.
CPI: Services
Percent change fron previous quarter1
CPI: Services'________
Rent' ____________
Household services
other than rent__
Transportation
services________
Medical care services^
Other services_____
1969
1970
Group or item
IV
III
II
1
IV
III
II
1
7.3
5.3
6.6
4.0
9.0
4.0
10.1
4.4
6.5
4.1
6.6
4.1
8.2
3.1
7.5
3.1
8.8
6.9
11.5
11.5
9.5
8.8
11.0
8.4
9.0
6.8
5.5
9.8
8.7
6.2
7.7
9.4
6.1
18.5
7.3
4.9
9.2
2.6
4.8
5.7
7.7
5.4
6.7
9.5
4.8
10.7
9.3
4.0
i Seasonally adjusted at annual rate (compounded), except total services and rent,
which are based on unadjusted indexes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Among other household services, charges for
home repairs, laundry, and day-care services rose
less rapidly than in 1969. However, charges for
domestic services, property taxes, gas and elec
tricity rates rose more than in 1969. Higher fuel
prices contributed to increasing costs of utilities
in meeting expanding demand.
The rate of advance of the rent component
accelerated steadily from less than 2 percent
annually in mid-1967 to 4.4 percent in early 1970.
In the fourth quarter the rate rose to 5.4 per
cent. Increased operating costs, including prop
erty taxes, labor, maintenance, and repairs, were
cited as reasons for higher rent in recent years.
Another important factor in the faster rise in
prices of rental units has been the increase in
demand for apartments, as the cost of purchasing
and maintaining a home advanced sharply.
The rate of advance in transportation services
accelerated sharply in the first quarter when New
York City transit fares were raised following a
wage increase for transit workers. Although the
uptrend in the following quarters moderated, in
creases were still large. Local transit fares were
raised later in the year in many cities, including
Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., St.
Louis, Detroit, and Cincinnati reportedly due to
rising costs and declining revenues. Airline and
train fares also increased last fall. In addition to
higher prices for public transportation, charges for
auto services, such as parking fees, auto repairs,
and insurance, accelerated.
Prices of medical care services rose at an annual
rate of about 8.5 percent in the first three quarters
of 1970, about the same as in the first three quar
ters of 1969. A slower rise in the fourth quarter of
1969 and in 1970 resulted mostly from the annual
adjustment of retained earnings of health insur
ance companies. Premiums for health insurance
are represented in the index by prices of services
for which benefits are paid and a measure of
changes in the ratio of profits and overhead costs
to benefits. The upward trend was about the same
as in 1969 for physicians fees, slightly slower for
dentists’ fees, and somewhat faster for hospital
services. Although the upward pace in the charges
for hospital services in the past 3 years has been
somewhat more moderate than the sharp ad
vances recorded in late 1966 and early 1967, the
increase in 1970 was still substantial, as wages and
other costs, plus demand, continued to rise in
relation to supply.
D
Women
in
labor
unions
A t the turn of the century, women activists often
joined with labor unions in a cooperative effort
to improve their role in society. This joint effort
is less evident today; however, despite their
lack of affinity with the current “women’s lib”
movement, women who are members of unions
have begun pressing for job equality and a greater
voice within their unions.
This article discusses women as trade union
members and as union officers and reports on
their recent activities.
The number of women members of unions—
while increasing in absolute and relative terms—
has not kept pace with the increase in women
entering the labor force.
In 1958, women unionists totaled 3.1 million, or
18.2 percent of total union membership; by 1968,
their number had risen to 3.7 million, or 19.5
percent of all members.1 During these 10 years,
unions added over 2 million members to their
ranks; women made up 30 percent of the increase,
with their largest gain occurring in the last half of
the decade. Since 1958, 600,000 women in the
United States have joined unions.2
During the same 10 years, however, the number
of women in the civilian labor force grew from
32.7 percent of the total to 37.1 percent. Thus,
the ratio of women union members to employed
women has declined, over the decade, from 13.8
to 12.5 percent. (See table 1.)
A major proportion of total women member
ship has consistently come from only a small num
ber of unions. Approximately three-quarters of all
women members in both periods belonged to 21
unions, each with more than 50,000 women mem
bers (table 2). These unions operate in a variety
of major employment sectors: metals and ma
chinery, clothing, communications, transportation,
service, trade, and government. With one excepLucretia M. Dewe}^ is an economist in the Division of
Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
42
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Increase in women membership
lags behind growth in employment;
only a few women hold office
in international unions
LUCRETIA M. DEWEY
tion (the American Federation of Teachers), they
bargain for both blue-collar and white-collar
workers. In some unions, such as the Communica
tions Workers of America, American Federation
of Teachers, Alliance of Independent Telephone
Unions (Ind.), Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, and the International Ladies’ Garment
Workers’ Union, women represent a sizable pro
portion of total membership. Although women are
a relatively small proportion of total memberships
in other unions, they are significant in terms of
absolute numbers in such large labor organizations
as the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri
cultural Implement Workers of America (Ind.),
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(Ind.), and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America.
Four unions contributed almost one-half of the
600,000 gain in women members over the decade:
the Retail Clerks International Union, Service
Employees International Union, United Auto
mobile Workers, and American Federation of
Government Employees. Each has experienced a
high overall membership growth during the
decade, ranging from 43 to 391 percent. However,
only in the Service Employees and the Auto
Workers has the proportion of women members
increased at a faster rate than total membership.
In 1968, women made up at least one-half of
the total membership in 1 out of 7 unions (table
3). While some shifts occurred from 1958 to
1968 in the number of unions and members,
certain concentrations among ratio groupings have
remained fairly constant. In both years, approxi
mately one-quarter of all unions had no women on
their rolls. These are primarily unions representing
workers in industries and occupations considered
male domains, such as railroad, construction,
mining, fire fighting, and so on. The number of
unions in which women represent over one-half
of membership has increased slightly over the
decade, from 25 to 30; these unions account for
43
WOMEN IN LABOR UNIONS
an almost consistent percentage of all women
members, 44 percent in 1958 and 42 percent in
1968. Of the three unions reporting that women
composed at least 90 percent of the total on their
rolls in 1958, only one, the Laundry and Dry
Cleaning International Union (afl- cio) , remained
in that size class in 1968.
Women in industry
Are industries in which women constitute a high
proportion of the labor force less susceptible to
organization than those in which their number is
negligible? Or, to put it another way, what is the
sexual composition of the labor force in those
industries in which unions have made their greatest
organizing gains?
An inverse relationship between the proportion
of women workers and the extent of organization
of an industry is suggested by table 4. In six
industries in which 75 percent or more of the
workers are organized, women workers range from
a negligible to a relatively small proportion of total
employment. On the other hand, of five industries
in which women make up at least half of those
employed, only two (apparel and telephone) show
a relatively high degree of organization—between
50 and 75 percent; in one (leather), it is between
25 to 50 percent, and in two (finance and services),
it is less than 25 percent.
Table 1. Women civilian labor force participation and
union membership in the United States, 1958-68 1
[Numbers in thousands]
Civilian labor
force
Year
1958_________________
1960_________________
1962_________________
1964_________________
1966_________________
1968_________________
Women union
membership as a
percent of—
Union mem
bership 2
Women
as a
Total
percent
All
of total
union
Wom civilian women member
Wom
ship
Total
Total
en
labor in labor
en
in the
force
force
United
States
67.6
69.6
70.6
73.1
75.8
78.7
22.1
23.2
24.0
25.4
27.3
29.2
16.8
16.9
16.4
16.7
17.8
18.8
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.4
3.7
11.1
16.4
7.1
32.1
2.0
11.8
.6
19.7
32.7
33.4
34.0
34.8
36.0
37.1
13.8
13.3
12.8
12.5
12.6
12.5
18.2
18.3
18.6
19.1
19.3
19.5
Change, 1958-68:
1 Union membership figures exclude 2 large associations predominantly composed
ot women, the American Nurses Association with well over 200,000 members and the
National Education Association with approximately 1.1 million members, as well as
single-firm intrastate unions with 162,100 women. Other groups not included are State
employee asso;iations and members of directly affiliated AFL-CIO unions.
2 Membership data are limited to the United States.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 2. Women members in unions with 50,000 women
members or more, 1958 and 1968
Women membership
1968
1958
Union
Number of
women
members
Percent of
total mem
bership
Number of
women
members
Percent of
total mem
bership
Total, all unions____
3, 274, 000
18.2
3,940,000
19.5
Total, selected unions.
2, 408, 000
26.0
2, 964, 000
26.3
AFL-CIO:
Bakery'____________
Clothing____________
Communications
Workers. . ______
Electrical (IUE)_______
Electrical (IBEW)_____
Garment, Ladies______
Government (AFGE)----Hotel_______________
Machinists. _______
Meat Cutters3................
Railway Clerks_______
Retail Clerks_________
Retail, Wholesale_____
Service Employees____
State, County________
Steel_______________
Teachers ____ _____
Textile Workers______
Unaffiliated:
Automobile Workers—
Teamsters ________
Telephone___________
0
282,000
(2)
75
52,300
(2)
32
0
153,200
111,300
225, 000
332, 200
24, 000
174, 500
99, 300
77, 200
41,200
176,900
56, 000
52, 000
(2)
(2)
33, 000
78,800
60
40
30
75
40
40
10
14
11
58
35
20
(2)
(2)
65
40
178,800
113,500
269,100
364,000
97, 300
146,900
(2)
75,000
56,000
(2)
70, 000
128,400
0
0
99,000
73, 200
50
35
30
80
33
32
0
15
20
0
40
33
0
0
60
40
102, 700
156,000
54, 000
10
11
60
176,700
12
0
97
51,500
r Includes the Bakery and Confectionery Workers’ International Union of America
(Ind.) and the American Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union
^D ata^n o t reported. Estimates made by the Bureau are included in totals. Unlike
table 1, figures include members in areas outside the United States, primarily in Canada.
3 Includes the Packinghouse Workers in 1958 and 1968.
In assessing these figures it should be noted that
those industries which are large employers of
women and traditionally have been well organized
have significantly expanded their female work
force, thereby outstripping gains in membership
during the decade. In the apparel industry, for
example, predominantly represented by four unions
which together accounted for some 702,000 women
members in 1968, approximately 31,000 women
members have been added to union rolls over the
10-year period. A disproportionate increase in the
number of employed women, about 6 times that
of membership, reflects the adverse effect of the
movement of the industry into areas unfavorable
to organized labor. Similarly, while employment
of women in communications has risen by about
50,000, three major unions in the industry have
added only about 14,000 women to their ranks.
On the other hand, the relatively recent upsurge
of organization in government has provided a
new source of women members. Just as member
ship in government unions has made a significant
contribution to the overall growth of the labor
44
movement, rising from 5.8 percent of total union
membership in 1958 to 10.7 percent in 1968, the
increase of women government members has added
greatly to their total in unions. In 1968, the 30
unions with 80 percent or more of their member
ship employed in government included 450,000
women, or 11.4 percent of all women members,
compared with 172,000, or 5.3 percent in 1958.
The findings of a 1967 Bureau study of unaffili
ated local unions3 differ from those for national
unions. Replies from these organizations indicate
that women represented a greater proportion of
their total membership than they did in national
unions. In 1967, 34 percent of the 475,000 members
in unaffiliated unions were women, up from 29
percent in 1961; in national unions the proportion
has remained at about 20 percent of the total. Of
the 884 unaffiliated unions reporting, about 44
percent reported no women members, compared
with 23 percent in national unions; however, a
greater number of unaffiliated unions reported
that women represented more than one-half
of their membership. Unions in this category
accounted for 70 percent of women members
in all unions, while in national unions they
represented 42 percent.
One explanation for the greater proportion of
women members in the unaffiliated unions may
be found in the industries in which these unions
were certified as the collective bargaining repre
sentatives. More members, 12 percent, were in
the service industry than any other sector, and
large concentrations were also noted in communi
cations and electrical machinery.
A number of explanations have been offered to
explain why women appear less inclined to join
unions, ranging from the nature of the industries
and occupations in which they work to their
attitudes and intentions as labor force participants.
Some of these explanations are based on the prem
ises that as a young entrant into the labor force, a
woman views work as a temporary phase until she
marries; married women—who make up close to
60 percent of all women workers—work to supple
ment the family income or to provide luxuries and
savings for the children’s education; and the
majority of these married women are in the labor
force on a less than full year-round basis. Women
have generally been characterized, therefore, as
not being interested in the benefits that unioniza
tion can bring: representation, job security, pen
sion, and other benefits. Strikes or even the threat
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
of strikes are believed to be a further disincentive.
Evidence upholding or rej ecting these assertions
is hard to come by.
However, recent data on n l r b white-collar
elections indicate that, when the opportunity was
available, women in these occupations did not
differ significantly from men in their preference
for union representation.4
A recently published study by the Bureau of
the Census indicates that women and men em
ployed year round full time are more likely to be
union members than those not fully employed.5
Seventeen percent of women working full time
were union members, as against 13 percent of
those working less than year round full time. For
men the percentages were 33.5 and 31.4, re
spectively.
The study also reveals that union members earn
higher wages than their nonunion fellow workers
in most of the occupations which permitted
comparisons. The difference in median earnings
between union and nonunion workers working at
any time during the year was $1,540 for women
and $1,517 for men. In all comparable occupations
studied, however, organized women received
lower wages than all men.
Women as union officials
“It is true that in many cases customs and atti
tudes from an earlier period have to be overcome
before women feel entirely at home in a union, or
Table 3. Proportion of women members in national and
international unions, 1958 and 1968
[Numbers in thousands]
Women members1
All unions
Percent of women members
1968
1958
Num Per Num Per
ber cent ber cent
All unions_________
Under 10 percent_________
10 and under 20 percent___
20 and under 30 percent___
30 and under 40 percent___
40 and under 50 percent___
50 and under 60 percent___
60 and under 70 percent___
70 and under 80 percent___
80 and under 90 percent___
90 percent and over....... .......
185 100.0
48
59
23
11
9
10
6
10
5
1
3
25.9
31.9
12.4
5.9
4.9
5.4
3.2
5.4
2.7
.5
1.6
1958
Num
ber
Per
cent
1968
Num Per
ber cent
189 100.0 3,274 100.0 3,940 100.0
45
58
22
11
14
9
14
9
2
2
3
23.8
30.7
11.6
5.8
7.4
4.8
7.4
4.8
1.1
1.1
1.6
171
570
157
467
473
279
376
661
28
93
5.2
17.4
4.8
14.3
14.4
8. 5
11. 5
20.2
.9
2.8
197
620
346
855
254
627
269
309
367
96
5.0
15.7
8.8
21.7
6. 5
15.9
6.8
7.8
9.3
2.4
>Includes members outside the United States, primarily in Canada.
NOTE: Because of rounding, the sums of individual items may not equal totals.
45
WOMEN IN LABOR UNIONS
are made to feel entirely welcome there . . .” 6This
observation was made by a close student of the
American labor movement in 1947. Years later,
women officeholders apparently still do not "feel
entirely at home . . .”
In terms of the standard measure used to deter
mine the adequacy of representation available to
minority groups in public or private office, women
had not in 1958 attained the level of responsibility
and authority that would be indicated by their
numbers as union members. Despite the substan
tial increase in number by 1968, the best that can
be said is that their position had not deteriorated.
At the beginning of the 10-year period, women
officeholders constituted 4.7 percent of all union
officials listed in the Bureau’s biennial Directory;
in 1968 the proportion was 4.6 percent.
In 1958, 32 women held 36 elective and appoint
ive positions while in 1968, 38 women held 48
positions (table 5). The increase both in the num
ber of women with positions and number of posi
tions held by women can be attributed in part to
the addition of three positions in the Directory
listing; legal, legislative and public relations ac
tivities. When these three categories are eliminated
to coincide with the positions existing in 1958, the
1968 total is reduced to 35 women and 40 positions.
Hence, on a comparable basis, three women officers
were added to union payrolls with a gain of four
positions.
Women held one more elective position in 1958
than in 1968, 13 versus 12; most commonly, in
both years, secretary-treasurer.7 However, at the
end of the decade four more women were directing
major departments or activities in appointive
positions than at the beginning of the period. An
unpublished b l s survey shows that in 1947, a f l
and cío unions had 10 women research directors,
in 1958 they had 8, and in 1968 only 5. On the
other hand, there were 10 women social insurance
directors and five editors in 1968, compared with
three each 10 years earlier. While two of the unions
in the 1947 survey have since merged, other unions
have been included in the Directory listing.
The Associated Actors and Artistes of America
( a f l - c i o ) , with its 65,000 members in 1968 and
Table 4. Women as a percent of nonagricultural employment and estimated extent of union organization by industry, 19681
Women as a
percent of
nonagricultural
employment
Industry group
Total________________________________________________ _____ ___ ____ ___________ __________
1 Extent of unionization is based on total union membership.
SOURCE: Percent of women on nonagricultural payrolls from Employment
Labor Unions in the United States, 1969 (BLS Bulletin 1665,1970).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Extent of unionization
36
25-50
28
26
25
45
45
80
10
23
22
31
20
9
32
56
16
7
18
15
40
11
36
45
50-75
75 and over
50-75
50-75
Less than 25
50-75
50-75
25-50
75 and over
50-75
50-75
75 and over
50-75
25-50
50-75
50—75
25-50
25-50
50-75
75 and over
25-50
Less than 25
12
4
9
21
29
11
16
26
5
20
13
6
19
25
17
8
24
23
7
2
28
14
38
6
5
11
50
15
39
51
53
Less than 25
50-75
75 and over
75 and over
50-75
50-75
Less than 25
Less than 25
Less than 25
27
10
3
1
15
18
32
34
31
42
26
47
Less than 25
25-50
Less than 25
30
22
33
_
and Earnings,
Rank
Percent
March 1970. Extent of union organization and ranking from
.
Directory of Nationa an
.
n ern i
.
46
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
Table 5.
Selected union offices held by women, 1958 and 1968
Size of union
Position
All
unions
Under
1,000
1,0004,999
5,0009,999
10,00024,999
50,00099,999
25,00049,999
100,000199,999
200,000299,999
300,000399,999
400,000
and over
1958 1968 1958 1968 1958 1968 1958 1968 1958 1968 1958 1968 1958 1968 1958 1968 1958 1968 1958 1968 1958 1968
Total positions held by women. 36
Total women
_ ...
32
48
38
3
2
12
i1
2
5
1
4
3
5
5
14
10
4
1
1
8
8
7
6
6
5
10
7
5
4
3
3
1
5
2
1
2
3
1
22
2,3 3
2
1
1
41
1
1
1
1
2
52
4
1
1
6
5
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ELECTIVE OFFICES
2
11
1
APPOINTIVE POSITIONS
1
8
2
3
5
4
( 6)
( 6)
Public relations activities__________
<6)
1
14
6
1
3
4
3
1
1
( 8)
3
1
2
1
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
(6)
( 6)
( 6)
(6)
<6)
1
3
41
1
2
4
2
( 6)
(6)
(6)
1Same person was also research director.
2 Same person was'also editor.
«Same person was also social insurance director.
women estimated at 40 percent of the total, has
contributed a high proportion to the total number
of women holding office, a a a a affiliates had seven
women holding an equal number of offices in 1958
and five women holding eight positions in 1968.
The only instances in which women were elected
to the office of president—two in 1958—were in
a a a a affiliates, the American Federation of Tele
vision and Radio Artists and the American Guild
of Variety Artists.8
Other unions with two women holding positions
in 1958 were the Amalgamated Lithographers of
America with women as research director and
editor; the National League of Postmasters of the
United States (Ind.) and the International Airline
Stewards and Stewardesses Association (affiliated
with the Air Line Pilots Association), each with
women serving as secretary and as treasurer. In
1968, four unions listed two women or more in
elective and appointive capacities. In the Writers
Guild of America, Inc. (Ind.), women served as
treasurer and executive director,9 in the Textile
Workers Union of America as director of social
insurance and legal activities; in the Overseas
Education Association (Ind.) as secretary and
treasurer, and in the Journeymen Barbers,
Hairdressers, Cosmetologists and Proprietors’
International Union of America as social insurance
director and editor.
Surprisingly, a number of unions with no or
only a small number of women members have
placed women in appointive offices. Among these
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
1
( 6)
(«)
(6)
2
2
( 6)
(6)
<6)
1
1
1
1
1
1
( 6)
( 6)
(6)
(6)
<6)
(6>
2
51
1
1
1
1
( 6)
<6)
(6>
1
1
1
(«)
(6)
<6>
1
1
(«)
( 6)
1
1
(6)
4 Same person was also social insurance, legislative, and public relations director.
5 Same person was also public relations director.
6 Not surveyed in 1958.
are the United Plant Guard Workers of America
(Ind.) and the International Brotherhood of
Firemen and Oilers, both with women research
directors, the National Marine Engineers’ Bene
ficial Association and the Metal Polishers, Buffers,
Platers and Helpers International Union with
women social insurance administrators, and the
Amalgamated Transit Union with one woman
serving as editor and public relations director.
These data, of course, do not include the
numerous other elected and appointed positions
held by women, particularly at the local union
level.10 A review of the names of vice presidents
and executive board members listed in publications
of unions with a substantial number of women,
however, indicates that women fare about the
same as in the case of offices shown in the Direc
tory. The Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union,
for example, had 28 vice presidents, one of them
a woman; the late Mrs. Bessie Hillman, widow of
Sidney Hillman, a former a c w a president. Both the
R W D S U and i l g w u have one woman vice president
out of a total of 20 each. There are no women
vice presidents in several unions with sizable female
contingents; for example, the Communications
Workers of America, Machinists, and Bakery
Workers. Similarly, no woman is found on the
15-member General Executive Board of the
Teamsters or the top leadership of the i b e w . There
is one woman vice president in the u a w , and none
in the i u e ; however, 4 of i u e ’s 20 executive board
members are women.
WOMEN IN LABOR UNIONS
A number of unions have conducted studies of
women officeholders in local unions. For some,
these data indicated that women hold a greater
proportion of leadership positions at the local
than at the national level. The American Bakery
and Confectionery Workers International Union
in a January 1967 study11found that 58 of the 136
locals had female officers. Of 965 office holders,
115 were women. The most commonly held
positions were recording secretary and trustee,
however; only three were local union presidents.
In 1962, the u a w reported that among its then
150,000 women members, over 800 held elective
local union office; “thousands” more served on
negotiating committees and on recreation, citizen
ship, community services, and fair practices
committees, to which they had been either ap
pointed or elected.
In the 282 locals that reported information for
a United Packinghouse Workers of America
survey in 1964,12 women occupied a total of 542
executive offices. The most prevalent were re
cording secretary, member of the executive board,
trustee, and financial secretary. There were,
however, 24 local presidents and 38 vice presi
dents. Additionally, in key plant positions 388
were stewards, 56 of them chief stewards. On the
basis of these returns, the union concluded that
the number of executive office holders in each of
its districts was related to the proportion of women
in each district.13
There is some evidence that women are becom
ing aware of their failure to fully participate in
the direction and operation of trade unions. At
the 1970 Convention of the American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees
Union, women delegates of Michigan locals intro
duced a resolution entitled, “Advancement for
Women of a f s c m e . ” This resolution, adopted by
the delegates, charged that “ a f s c m e has not
given due consideration to the need for women
in positions of staff representative on the Inter
national and Council levels in union affairs and
activities, such as appointment of Sergeant-atArms at conventions . . .” It called upon the
international to “direct its efforts to provide staff
training programs that take into consideration
the needs of women as well as men . . .” and
urged “that the International and the Councils
will make every effort to recruit and include
more women in the positions of staff representa
tives and all leadership positions.”14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
47
“One of the last all-male strongholds is the
executive council of the a f l - c i o . Around the
massive table in its meeting room in Washington
headquarters are 29 chairs, and every one of them
is occupied by a man.” 15 The Executive Council,
recently expanded to 33 members, has always
been reserved for the presidents and former
presidents of its affiliates. Since no woman within
the Federation holds the highest elective office,
the composition of the executive council is likely
to remain unchanged.
Work issues
Issues that face women at the work place
include equal opportunity for entering occupa
tions, seniority rights, pay, promotional oppor
tunities, and the need for day-care centers. Under
legal requirements, unions are required to bargain
and represent all workers covered by an agree
ment, regardless of membership, race, or sex. In
a number of instances unions have emphasized
the policy of equal treatment for women by
including antidiscrimination and equal pay for
equal work clauses in their agreements.
Despite the legal and contractual obligations
imposed on the union, women members have
turned to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission for redress of alleged grievances.
Approximately 400 such cases were referred to
the Commission in fiscal 1970, with the majority
concerned with seniority and layoff, rates of pay,
demotion, and transfers. As might be expected,
where violations of law were found both the
union and the company charged were ordered to
correct the situation and often the complainants
were awarded compensation for lost earnings.
Conventions held by the United Auto Workers,
American Federation of Teachers, and American
Newspaper Guild in 1970 dealt extensively with
the problems of women in society and as union
members. The issues raised by the three included
various types of biases currently encountered by
women and the need for child care centers.
The u a w and a f t endorsed revision of maternity
leave policies, the u a w endorsing paid maternity
benefits for time lost at work and unemployment
compensation benefits before and after childbirth
when the mother is physically unable to work
(including j ob protection for those returning), and
the a f t taking the position that job rights should
be maintained during such leave, the length of
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
48
which to be determined by the woman and her
physician.
Both unions endorsed the “equal rights” amend
ment, with the a f t urging the a f l - c i o to change
its position of opposition, without qualification.
They also urged that women be encouraged to par
ticipate in skilled trade apprenticeship programs.
The three conventions emphasized the need for
day care centers for working parents, the u a w
viewing the problem as a national program, the
a n g
as an employer responsibility, and the a f t
as a subject for negotiations. At present few union
contracts provide for child care centers, although
some unions with large numbers of women, the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers for example, have
opened centers, admittedly not sufficient to meet
existing needs. The lack of such centers may be
due to pre-1969 provisions of the Taft-Hartley
Act that prohibited payment into negotiated
trust funds for such centers. In expressing one
reason for the lack of an adequate number of child
care facilities, a vice president (male) of the Amal
gamated Clothing Workers said, “For too long we
have looked cynically at the problems of women in
industry, only wanting to send them home in
order to solve the unemployment problem. But
now we realize we can’t replace women and we
might as well accept that.”16
□
FO O TN O TES1 D ir e c to r y o f N a t i o n a l a n d I n te r n a tio n a l L a b o r U n io n s
1959 ( b l s Bulletin 1267, 1960) and
Bulletin 1665, 1970).
i n th e U n ite d S ta te s ,
1969
(b ls
2 Data in this article are based on information provided
to the Bureau by national and international unions in
response to biennial requests for information on the
structure, composition, and operations of these organiza
tions. These data are augmented by other Bureau studies,
Equal Eihployment Opportunity Commission discrimina
tion case statistics, surveys of locals conducted by national
unions, and various other sources.
3 See
U n io n s ,
U n a f filia te d ,
1967
(b l s
I n te r s ta te ,
and
S in g le - E m p lo y e r
Bulletin 1640, 1969).
4 White-collar workers indicated a preference for union
representation in 56 percent of the 752 unit elections
conducted in 1969. See Martin Kaufman, “Putting a
Union Label on the White-Collar Employee,” C o n fe re n c e
B o a r d R e c o r d , September 1970, pp. 47, 49.
5 See “Labor Union Membership in 1966,” C u r r e n t
No. 202, U.S. Bureau of Census.
P o p u l a t i o n R e p o r ts ,
6 Orlie Pell, “ Women in Unions,” distributed by Amer
ican Labor Education Service, 1947.
7 During the a f g e convention, August 1970, Mrs.
Esther F. Johnson was defeated in her bid for reelection to
the post of secretary-treasurer, thus reducing the total
to 11 in 1970.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8 During October 1970, Dr. Lois E. Hinson was elected
President of the National Federation of Veterinarians
(Ind.).
9 The Executive Director served in a total of four ap
pointive positions.
10 Women’s auxiliaries, chartered by a number of unions,
were not studied because in these organizations all offices
are likely to be held by women.
11 Prior to the merger between the Bakery and Confec
tionery Workers’ International Union of America (Ind.)
and the American Bakery and Confectionery Workers
International Union on December 4, 1969.
12 Prior to the merger with the Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America in July
1968.
13 “ Women in the u p w a , An Analysis of the Projects
Committee,” February 10, 1965.
14 Resolution, “Advancement for Women of a f s c m e , ”
adopted during the 18th International Convention of the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees Union, May 4-8, 1970.
15 Leo M. Solomon, “ Who Will Be First Lady Member
of AFL-CIO Executive Council?” L a b o r ’s D a i l y , Au
gust 31, 1956.
16 W a s h in g to n
P o s t,
June 2, 1967.
Labor problems arising
from technological improvements
in maritime shipping
debated at ILO conference
J O S E P H P. G O L D B E R G
T r a n s f o r m a t i o n and growing modernization of
maritime shipping, intensified in the last few
years, has energized longstanding international
arrangements and activated new ones. Individual
national concerns for flag fleets to meet commercial
and, in some instances, auxiliary naval needs
have been accompanied by consideration for
broader, international aspects of maritime trade.
The 55th International (Maritime) Labor Con
ference, held in Geneva, Switzerland, in October
1970, successfully considered a wide range of
matters, particularly those deriving from the
major changes and innovations in maritime ship
ping. These diverse influences included: Con
trasting economic conditions confronting major
maritime nations and developing countries; the
changing mix in world trade and passenger traffic;
the substantial increase in number of larger and
technologically advanced ships; changes in cargo
handling systems as a result of container and
barge loading; continued growth in the number
of ships under national registries variously re
ferred to as “flags of convenience” or “flags of
necessity” ; and changes in the organization of
shipping management. The conference was notable
for adherence to the agenda and pertinent worker
concerns of the i l o . This contrasted with the
numerous political references extraneous to the
i l o ’ s purposes usually made at the organization’s
labor conferences, a major factor in general
criticism and the vote by the U.S. Congress to
defer the payment of dues to the i l o for the second
half of 1970.
Industry trends
An understanding of the major and basic
changes in world trade and shipping services is
required to appreciate the nature of the actions
taken at the conference. During the 1950-67
4 1 2 -8 2 4 0 - 7 1 - 4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Seamen
and modernization
of merchant
shipping
period, international seaborne trade increased
from 525 million to 1,860 million metric tons, with
annual increases averaging about 8 percent. The
international transport of petroleum rose from
43 percent to over 55 percent of the growing vol
ume. The growth in world trade in dry bulk
commodities, including iron ore, coal, grain,
manganese, bauxite, and phosphate rock, ac
counted for over 40 percent of dry cargo traffic
by 1967. With the advance of air transportation,
shipborne passenger traffic between North America
and Europe declined about two-thirds between
1956 and 1968.
These changes in the volume of trade caused a
rapid and growing transformation of international
sea transport, particularly in the types of ship
and in services. The number of active vessels of
over 1,000 tons increased from 15,000 ships totaling
138 million deadweight tons in 1958 to 18,500
ships of 290 million tons. The mix of vessels was
altered substantially. The number of tankers
increased by one-fourth, while their tonnage in
creased by 2y2 times, reflecting their increased
size and carrying capacity. Similarly, the number
of dry bulk carriers tripled, while their tonnage
increased almost tenfold. Passenger-cargo ships
declined by one-fourth. Freighters remained virtu
ally unchanged, but the introduction of larger,
faster (both in ship operation and port turnaround
time) container ships and barge-carrying ships
under the flags of major maritime nations had
begun and was progressing rapidly.
Vessel construction has been accompanied by
the application of improved technology and ma
terials to improve shipboard operation. Capital
Joseph P. Goldberg is Special Assistant to the Commis
sioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mr. Goldberg was a
U.S. Government Delegate to the 55th International
(Maritime) Labor Conference of the International Labor
Organization.
49
50
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
investment has been increased to obtain greater
speed, greater efficiency, and reduced maintenance
requirements. Improvements have been made in
ship propulsion machinery and in centralized
control of machinery. These have reduced manning
requirements and other labor costs. Further, with
the incorporation of total transport approaches
in container and barge carrying operations, the
savings have been extended through the rapid
loading and discharge of vessels, faster turnaround
time in port, and consequent greater operational
utilization of the high capital cost ship.
The changes in ship transport have had impor
tant repercussions on both public and private
concern with the state of. national merchant
marines. Public bodies in the United Kingdom
and the United States, among other major mari
time countries, have explored all aspects of mer
chant marine policy in recent years. In the United
States, the subsidy provided by the Merchant
Marine Act of 1936 was increasingly viewed as
misdirected in that it applied only to liners—
passenger and freight ships—at the time of growing
reliance (since World War II) on Liberian and
Panamanian flag ships to carry petroleum and
bulk cargo. While advanced ship technology was
incorporated in freighters built with subsidy in
the 1960’s, the remainder of the U.S. merchant
marine, tankers, tramps, and unsubsidized liners,
were rapidly approaching retirement, with few
prospects for replacement. The recent revisions
of the Merchant Marine Act, enacted with the
support of all labor and management maritime
organizations, provide means to extend aid for the
construction of bulk carriers, along with freighters,
as well as for incentives to reduce subsidy costs.
However, it is recognized that the upgraded mer
chant marine, while providing more shipboard em
ployment than would have been the case without
any change in policy, will have employment levels
below those of the last decade unless there is a
substantial increase in cargo carried by U.S. ships.
foreign seamen have been important components
of the maritime labor force, as shoreside oppor
tunities have limited the manpower available for
the merchant marine and caused substantial turn
over among young and skilled seamen. The United
Kingdom traditionally has relied on Indian, Paki
stani, Chinese, and West African seamen, em
ploying 30,000 of them in 1966. But with the rapid
decline in employment opportunities, the British
National Union of Seamen has declared the man
ning of these ships with U.K. seamen as its long
term objective. In developing nations, on the other
hand, employment opportunities on their own
merchant marines and, where established or pos
sible, employment on the ships of the major
maritime nations is viewed as essential.
Technological improvements in the ships of the
major maritime nations have been accepted gen
erally by the seamen and their unions, and the
trend has been to reduced manning on the tech
nically advanced vessels. The traditional division
among ships’ departments—deck, engine, and
catering—has been altered in some instances, either
by the development of general purpose crews or
through interdepartmental flexibility. Where tradi
tional ratings are maintained, crewmen are avail
able for other types of work in other departments in
agreed upon circumstances. Even where these have
been developed, the traditional arrangements are
still maintained on the older, conventional ships.
There appears to be less agreement, however, on
the feasibility of training officers for dual-purpose
responsibilities, that is, for combining both deck
and engineering skills. Universally, there is recog
nition of the need to upgrade the skills to meet the
altered requirements of the modern, technolog
ically advanced vessel, and to attract and retain
capable youngsters for shipboard careers. On this
issue, the developing nations are seeking technical
assistance in training from the ilo and the major
maritime countries.
Manpower
The role of the ILO
The impact of these developments on manpower
is complex, varying among geographical areas and
over time. The number of shipboard jobs in the
major maritime nations has declined, but the
impact has differed. In the case of the Scandina
vian countries, Netherlands and West Germany,
To the international aspects of the changing
maritime climate already mentioned should be
added the traditional international character of
seafaring. This includes the nature of employment,
the contacts among seamen of all nations, the
importance of parallel training in assuring safe
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MODERNIZATION OF MERCHANT SHIPPING
operation on the seas, and the participation of free
trade unions in the International Transport Work
ers Federation paralleling the international joint
activities of ship operators.
For the past 50 years, the i l o has provided the
machinery for joint consultation and agreement on
standards and guides to be applied in the industry.
International shipping conferences have been long
established to set freight rates for competing liner
companies on respective trade routes, to ensure
rate stability, and to avoid cut-throat competition.
Concern over pressures on shipboard labor costs
as a factor in competition among national merchant
marines made the i l o , from its inception, a con
tinuing maritime focus for the exploration of labor
conditions and the development of international
standards. More recently, international organiza
tions representing governments have been estab
lished for complementary purposes. The Intergov
ernmental Maritime Consultative Organization
now functions to deal with technical matters
of concern to the industry; matters of safety and
pollution are prominent in its considerations. The
United Nations Conference on Trade and Develop
ment has reflected the aspirations of developing
countries with regard to trade and the develop
ment of their own national merchant marines. The
World Health Organization ( w h o ) includes the
health of seafarers among its concerns. The i l o
has cooperated with these organizations in spheres
of mutual interest.
The October conference was the eighth maritime
labor conference of the i l o —the third since the
end of World War II. (The other postwar meetings
took place in 1946 and 1958.) Between conferences,
the maritime work of the i l o is conducted by the
Joint Maritime Commission, the only labormanagement body in the i l o tripartite structure.
The Commission meets periodically between
conferences, discussing developing trends and
recommending studies and conference dates and
agenda to the tripartite i l o Governing Body. It
has also been assisted by tripartite subcommittees
when government participation has been deemed
necessary in its preparatory work.
Participants in the October conference repre
sented 63 of the 121 member states of the i l o .
Dr. Nagendra Singh, Secretary to the President
of India, was unanimously elected president of
the conference. The three vice presidents were
N. Simeonov, Government Delegate of Bulgaria,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
51
E. Brdvig, Employer Delegate of Norway, and
H. Wiemers, Worker Delegate of the Federal
Republic of Germany.
The U.S. delegation, headed by U.S. Maritime
Administrator Andrew E. Gibson (now Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Maritime Affairs),
participated actively in all phases of the confer
ence.1
Some 60 speeches by government, employer, and
worker delegates were addressed to the DirectorGeneral’s report, which dealt with the develop
ments in the industry since 1958 and their impli
cations for the future. Reported improvements
included the establishment of employment services
for the recruitment of seamen in several Asian
countries and progress in systematizing and
stabilizing employment elsewhere. The report
took note of the strengthening of labor-manage
ment ties in many maritime countries, and the
broadening of these relations to deal with the
impact of changed ship operations, including sea
men’s well-being on board ship. It also cited the
development of such labor-management relations
in the new maritime nations.
Although wages have been substantially im
proved in many countries in recent years, the
report noted, the international minimum wage of
$70 a week for an able seaman set by the 1958
conference had not been reached in some countries.
Only a few countries have established the basic
40-hour week at sea and in port for seamen, with
compensation for overtime work either in premium
pay or compensatory time off in port. Progress
toward this goal is being made also in other nations.
Crew accommodations have been improved sub
stantially, particularly on the newly constructed
ships, exceeding standards set in an earlier i l o
convention on this subject. The need to cope with
the growing number of work-associated injuries
through international action was cited. Among
other matters, the report dealt with the growth
of tonnage under “flags of convenience,” citing
its importance in the case of Italian, U.S., and
Greek ownership, and the employment of over
60,000 seafarers from such countries as Cyprus,
Greece, India, Italy, Spain, and China (Taiwan)
on Liberian flag ships.
The speakers’ serious interest in the subjects
encompassed by the Director-General’s report
and the almost complete absence of extraneous
political statements were noteworthy.2 The impli-
52
cations of the report, the first submitted byWilfred H. Jenks since he became DirectorGeneral, were discussed at length. Spokesmen of
some major maritime nations saw the need for
further exploration of the subject of all-purpose
crews, and some Asian delegates asked for the
elimination of discriminatory wage and crew
accommodation provisions. The developing coun
tries called for aid in building their merchant
marines and training their seamen and expressed
concern over the possible loss of employment for
their nationals on foreign ships due to reduced
manning. Several Soviet bloc spokesmen supported
a resolution introduced by the French Worker
Delegate, calling for transforming the bipartite
Joint Maritime Commission into a tripartite
group.
In his comments on the Director-General’s
report, Mr. Gibson pointed to the ability of the
free U.S. unions and management to adjust to
technological change, including manning reduc
tions, while achieving the highest seamen’s
wages and working conditions in the world.
Acknowledging that “in certain technological
areas, notably rationalization of crew structure
and automation, other maritime nations have
made greater advances,” he anticipated further
balanced progress in the United States in working
conditions and in technological advances. He
called for discontinuance of any dual standards for
seamen from developing nations. Emphasizing
support for the aspirations of underdeveloped
nations to own their own ships, he assured them
that technical training assistance already being
provided in the United States would be continued.
Paul Hall, the U.S. Worker Delegate, stressed
the importance of the i l o in meeting the problems
facing seafarers, intensified by the acceleration of
technological developments. He cited the high
wages, good working conditions, and widespread
training programs among U.S. unions. But he
emphasized the common bond of American
workers with other maritime workers of the world,
reflecting the broad role of the a f l - c i o in inter
national labor activities. “The distinctive nature
of professional seafaring has inspired a human
relationship among the toilers of the sea which
is not bounded or circumscribed by registry of
flag, national origin, race, or creed. It sets sailors
apart from all the rest of society, and in this
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
respect certainly we can agree that they are truly
citizens of the world.” And he stressed that the
conference was a vital factor in dealing with the
problems of seafarers on a worldwide basis,
particularly since substandard conditions anywhere
affected all seamen. He emphasized that recourse
to irrelevant political trades would only vitiate
the constructive role of the i l o and the conference.
In this climate, the conference was able to
complete its work in various areas with a remark
able degree of unanimity. With the exception of
the proposal to alter the structure of the Joint
Maritime Commission, which was defeated in the
Resolutions Committee, every instrument relating
to the agenda items and every resolution was
adopted unanimously.
The issue of structure of the Joint Maritime
Commission was not a new one. At the 1946 con
ference, marked by substantial uncertainties over
the state of labor-management relations in the
maritime industry, the seafarers had proposed a
change to a tripartite organization. When the
employers opposed, an agreement was reached to
use tripartite ad hoc subcommittees when neces
sary. This, and the subsequently demonstrated
ability of the bipartite structure to function effec
tively, persuaded the seafarers’ unions in the
International Transport Workers Federation to
become staunch supporters of the Commission.
As a result, an effort supported by the Soviet bloc
at the 1958 conference to bring about a change was
overwhelmingly defeated. At the recent confer
ence, the Soviet bloc received some additional sup
port from the governments of a few developing
countries, but the resolution was defeated by an
overwhelming majority of the committee. The
proponents of the changed structure indicated at
the conclusion of the conference that the pressure
for the alteration of the Commission’s structure
would continue.3
The Conference unanimously adopted the fol
lowing international standards:
C r e w a c c o m m o d a t i o n . A new convention supple
ments a 1949 convention providing for specified
improvements in crew accommodations. The
charge that the earlier convention was discrimina
tory in setting separate standards for larger than
customary crews, in effect primarily on ships with
Asian seamen, was met by setting only one set of
MODERNIZATION OF MERCHANT SHIPPING
standards. Exceptions are now left to determina
tion by the competent national authority after
consultations with shipowners and of seafarers’
unions, provided they agree. Two recommenda
tions relating to crew accommodation were also
adopted, one dealing with air conditioning of crew
quarters and certain other ship areas, and the other
calling for research on the causes, effects, and
reduction of harmful noise on shipboard.
M inimum basic wage for able seamen . This
sole instance of an international minimum wage
standard was fixed at $64 a week in 1946 and in
creased to $70 in 1958. Previously a matter of
substantia] disagreement, the minimum wage this
time was set at $100 after a bipartite discussion.
In addition, agreement was reached to have the
Joint Maritime Commission review the minimum
at its next meeting. U.S. labor and management
representatives were major contributors to the
resolution of this matter.
E mployment
and technological development .
A recommendation calls for the establishment of
national manpower projections for the maritime
industry to serve the purpose of balanced recruit
ment. Training and retraining to meet changing
skills and functional requirements are proposed,
and suggestions are made for providing regular and
stable employment for seamen. Provision is made
for cooperation among concerned governments,
shipowners, and seamen where foreign seamen are
likely to be affected by shipboard technical
changes.
A ccident prevention . A convention and a recom
mendation adopted by the conference provide for
adequate reporting and investigation of occupa
tional accidents, and for the collection of compre
hensive statistics on the subject. Accident
prevention codes are to be developed and en
forced, including education and training for such
prevention.
training . A recommendation sets
forth specifications for the organization and
content of training programs. It calls for the devel
opment of training standards, and suggests the
approaches to be taken. Also discussed was a U.S.
worker proposal that a joint ilo- who committee
V ocational
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
53
study the subject of training appropriate shipboard
personnel in medical care of seafarers.
S eafarers ’ welfare . Supplementing a recom
mendation adopted in 1936, the recommendation
on seafarers’ welfare contains new and expanded
provisions for facilities to make shipboard life
more attractive. It was hoped the measure would
help reduce turnover in the maritime labor force.
The conference also unanimously adopted 10
resolutions. As U.S. Employer Delegate James
J. Reynolds pointed out in reporting for the
shipowners on the Resolutions Committee,
those resolutions “are not a collection of pious
hopes. They represent a program of action.”
Among other matters, they called for study of
the industrial relations in the maritime industry,
study of the conventions now applicable to sea
farers in the light of altered maritime industry
conditions, publication of information on leave
arrangements on different ship types, and studies
of certain matters relating to the protection of
young seafarers. Other resolutions called for
providing information to developing countries
regarding the technical maritime assistance avail
able from the ilo, and the convening of regional
maritime conferences. On “flags of convenience,”
the resolution called on member states to provide
information on the implementation of two ilo
recommendations adopted in 1958. One set
conditions for employment on foreign registry
vessels equivalent to those under collective
agreements and social standards accepted and
traditionally observed by organizations of ship
owners and seafarers of advanced maritime
nations. The other required that the country of
registry accept the full obligation of such registry
and exercise effective jurisdiction and control
over its flag vessels for the safety and welfare of
seafarers. Finally, a resolution called for an early
convening of the Joint Maritime Commission. All
the resolutions are subject to approval of the ilo
Governing Body.
The results of the conference indicate a joint
forwardlooking approach to the uncertainties of
future developments in the maritime industry.
This is a far cry from the prewar and early
postwar apprehension over the shipowners’ ac
ceptance of seafaring unions. The continued
successful working of the bipartite Joint Maritime
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
54
Commission may be viewed as an important
concomitant of the purpose of ilo’s tripartite
structure. The retention of this structure assures
an effective mechanism for the consideration of
the many and complicated matters formulated by
the conference. But without a constructive pur
pose—that of adhering to the basic tenets of the
ilo and avoiding political dispute—the sub
stantial results and the virtual unanimity could
not have been so readily achieved.
□
■FOOTNOTES-
1 Members of the U.S. delegation were: G o v e r n m e n t:
Delegates— Andrew E. Gibson, Maritime Administrator,
Department of Commerce, and Joseph P. Goldberg,
Special Assistant to the Commissioner of Labor Statistics,
Department of Labor; Substitute Delegate, Capt. Garth
Read, U.S. Coast Guard; Advisers: Capt. K. N. Ayers,
Beatrice M. Burgoon, Arthur W. Friedberg, Dominick
Manfredi, George E. McCarthy, and Roger C. Schrader;
E m p lo y e r s : Delegate: James J. Reynolds, President,
American Institute of Merchant Shipping; Advisers:
Martin F. Hickey, Edmond Marcus, William I. Ristine,
Clifford V. Ro-wland, and Donald J. Schmidt; W o r k e r s :
Delegate: Paul Hall, President, Seafarers’ International
Union of North America, a f l - c i o ; Advisers: Milenko L.
Barisic, Peter Bocker, Harry Clark, Max Condiotti,
Joseph Gaier, Burt Lanpher, Raymond McKay, Alvin
Shapiro, Earl Shepard, Gene Spector, and Shannon Wall.
2 Only the three Cuban delegates sought to raise political
issues by attacking the United States, but in each case the
president of the conference called for adherence to the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
standing orders and insisted on relevance to the DirectorGeneral’s report. The U.S. delegates, in their statements,
indicated the importance of avoiding political recrimina
tions which could only impede the constructive efforts
of the conference toward meeting the needs of the seafarers.
3
The worker and employer groups agreed to recommend
increasing the titular membership on their respective
sides from 15 to 18 members to the Governing Body, to
take account of the increase in i l o membership since 1958.
Both the workers and employers added developing
countries to the titular members. The workers elected a
Soviet worker representative to titular membership, but
the socialist manager candidate failed of election in the
employer group. The Soviet bloc representative repeated
the charge of discrimination made against the employers’
group at the 54th session of the conference, when the
Soviet bloc indicated that a prospective alternative to
equal participation within that group could be the estab
lishment of a separate group of socialist managers with
the same rights as those of the private employer group.
Lawrence R. Klein award
A $100 award will be presented for the best original article in labor
economics or related subjects appearing in the Monthly Labor Review
during 1970. The award will be made on the basis of the following
criteria: Originality of idea or method of analysis; adherence to prin
ciples of scientific inquiry; and adherence to principles of good writing.
The award will be the second in a series to be made from a fund estab
lished by friends of Lawrence R. Klein, editor-in-chief of the Monthly
Labor Review from 1946 to 1968.
Special Labor Force Report
shows that
nearly 8 out of 10 students
are in the labor force
during the summer
VERA C. PERRELLA
T he summer labor force activity of students is
important both for the young people and for the
economy. For the students, it represents an intro
duction to the world of work and its benefits,
discipline, and responsibilities. In many cases, it
provides money needed to continue schooling. In
the economy, this summer employment adds to
the Nation’s total product and purchasing power.
From the aspect of labor supply, summer workers
provide a source of required seasonal flexibility.
During the course of the year, the greatest net
change in the size of the labor force occurs during
the school summer vacation period. In 1970, for
example, the civilian labor force of all ages in
creased by 3.1 million between May and July and
then dropped by 2.3 million between July and
September. The key role of students in this
change is evident from the month-to-month
changes in the number of 16- to 21-year-olds in
the labor force. Students among them shifted
from school to nonschool status, and back to
school. The following tabulation shows the month
ly changes in the labor force (in thousands of
persons) from April to September 1970:
16 years old and over____
16 to 21 years old.........
Major activity:
S ch o o l........... .......
Nonschool..............
A p ril
to May
—219
+26
May
to June
+2,309
+2,503
-5 7
+83
- 2,358
+4,862
June
to July
+751
+943
-1 ,0 7 3
+2,015
July to
August
—686
-6 2 5
August
to September
—1,568
-2 ,2 2 0
-1 5 3
- 472
+2,272
- 4,492
Of course, not all of the change in the 16 to 21
labor force is attributable to students entering the
labor force for the summer only. Nonstudents in
these ages also enter the labor force during the
summer months, and usually not for the summer
only. Moreover, some students who enter the labor
force during the summer remain in the labor force
Vera C. Perrella is an economist in the Division of
Labor Force Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Kopp
Michelotti, an economist in the Division, assisted.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Students
and
summer
jobs
when school reopens. Others leave school per
manently as graduates or dropouts. Some out-ofschool youths reenter school. Nonetheless, most
of the change is from students taking or looking
for summer jobs only.
The total number of individual students who
move into and out of the labor force over the
summer can not be determined from the net
changes. A survey of the summertime employment
of students, made for the first time in October
1969 for the Nation as a whole, indicates that an
unduplicated total of 6.1 million students 16 to 21
years old were in the labor force for summer jobs
only. This number is substantially greater than
the net increase of 3.1 million. This suggests that
the net increase of 3.4 million in the summer of
1970 represented close to 6 million students who
were working or looking for work at some time
during the summer. Programs aimed at helping
young people to get employment must take into
account the fact that many more individuals will
need jobs than the net changes indicate.
Student workers, summer 1969
The survey, financed by the Manpower Ad
ministration of the Department of Labor, covered
all persons age 16 to 21 as of October 1969.1 The
bulk of the student population of working age is in
this group. These are also the ages for which
unemployment rates are highest. The data ob
tained included school status at the time of the
survey, labor force status during the summer of
1969, earnings from summer employment, extent
of unemployment, and other related information.
Because the data furnish some insights into the
summer labor force activity of students, the
findings, together with some discussion of im
plications of the 1969 experience, are presented
here.
Eight out of 10 of the 12.1 million 16- to 21year-olds who were enrolled in school in October
55
56
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
1969 were in the labor force at some time during
the summer of 1969.2 About 3.5 million of these
students had jobs not limited to the summer
months. The other 6.1 million students worked, or
looked for jobs, for the summer months only. The
number of students in the labor force for only the
summer was nearly double the net increase of 3.4
million between May and July in the number of
youths in the labor force. About the same propor
tion of white as Negro students were in the labor
force at some time during the summer, but the
composition of the white and Negro groups
differed.3Relatively more white students worked at
jobs which were not limited to the summer, while
relatively more Negro students looked for but did
not find summer jobs (table 1).
The following portions of this report discuss the
labor force experience of the students who worked
at, or looked for but did not find, jobs they wanted
for the summer only. These students are called
summer workers in the following sections.
about 1 million students looked for but did not
find summer jobs. The proportion of students
with summer jobs was higher for those 18 to 21
years old than for those 16 and 17, and higher for
the men than for the women. This is also the
pattern for students throughout the rest of the
year.
The proportion of Negro and of white students
employed in jobs which were for the summer only
was about the same. However, the percentage of
Negro students who looked for summer work with
out success was more than 23^ times that of the
white students.
More than 6 out of 10 of the students with sum
mer jobs did not have, to spend any time looking
for work after school closed. They had either looked
for and found jobs before school closed or had been
offered jobs before they had started to look
(table 2).
The white youths were almost half again as likely
as the black to have jobs waiting. Negro women
were the least likely to have jobs waiting—only
about one-third had obtained them before school
ended. The overall differences between white and
Negro students result from several factors. In
addition to the difficulties Negroes frequently
Summer workers
Over 5 million students 16 to 21 years old in
October 1969 had worked at summer jobs, and
Table 1. Summer 1969 labor force status of persons 16 to 21 years old enrolled in school in October 1969, by age,
sex, and color, October 1969
(Numbers in thousands]
Age (in years)
Color
Labor force status and sex
All persons
Negro and
other races
White
20-21
18-19
16-17
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
BOTH SEXES
Total enrolled in school in October 1969______
12,094
100.0
10, 597
100.0
1,497
100.0
6,711
100.0
3,351
100.0
2,032
100.0
In labor force for summer work only '__
Worked at some time during summer _
..
Looked for but did not find a summer job ___ ____ _
Worked in summer at job not for summer only__
_ _
Did not work and did not look for a summer job__ _____
6, 094
5,146
948
3, 500
2,500
50.4
42.6
7.8
28.9
20.7
5,201
4, 512
689
3,228
2,168
49.1
42.6
6.5
30.5
20.5
893
634
259
272
332
59.7
42.4
17.3
18.2
22.2
3,114
2,470
644
1,962
1,635
46.4
36.8
9.6
29.2
24.4
1,897
1,691
206
980
474
56.6
50.5
6.1
29.2
14.1
1,083
985
98
558
391
53.3
48.5
4.8
27.5
19.2
6,494
100.0
5,739
100.0
755
100.0
3, 452
100.0
1,886
100.0
1,156
100.0
1,133
1,048
85
565
188
60.1
55.6
4.5
30.0
10.0
663
612
51
311
182
57.4
52.9
4.4
26.9
15.7
MEN
Total enrolled in school in October 1969
In labor force for summer work only 1__
Worked at some time during summer
Looked for but did not find a summer job_____ ______
Worked in summer at job not for summer only
Did not work and did not look for a summer jo b .. __ ___
3, 594
3,172
422
1,894
1,006
55.3
48.8
6.5
29.2
15.5
3,133
2,811
322
1,734
872
54.6
49.0
5.6
30.2
15.2
461
361
100
160
134
61.1
47.8
13.2
21.2
17.7
1,798
1,512
286
1,018
636
52.1
43.8
8.3
29.5
18.4
5,600
100.0
4, 858
100.0
742
100.0
3,259
100.0
1,465
100.0
876
100.0
1,316
958
358
944
999
40.4
29.4
11.0
29.0
30.7
764
643
121
415
286
52.2
43.9
8.3
28.3
19.5
420
373
47
247
209
47.9
42.6
5.4
28.2
23.9
WOMEN
Total enrolled in school in October 1969
In labor force for summer work only
__ ___
Worked at some time during summer __
Looked for but did not find a summer job___
Worked in summer at job not for summer only______
Did not work and did not look for a summer job ________
1At some time during June, July, and August.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2, 500
1,974
526
1,606
1,494
44.6
35.2
9.4
28.7
26.7
2,068
1,701
367
1,494
1,296
42.6
35.0
7.6
30.8
26.7
432
273
159
112
198
58.2
36.8
21.4
15.1
26.7
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
STUDENTS AND SUMMER JOBS
57
Table 2. Weeks of unemployment for students 16 to 21 years old in labor force 1 in summer 1969, by age, sex, and
color, October 1969
(Percent distribution]
Weeks of unemployment
All persons
White
Age (in years)
Sex
Color
Negro and
other races
Male
Female
16-17
20-21
18-19
WORKED AT SUMMERTIME JOB
Number (thousands) __________ ______________________
Weeks unemployed before starting to work2:
Percent_____________________________________
None_____________________________ _____
2 or less_____________________________ . . .
3 or 4_____________________________ ___
5 or more_______________________________
5,146
4, 512
634
3,172
1,974
2, 470
1,691
985
100.0
62.8
19.4
10.8
7.1
100.0
65.2
18.1
9.9
6.8
100.0
45.3
28.6
16.8
9.3
100.0
64.1
18.6
10.6
6.7
100.0
60.7
20.5
11.1
7.7
100.0
64.1
16.2
10.8
9.0
100.0
59.0
23.1
11.4
6.6
100.0
65.9
20.9
9.6
3.5
948
100.0
689
100.0
259
100.0
422
100.0
526
100.0
644
100.0
206
100.0
33.6
34.6
13.3
18.5
35.3
32.4
13.8
18.5
28.9
40.6
11. 8
18.7
31.1
33.1
14.5
21.3
35.5
35.9
12.3
16.4
33.9
34.2
14.0
18.0
30.5
39.1
12.2
18.3
LOOKED FOR BUT DID NOT FIND A SUMMER JOB
Number (thousands)___________ __________ ______
Percent____________________________________________
Weeks unemployed:
2 or less__
_
3 or 4
5 to 8
__ .
1 Persons 16 to 21 years old who worked at summer job only or looked for a summer
job but could not find one.
2 Weeks unemployed after start of summer vacation from school and before starting
to work on a job.
encounter in the job market because of discrimina
tion, lesser knowledge of job opportunities, and
fewer contacts with people who can help in getting
jobs, Negro students were more likely than white
to still be in high school. Many employers, if they
have a choice, prefer to hire a college student than
some one who has not yet graduated from high
school.
About half of the students with summer jobs
who had looked for employment after school
closed found jobs within 2 weeks or less, and about
20 percent looked for 5 weeks or more. Generally,
this held for men as well as for women and for
Negroes as well as for whites. However, a smaller
proportion of the 16- and 17-year-olds than of the
18- to 21-year-olds found jobs within 2 weeks.
The students who looked for a job 5 weeks or
longer before getting one were asked what they
thought was the main reason it had taken so long.
Almost 6 out of 10 indicated as the main reason
that not many jobs were available. About 1 out of
10 said that employers thought them too young.
Comparatively few gave reasons such as too low
pay, did not like the kind of work available,
insufficient schooling, training or experience,
unacceptable hours, or transportation problems.
As indicated earlier, almost a million students
looked for but did not get summer jobs—17
percent of the Negroes and 7 percent of the whites.
About a third of the unsuccessful jobseekers
looked for a relatively short period of time—2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
98
0
3 Percent not shown where base is less than 100,000.
weeks or less—and about a third looked for 5
weeks or more. These proportions varied little
by age, sex, family income, or color.
On the whole, the youths who could not find j obs
thought that they were unsuccessful because jobs
were not available rather than because they were
too selective. The youths were asked, “What was
the main reason you did not find a summer job?”
About half of the unsuccessful j ob seekers reported
that no jobs were available (table 3). Only 13
percent said they did not take a job because they
Table 3. Main reason students 16 to 21 years old could
not find a summer job, by age, sex, and color, October
1969
[Percent distribution]
Color
Reasons given
by students
Total: Number
(thou
sands)-.
Percent...
No jobs available______
Available work too hard__
Did not like kind of work
available___________
Pay too low___________
Transportation problem. .
Hours_______________
Insufficient schooling,
training or experience..
Too young____________
Other________________
All
persons
White
Age (in years)
Sex
Negro
and Male Female 16-17 18-19 20-21
other
races
644
206
422
526
259
689
948
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
48.5 50.7 42.5 44.7 51.3 46.8 49.7
.5
.3
.2
6.6
1.8
5.9
4.2
6.1
1.1
6.1
4.8
7.9
3.8
5.4
2.5
7.7
2.1
5.6
3.5
5.8
1.6
6.2
4.7
4.6
1.0
7.2
2.3
13.1
3.1
3.1
8.4
5.1
17.5
10.2
5.1
15.4
10.4
5.0
23.3
9.6
3.2
20.5
12.2
6.4
15.3
8.7
5.4
23.3
9.6
5.2
6.8
10.5
i Percent not shown where base is less than 100,000.
NOTE: Because of rounding, sum of individual items may not equal totals.
98
(0
58
did not like the kind of work available, the pay
was too low, or the hours were not to their liking.
About 17 percent, mostly 16- and 17-year-olds,
said employers thought they were too young. In
general, there was no significant difference either
by sex or by color in the main reasons given.
Low wage rates were evidently not a major
problem when students were trying to find a
summer job. Fewer than 2 percent of all the
students who could not find jobs gave too low
pay as the main reason. The problem of trans
portation to available job sites has often been
cited as a maj or reason for unemployment among
young people. Transportation problems were
given as the main reason by only 6 percent of these
unsuccessful summer jobseekers; the proportion
was about the same for whites and Negroes.
Whites and Negroes were about equally likely to
give insufficient schooling, training, or experience
as the major reason for their inability to find
employment.
Industry and occupation
The students who worked were asked to
describe the job they had during the summer.
If they had more than one, they were to describe
their first job. Service, manufacturing, and trade
offered the most opportunities to men for summer
employment. Work for women centered in the
service and trade industries (table 4).
Relatively more white than Negro men were in
manufacturing, particularly the durable-goods
sector, and in retail trade. A larger proportion
of white than Negro women were in trade and
private households. However, a larger proportion
of Negro women than of white women were in
education services and public administration.
This may reflect more extensive participation by
Negroes in various manpower programs, such as
the Neighborhood Youth Corps, and special
efforts to provide employment for minority group
members.
The 16- and 17-year-old men were more likely
to be in agriculture, retail trade, and service than
the older ones, but much less likely to be in
manufacturing. Legal restrictions tend to reduce
the employment of young persons in factories.
The 16- and 17-year-old women were more likely
than the older women to be in agriculture and
private households, but less likely to be in manu
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
Table 4. Industry of first job held by students 16 to 21
years old who worked at summer jobs in 1969, by age,
sex, and color, October 1969.
[Percent distribution]
Color
Industry
All
persons
White
Age (in years)
Sex
Negro
and Male Female 16-17 18-19 20-21
other
races
Total*.................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0
Agriculture___________ 10.2
7.5
Construction__________
Manufacturing_________ 16.5
8.0
Durable goods_____
Nondurable goods... 8.5
10.0
7.8
17.1
8.4
8.7
11.5
6.0
12.2
5.5
6.7
13.2
11.9
20.9
11.0
9.9
5.4
0.7
9.4
3.2
6.2
15.7
6.3
8.8
3.4
5.4
5.8
8.0
23.2
11.8
11.4
4.2
9.9
23.5
12.6
10.9
Transportation________
2.9
Trade_______________ 21.1
2.2
Wholesale________
Eating and drinking.. 6.8
Other retail_______ 12.1
2.8
22.1
2.3
7.0
12.8
3.2
14.1
1.6
5.8
6.7
3.1
20.3
2.7
5.5
12.1
2.4
22.5
1.5
8.9
12.1
1.5
22.1
1.9
9.1
11.0
3.4
21.9
2.3
4.7
14.9
5.2
17. 5
2.6
5.0
9.9
Service and finance_____ 37.6
Finance, insurance,
and real estate___ 2.5
Business and repair
2.0
service_________
Private household... 9.1
Personal services___ 7.0
5.1
Entertainment_____
Medical and hospital.. 3.6
Education_________ 5.8
2.6
Other services_____
37.1
41.3
26.3
55.3
42.1
33.8
33.2
2.5
2.6
1.4
4.4
1.6
3.4
3.3
2.2
9.4
7.1
5.4
3.1
4.9
2.4
0.7
6.5
5.8
2.5
7.1
12.2
3.9
1.9
4.6
5.4
4.6
1.7
4.1
2.8
2.1
16.1
9.5
5.8
6.6
8.5
2.3
1.2
16.1
7.1
5.5
2.7
5.3
2.6
2.5
3.5
8.3
4.6
4.9
4. 5
2.1
3.0
1.7
4.2
4.9
3.6
9.2
3.3
3.9
1.4
2.5
2.8
.6
2.2
11.8
/.I
4.8
3.8
1.3
2.5
4.2
1.7
2.5
3.4
1.0
2.4
3.4
1.5
1.9
5.8
2.2
3.7
Public administration___
Federal___________
State and local_____
i Includes a small number employed in mining not shown separately.
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
facturing, particularly durable goods, and in
retail trade.
The percentages of white and Negro men in the
various occupations did not differ very much.
Over half the men found summer jobs as unskilled
laborers (farm and nonfarm) or as service workers;
about 1 out of 5 was a white-collar worker and
about the same proportion were craftsmen or
operatives (table 5). The 16- and 17-year-old boys
were less likely to be white-collar workers or
operatives than the older students, and consider
ably more likely to be in service and farm occu
pations, which generally require little or no skill
or training.
The largest proportions of women students
found jobs as clerical workers and in service
occupations, including private household; rela
tively few were blue-collar workers or farmworkers.
In contrast with the situation for all employed
women, a greater proportion of Negroes than of
whites who held summer-only jobs were in clerical
occupations, and a smaller proportion were in
service occupations, including private household.
This difference arises because jobs as babysitters
are more readily available in white neighborhoods,
STUDENTS AND SUMMER JOBS
59
and Government-sponsored programs are direct
ing special efforts to helping minority-group
youths to find work.
Weeks and hours worked
Most of the students who had jobs worked
more than 2 months during their summer vaca
tions. Nearly 60 percent worked 9 weeks or more
and about 27 percent, 5 to 8 weeks. These propor
tions were about the same for whites as for Ne
groes. However, a smaller proportion of women
than men worked for at least 9 weeks.
The older students were more likely than the
younger to work 9 weeks or more, as shown by
the following percent distribution:
16 and
17 years
100
T otal..............
18 and
19 years
100
21
30
49
4 weeks or less........................
5 to 8 w eek s.................
9 weeks or m ore........ ............
HOand
HI years
100
11
24
66
6
23
71
17-year-olds than of the older students had to
look longer before finding work.
Two-thirds of the students who had jobs worked
the equivalent of a full-time workweek (35 hours
a week or more), with the proportions about the
same for whites and Negroes. Relatively fewer
women than men, and 16- and 17-year-olds than
older students, worked 35 hours or more a week.
The number of hours most commonly worked was
in the 35 to 40 hours range; about 4 out of 10 of
the students were in this group. Although the
proportions of Negroes and whites who worked
35 hours a week or more were the same, relatively
more white students worked 41 hours or more,
26 percent compared with 17 percent. Older
students tended to work longer hours; hours
worked also tended to be higher for men than
for women.
Reason for working part time
Table 5. Occupation of first job held by students 16 to
21 years old who worked at summer jobs in 1969, by age,
sex, and color, October 1969
To what degree do students prefer part-time
summer jobs to full-time ones? About one-third
of the part-time workers reported they were
working part-time (less than 35 hours a week)
because they could not find full-time work. How
ever, a majority were working part-time for reasons
other than not being able to get full time work,
as is indicated by the following percentage
[Percent distribution]
d is tr ib u tio n :
One of the reasons for the smaller percentage of
16- and 17-year-olds in the longest duration
group is that among those who looked for work
after school closed, relatively more of the 16- and
A ll
Color
Occupation
All
persons
White
Total_______
Professional, technical,
and managerial______
Clerical__ ____ _______
Stenographers and
secretaries______
Other____________
Sales workers................
Sex
Age (in years)
Negro
and Male Female 16-17 18-19 20-21
other
races
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0
8.3
18.7
8.3
17.1
8.1
29.5
7.6
10.5
9.4
31.0
3.7
13.7
11.1
22.0
14.6
24.8
4.8
13.9
4.9
4. 1
13.0
5.3
9.5
20.0
2.0
0.2
10.3
3.5
11.8
19.3
7.2
3.5
10.2
4.6
5.7
16.3
5.5
6.3
18.6
4.9
5.9
6.1
4.6
9.3
0.8
5.2
5.8
8.0
2.0
2.4
1.5
9.8
2.0
7.7
2.2
2.4
1.6
10.1
2.2
7.9
1.1
2.6
0.9
7.1
0.7
6.4
3.3
3.9
2.1
12.7
3.3
9.4
0.2
0.6
5.2
0.1
5.1
1.6
2.8
0.7
5.9
1.4
4.5
2.1
2.0
1.7
13.1
2.1
11.0
2.8
19
3.2
13.2
3.3
9.9
Nonfarm laborers______ 19.3
Private household______ 5.8
Service______________ 18.5
Protective service__
1.8
Waiters___________ 6.3
Others___________ 10.5
Farmworkers................... 8.7
19.8
6.2
18.4
2.0
6.5
9.9
8.6
16.1
2.9
19.8
30.9
1.7
14.6
14.3 25.0
1.6 1 2 .0
3.2 11.0
9.5 12.0
11.2
5.1
20.0
10.1
22.9
1.7
7.2
14.1
13.9
20.5
2.3
14.8
1.6
5.5
7.7
4.9
15.7
1.5
14.4
2.2
5.4
6.8
3.0
Craftsmen____________
Carpenters and
other construction
workers________
Mechanics________
All other craftsmen__
Operatives____________
Drivers___________
All other operatives..
4.9
14.8
9.9
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T otal_________ ______ ____
Could not find full-time work.......
D id not want full-time w ork____
N ot available for full-time w ork. .
Other reasons.....................................
persons
100
32
26
14
28
White
100
31
28
14
28
Negro and
other races
100
40
14
12
34
A greater proportion of men than women
reported they had to work part time because they
could not find a full-time job, 38 and 25 percent,
respectively. Over 40 percent of the girls who
worked part time did so because they did not want
or were not available for full-time work. Black
students were somewhat more likely than white
students to report that they could not find
full-time work.
Overall, the proportions who said they could
not find full-time jobs were highest among those
in families with income in 1968 below $5,000 a
year. Those in families with income above $5,000
were more likely to have full-time jobs than
those in families with lesser income. However,
60
the proportion with full-time jobs does not neces
sarily increase as income increases above the
$5,000 level.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
Table 6. Total amount earned by students 16 to 21 years
old who worked at summer jobs in 1969, by age, sex, and
color, October 1969
[Percent distribution]
Color
Earnings
The amount the students earned from their
summer jobs varied widely, depending upon the
rate of pay, the number of hours worked each week,
the number of weeks worked, and the kind of
work. Of course, even with no unemployment, the
maximum length of time they could have worked
was relatively brief—approximately 15 weeks.
Then too, some States limit the number of hours
for young persons and for women.
About 18 percent of the students who held
wage or salary jobs earned less than $100 from their
summer employment, and about one-fourth earned
$700 or more (table 6). Relatively more men than
women and more whites than Negroes earned at
least $700.
Of the several age groups, the 16- and 17-yearold students earned the least, with about 60 per
cent making less than $300. The relatively high
proportion earning so little is a reflection of the
prevalence of part-time work and the small num
ber of weeks worked; about half worked less than
35 hours a week and almost two-thirds worked
4 weeks or less.
Earnings were considerably higher for the older
than the younger students, mainly because the
older tended to work longer hours and more weeks.
Over a third of the 18- and 19-year-olds and almost
half of the 20- and 21-year-olds earned $700 or
more.
When the earnings figures are examined sep
arately for men and women, and for whites and
Negroes, wide differences are present. Women
generally earned less than men, and Negroes less
than whites. Thirty-three percent of the white
and 15 percent of the Negro men earned $700 or
more. This difference is very probably the result
of lower rates of pay for the Negroes, since the
distributions by number of hours or weeks worked
were not markedly different for white and Negro
men.
There was no great difference in earnings be
tween white and Negro women. Relatively more
white women worked in private households and
trade, in which wages tend to be low, and more
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Earnings
All
persons
White
Sex
Age (in years)
Negro
and Male Female 16-17 18-19 20-21
other
races
Total with
earnings______ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Under $100_______
$100 to $299__________
$300 to $499________
$500 to $699____
$700 to $999__________
$1,000 or more________
18.4
22.3
19.3
16.0
11.8
12.3
18.4
21.8
18.7
15.8
12.1
13.2
18.3
25.5
23.2
17.8
9.7
5.6
15.6
18.8
17.8
17.0
12.9
17.9
22.7
27.8
21.6
14.5
10.0
3.4
29.9
30.7
21.0
12.0
4.7
1.8
9.2
18.1
18.1
20.1
18.9
15.7
100.0
6.4
9.5
17.3
18.8
16.7
31.3
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
Negro women worked in education and public
administration, where wages are undoubtedly at
least as high as the minimum wage. Overall, about
27 percent of the white and 33 percent of the
Negro women earned $500 or more. Within each
color group women had lower earnings than men.
October 1969 status
Most of the students who had been in the
summer-only labor force were not in the labor
force at the time of the survey in October. Only
about 3 out of 10 of those who had worked and of
those who had unsuccessfully sought work were
in the labor force; they constituted 40 percent of
all the 16- to 21-year-old students in the labor
force in October 1969.
The October unemployment rates for both
the successful and unsuccessful summer jobseekers
were high, but considerably more so for the un
successful summer jobseekers, whose unemploy
ment rate of 40 percent was more than double
the rate of those who had had summer jobs. Since
2 out of 3 of the youths who had not found summer
jobs were 16- and 17-year-olds, it is probable that
their age was still a factor. Of course, the length of
time elapsed between the end of summer vacation
and the survey date was relatively brief, and the
probability is high that much of the unemploy
ment was of the frictional type which accompanies
entry and reentry into the labor force. For all
16- to 21-year-old students who were in the labor
force in October 1969, the unemployment rate
was 11.8 percent, compared with the overall rate
STUDENTS AND SUMMER JOBS
of 21.1 percent for those who had been in the
summer labor force. On the whole, it is perhaps
more surprising that so many did find jobs, con
sidering the shortness of the period involved, than
that roughly 1 out of 5 did not.
For the white and Negro students who had
summer jobs, there was no significant difference
in the proportions who were ifn the labor force in
October. However, among the unsuccessful sum
mer jobseekers the percentage in the October
labor force was considerably lower for Negroes
than for whites.
Implications of the 1969 data
The amount students earn from summer em
ployment is a good indicator of the importance of
summer jobs for them. The earnings of students
16 to 21 years old from summer jobs are estimated
at over $2 billion in 1969.
The survey data show that students are strongly
work-oriented during the vacation months. Alto
gether, 4 out of 5 students age 16 to 21 were in
the labor force during the summer of 1969, with
almost two-thirds in jobs which were for the
summer only. The May-July net increase in the
16- to 21-year-old labor force was 3.7 million,
but the unduplicated count of students who
worked or looked unsuccessfully for summer
jobs totaled 6.1 million.
Because 16- and 17-year-olds constitute so
large a proportion of the 16- to 21-year-old student
population, they are also a large segment of the
summer student labor force. Their interest in
paid employment is great. In 1969, almost half
of all 16- and 17-year-old students wanted summer
jobs. They were roughly half of all the 16- to 21year-old students who entered the labor force for
summer work. Their greater youth and inexperi
ence relative to the 18- to 21-year-olds pose
special problems, particularly for the Negro
youths. Special programs to overcome these
handicaps are needed.
Most students who want summer employment
want full-time jobs. Two-thirds of the students
with summer jobs worked 35 hours or more a
week; among those who worked part-time, almost
a third said they had not been able to get full-time
jobs.
Students are realistic in their expectations about
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
61
the kind of work and hourly pay rates for their
group. Among the youths who did not find jobs,
only 7 percent said they had turned down jobs
because they did not like the kind of work and
2 percent because the pay was too low. It could
well be that many among the jobs turned down
were, by any reasonable standard, too low-paying
or too difficult physical^ for the individual
concerned.
Summer jobs are very important to college
students, whether they work the rest of the year
or not. Many count on earnings from summer
employment to help meet school expenses in the
following school year. Eight out of 10 college
students—underclassmen as well as upperclass
men—had worked at a summer job or looked for
one. Many college students return to their homes
during the summer vacation period. Thus, even
if they have jobs during the school year, they must
get other jobs for the summer.
Competition for summer jobs is keen. The fact
that a large proportion of the students did not
have to spend any time looking for jobs after
school closed because they had jobs waiting indi
cates that summer jobs can be arranged for in
advance of the time students can start work.
Guidance and counseling for students—about job
opportunities in their area, including Govern
ment- and business-sponsored programs, the
advisability of starting the job-hunt several
months before the close of school, the rates of pay
they can expect in different types of jobs, and
other work-related information—could channel
students’ efforts so that less time is spent in
hunting and more time in working and earning.
In the summer of 1969, the proportion of Negro
students entering the summer labor force who
had jobs waiting was considerably lower than
that of white students; the proportion of Negroes
who looked unsuccessfully was higher than that
of whites, suggesting that in the area of summer
work as in other aspects of labor force participa
tion, the Negro is at a disadvantage relative to
his white counterpart.
Summer employment for students will undoubt
edly continue to be important, particularly since
increasing proportions of the population are
staying in school longer. Aside from the need for
earnings from summer jobs, inability to find work
can have undesirable effects for both the youths
and the community.
D
62
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
-F O O T N O T E S
1
This article is based primarily on information from
supplementary questions to the October 1969 monthly
survey of the labor force. It was conducted for the Bureau
of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census through its
Current Population Survey. Data presented in this report
were obtained by means of a mail questionnaire completed
by persons 16 to 21 years old in the civilian noninstitutional population in the calendar week ending October 18,
1969. All members of the Armed Forces and inmates of
institutions were excluded. Since the estimates are based
on a sample, they may differ from the figures that would
have been obtained from a complete census. Sampling
variability may be relatively large in cases where the
numbers in each group are small. Small estimates, or
small differences between estimates, should be interpreted
with caution.
2 Students who may have looked unsuccessfully for jobs
which were not limited to the summer are not included.
This number was undoubtedly small, since most such job
seekers may be assumed to have settled for summer jobs
rather than no job if temporary summer jobs were available
to them.
3 Data for all persons other than white 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.
Tenure of union officers
The issue of turnover in union leadership is
often discussed by analysts of the labor move
ment, but data have been limited. In a survey
undertaken by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
in connection with the publication of its latest
union directory, national and international
unions were asked for the first time to indicate
the year that the president and the secretarytreasurer were first elected to office. In response,
172 unions representing 96 percent of total
union membership reported this information
for president, and 155 unions representing
90 percent of membership for secretarytreasurer. The results are analyzed in the
recently published directory, as follows:
For both offices, the experience is nearly the
same. Forty percent of the unions had presidents
elected for the first time in 1966 or later
(slightly less than 40 percent in the case of
secretary-treasurers). Almost 67 percent of the
labor organizations had presidents elected since
1960 (slightly more than two-thirds in the case
of secretary-treasurers). For both elective
offices, over 80 percent have been in office
15 years or less. Among both officers, turnover
has been higher beginning in 1964 than before
that year. For presidents, turnover was partic
ularly high in 1968, when 30 persons were
elected for the first time, and for secretarytreasurers, 1968 and 1969 were years of numer
ous turnovers, with, respectively, 18 and 17
assuming office for the first time. . . .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
. . . Officers first elected prior to 1956 were
reported by 16.3 percent of the unions, in the
case of presidents, and 18.7 percent of the unions
in the case of secretary-treasurers. Long-term
leaders included Presidents Joseph Curran of
the National Maritime Union ( afl- cio), Sal B.
Hoffman of the Upholsterers’ ( afl- cio), and
Harry Bridges of the International Longshore
men’s and Warehousemen’s Union ( in d .), all
first elected to office in 1937.
. . . To supplement this data, the Bureau
reviewed the officers listed in the biennial
surveys dating back to 1955. Over this 14-year
period, 1955 to 1968, in addition to reported
changes in 1969, turnover of union presidents
has averaged 39 every 2 years or 21 percent of
the average number of reporting unions. Ap
proximately 45 unions changed presidents at
least twice and some changed as often as 3, 4,
and 5 times during this period. Generally it has
been the smaller unions and government unions
in which turnover has been most frequent.
Death and retirement, rather than incumbent
opposition, resulted in the great majority of the
turnover of presidents in the largest unions.
The Directory oj National and International
Labor Unions in the United States, 1969 ( bls
Bulletin 1665, 1970) is available for $1.25 from
any of the regional offices listed on the inside
front cover or from the Superintendent of
Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Significant
Decisions
in
Labor Cases
No-strike pledge and arbitration
Broad arbitration of disputes when the arbi
trable issues are not clearly defined or agreed upon
by the parties recently gained a judicial approval
{Ice Cream Drivers v. Borden 4). A Federal court
of appeals held it to be “in conformity with the
Supreme Court’s philosophy so clearly expressed
in Boys Markets,” 2 where the High Court ruled
that strikes called in violation of no-strike agree
ments may be enjoined. Such injunctions, the
Court had said, are proper under the national
policy of encouraging voluntary settlements.
When the Borden Co. discontinued manufactur
ing and distribution of ice cream in New York City
and certain adjacent counties, an area covered by
its contract with Teamsters Local 757, the union
retaliated by striking at several Borden plants in
this and other areas. The actions of both parties
were contrary to the provisions of their contract.
The union demanded arbitration, as provided by
the contract, and asked a Federal district court
to compel the employer to arbitrate and to accept
the union’s formulation of the arbitrable issue.
That formulation was: Has the company violated
its contractual promise not to go out of business
in the area in question, and if so, what remedy
was the union entitled to?
Arbitration was ordered, but the issues were not
defined. The court merely instructed the arbitrator
to consider “the disputes between [the company
and the union] arising out of [the company’s]
closing of its manufacturing operations in the
area. . . . ”
On appeal, the employer contended that the
union waived its right to arbitration when it called
the strike, and interpreted the Boys Markets de
cision (without citing any of its specific statements)
Prepared by Eugene Skotzko of the Office of Publica
tions, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in consultation with the
Office of the Solicitor of Labor.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
as upholding its position. The union maintained
to the contrary, relying on the earlier ruling of the
High Court in Needham Packing Co.3 that a strike
called in violation of a no-strike pledge does not
automatically invalidate the arbitration provision.
Actually, it was the Supreme Court’s 1962 de
cision in Drake Bakeries 4 that set the principles
on which the Needham opinion rested. In Drake
Bakeries, the employer charged the union with in
stigating and encouraging its members to strike or
not to report to work, despite a no-strike agree
ment, and claimed the union’s breach excused him
from submitting to arbitration. The Court held
that “there is no inflexible rule rigidly linking
no-strike and arbitration clauses of every collec
tive bargaining contract in every situation.” The
arbitration clause involved was so broad, the Court
said, that its provisions “cut the ground from
under the argument that an alleged strike, auto
matically and regardless of the circumstances,. . .
excused [the employer] from arbitrating. . . . ”
And it stressed: “Arbitration provisions, which
themselves have not been repudiated, are meant
to survive breaches of contract, in many contexts,
even total breach.” The extenuating circumstance
in the case was that the strike was of only 1 day’s
duration.
Upholding the union, the appeals court said,
“The congressional policy of encouraging arbitratration as a means of settling labor disputes has
been strongly supported by court decisions. . . .
For this reason, a waiver of rights under an arbi
tration [clause] is not readily to be found. The
decisions in [Drake Bakeries and Needham] ex
pressly hold that arbitration rights are not neces
sarily forfeited by the breach of a no-strike clause.”
Apparently puzzled by the company’s reliance
on Boys Markets, the court said, “Unless there is
to be found any statement in Boys Markets to the
contrary, the law as expounded in Drake Bakeries
and in Needham is that breach of a no-strike clause
in a labor agreement does not ipso facto relieve
63
64
an employer of his obligation to arbitrate. . . . ”
The court further observed that neither majority
nor minority opinion in Boys Markets made any
reference to the earlier decisions, hence they could
not be considered overruled—“in fact, Boys
Markets reaffirms the benefits intended [for] the
employer-employee relationship by resort to the
arbitration process.”
As for the arbitral issue, the court said one
party’s version of the problem must not be sub
mitted to the arbitrator without the other party’s
consent. A “yes” or “no” answer to the union’s
question in this situation would not resolve the
dispute, since the employer’s claim would remain
unsatisfied. “Arbitration is not a one-way street,”
the court said. The cause of the dispute was
clearly the closing of the plant, but the claims and
counterclaims of the parties are for the arbitrator
to determine. “The [lower] court wisely concluded
that there should be no narrowly restricted or
piecemeal issues presented for arbitration, but
rather that the ‘disputes’ arising out of the plant
closing should be heard and resolved,” the court
concluded.
Dissenting in part, Judge Kaufman disagreed
with the majority’s mandate to the arbitrator to
examine and decide the dispute in its entirety.
He reminded his colleagues of the “severe limita
tions” the Supreme Court had imposed5 on the
courts’ discretion in prearbitral litigation. That
discretion must be “confined to ascertaining
whether the party seeking arbitration is making a
claim which on its face is governed by the con
tract,” the Supreme Court had said.
Equal-pay award to women
The Secretary of Labor has won his 5-year
court battle on behalf of women, employees of a
large glass manufacturer, who did work equal to
men’s but received a lower rate of pay. After the
Supreme Court denied review of an appellate
decision in favor of the Secretary, the case of
Wheaton Glass6recently came back to the district
court for final judgment.
This time the lower court’s language was far
different from its original holding that the em
ployer had met the burden of proof that the
discrimination had been due to a “factor other
than sex.” The court adopted the judgment pro
posed by the Secretary, including an order against
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
further violation of the Equal Pay Act7 and a
backpay award retroactive to the effective date
of the act. Wheaton Co. contended that, if it
had to pay at all, the payments should not date
back beyond the day when the Supreme Court
denied review—hence to the date of the final
disposition of the issues in the dispute; and that
the backpay should be free of interest.
But the company insisted it did not have to
pay. It boldly challenged the court’s power to
grant a backpay award in this situation and the
Secretary’s authority to collect or even ask for
one. To this end, the company seized upon a
seeming inconsistency in the provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and construed the
language of the law to suit its purpose. The
argument ran as follows:
It is true that, under section 16(c) of the flsa ,
the Secretary may, upon a written request, take
court action to recover unpaid wages due an
employee. But that section also provides that the
Secretary may not do so, and that no court may
exercise authority, in a situation involving a
“novel question of law” that has not yet been
“settled finally by the courts.” 8 Even though the
Secretary has the power of independent action
under the enforcement clause—section 17, as
amended in 19619— of the flsa and may bring
suit on behalf of employees without their request
or consent, he still is bound by the above restric
tion. The two sections must be read together
since section 17 merely substitutes the Secretary
for the employee specified in section 16(c).
The present case is one of a “novel question of
law,” the argument went on, since at this juncture
it involves various issues not yet “finally settled.”
These issues include the appellate court’s inter
pretation of the statutory reference to “equal
work” as meaning only “substantially equal”
work; and that court’s construction of the
statutory exemption due to a “factor other than
sex” as requiring the employer to provide statis
tical proof of a “one to one relationship between
the differential in wages paid and the actual
savings realized by the employer due to the extra
work done by the male employees.” (Citation
from the appellate decision, 421 F.2d 266-267.)
The appeals court’s reliance, in addition to the
act, on the antidiscrimination provisions of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) was also
“novel.” These and other points of law had not
65
SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES
been settled at the time of the charged violations,
and the company could not know it was violating
the law. (The company listed six “novel” issues.)
In other words, the company was an “unwarned”
employer. This situation finds analogy in the
Marino case.10 There a court of appeals ruled that
an employer who did not know that the trans
porting of crews and equipment by an employee
in his private automobile was compensable at an
overtime rate was “unwarned” because the ques
tion of whether overtime rate was proper for this
kind of service had not been finally settled.
The court replied that Wheaton’s view of the
law as stated in its challenge of the court’s and
the Secretary’s authority was wrong. The 1961
amendment to section 17 of the flsa , it said,
augmented district courts’ authority by empower
ing them to order payment of back wages. Pre
viously their authority was limited to prospectively
restraining employees from violating the law.
“Under [the present] enforcement provision [the
Secretary] is acting in the public interest,” said
the court. The company misreads the meaning of
section 17 when it says that the secretary is bound
by the “novel question of law” restriction of
section 16(c) in his actions to recover back wages.
Legislative history of the 1961 amendment, the
court said, reveals that “[o]ne of the very ob
jects . . . was to settle all matters in controversy
in one proceeding, thereby avoiding a multiplicity
of suits based upon the same violations of the
act. . . . Thus, it was not the sole or restricted
purpose of the 1961 amendment, as argued by
Wheaton, merely to substitute the Secretary of
Labor for an employee desirous of litigating his
section 16(c) rights. Were it otherwise, Congress
would only have had to amend section 16(c) to
such effect. Instead, it very carefully amended
section 16(b) and section 17, thereby obviating
the necessity for an employee’s request of the
Secretary to seek vindication of his individual . . .
rights and concomitantly conferred upon the
courts full equity powers to grant the Secretary
complete relief in one proceeding. That the
Secretary has a right to recover back wages under
section 17 is confirmed by a reading of the case
law,” particularly of the appellate decision in
Wirtz v. Jones,11 whose “excellent analysis and
discussion of the history of section 17” were
adopted by other courts. A district court even
ruled12 that “the Secretary of Labor is not
4 1 2 -8 2 4 0 - 7 1 - 5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
burdened with section 16(c) restrictions when
seeking injunctive relief under section 17.”
Nor was Wheaton an “unwarned” employer,
the court held. The company’s doubt about the
legal validity of its job classification and wage
rates was serious enough to make it solicit advice
and assistance from the Department of Labor.
Yet after the Department forewarned it that its
job classification was not in compliance with the
act, the company “persisted in its erroneous
conviction.” 13
To Wheaton’s request that the back wages, if
any, be computed only from the date the Supreme
Court denied review, the court replied by way
of citing the Secretary’s brief, which readrin part:
“In effect, the defendant is contending that any
employer who disagrees with the Labor Depart
ment’s interpretation of the act or with the
administrative determination of violations is en
titled, as a matter of equity, to complete exemp
tion from the act’s requirement for as long as it
may take to litigate each disagreement to final
disposition by the Supreme Court (in the instant
case for more than 5 years). . . . The fact that
the act may be ‘novel’ is no reason to exempt
employers from its application for an indefinite
period beyond the time Congress has specifically
provided. Congress, in the Equal Pay Act, spe
cifically provided a period of up to 2 years before
the requirements of the act would become effective.
In [the] defendant’s case, this ‘grace period’ was
1/T years. . . .” The company’s contention that
it should be granted additional 5 years or more for
adjustment was contrary to public interest. “The
employees became entitled to the payments
required by the act as of the date specified by
Congress,” the brief concluded.
As for the interest on the back wages, which
Wheaton claimed should be denied because it had
maintained the improper job classification and
wage system in good faith, the court said that the
company’s good faith is questionable—at least
the Secretary challenged it strongly—and the
employees were entitled to a compensation for
the use of their money for the period it was
unlawfully withheld.
Withholding benefits
A benevolent employer may unwittingly be
come a lawbreaker if, by misreading the law, he
66
displays—or withholds—his benevolence at the
wrong time. For example, he may unilaterally
grant—or deny—a certain benefit to employees
during or after an election campaign, or during a
period of bargaining, thinking that he is legally
required to do so. Yet his action may be inter
preted as one designed to frustrate the employees’
statutory rights.
In short, an employer may be damned if he
does and damned if he does not take such uni
lateral action, depending on what his step really
amounts to. In the case discussed here (.Dothan
Eagle 14), the employer departed from a regular
practice of compensating his employees in a
certain way, and this departure amounted to an
unfair labor practice.
A newspaper maintained a publicized policy of
granting automatic progression wage increases
every 6 months to apprentices in the pressroom
and the composition room. During a union’s cam
paign to organize the pressroom employees, the
company distributed the scheduled progression
increases in the composing room but not in the
pressroom, and continued to withhold the benefits
from the pressroom apprentices after the election
despite the union’s protests. The National Labor
Relations Board eventually ruled for the union.
In the court of appeals, the employer presented
a seemingly well-founded argument that granting
of wage increases during the campaign would have
amounted to an unlawful attempt to influence the
voters—an attempt to “interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees” in the exercise of their rights to
organize for mutual aid and protection, a violation
under section 8(a)(1). After the election, the com
pany said, the wage issue became bargainable and
a unilateral action would have been a refusal to
bargain in violation of section 8(a)(5).
The court said this was a misreading of the law.
It cited various judicial precedents, with par
ticular reliance on the Supreme Court’s decisions
in Crompton-Highland Mills and Exchange Parts
Co.,15 to show that both granting and withholding
of employee benefits during and after an election
campaign or while bargaining is in progress have
been held unlawful if designed either to influence
voters or to frustrate the union’s efforts on behalf
of its members. The court went on: “The cases
make it crystal clear that the vice involved in both
the unlawful increase situation and the unlawful
refusal to increase situation is that the employer
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
has changed the existing conditions of employment.
It is this change [that] is prohibited . . . and forms
the basis of the unfair labor practice charge. . . .”
Governing the present situation was the fact
that the progression wage increases had been
granted regularly, under a publicized policy in
effect for a considerable length of time, and were
“such an integral part of the structure of compen
sation that the refusal to continue [them] was in
effect a denial of benefits which the employees
had every reason to expect. . . .” Withholding
these increases was unlawful during the election
campaign (coercion of employees) as well as after
(refusal to bargain). The court ruled, reaffirming
its position of the past16:
. . . [W]henever the employer by promises or by a
course of conduct has made a particular benefit part of
the established wage or compensation system, then
he is not at liberty unilaterally to change this benefit
either for better or worse during the union campaign
or during the period of collective bargaining. Both
unprecedented parsimony and deviational largess
are viewed with a skeptic’s eye during the tensions
of organization, recognition, and bargaining. . . .
The court also rebuked the company for making
a distinction in benefit distribution between the
pressroom apprentices and the ununionized com
position room apprentices in favor of the latter.
This, it said, was a “discrimination between
union and nonunion personnel [that] cannot be
tolerated.”
NLRB to continue a policy
Last June, the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia disapproved (in Plasterers Local 79 17)
of the n l r b ’s traditional policy of declaring
jurisdiction in job-assignment disputes where the
employer is not a party to an agreement for
voluntary settlement of the rival unions’ claims.
It was the court’s opinion that the law (section
10 (k) of the Labor Management Relations Act)
commands the Board to abstain from adjudica
tion where the parties have adjusted or have
agreed on a method to adjust their disputes. It
cited the Supreme Court’s ruling 18 that, within
the meaning of the law, a “dispute” in such a
situation is one “between two groups or more of
employees over which is entitled to do certain
work for an employer”—hence the parties can
only be the rival unions.
SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES
67
But the Board refused to abandon its policy.
In another job-dispute case (Lathers Local 104 19)
that came before it in recent months it said, with
obvious assertion of independent judgment and
competence in interpreting the law,
With due respect for the opinion of a majority of
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals . . . we
continue to adhere to our longstanding and consistent
position that section 10(k) must be interpreted to
mean that the employer controlling the work assign
ment, as well as the rival unions or groups of employees
involved, [are] the parties to such disputes, and all
must approve and enter into a voluntary settlement
procedure in order to preclude a hearing and deter
mination pursuant to that section. Finally, we note
that the Board’s interpretation of this aspect of
section 10(k) was neither questioned nor disturbed
when the National Labor Relations Act was most
recently amended by Congress in 1959. . . .
□
-F O O T N O T E S -
1 I c e C r e a m D r iv e r s , T e a m s te r s L o c a l 7 5 7 v. B o r d e n , I n c .
(C.A. 2, Nos. 151 and 152, October 26, 1970).
2 398 U.S. 235 (1970); see M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , August
1970, pp. 70-72.
3 376 U.S. 247 (1964); see M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , April
1964, pp. 563-564.
4 370 U.S. 254 (1962); see M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , August
1962, pp. 905-906.
5 U n ite d S te e lw o r k e r s v. A m e r ic a n M a n u f a c tu r in g C o .,
363 U.S. 564, 568 (1960); see M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,
August 1960, p. 853.
8
S h u lt z v. W h e a to n G la s s C o . (D.C.-N.J., C.A. No. 53-66,
November 9, 1970); for the appellate decision, see M o n th ly
L a b o r R e v ie w , April 1970, pp. 74-75.
7 The Equal Pay Act comprises the 1963 amendments to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
8 Section 16(c) of the f l s a reads in part: “When a written
request is filed by any employee with the Secretary claim
ing unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensa
tion under section 6 or section 7 of this act, the Secretary
may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction
to recover the amount of such claim: P r o v id e d , That this
authority to sue shall not be used by the Secretary in any
case involving an issue of law which has not been settled
finally by the courts, and in any such case no court shall
have jurisdiction over such action or proceeding initiated
or brought by the Secretary if it does involve any issue of
law not so finally settled.”
9 As amended in 1961, section 17 of the f l s a reads:
“The district court . . . shall have jurisdiction, for cause
shown, to restrain violations of section 15 [proscribing cer
tain acts], including . . . the restraint of any withholding
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of payment of minimum wages or overtime compensation
found by the court to be due the employees under this act
[with certain exceptions].” (Backpay for violation of the
Equal Pay Act is treated as unpaid minimum wages.)
10
W ir tz
v.
M a r in o ,
405 F.2d 938 (C.A. 1, 1969).
11 340 F. 29 901 (C.A. 5 1965).
12 W i r t z v. L o c k h a r t C o n s tr u c tio n
829 (D .C .-N .D . Ohio, 1964).
C o .,
230 F.Supp. 823,
13 Furthermore, the court said, Wheaton’s reliance on
was improper since that was a section 16(c) action
for the vindication of individual rights, whereas the
present suit was a section 17 action—an independent effort
of the Secretary, not requested by anyone but made on
behalf of a group of about 400 women employees as a matter
of enforcement of the Equal Pay Act.
M a r in o
14 N L R B v. D o th a n
November 2, 1970).
E a g le ,
(C.A. 5, No. 28576,
In c.
15 N L R B v. C r o m p to n - H ig h la n d M i l l s , I n c ., 337 U.S. 218
(1949); N L R B v. E x c h a n g e P a r t s C o ., 375 U.S. 405 (1964)—
see M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , March 1964, p. 316.
16 A r m s tr o n g
1954).
C ork C o.
v.
NLRB,
211 F.2d 843 (C.A. 5,
17 C.A.-D.C., No. 22073, June 30, 1970; see M o n th ly
October 1970, pp. 48-49. The Board here
refers to this case as S o u th w e s te r n C o n s tr u c tio n C o .
L a b o r R e v ie w ,
18 N L R B v. R a d io a n d T e le v is io n
(CBS), 364 U.S. 573.
B r o a d c a s t E n g in e e r s
U n io n
19 L a th e r s
1970.
and A s s o c ia te d G e n e r a l C o n
186 NLRB No. 70, October 31,
U n io n L o c a l 1 0 4
tr a c to r s , S e a ttle C h a p te r ,
INFLATION VERSUS UNEMPLOYMENT:
THE WORSENING TRADE-OFF
G E O R G E L. P E R R Y
W hat rates of inflation will accompany
various unemployment rates? This question is the
central concern of stabilization policy today and
also a major source of uncertainty for economic
forecasting. Relying on both informed judgments
and rigorous research, investigators have sought
the answer to this question in the historic relation
between unemployment rates, on the one hand,
and rates of wage increase on the other, with
wage increases then used to explain inflation. With
many variations and refinements, this concept of
a trade-off between wage changes and the aggre
gate unemployment rate has been the framework
for most discussions of inflation during the past
decade.
In this view of the inflationary process, the
aggregate unemployment rate has served as a
proxy for the tightness of labor markets. But
significant changes have been taking place in the
composition of the labor force—notably an increase
in the proportion of teenagers and women—and
in the unemployment experience of different age
and sex groups. As a result, the aggregate unem
ployment rate in recent years has been an increas
ingly misleading proxy for comparing the current
labor market with earlier ones. A given unem
ployment rate is associated with a tighter overall
labor market today than it was 10 or 20 years
ago. And this means that the trade-off between
George L. Perry is a senior fellow at the Brookings In
stitution. This communication is adapted from “Changing
Labor Markets and Inflation,” B r o o k in g s P a p e r s o n E c o
n o m ic A c t i v i t y (No.3), published early in 1971. The views
expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the
trustees, officers, or other staff members of the Brookings
Institution.
68
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
inflation and the aggregate unemployment rate has
shifted: Today, a given unemployment rate is
associated with a more inflationary rate of wage
change than in the earlier periods.
This finding rests on some measures of labor
market tightness that I have developed for
explaining and predicting wage changes. These are
the concept of a weighted unemployment rate,
in which individuals are weighted by an estimate
of what they would produce if employed, and a
measure of the dispersion of unemployment.
Together they form a better indicator of labor
market tightness than the aggregate unemploy
ment rate alone. By this new indicator, labor
markets were tighter during 1968 and 1969 than
at any previous period in the postwar years.
This helps explain the high rate of wage increases
and inflation that the U.S. economy has experi
enced. And it documents the growing need for
structural policies in the labor market to reduce
the inflation associated with a full employment
economy.
Measures of labor market tightness
There are various conceptual objections to
using the aggregate unemployment rate to measure
labor market tightness. For instance, many stress
that what matters is the difference between avail
able jobs and available employees to fill those
jobs. If unemployment is conceived as an indicator
of the gross excess supply of labor and vacancies
as an indicator of gross excess demand, then sub
tracting vacancies from unemployment should
provide an indicator of the net excess supply.
Unfortunately, no comprehensive U.S. vacancy
statistics exist,1 so the practical importance of
this point is hard to test. The scattered informa
tion available about vacancies, together with some
conceptualized models of the employment process,
suggest that there is a close, inverse relationship
between unemployment and vacancy rates.2 This
69
COMMUNICATIONS
means that some form of the unemployment rate
itself is a useful proxy for the difference between
vacancies and unemployment.
Available data do permit some other adjust
ments to the aggregate unemployment rate. Each
of the adjustments I have developed makes use
of the substantial changes that have been taking
place over time in the age-sex composition of the
labor force and in the unemployment experience
of the age-sex groups. Table 1 illustrates these
trends. The left side of the table shows the percent
of the total labor force in each group. In 1955,
men of ages 25 to 64 (which I shall refer to as
prime age, although that term is more often used
for a narrower age group) constituted 56 percent
of the work force, while in 1969 they constituted
48 percent. At the same time there were large
increases in the proportion of both women and
young people of both sexes in the labor force.
The right side of the table shows the change in the
unemployment rates of other groups relative to
prime-age males that has accompanied the steady
decline in the latter group’s proportion in the
work force. This unemployment rate ratio in
creased for all other groups during the 1960’s,
and for all but men over 65 years between 1955
and 1969. But by far the greatest increase has
been in the relative unemployment rates of young
workers.
A weighted unemployment rate
If all individuals offered closely similar supplies
of labor, an aggregate unemployment measure
could serve despite the changing size and unem
ployment experience shown in table 1. But large
and persistent differences exist in the labor supply
Table 1.
offered by individuals in the several age-sex
groups.3
For one thing, some individuals work a different
number of average hours than others. In large
part because of the difference in the proportion
of part-time workers and workers holding more
than one job, prime age men work more hours
per week than prime age women, and younger and
older persons work fewer hours on average than
the prime age workers of both sexes. On the
reasonable assumption that the unemployed in
each age-sex group are offering an average num
ber of hours of work similar to that provided by
their employed counterparts, the correct relation
between the labor input offered and the number
of individuals unemployed varies according to
the age-sex composition of the unemployed.
A similar adjustment is needed to account for
the fact that average wages vary systematically
among age-sex groups. If a similar rate of wage
increase for all workers is associated with any
given degree of labor market tightness, then
weighting groups by their relative wage levels is
necessary in a model explaining the change in
average wages: A 10-percent change in the wage
of workers earning $2 an hour will have only
half the effect on the aggregate wage average as
will the same percentage change in the wage of
a worker earning $4 an hour. A second way of
looking at this kind of adjustment is to view wage
differences as a proxy for productivity differences.
If the force of an unemployed worker on labor
market tightness is measured by what he would
contribute to production if employed, then
again weighting by relative wages is called for.
Combining the adjustments for average hours and
average wages just discussed leads to the index for
Shifts in labor force composition and relative unemployment rates, selected years, 1951-69
Ratio of group unemployment rate to prime-age
male unemployment rate 1
Percent of labor force in each group
Sex and age group
1951
1955
1960
1965
1969
1951
1955
1960
1965
1969
Male, total______________ _________ ________________
16-19 years______ ________________________________________
20-24 years____________________________ __________________
25-64 years___ ___________________________________________
65 years and over__________________________________________
69.2
3.8
6.4
55.2
3.9
68.3
3.7
4.9
55.9
3.9
66.5
4.0
5.9
53.4
3.2
64.7
4.6
6.6
50.7
2.8
62.2
4.8
6.5
48.2
2.7
1.3
3.9
1.7
1.0
1.8
1.3
3.8
2.4
1.0
1.4
1.3
3.7
2.1
1.0
1.1
1.5
5.2
2.4
1.0
1. 5
1.7
6.8
3.1
1.0
1.3
Female, total________________________________________
16-19 years_______________________________________________
20-24 years_______________________________________________
25-64 years_______________________________________________
65 years and over____________________ . . ---------------- - ..........
30.8
2.8
4.4
22.6
0.9
31.7
2.6
3.8
24.0
1.3
33.5
3.0
3.7
25.4
1.4
35.3
3.4
4.6
26.0
1.4
37.8
3.8
5.7
27.0
1.3
2.3
3.0
2.4
2.2
1.2
1.7
2.7
2.1
1.7
0.6
1.5
3.0
2.1
1.3
0.6
2.3
5.7
3.1
1.8
0.8
2.8
8.0
3.8
1.9
1.3
i Prime-age group consists of males 25-64 years of age.
SOURCE: A ll figures are based on the civilian labor force data in Employment and
Earnings, February 1970, pp. 20-24, and 55-61. Data prior to 1967 are adjusted for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
changes in the definition of unemployment described in
February 1967, pp. 3-30.
Employment and Earnings,
70
weighting individuals according to their age-sex
group. And adding up the weighted labor force
and weighted unemployment permits the calcula
tion of a weighted unemployment rate. The effect
of weighting is not cancelled in computing this
new unemployment rate concept, since the
relative importance of each of the various age-sex
groups in employment and unemployment is not
the same. For the most part, the groups with
high unemployment also have low values for the
weighting index, indicating that, relative to the
average employee, they earn lower wages or
work fewer hours or both.
Compared with the official unemployment rate,
the weighted unemployment rate gives a picture
of a progressively tighter labor market in recent
years relative to earlier periods. The spread
between the official and weighted unemployment
rates has widened from less than half a point in the
early 1950’s to a full point in the late 1960’s.
Unemployment dispersion
The weighted unemployment rate scales differ
ent members of the labor force more appropriately,
but still treats all workers as perfect substitutes. It
recognizes the difference between one pint and one
quart of an input, which the official unemploy
ment rate does not; but it still treats the input as
homogeneous, making two pints a perfect substi
tute for one quart. If labor force groups are in fact
imperfect substitutes for one another, one should
expect to find unemployment differentials among
groups varying over time. And accounting for the
changing dispersion of unemployment should lead
to a better measure of labor market tightness.
Although dispersion could be measured from
different cross-sections of the labor force, such as
geographic or occupational ones, I have focused on
the dispersion of unemployment among the age-sex
groups of the labor force because the growing dis
parities in group unemployment rates shown in
table 1 suggest that substitution among them is
quite imperfect. In my measure, dispersion is the
sum over all age-sex groups of the absolute
difference between each group’s share of total
weighted unemployment and its share of the total
weighted labor force. In recent years, dispersion
has been greater than at any previous time in the
postwar period, despite lower average weighted
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
and official unemployment rates in some earlier
years. And it has grown steadily every year from
1961 to 1969.
A combined measure
Using weighted unemployment and its dis
persion together provides a combined measure of
labor market tightness. The two were combined
using as weights their coefficients in an equation
explaining wage changes.
The combined measure reveals that labor
markets were tighter in 1968 and 1969 than in
any previous year. By comparison, in these same
years, the measure using the conventional un
employment rate alone was substantially below
Korean war levels.
The worsening trade-off
The new measure of labor market tightness
developed here has some striking implications for
the trade-off between inflation and unemployment.
As it is conventionally conceived, the trade-off
has worsened. Chart 1 illustrates how much it has
worsened since the mid-1950’s on the basis of
estimates using the combined measure of labor
market tightness.
The figure illustrates a steady-state trade-off in
which any given unemployment rate has persisted
long enough for the price-wage interactions to
stabilize. My estimate of the effect of price
changes on wage changes indicates that about 35
percent of the change in living costs is translated
into a subsequent change in wages. For the effect
of wage changes on prices, with some lag, prices
are assumed to rise by the excess of wage changes
over the trend growth of productivity, taken to be
2.7 percent a year. These calculations, and chart 1,
are based on the official compensation per man
hour concept for the private nonfarm economy.
The difference between the trade-off for the
mid-1950’s and the current trade-off, illustrated
in chart 1, results from the changed relation
between the official unemployment rate and the
combined measure of labor market tightness in
the two periods. In the chart, at 4.0 percent
unemployment, the annual rate of inflation is
1.7 percentage points higher today than it was
in the economy of the mid-1950’s—4.5 percent
rather than 2.8 percent.
COMMUNICATIONS
71
The trade-off curves in chart 1 are different
because at the same official unemployment rate,
the labor market is tighter today than it was in the
mid-1950’s.
A good deal of substitution in employment
across age-sex groups has been taking place; but
it has not been sufficient to keep unemployment
rates from diverging. The proportion of jobs held
by workers in the different age-sex groups has
nearly kept pace with the changing proportion of
workers in each group. In 1956, for instance, 15
percent of those employed were under 25 years old.
In 1969, this age group accounted for 20 percent
of the employed. Still, 50 percent of all the unem
ployed were under age 25 in 1969, compared with
Chart 1. The shift in the trade-off between inflation and
unemployment
Annual wage
increase (percent)
Annual price
increase (percent)
w
p
31 percent in 1956. In order to reproduce, in 1969,
the 1956 pattern of relative unemployment rates,
nearly one-half million jobs would have had to be
shifted from prime-age workers to young workers,
three-fourths of them from prime-age men.
Economists have long recognized that aggregate
demand management could reduce the unemploy
ment problem to an essentially structural one.
The expansion of demand in the late 1960’s and
the way labor markets responded to it make it
clear that point had been reached in the last years
of the decade. Despite the intense total de
mand for labor that existed, and the tightest
overall job market since World War II, unem
ployment disparities did not narrow.
The need to do something about large unem
ployment disparities, particularly the high unem
ployment rates among young people, has been
recognized as a social issue. The results presented
here isolate the inflationary consequences of these
unemployment patterns and show them to be
substantial.
It should be emphasized that the structural
changes identified here do not imply that a high
unemployment policy has any greater merit now
than it ever did. Unemployment rates in each
group respond to changes in the average unem
ployment rate as they always have. To choose a
higher average unemployment rate as a target for
policy is to choose higher unemployment rates for
all labor force groups. What is needed is not a way
to raise unemployment, but a way to reduce it
where it is now highest.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Unemployment rate (percent)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
u
7.0
1 Beginning in 1970, b l s has published job vacancy
data covering manufacturing industries (see p. 20, this
issue, and table 17, p. 97). Eventually the series will be
extended to include data on all industries.
2 Charles C. Holt, “How Can the Phillips Curve Be
Moved To Reduce Both Inflation and Unemployment?”
in Edmund S. Phelps and others, M ic r o e c o n o m ic F o u n d a
tio n s o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d I n f la tio n T h e o r y (New York,
W. W. Norton & Co., 1970), pp. 224-256. A number of
papers discussing vacancy statistics are given in T h e
M e a s u r e m e n t a n d I n te r p r e ta tio n o f J o b V a c a n c ie s (New
York, Columbia University Press for the National Bureau
of Economic Research, 1966).
3 Edward F. Denison kindly gave me access to his
worksheets on these' differences, prepared for another
purpose. The weighting index discussed here is based on
his data.
This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in March is based
on contracts on file in the Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial
Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers or more
in all industries except government.
Company and location
Air West, Inc., Mechanics (Interstate)2______________ ___________ ____
American Can Co. (Interstate)______________________________________
American Oil Co., Whiting Refinery (Whiting, Ind.)_____________________
Industry
Number
of
workers
1
Air transportation..
Machinists___________ __________
Petroleum____ _____________________
Independent Petroleum Workers of America (Ind.).
Associated Building Contractors of Terre Haute, Ind. (Indiana)_______ ____
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.:
New York State Chapter, Heavy and Highway Construction (New York)__
New York State Chapter, Inc., Heavy and Highway Construction (New York).
New York State Chapter, Inc., Labor Relations Division (New York)______
Oklahoma Chapter, Builders Division (Oklahoma City, Okla.)___________
Associated Milk Dealers of Denver, Inc. (Denver, Colo.)__................................
Auto Specialties Manufacturing Co. (St. Joseph, Mich.)....... .............. .............
..
Carpenters
_____ . ______
Operating Engineers ________________
Beaunit Corp., Beaunit Fibers Division (Tennessee)_____________ _______
Braniff Airways, Inc., Pilots (Interstate)2________________ ____________
Brooklyn Union Gas Co. (New York, N.Y.)____________ ____ _____ ______
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.:
(Louisville, Ky.)........................ .............. ....................................................
(Virginia and North Carolina).._______ _________________________
Builders' Association of Kansas City, Missouri (Missouri and Kansas)______
Builders’ Association of Kansas City, Missouri (Missouri and Kansas)______
United Textile Workers
______________
Cutler-Hammer, Inc., Industrial Systems Division and Specialty Products
Division (Milwaukee, Wis.).
Detroit Breweries (Detroit, Mich.) 3.......................... ..........................................
Dow Chemical Co. (Midland and Bay City, Mich.)___ ______ ____________
1,100
2, 000
2,000
2,500
1,000
1,000
1,500
2,800
1,150
2,100
2, 350
2, 500
1,350
Electrical Workers (IBEW) _ . _ _____
Electrical Workers (IBEW)..........................
Electrical Workers (IBEW)........................
Utility Workers . ____ .. . . . . . . ____
Utility Workers . . .
. . .......................
1,500
3, 500
2, 600
19, 200
5, 200
Teamsters (Ind.)_____________________
1,300
2, 500
1,000
2, 500
Textile Workers Union___________ _____
Association of Western Pulp and Paper
Workers (Ind.).
Brewery Workers_____________________
District 50, Allied and Technical (Ind.)-------
2, 000
1,000
6, 500
1,000
Eastern Electrical Wholesalers Association, Inc. (New York, N.Y.)__________
Edition Bookbinders of New York, Inc. (New York, N.Y.):
Female Bindery Employees............. ................ ....................... .............. .........
Male Bindery Employees and Female Gold Layers....................................
Ex-Cell-0 Corp. (Lima, Ohio)________________ ____ ___ ______________
Auto Workers (Ind.). . . _ ______
Paper______________________________
Food Markets (Minneapolis, Minn.):3
Grocery Employees__________________ __________________________
Meat Department Employees____ _______ _________________________
____
1,000
1,700
1,450
Association of Western Pulp and Paper
Workers (Ind.).
3,000
Meat Cutters.. ____ . ____ . . ------Meat Cutters_________________________
4, 000
1,000
1,000
8, 000
1,200
General Contractors Association of Bridgeport, Inc. (Connecticut).__________
Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc. (Interstate)
Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association of Central California (California)______
Hayes International Corp. (Birmingham, Ala.)_________________________
Humble Oil & Refining Co., Baton Rouge Refinery, Enjay Chemical Co., Baton
Rouge Chemical Plant (Baton Rouge, La.).
1,000
3,000
2,300
3,350
2,900
1,800
7, 500
Cabot Corp., Stellite Division (Kokomo, Ind.)2_________________________
California Metal Trades Association (San Francisco, Calif.)___ _____ ______
Carrier Corp., Elliott Co. Division (Ohio and Pennsylvania)_______________
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Chicago, III.):
Clerical Employees___________ _____________ __________________
Production and Maintenance (7 local unions)______________________
Production and Maintenance (4 local unions).................................... .......
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. (New York, N.Y.)........................ .
Consumers Power Co., Operating, Maintenance, and Construction Employees
(Michigan).
Continental Baking Co., Morton Frozen Foods Division (Crozet, Va.)__............ Food products
Continental Can Co., Inc. (Interstate)_______ _____ ___________ _____ _
Crown Cotton Mills (Dalton, Ga.)____________________________________ Textiles . . .
..
....
Crown Zellerbach Corp. (Camas, Wash.)................. ......................................... Paper______________________________
Fibreboard Corp. (California, Oregon, and Washington)...... .............................
Union
Petroleum_____. . . ___________________
Auto Workers (Ind.)
_______ ______
Independent Industrial Workers Union
(Ind.).
2,500
2,950
Johns-Manville Products Corp. (Waukegan, III.)______ ____ ____________
1,700
Kollsman Instrument Corp. (Syosset and Elmhurst, N.Y.)_...............................
Kroehler Manufacturing Co. (Interstate)............ ............ ..................................
1,700
3, 000
Lenkurt Electric Co.. Inc. (San Carlos, Calif.)____________ ______ _______
Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. (Durham, N.C., and Richmond, Va.)__________ Tobacco manufactures_________________
72
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Tobacco Workers_________ ____ _______
2,400
3, 000
MAJOR AGREEMENTS EXPIRING NEXT MONTH
73
Major agreements expiring next month—Continued
Company and location
Industry
Magee Carpet Co. (Bloomsburg, Pa.)..................................... ..............
Melville Shoe Corp., J. F. McElwain Co. Division (Manchester, N.H.).
Textiles
Leather
Melville Shoe Corp., J. F. McElwain Co. Division (Nashua, N.H.)............. .........
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (Interstate)__________ ________________
Michigan Distribution Contractors Association (Pontiac, Mich.)-........... ...........
Midland-Ross Corp., Chicago Works Plant, National Castings Division (Cicero,
III.).
Mobil Oil Corp., Mid-Continent Exploration and Producing Regions (Interstate).
Leather_____
Insurance___
Construction...
Primary metals.
Moving and Storage Industry of New York (New York, N.Y.)s.
Trucking
Pet Inc., Whitman's Chocolates Division (Philadelphia, Pa.).
Food products
Union i
Mining______
Number
of
workers
Textile Workers Union______ ___________
New Hampshire Shoe Workers Union of
Manchester (Ind.).
New Hampshire Shoe Workers Union (lnd.)_
Insurance Workers____ _______________
Laborers.___________________________
Auto Workers (Ind.)_____ ________ _____
1,000
11,000
1,000
1,200
Associated Petroleum Employees Union
(Ind.).
Teamsters (Ind.)_______ ____ _________
3, 500
Bakery Workers.
1,250
1,300
1,150
1,000
Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., United States Asbestos Division (Manheim, Pa.)_. Stone, clay, and glass products
Restaurant-Hotel Employers’ Council of Southern California, Inc. (California).. Restaurants.............................
United Textile Workers_______
Hotel and Restaurant Employees.
1,200
10, 000
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (Arizona)___
Santa Barbara Restaurant Association and 2 other associations (California)...
Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Detroit, Mich.)_____________ ______ _____ ______
Standard Oil Co. of California, Western Operations, Inc., and 2 others
(California).
Utilities___
Restaurants.
Retail trade.
Petroleum..
Electrical Workers (IBEW).........
Hotel and Restaurant Employees
Retail Clerks________________
Seafarers (Petroleum Workers)..
1,000
2,100
1,200
2,700
Textron, Inc., Campbell, Wyant and Cannon Foundry Co. Division (Muskegon,
Mich.).
Primary metals.
Auto Workers (Ind.).
2, 350
UGI Corp., Philadelphia Gas Works Division (Philadelphia, P a .)...
Utilities............
Primary metals
United Parcel Service, Inc. (New York).
Trucking.
Gas Works Employees’ Union of Philadel
phia (Ind.).
Portland Metal Trades Council Machinists;
Boilermakers; Electrical Workers(IBEW);
Laborers; Operating Engineers; Painters;
Sheet Metal Workers; and Teamsters
(Ind.).
Teamsters (Ind.)_____________________
2, 350
United Metal Trades Association, Shop Work Agreement (Oregon).
3, 000
Washington Metal Trades, Inc. (Seattle, Wash.)________________________
Washington Metal Trades, Inc., Metal Products Manufacturing Firms (Seattle,
Wash.).
J. Weingarten, Inc. (Texas)...... .................................................... .....................
White Motor Corp., White Truck Division, Factory Agreement (Cleveland,
Ohio).
Fabricated metal products.
Machinery____________
Boilermakers..........
Machinists______ _
1,700
1,600
Retail trade....................
Transportation equipment.
Retail Clerks...........
Auto Workers (Ind.).
3, 000
2, 500
1 Union affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as Independent (Ind.).
2 Information is from newspaper account of settlement.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
s Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).
Indexes to the Monthly Labor Review
Each year the December issue of the Monthly Labor Review con
tains an index, by subject, of articles published in the Review in the
current year. Also included are listings of statistical tables and of
books reviewed, by author of book. In recent years, the index has also
included an alphabetical list of authors.
At intervals, these yearend indexes have been combined and pub
lished as BLS Bulletins:
Bulletin 695, S u b je c t I n d e x to
July 1915 to December 1920
th e M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , V o lu m e s 1 to 1 1 ,
Bulletin 696, S u b je c t I n d e x to th e
January 1921 to December 1940
M o n th ly
Bulletin 1080, S u b je c t I n d e x o f
January 1941 to December 1950
V o lu m e s 5 2 - 7 1 ,
Bulletin 1335, I n d e x o f
1951 to December 1960
V o lu m e s 7 2 - 8 3 ,
L a b o r R e v ie w , V o lu m e s 1 2 to 5 1 ,
M o n th ly
M o n th ly
Labor
L a b o r R e v ie w ,
R e v ie w ,
January
Work is now in progress on the next bulletin in the series, to cover
volumes 84 to 93, January 1961 to December 1970.
2 , 00
Developments
in
Industrial
Relations
Ford and UAW settle
Ford Motor Co. and the Auto Workers reached
accord December 7 on a 3-year agreement nearly
identical to the union’s new contract with General
Motors. (See Monthly Labor Review, December
1970, p. 51.) On December 15, the union an
nounced ratification of the agreement, covering
161,000 workers at Ford. By early January, the
last of the 99 bargaining units had settled on local
issues. The final national issue resolved was the
effective date of the initial wage increase. Ford
and the uaw had agreed earlier that 26 cents in
cost-of-living catchup money would be retroactive
to September 15, termination date of the previous
agreement. The uaw contended that the 23 to
35 cents in new money should also be effective on
that date; Ford maintained it should not be
effective until the Monday after the union formally
notified the company that the national and all
local agreements had been ratified. The contract
set November 2 as the effective date. At gm,
the entire 49 cents to 61 cents was effective
November 23, except that 26 cents was retroactive
to September 15 for uaw members not included
in the walkout because they produce parts for
other auto manufacturers.
There were two other differences between the
Ford and General Motors agreements. At gm, the
fund set up to finance November 1971 wage
inequity adjustments is equal to $1.25 cents an
hour for each worker (396,051) in the bargaining
unit in April 1970; at Ford, funding was set at 0.5
cent an hour for each worker. Ford also agreed to
check-off dental care premiums from workers’ pay
if the uaw establishes such a plan. Some union
officials view this as a first step toward the
Prepared by George Ruben and other members of the
staff of the Division of Trends in Employee Compensation,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and based on information
from secondary sources.
74
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
company-financed dental plans the union had
attempted to win from gm and Ford.
Meanwhile, gm and the uaw were continuing to
resolve local issues. As of January 1, 3 of the 155
bargaining units were still on strike.
At Chrysler, negotiators were unable to meet
their December 18 target date for settlement, and
talks were recessed until January. After talks
resumed, the union set a strike deadline of
January 19.
Settlements were also reached in the automotive
parts and farm and construction industries, where
uaw contracts traditionally are patterned after
agreements with the Big Three auto makers.
On December 4, Dana Corp. and the uaw
negotiated a 3-year contract covering 10,000 em
ployees at 17 plants in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana,
and Pennsylvania. Terms were described by the
union as “closely paralleling the General Motors
. . . settlement.”
A new 3-year contract covers 32,000 workers at
Caterpillar Tractor Co. Unlike the gm agree
ment, unlimited quarterly cost-of-living adjust
ments begin in March 1971, rather than December
1971. This provision was negotiated in late
September, with bargaining on all other wage and
benefits items suspended until after the gm talks.
(See Monthly Labor Review, December 1970, p. 52.)
Other terms of the December 11 settlement
included a 46- to 52-cent wage increase (including
the 32 cents in cost-of-living adjustments that
would have been paid during the previous agree
ment if it had not provided for a 16-cent maxi
mum) retroactive to October 1, a 3-percent (12 to
17 cents) increase on October 1, 1971, and another
3 percent (12 to 18 cents) on October 2, 1972.
Airline walkout ends
A 5-month walkout at Northwest Airlines ended
December 13, when the Railway and Airline
Clerks approved a 39-month agreement calling for
wage increases averaging 37.6 percent. Other
75
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
economic terms were reportedly the same as those
in an October 22 agreement voted down because
union members objected to recall procedures. The
new contract provided for what the parties said
was “an expedited schedule for return to jobs.”
The agreement, covering 3,400 employees, in
cluded total increases ranging from 44.67 percent
($176 a month) for the lowest grade to 33.2 percent
($253 a month) for the top grade, with some inter
mediate grades receiving slightly larger increases.
Initial raises were retroactive from Oct. 1, 1969,
through July 8, 1970, when the strike began. Other
terms included a 10-cent-an-hour increase in shift
premiums, a ninth paid holiday, improvements in
paid vacations (resulting in a schedule ranging
from 2 weeks after 1 year of service to 6 weeks
after 25 years), and provision for companyfinanced retirement and hospital-medical-surgical
plans (replacing contributory plans).
New York City strikes
The 6-day strike by 2,200 fuel oil deliverers and
600 oil burner repairmen ended December 20,
when the Teamsters reached agreement with the
New York Oil Heating Association, comprised of
300 companies that serve 40 percent of the homes
and businesses that use fuel oil in New York
City. Terms of the 2-year pact included total
wage increases of $40 a week for drivers and $44
for repairmen (bringing their minimum scales to
$215 and $225) and improvements in pension and
welfare benefits.
Actors Equity Association and the League of
Off-Broadway Theaters agreed December 16 to
submit their contract differences to binding
arbitration. The 31-day walkout by 200 actors had
shut down 17 shows. The eight issues to be arbi
trated include salaries, pensions, welfare benefits,
and union shop. Under the 3-year pact that
ended November 1, actors received a minimum of
$75 a week for shows grossing $4,500 or less a
week, rising to $150 for shows grossing $9,500 to
$
A 15-day New York City taxi strike, which
affected about 800,000 riders, ended December 20,
when members of Local 3036 of the Taxi Drivers
Union ratified a settlement with the Metropolitan
Taxicab Board of Trade. The settlement, which
provided for an arbitrator to decide the duration
of the contract, was contingent on City Council
approval of the fare rise Mayor Lindsay had
earlier proposed. Under the agreement, the first 10
cents clocked on the meter would be used for pen
sions, holidays, sick benefits, and other items. The
balance of the fare would be split 50-50 between
the owner and the driver. (New drivers would start
at 42 percent of the fare and receive 2-percentagepoint increases every 200 days until they attain the
50-50 split.) Previously, starting drivers received
49 percent of the full total on the meter. Drivers
with 10 years of service received 50 percent and
those with 60 days of service in each quarter year
received an additional percentage point, with the
owners paying for benefits from their share of the
fare. Under the contract, pensions would be in
creased to $100 a month, from $75, with another
$25 increase scheduled if the new financing should
prove adequate. Bulletproof partitions would also
be installed in all cabs by June 1, 1971. The con
tract would cover 36,000 drivers and 1,200 inside
workers employed by 69 fleets (6,816 cabs) that
are members of the association. In addition, 4,963
owner-drivers participated in the walkout.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10, 000 .
Mayor Lindsay asked the City Council to
permit the Office of Collective Bargaining to
impose binding arbitration to end stalemates
involving unions bargaining with the city. Either
side could appeal a decision, within 30 days, to the
appellate division of the State supreme court. The
Mayor said, “It is essential that the citizens of
New York have this vital safeguard as we move
into the police, fire, and sanitation negotiations.”
Contracts for these and other employees were
effective through December 31.
On December 22, the City offered total raises of
$1,000 for policemen and firemen and $900 for
sanitationmen. The proposal came from Director
of Labor Relations Herbert L. Haber, who said the
increases (in July 1971, January 1972, and Jan
uary 1973) would match the projected rise in the
cost of living during the 3-year contract. The offer
was immediately rejected by union leaders, who
have been seeking 30- to 45-percent wage increases,
plus benefit improvements. Current yearly scales
are $10,950 for patrolmen and firemen and $9,871
for sanitationmen.
Occupational safety law
President Nixon signed a bill authorizing
the Secretary of Labor to set occupational safety
and health standards for 55 million Americans.
Employers contesting Department of Labor cita-
76
tions for alleged violations of the standards will
be able to appeal to an independent review board
appointed by the President. The party losing the
appeal will have the right to seek a court review.
The Secretary and the courts may impose civil
penalties and fines, with criminal action permitted
only for willful violations that result in death.
The new law establishes the post of Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Health and Safety and
authorizes union representatives to accompany
inspectors.
As Congress acted, the Bureau of Labor Statis
tics reported that in 1969 the rate of disabling
injuries in manufacturing was the highest since
1951. The 1969 rate of 14.8 injuries per million
hours worked compared with 14.0 in 1968 and 11.4
in 1958. Of the 21 major manufacturing classifica
tions, only tobacco, lumber, and leather showed
improvement during 1969. The rate for wholesale
and retail trade increased to 11.6 in 1969, from
11.3 in 1968. The highest rates were in coal mining
(41.2), trucking and warehousing (36.4), and
lumber and wood products (34.6).
Job bias charged
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commis
sion asked the Federal Communications Commis
sion (fcc) to deny American Telephone & Tele
graph Co.’s bid for a $385 million a year increase
in interstate phone rates until the company ends
alleged discrimination against women, blacks, and
Spanish-surnamed Americans. The Commission
urged the fcc to seek writs compelling the 24 Bell
System companies to end six alleged employment
practices, which it said are illegal.
The Commission accused a . t . & t . of maintain
ing job classifications based on race, sex, or na
tional origin; refusal to hire women and blacks or
members of other minorities because they lack a
high school diploma, have illegitimate children, or
have an arrest record; sexually discriminatory
retirement plans, both in age of retirement and in
benefits; sexually and racially discriminatory wage
structures; sexually and racially discriminatory
seniority systems, and denial of job promotional
opportunities in cases where women and blacks or
other members of minorities lack the necessary
training because of alleged past discriminatory
employment practices. The Commission also
called for establishment of a company-financed
board to prepare a report within 1 year on methods
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
for ending the asserted discrimination.
H. I. Romnes, chairman of a .t . & t ., denounced
the charges as “outrageous” and “completely
distorted,” declaring, “In the field of equal em
ployment we have been leaders, not followers.”
He cited the following figures:
“Total minority employment in the Bell
System stands at 128,038, or 12.4 percent of our
work force.
“In the past 5 years nonwhite employment in
the Bell System has increased 152 percent.
“Since 1963, total employment in the Bell
System has increased 37.5 percent, nonwhite
employment 265 percent.
“Minorities currently represent some 2.9
percent of Bell System management and pro
fessional employees. Of employees advanced to
m a n a g e m e n t ra n k s in t h e t e le p h o n e c o m p a n ie s in
1970, minorities accounted for 9.3 percent.
“Women account for 55.5 percent of Bell
System employment; they account for 33.5 per
cent of management and professional employ
ment.”
In a separate development, the Department of
Justice sued United States Steel Corp., the Steel
workers union, and 12 of its locals, charging
discrimination against blacks at the company’s
plant in Fairfield, Ala. The Department asked
Earnings index
The Bureau’s index of average hourly earnings for
manufacturing production workers (excluding over
time premium pay and the effects of interindustry
employment shifts) rose 1.5 in September, to 159.7.
Data for prior periods are shown below.
1969
(
In d e x
1 9 5 7 -5 9 = 1 0 0 )
September
October
N ovember
December
149.
150.
151.
152.
5
2
0
0
Annual averages:
1968_______ 139. 5
1970
(
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
1970 In d e x
1957 -5 9 = 1 0 0 )
____ 152. 9
____ 153.4
____ 154.4
____ 155. 1
____ 156. 0
____ 156. 6
____ 157.4
____ 158.2
.____ 159. 7
1969______ _ 147. 7
Monthly data from 1947-68 and data for selected
periods from 1939 to 1947 are contained in S u m m a r y
of
M a n u f a c tu r in g
S e r ie s ,
P r o d u c tio n
W orkers
1939-68 (BLS Bulletin 1616, 1969).
E a r n in g s
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
the Federal District Court in Birmingham to
enjoin the company from continuing allegedly
discriminatory practices. It also asked the court
to require U.S. Steel to compensate black em
ployees for the alleged bias in hiring, job assign
ment, and promotions. The suit charged the
company had hired and assigned employees on
the basis of race, with blacks being given less
desirable jobs, with the least chance of promotion;
set more stringent requirements for blacks than
for whites in hiring and job assignments and
transfers; failed to recruit blacks for clerical,
technical, and supervisory jobs; and signed labor
contracts with the Steelworkers that deprived
blacks of equal job opportunities through a
seniority system based on length of service in
certain departments or areas to which blacks have
had little or no access.
E. H. Gott, chairman of U.S. Steel, said the
suit was filed the day after his company had
rejected a “grossly outrageous” demand by the
Department that blacks constitute 40 percent of
all employees promoted to managerial positions
during the next 5 years. Mr. Gott asserted that
such demands were “in direct opposition to the
premise of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which
provides that there be no discrimination in em
ployment and upgrading because of race, color,
creed, national origin, or sex.”
The company said separate seniority lists were
maintained for blacks and whites until 1963, and
that blacks now hold a disproportionate share of
lower paying jobs because “a large number of
Negroes were hired who had a very limited
educational background and were placed in lines
of promotion in which only laboring types of
functions were required.” The plant employes
9,100 whites and 3,900 blacks.
Virginia Electric Power Co. and eight locals
of the Electrical Workers (ibew ) were charged
with racial discrimination in a Justice Department
suit filed in the Federal District Court in Rich
mond. The Department charged that the utility
is “engaged in acts and practices that limit,
segregate, classify, and otherwise discriminate
against its black employees and black applicants
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
77
for employment.” It also said the company has
“traditionally maintained a racially segregated
system of jobs and lines of progression” for its
6,053 employees, of whom 586 are black. Vice
Chairman John M. McGurn said the suit “does
not have any real merit” and that Virginia
Electric has a formal written policy calling for
equal opportunity for every employee. The locals
denied the Government’s charges that their
contract with the company is discriminatory.
In the first sex discrimination case filed under
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Libbey-Owens-Ford
Co., Inc., of Toledo, Ohio, and the Glass and
Ceramic Workers and Local 9 of the union signed
a consent agreement not to discriminate against
women. The Justice Department filed the suit in
July 1970. (See Monthly Labor Review, September
1970, p. 60.)
Government job cuts
Fiscal difficulties led New York State to an
nounce layoffs. Earlier, New York City and
Cleveland had also cut payrolls. (See Monthly
Labor Review, January 1971, p. 71.) The State
was expected to cut 5,000 to 15,000 temporary
and provisional employees from a total payroll of
about 140,000. This was one of a number of
economies underway as New York expected a
$100 million deficit for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1971.
Union merger
On January 1, 1971, the 20,000-member United
Stone and Allied Products Workers of America
merged into the 1.2-million-member Steelworkers.
Officers of both unions said the merger was a
necessary development, particularly in bargaining
with conglomerate companies. Officers and staff
of the Stone Workers were added to the Steel
workers staff. The Stone Workers union was
founded in 1903 as the Quarry Workers Inter
national. At that time it represented granite
workers in New England.
□
Book
Reviews
and
Notes
Black employment patterns
N e g ro E m p lo y m e n t in B a s ic I n d u s tr y : A S tu d y o j
R a c ia l E m p lo y m e n t P o lic ie s in S ix I n d u s tr ie s .
By Herbert R. Northrup and others. Phila
delphia, Pa., University of Pennsylvania,
Wharton School of Finance and Commerce,
Industrial Research Unit, 1970, 769 pp.
(Studies of Negro Employment, Volume 11.)
$10, University of Pennsylvania Press, Phila
delphia.
Herbert Northrup was associated with Gunnar
Mydral in the studies leading to T h e A m e r i c a n
D il e m m a , and in the ensuing quarter century he
has maintained a continuing interest in the inter
acting problems of industrial relations and racial
discrimination. Thus it was altogether fitting for
the Ford Foundation to invite him to direct a
study on the patterns of Negro employment in
American industry.
This book, the first hardcover report from the
study, collects together six previously published
paperback monographs plus a valuable introduc
tion and conclusion. (Three of the monographs,
the introduction and conclusion are by Northrup,
the rest by his associates.) The six industries
included—autos, steel, rubber tires, aerospace,
chemicals, and petroleum—are all basic industries.
Studies of 25 additional industries (including some
service industries) have been commissioned, a
majority of which have already been published.
Though a total of nine hard-cover books are
contemplated, enough of the project is now com
plete to assess its strengths and limitations.
The purpose of the project, as twice repeated,
is “to determine why some industries are more hos
pitable to the employment of Negroes than are
others and why some companies in the same indus
try have vastly different racial employment
policies.” Each of the studies utilizes roughly the
same methodologies and is presented in roughly
the same manner. Each study begins with a des78
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
¡11
1
1* ^
s fc—
j\
cription of the history, economic structure, and
industrial relations practices of the industry in
question. Next, changes in patterns of Negro em
ployment over time are described. Finally, an
effort is made to explain these changing patterns
in terms of factors such as plant location, changes
in overall employment levels, technology, and so
forth. Much of the description is based on works
already published; liberal use is made of Census
and eeoc data as well as those collected by the
authors themselves; in addition there was fairly
intensive interviewing (the extent of which is not
indicated) within the industries themselves.
Among the findings are the following: Occupa
tional mix, plant location, and historical accident
seem to be crucial determinants of overall levels
of Negro employment. Blacks are most heavily
represented in plants which have substantial
numbers of hard, dirty, unskilled jobs (auto,
steel, and older tire plants) which are located near
centers of Negro population (Detroit, central
Los Angeles) or which developed their hiring pat
terns prior to the advent of jim crow (southern
steel mills). The skilled trades have more blacks
in steel than in autos largely because of differences
in seniority rules—and so forth.
In recent years, what factors have seemed
favorable to increases in Negro employment?
These seem to include expansion of overall employ
ment (autos, aerospace, and chemicals, but not
steel or tires) and exposure to governmental or
civil rights pressures (aerospace and petroleum,
respectively). On the other hand, rapid technolog
ical changes (as in petroleum and some tire plants)
has reduced the demand for unskilled workers and
made implementation of equal employment
programs more difficult. In some instances, the
interaction of these factors is significant. Of the
industries studied, aerospace is subject to greatest
Government pressure, but perhaps has greatest
need for highly skilled personnel. Together these
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
two factors help explain the aerospace’s heavy
commitment to training black employees.
The findings, though well documented, will
hardly surprise anyone interested in the field
(especially since the monographs were widely
circulated). The conclusions are quite cautiously
stated and no policy implications are suggested.
Given the massive scope of the study, I would
have liked the authors’ views as to tactics, strategy,
and public policy. In terms of realistic possibilities,
how well have these companies done? What sorts
of effort are likely to lead to greatest payoff? How
useful are the various governmental efforts, such
as fair employment laws, contract compliance
procedure, the jo bs program, and various other
Government-supported training programs?
Along these lines, the study places much more
emphasis on the end results of integration than
on the process by which it has been achieved. In
what areas was resistance to change greatest and
how has this resistance been overcome? What
tactics seem to be most useful? To be sure, there
are a number of short, perhaps too short, case
studies (for instance, of the Armstrong Rubber
Co. in Natchez) which dramatically illustrates
how the battles have been fought. However, I
wish the book had given the same sort of sys
tematical analysis to the microproblems of making
integration work as it gives to the microexplana
tions of the final result.
Finally, some stylistic comments. Sentence by
sentence this book flows very well. Overall,
however, one gets the impression of redundancy
and excessive length. By the time one reads
through six cases and a conclusion, the main
points have been more than adequately driven
home. This series will undoubtedly be extremely
valuable for those interested in developments in
particular industries, but few people are likely to
read all nine volumes from end to end. Not even
the first six chapters jell into an integrated book.
In terms of scope and imagination, this book is
perhaps not another A m e r i c a n D il e m m a . But
within its limitations it is a notable contribution.
Together the series will represent our most
thorough study of the present state of American
black employment patterns.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
— G eorge S trauss
Professor of Business Administration
University of California
79
Coping with regional problems
R u r a l P o v e r t y a n d th e U r b a n C r i s i s : A S t r a t e g y f o r
By Niles M. Hansen.
Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1970.
352 pp., bibliography. $12.50.
This book, originally submitted as a report to
the Manpower Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, provides a lucid and comprehensive
discussion of a wide range of regional and urban
problems. There is a great deal of discussion
about regional problems and the Federal programs
designed to cope with them. Introductory chapters
discuss differences in regional income and growth
rates. These are followed by detailed discussions
of economic problems and development oppor
tunities in the South and in Appalachia and of the
Regional Commissions established by the Public
Works and Economic Development Act. The
plight of Indians and Mexican-Americans is dis
cussed in some detail, these groups being singled
out, presumably, because they are concentrated
in a limited number of regions.
The author offers little that is new in the way
of factual material on regional disparities in
income and employment, or on geographic and
ethnic concentrations of poverty. Along with his
description, however, he provides a running com
mentary and evaluation of the Nation’s major
regional programs. While he is a gentle critic,
Hansen does not give these programs high grades.
The author questions the feasibility of indus
trializing rural areas. The report of the President’s
National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty
comes under critical scrutiny, and Hansen is
particularly skeptical about the conclusion that
every citizen has a right to equal access to em
ployment without discrimination because of race,
religion, national origin, or place of residence. He
is not sanguine about the ability of public policy
to “bring jobs to workers” wherever the latter
are located. Hansen feels that regional develop
ment efforts should be concentrated in a limited
number of potential growth centers. This can be
accomplished, he believes, only if the mobility of
labor is increased. It appears that this is the
essence of his strategy of regional development.
When he turns to urban economics, Hansen’s
sympathies appear to be with urban scholars who
believe that many metropolitan areas are already
R e g io n a l D e v e lo p m e n t.
80
M ONTHLY
too large. He would not want to add to the
problems of urban ghettos by encouraging further
rural migration into larger cities. Instead, rural
migrants should be “channeled” to growth centers
of an “intermediate” size.
It is difficult to dispute Hansen’s conclusions on
logical grounds. The proposal of increased labor
mobility as a solution to the problem of unem
ployment in specific geographic areas is far from
new. Economists have been advocating this since
the problem of localized employment was first
discovered, but we have yet to find an effective
mechanism for implementing the proposal in a
noncoercive way. Hansen mentions the conven
tional approach of retraining, counseling, and
relocation allowances. This has been discussed at
infinitum, and has been tried experimentally.
It may be an important tactic of regional de
velopment, but it falls short of a total strategy.
The value of this book does not stem from the
novelty of its ideas. Hansen’s contribution—and
it is an important one—has been to bring together
in onn volume a comprehensive discussion of
regional problems and policies in the United
States. While he does not succeed in synthesizing
urban and regional economics, he provides a
few links between the two. This is a stimulating
book, and one need not accept all of the author’s
conclusions to recognize it as an important con
tribution to the literature of spatial economics.
— W illiam
H.
M ie r n y k
Director, Regional Research Institute
West Virginia University
British white-collar unions
By George
Sayers Bain. New York, Oxford University
Press, 1970. 233 pp. $9.
To “isolate the major factors which determine
the growth of white-collar unionism” is the stated
purpose of Mr. Bain’s study. Included for analysis
are such varied groups as clerks, scientists, sales
men, and government administrators in England.
Between 1948 and 1964, growth of the British
labor movement was negligible. By 1964, 29 per
cent of white-collar workers were unionized.
The author bases the conclusions presented in
this study on analysis of publised data and results
of responses to questionnaires and personal inter
T h e G ro w th o j W h ite - C o lla r U n i o n i s m .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
LABOR
R E V IE W ,
FEB R U A R Y
1971
views. Employee sex, social origin, age, job status,
and amount of economic security are rejected as
having no significant influence on white-collar
union growth. Also rejected are the amount of
mechanization and automation, opportunities for
promotion, and proximity to unionized manual
workers. Union organizational activities are found
to be insignificant.
Mr. Bain concludes that “growth of aggregate
white-collar unionism in Britain can be adequately
explained by three strategic variables” :
(1) Employment Concentration: In a large
organization, rules apply to employees as members
of a group; the most effective way to favorably
influence those rules is seen as being through
collective bargaining.
(2) Union Recognition by Management: Within
the private sector, white-collar unionization is
greater where employer policies and practices more
favorable to unions have been most in evidence. In
the public sector, employers have agreed to
negotiate with unions, and most managements
have “actively encouraged” their employees to
join unions. As a result, over 80 percent of public
employees are union members. Most private
employers do not recognize white-collar unions,
and many discourage their white-collar employees
from joining. This is seen as an explanation for
the low 10-percent unionization of employees in
the private sector.
(3) Government Action: “Most white-collar
recognition in private industry has come about,
directly or indirectly, as a result of Government
policies and the favorable climate they created for
trade unionism.” However, the Government has
given no more than “normal support to the
principle of trade union recognition.”
The research-oriented reader is aided by fre
quent references to related literature and a
discussion of the method of data handling. There
is a concise review of the white-collar union move
ment in Britain to 1964.
Reference to data no more recent than 1964
detracts from what could have been a timely
review. Because of the “lack of detail in the sys
tems of classifying both labour force and union
membership figures, only rough estimates of the
real growth of white-collar unionism could be
obtained.” Certain conclusions and apparent
contradictions appear to require additional
explanation.
BOOK
R E V IE W S
AND
The reader is left to discover from other sources
why employees in large organizations are more
likely to join unions and why some employers are
more receptive than others to negotiating with
unions. Indeed, as the author points out, since the
end of the Second World War, legislation in
Britain has tended to restrict, not support, union
recognition.
It can be agreed with the author that this study
has some important implications for research into
the growth of aggregate white-collar unionism,
for the functions of unions in industrial society,
and for the future growth of white-collar unionism.
However, the book, while interesting reading,
should be approached with some selectivity.
— H aro ld C . W h it e
Associate Professor of Management
Arizona State University
Jobs for the nonprofessional
T h e N o n p r o f e s s i o n a l R e v o l u ti o n i n M e n t a l H e a lth .
By Francine Sobey. New York, Columbia
University Press, 1970. 239 pp., bibliography.
$
81
NOTES
that the paid nonprofessionals were located equally
between small towns (2,500-25,000) and the
medium and larger cities (25,000 to under 500,000).
An unexpected finding was that the largest num
ber of projects served only persons diagnosed as
mentally ill. Of more significance was the finding
that 40 percent of the projects gave "new” types
of care not previously given by the sponsoring
agency. A finding of major interest for the inno
vative aspects of the work of the nonprofessional
was that three-fourths of the projects were medium
or high in their emphasis on preventive services—
services to the young, non-ill segments of a com
munity, and those focusing on education services.
The major contribution of this book is that it
summarizes a selection of data regarding the wide
range of activities subsumed under the heading of
the nonprofessional. If the reader is a purist, he
can look at the array of findings, and reflect upon
the confusion as the variety of roles that are
performed. A more pragmatic note is that this
variety suggests an exciting diversity in the
provision of mental health service. Such expan
sion, while not revolutionary, offer a more adap
tive response to local community needs.
10.
This book is a report of a survey of 185 projects
funded by the National Institute of Mental
Health, all concerned with the utilization of train
ing of nonprofessionals. A 17-page mail question
naire, (with a response rate of 96 percent) derived
from projects ongoing between 1966 and 1968,
provides the basis for the report. In addition, this
report was supplemented by personal site visits
to projects within the New York metropolitan
area. The total report is concerned with evalua
tions of the work of over 10,000 nonprofessionals.
The questionnaire focuses primarily on the
characteristics of the nonprofessional population,
the functions performed, and the recruitment and
training of nonprofessionals. As Professor Sobey
comments, the day of the exclusive mental health
interdisciplinary team, psychiatrist, psychiatric
social worker, psychologist, and nurse in the
hospital setting is rapidly disappearing. The team
has definitely expanded.
Who does what part of the mental health job
receives preliminary appraisal in the report of
this book. Findings include the fact that a majority
of projects (59 percent) employed more nonpro
fessionals than professionals (6.1 percent), and
4 1 2 -8 2 4 0 - 7 1 - 6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
— J a m e s G . K e ll y
Professor of Psychology
University of Michigan
Integration of politics and economics
P o w e r a n d M o n e y : T h e E c o n o m ic s o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l
P o litic s
and
th e
P o litic s
of
I n te r n a tio n a l
By Charles P. Kindleberger.
New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1970. 246 pp.
$6.95.
As the subtitle suggests, this book attempts to
bridge the gap that clearly exists between dis
cussions of international politics by political
scientists and analyses of international economic
problems by economists. Professor Kindleberger,
an economist who teaches at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, has impressive credentials
for such an undertaking, having authored a large
number of books and articles dealing with the
theory of international trade, the balance of
payments, the economics of underdeveloped areas,
and modern European economic history. More
over, in contrast with many contemporary econo
mists, Professor Kindleberger has consistently
E c o n o m ic s .
82
exhibited a strong interest in the political con
straints that surround economic policymakers.
Unfortunately, the book falls far short of its
goal. Aside from two introductory chapters in
part I, which offer some rather discursive com
parisons of economics and political science as
scholarly disciplines, the book is organized into
two self-contained divisions: one dealing with
“The Economics of International Politics” (part
II), the other with "The Politics of International
Economics” (part III). Bridges between these
segments of the book are few and far between,
and there is no summary chapter which attempts
to pull together the disparate materials that have
been presented.
Part II includes brief chapters on Sovereignty,
Power, Imperialism, War, and Peacekeeping.
Economist Kindleberger does not pretend to have
anything very penetrating to say about these
political categories. Instead, his purpose is to
examine critically some of the implicit economic
theories that creep into discussions of these
topics and to explode a few myths—for example,
"the naive political theorem that economic fulfill
ment leads to political quiescence.” Most econo
mists, I suspect, would agree with most of
Kindleberger’s judgments. However, one wonders
what audience will find these chapters useful.
Mature scholars on both sides of the fence may
find Kindleberger’s treatment elementary and
uninteresting, while undergraduates and general
readers are apt to find either the politics or the
economics, or both, rather baffling.
There are seven chapters in part III: Trade,
Aid, Migration, Capital, Corporations, Payments,
and Money. The treatment here is entirely sym
metrical to that of part II in that the e c o n o m ic s
of these topics is, on the whole, suppressed (or
at least highly compressed), in favor of discussions
of their 'p o litic a l implications. Speaking as an
economist, I found some of this material interest
ing. Again, however, one wonders whether readers
who lack training in international economics
will find these chapters helpful. The final two
chapters, in particular, will be difficult reading
for noneconomists. At the same time, many readers
will find Kindleberger’s political judgments highly
questionable. As an example, consider his verdict
on the fixed versus flexible exchange rate issue.
Kindleberger rightly calls attention to political
difficulties with flexible rates—difficulties that
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
economists often sweep under the carpet. But he
then offers the reader, without the slightest
apology for lack of political realism, one of his
own proposals to achieve international monetary
coordination, namely the extension of membership
on our Federal Open Market Committee to the
leading European central banks.
One can only applaud Professor Kindleberger’s
attempt to break down intellectual parochialism.
At the same time, this reviewer regrets to see a
man of his scholarship produce a volume that,
in effect, attempts to integrate political science
and economics by searching for a lowest common
denominator. The result will not be informative
to members of either discipline.
— R ichard T. S elden
Professor of Economics
University of Virginia
Explaining educational failures
M e x i c a n A m e r i c a n s i n S c h o o l: A H i s t o r y o j E d u
By Thomas P. Carter. New
York, College Entrance Examination Board,
1970. 235 pp., bibliography. $4.
Despite its excellence, this book is not, as the
title suggests, a history delineating the problems
encountered by Mexican-Americans after the con
quest of the Southwest by the United States.
Although the work does contain one brief intro
ductory chapter on the historical aspect, it is
primarily concerned with present-day conditions
and their causes, and solutions for the MexicanAmerican child’s educational failure. Consequently
the study contains important chapters on the
“Failure of the Mexican-American Culture,” the
“Default of the School,” the “Mexican-American
Reactions to School and Community,” “Special
Programs for Mexican Children, ’’and “Where to
From Here.”
The work, a substudy of ucla’s MexicanAmerican Study Proiect financed by the College
Entrance Examination Board, is definitely a syn
thesis of previous studies. It is not, however, an
armchair, ivory tower synthesis. The contents are
reinforced by over 250 interviews with educators
and laymen, and Professor Carter’s expert knowl
edge and understanding of the Mexican-Ameri
cans’ educational needs in the Southwest. Conse
quently, Carter’s synthesis presents valuable
c a t i o n a l N e g le c t .
83
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
information, conclusions, and questions that
teachers, administrators, and professors of educa
tion and of Mexican-American studies would find
most difficult, if not impossible, to obtain from the
myriad of educational studies available.
As a professor of Mexican-American history,
and as a former public school teacher in pre
dominantly Mexican-American schools, I was im
pressed by the chapters entitled “Failure of the
Culture” and the “Default of the School.” In the
first, the author dispassionately demonstrates the
lack of understanding and knowledge that teachers
and administrators have of the dynamic and
multifaceted Mexican-American culture. In the
second, he presents the public schools’ failure—
and the reasons for the failure—in educating the
Mexican-American. These revealing chapters will
undoubtedly make many public school educators
unhappy; they will, however, be most valuable to
students who are planning to teach MexicanAmerican children.
Perhaps Carter’s most valuable chapter to non
professionals is the one examining special school
programs for Mexican-American children. Demon
strating vast personal knowledge, objectivity, and
insight, the author evaluates the various types of
special programs available to these minority group
children. He arrives at the conclusions that the
“overwhelming majority of special programs are
little or no different from those for other ‘disad
vantaged’ children” and that they “are not sub
stantially different from regular school programs.”
This honest, objective style makes this book a
valuable contribution in the field of education.
Economic growth and development
Barkin, David and Timothy King,
D e v e lo p m e n t:
T h e R iv e r B a s i n
Professor of History
University of Southern California
E c o n o m ic
in
M e x ic o .
New York, Cambridge University Press, 1970, 262 pp.
(Cambridge Latin American Studies, 7). $10.50.
Bates, Robert H., “Approaches to the Study of Unions
and Development,” I n d u s t r i a l R e la tio n s , October
1970, pp. 365-378.
Henderson, William L. and Larry C. Ledebur, “Programs
for the Economic Development of the American
Negro Community,” A m e r ic a n J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic s
a n d S o c io lo g y , October 1970, pp. 337-351.
Kahn,
Herman,
C h a lle n g e
The
and
E m e r g in g
Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
$7.95.
Maritano, Nino,
Jap a n ese
S u p e r s ta te :
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,
1970, 274 pp., bibliography.
R esp o n se.
A L a t i n A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic C o m m u n ity :
Notre Dame, Ind.,
University of Notre Dame Press, 1970, 265 pp.,
bibliography. $9.95.
H i s t o r y , P o lic ie s , a n d P r o b le m s .
Reynolds, Clark W.,
T h e M e x ic a n
E c o n o m y : T w e n tie th -
New Haven, Conn.,
Yale University Press, 1970, 468 pp., bibliography.
$13.50.
C e n tu r y
S tr u c tu r e a n d
Sellekaerts, Willy,
Europe,” M S U
20-26.
G r o w th .
“Economic
Reforms in Eastern
Autumn 1970, pp.
B u s i n e s s T o p ic s ,
Economic statistics
Ruggles, Nancy and Richard, T h e D e s ig n o f E c o n o m ic
A c c o u n ts . New York, National Bureau of Economic
Research, 1970, 179 pp., bibliography. (General
Series, 89.) $8, Columbia University Press, New York.
Stone, Bernell Kenneth,
R i s k , R e tu r n , a n d E q u ilib r iu m : A
G en era l S in g le -P e r io d
— M anuel P. S ervin
R e g io n a l
A pproach
T h e o r y o f A s s e t S e le c tio n
C a p i t a l - M a r k e t E q u ilib r iu m .
and
Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T.
Press, 1971, 150 pp. $10.
Wood, W. D. and H. F. Campbell,
C o s t-B e n e f it A n a l y s i s
a n d th e E c o n o m ic s o f I n v e s tm e n t i n H u m a n R e s o u r c e s :
An
Other recent publications
E a r th .
Boston,
Kingston, Ontario,
Relations Center,
Faltermayer, Edmund K., “Let’s Break the Go-to-College
Lockstep,” F o r tu n e , November 1970, pp. 98-103, 144.
Linden,
Chao, Kang,
B i b l io g r a p h y .
Education
Agriculture and natural resources
Arango, Jorge, T h e U r b a n iz a tio n o f th e
Beacon Press, 1971, 175 pp. $6.95.
A n n o ta te d
Queen’s University, Industrial
1970, 211 pp. $10.
A g r i c u l t u r a l P r o d u c tio n i n C o m m u n is t C h in a ,
Madison, University of Wisconsin Press,
1971, 357 pp., bibliography. $15 -
Fabian,
“The
Education of the Family,”
October 1970, pp. 41-44.
C o n fe r e n c e B o a r d R e c o r d ,
1 9 4 9 -1 9 6 5 .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
National Education Association,
T h e P u p i l s ’ D a y i n C o u r t:
84
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
R e v ie w o f 1 9 6 9 . Washington, 1970, 88 pp. (School Law
Series, Research Report 1970-R9.) $2.
National Education Association, T h e T e a c h e r ’s D a y i n
C o u r t: R e v ie w o f 1 9 6 9 . Washington, 1970, 59 pp.
(School Law Series, Research Report 1970-R8.)
Smith, C. Selby, “Cost and Benefits in Future Education:
Some Evidence From a Pilot Study,” E c o n o m ic
J o u r n a l , September 1970, pp. 583-604.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory,
C a lip e r s :
P la n n i n g th e S y s te m s A p p r o a c h to F ie ld T e s tin g E d u c a
tio n P r o d u c ts .
Austin, Tex., 1969, 156 pp. $3.
Special International Education Year Issue,
r a m a , September-October 1970, pp. 1-32.
IL O
Pano
Industry and Government organization
Fourre, James P., Q u a n tita tiv e B u s i n e s s P la n n i n g T e c h
n iq u e s . New York, American Management Associa
tion, 1970, 176 pp. $8.25.
Friedmann, W. G. and J. F. Garner, editors, G o v e r n m e n t
E n te r p r is e : A C o m p a r a tiv e S t u d y . New York, Columbia
University Press, 1970, 351 pp. $10.
Horn, Stephen,
U n u sed P o w er:
The
W o r k o f th e S e n a te
Washington, Brookings
Institution, 1970, 285 pp. $7.50.
C o m m itte e o n A p p r o p r i a t i o n s .
Kobayashi, Shigeru, “The Creative Organization— A
Japanese Experiment,” P e r s o n n e l, November-December 1970, pp. 8-17.
Kurtz, David L. and Larry R. Trussell, “The Railroads:
Subsidy, Nationalization, or a Return to Free Enter
prise?” C o n fe re n c e B o a r d R e c o rd , October 1970,
pp. 33-36.
New York State Department of Labor,
S ta tis tic s
on
O p e r a tio n s : S u p p le m e n t to th e A n n u a l R e p o r t, 1 9 6 9 .
Murphy, Richard J. and Morris Sackman,
T he C r is is in
P u b l i c E m p lo y e e R e la tio n s i n th e D e c a d e o f th e S e v e n tie s .
Washington, Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1970,
256 pp. $14.50.
Nigro, Felix A., “Labor Relations in the Public Sector,
Part I” P e r s o n n e l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , September-October
1970, pp. 34-38.
Schwarz, Thomas J., “Plant Relocation or Partial Ter
mination— The Duty to Decision-Bargain,” F o r d h a m
L a w R e v ie w , October 1970, pp. 81-102.
Sharkley, Samuel M., P u b lic E m p lo y e e S t r i k e s : C a u s e s a n d
E f f e c ts . Washington, Labor-Management Relations
Service, 1970, 10 pp. (Strengthening Local Govern
ment Through Better Labor Relations, 7.)
Staudohar, Paul D., “Compulsory Arbitration of Interests
Disputes in the Protective Services,” L a b o r L a w
J o u r n a l, November 1970, pp. 708-715.
U.S. Women’s Bureau, L a w s o n S e x D i s c r i m i n a t io n i n
E m p lo y m e n t. Washington, Wage and Labor Standards
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 1970,
20 pp. 30 cents, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington.
Wnorowski, A. K., “Once You Have an Agreement (How
to Avoid Grievances),” P e r s o n n e l J o u r n a l, October
1970, pp. 843-846.
Industrial health and safety
Smith, David J., “Absenteeism and Presenteeism in
Industry,” A r c h iv e s o f E n v ir o n m e n ta l H e a lth , No
vember 1970, pp. 670-677.
Tabershaw, Irving R., W. Clark Cooper, J. Leroy Balzer,
“A Labor-Management Occupational Health Service
in a Construction Industry,” A r c h iv e s o f E n v ir o n m e n ta l
H e a lth , December 1970, pp. 784-788.
Albany, 1970, 205 pp.
International economics
Thole, Henry C. and Eugene C. McKean, B u s in e s s
C o n d itio n s i n K a la m a z o o . Kalamazoo, Mich., W. E.
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, October
1970, 31 pp.
Tokyo
Metropolitan
Government, A n A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Tokyo, 1970, 64 pp.
P e r s p e c tiv e o f T o k y o , 1 9 7 1 .
Industrial relations
Commonwealth of the Bahamas, E x te r n a l T r a d e S t a t i s t i c s
R e p o r t, 1 9 6 9 . Nassau, Bahamas, Department of
Statistics, 1970, 836 pp.
Huntington, Samuel P., “Foreign Aid for What and for
Whom,” F o r e ig n P o li c y , Winter 1970-71, pp. 161-189.
International Labor Organization,
in
E m p lo y m e n t
in
A s ia :
E q u a l i t y o f O p p o r tu n i t y
P r o b le m s
and
P o li c i e s —
R e p o r ts a n d D o c u m e n ts o f a R e g io n a l S e m in a r , M a n i l a ,
“A Complementary Collection: Work, Performance, and
Satisfaction,” I n d u s t r i a l R e la tio n s , October 1970,
pp. 405-474.
2 - 1 1 D e c e m b e r 1 9 6 9 . Geneva, 1970, $1.75. Distributed
in United States by Washington Branch of i l o .
Levinson, Jerome and Juan de Onis,
Kieta, Joseph E., “The Strike and Its Alternatives in
Public Employment,” P u b l i c P e r s o n n e l R e v ie w ,
October 1970, pp. 226-230.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T h e A ll i a n c e T h a t L o s t
I t s W a y : A C r itic a l R e p o r t o n th e A ll i a n c e f o r P r o g r e s s .
New York, Twentieth Century Fund, Inc., 1970, 381
pp. $7.95, Quadrangle Books, Inc., Chicago.
85
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Malmgren, Harald B., “Coming Trade Wars? (NeoMercantilism and Foreign Policy),” F o r e ig n P o li c y ,
Winter 1970-71, pp. 115-143.
Pisar, Samuel,
C o e x is te n c e
&
C o m m e rc e :
G u id e lin e s f o r
New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970, 558 pp. $17.50.
T r a n s a c tio n s
B e tw e e n
E ast
and
W e s t.
Labor and economic history and thought
De Caux, Len,
L a b o r R a d ic a l: F r o m th e W o b b lie s to C I O — A
P e rs o n a l H is to r y .
Boston, Beacon Press, 1971, 557 pp.
$15.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Bureau of Health Professions Education & Manpower
Training, 1970, 107 pp. $1.25, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington.
Rosen, Doris B., E m p lo y m e n t T e s tin g a n d M i n o r i t y G r o u p s .
Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University, New York State
School of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1970, 30 pp.
(Key Issues Series No. 6.) $2.
Schrank, Robert, “It Makes No Difference Now,”
G e n e r a tio n , Fall 1970, pp. 14-21.
Searing, Marjory E.,
N ew
E s tim a te s o f E d u c a tio n a l A tta in m e n t
Washington, U.S. Bureau of
the Census, 1970, 40 pp. (International Population
Reports, Series P-95, No. 68.)
i n P o la n d : 1 9 5 0 - 1 9 6 9 .
London, Joan and Henry Anderson,
S o S h a ll Y e R e a p : T h e
S t o r y o f C e s a r C h a v e z a n d th e F a r m W o r k e r s ’ M o v e m e n t.
New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1971, 208 pp.
$6.95.
Sobel, Robert,
T h e C u r b s to n e B r o k e r s : T h e O r ig in s o f th e
A m e r ic a n S to c k E x c h a n g e .
New York, Macmillan Co.,
1970, 296 pp. $7.95.
Yabroff, Bernard and Marc A. Matland, N e w C a r e e r s f o r
th e S u b p r o f e s s io n a l. Washington, Office of Education,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1970, 23 pp. 30 cents, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington.
Labor organizations
Labor force
Anderson, Bernard E., T h e N e g r o i n th e P u b lic U t i l i t y
I n d u s t r i e s . Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania,
Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, Industrial
Research Unit, 1970, 261 pp. (Racial Policies of Amer
ican Industry, Report 10.) $5.95, University of Penn
sylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Archibald, Kathleen, S e x a n d th e P u b l i c S e r v ic e . Ottawa,
Canada, Queen’s Printer, 1970, 218 pp. $3.25.
Australia Department of Labor and National Service, A n
A n a l y s i s o f F u ll E m p lo y m e n t i n A u s t r a l i a . Melbourne,
1970, 48 pp. (Labor Market Studies, 2.)
Blai, Boris, Jr., J o b S a tis f a c tio n s a n d W o r k V a lu e s f o r
W o m e n . Bryn Mawr, Pa., Harcum Junior College,
1970, 14 pp. (Mimeographed.)
Carroll, Norman F. and Gopal C. Pati, “Organized Labor
and Social Responsibility,” P e r s o n n e l J o u r n a l , October
1970, pp. 810-815.
Johnson, Harry G. and Peter Mieszkowski, “The Effects
of Unionization on the Distribution of Income: A
General Equilibrium Approach,” Q u a r te r ly J o u r n a l o f
E c o n o m ic s , November 1970, pp. 539-561.
Perline, Martin M. and Y. R. Lorenz, “Factors Influencing
Member Participation in Trade Union Activities,”
A m e r ic a n J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S o c io lo g y , October
1970, pp. 425-438.
Management and organization theory
Champion, George, “Changing Responsibilities of Manage
ment,” P e r s o n n e l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , September—October
1970, pp. 8-12.
Bowles, Samuel, “Migration as Investment: Empirical
Tests of the Human Investment Approach to Geo
graphical Mobility,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S t a t i s
tic s , November 1970, pp. 356-362.
De Witt, George L., “Man at Work,”
October 1970, pp. 824-826.
California State Department of Industrial Relations,
U n io n L a b o r i n C a lif o r n ia , 1 9 6 9 . San Francisco, 1970,
26 pp.
Hayes, Douglas A., “Management Goals in a Crisis
Society,” M ic h ig a n B u s in e s s R e v ie w , November 1970,
pp. 7-11.
Heller, Martin W., I n d i a n a M a n p o w e r P r o je c tio n s , 1 9 6 7 - 7 5 .
Indianapolis, Indiana Employment Security Division,
1970, 28 pp.
Meyer, G. Dale,
Parrish, John B., “Women’s High Level Training and
Work: Where to Now?” T r a i n i n g a n d D e v e lo p m e n t
J o u r n a l, November 1970, pp. 20-22.
Pennell, Maryland Y. and David B. Hoover,
R e q u ir e m e n ts :
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1 9 5 0 -8 0 .
P a r t i c i p a t i v e D e c is io n M a k i n g : A n a l y s i s
Iowa City, Center for Labor and Manage
ment University of Iowa, 1970, 52 pp. (Monograph
Series, 15.) $1.50.
a n d R e v ie w .
Nadler, David, “Responding to the NOW Employee,”
T r a i n i n g a n d D e v e lo p m e n t J o u r n a l, November 1970,
pp. 12-15.
H e a lth M a n
p o w e r S o u r c e B o o k 2 1 , A l l i e d H e a lth M a n p o w e r S u p p l y
and
P e r s o n n e l J o u r n a l,
Bethesda, Md., U.S.
Nouri, Clement J. and James J. Fridl, “The Relevance of
Motivational Concepts to Individual and Corporate
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
86
November 1970, pp.
Cohn, Jules, editor, “The Urban Affairs of Business,”
U r b a n A f f a i r s Q u a r te r ly , September 1970, pp. 5-126.
Pajer, Robert G., ‘‘The Relationship of Morale to Pro
ductivity: What It Means Today,” P u b l i c P e r s o n n e l
R e v ie w , October 1970, pp. 273-278.
Hoskins, W. Lee, “Housing the Poor: A Frontal Attack,”
Rogers, Carl R., C a r l R o g e r s o n E n c o u n te r G r o u p s . New
York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970, 172 pp. $5.95.
Rodwin, Lloyd,
Objectives,”
900-906.
P e r s o n n e l J o u r n a l,
F e d e r a l R e s e r v e B a n k o f P h i l a d e l p h i a B u s in e s s R e v ie w ,
pp. 9-16.
N a tio n s
and
S tr a te g ie s f o r U r b a n G r o w th .
C itie s :
A
C o m p a r is o n
of
Boston, Houghton Mifflin
Co., 1970, 395 pp. $4.95.
Straus, Donald B., ‘‘How to Stop Strikes by Really
Trying,” P e r s o n n e l J o u r n a l, Octdber 1970, pp. 827831.
Wages and compensation
Terry, Carlos J. Michelsen, “ People in Organizations,”
P e r s o n n e l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , September-October 1970,
pp. 19-25.
Conference Board, T o p E x e c u tiv e C o m p e n s a tio n . New York,
Conference Board, Inc., 1970, 73 pp. $3.50, associate
and educational; $17.50, nonassociate.
Manpower training and development
Czarnecki, Edgar R., “The Effect of Profitsharing Plans
on Union Organizing Efforts,” P e r s o n n e l J o u r n a l,
September 1970, pp. 763-773.
Clague, Ewan, “ Government Employment and Manpower
Planning in the 1970’s,” P u b l i c P e r s o n n e l R e v ie w ,
October 1970, pp. 279-282.
Coleman, Bruce P., “An Integrated System for Manpower
Planning,” B u s in e s s H o r iz o n s , October 1970, pp.
89-95.
Dunn, J. D. and Frank M. Rachel,
A d m in is tr a tio n :
T o ta l
W age and
C o m p e n s a tio n
S a la r y
New
S y s te m s .
York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1970, 468 pp. $12.50.
Fantl, Henry and Frank Whittingham,
I m p a c t o f th e T h i r t y C e n t R e v is io n i n
The
S h o r t-R u n
O n ta r io ’s M i n i
W a g e o n F iv e I n d u s t r i e s . Ontario, Canada,
Ontario Department of Labor, Research Branch,
1970, 42 pp.
m um
Committee for Economic Development,
J o b s f o r th e
P o li c y
by
th e
U rban
P o o r: A
R esea rch
and
T r a in in g
and
S ta te m e n t o n N a t i o n a l
P o li c y
C o m m itte e .
New
York, 1970, 78 pp. $1.25.
Drouet, Pierre, “The Case for More Systematic Evaluation
of Vocational Training Programs,” I n t e r n a t i o n a l
L a b o u r R e v ie w , October 1970, pp. 355-375.
Ginzberg, Eli, “Swedish Manpower Policies,”
November 1970, pp. 26-30.
M a n p o w er,
U.S. Women’s Bureau, J o b T r a i n i n g S u g g e s tio n s f o r W o m e n
a n d G ir ls . Washington, Wage and Labor Standards
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 1970, 15
pp. 15 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Wash
ington.
Prices and living conditions
Kothari, V. N., “ Disparities in Relative Earnings Among
Different Countries,” E c o n o m ic J o u r n a l , September
1970, pp. 605-616.
Reuber, G. L., “ Wage Adjustments in Canadian Industry,
1953-66,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic S tu d ie s , October 1970,
p p .449-468.
Smith, Robert A., “Achieving Flexibility in Compensa
tion Administration,” C o m p e n s a tio n R e v ie w , Fourth
Quarter 1970, pp. 6-14.
Sullivan, John F., “The Future of Merit Pay for Teachers,”
C o m p e n s a tio n R e v ie w , Fourth Quarter 1970, pp. 23-30.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
M a n c h e s te r ,
Budget Standard Service,
A n n u a l P r i c e S u r v e y — F a m ily
B u d g e t C o s ts , O c to b e r 1 9 6 9 . New York, Community
Council of Greater New York, 1970, 57 pp. $2.50.
Linden, Fabian, “People and Spending Power, State by
State,” C o n fe re n c e B o a r d R e c o r d , December 1970, pp.
44-47.
Urban affairs
Chamberlain, Neil W., editor, B u s in e s s a n d th e C itie s : B o o k
o f R e le v a n t R e a d in g s . New York, Basic Books, Inc.,
1970, 521 pp. $12.50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
N .H .,
A re a W age S u rvey: The
M e tr o p o lita n
A rea,
J u ly
1970.
Washington, 1970, 24 pp. (Bulletin 1685-2.) 35 cents,
Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Other
recent bulletins in this series include the metropolitan
areas of Binghamton, N .Y . (Bulletin 1685-6); Roch
ester, N .Y . (Bulletin 1685-7.) Various pagings and
prices.
Wachter, Michael L., “ Relative Wage Equations for U.S.
Manufacturing Industries, 1947-67,” R e v ie w o f E c o
n o m ic s a n d S t a t i s t i c s , November 1970, pp. 405-410.
Lauriat, Patience and William Rabin, “ Men Who Claim
Benefits Before Age 65: Findings From the Survey of
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
New Beneficiaries, 1968,”
November 1970, pp. 3-29.
87
S o c ia l S e c u r i t y
B u lle tin ,
Welfare programs and social legislation
Barfield, Richard E.,
Schütz, Michael E., P u b l i c A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d S o c ia l S e c u r ity ,
1 9 3 5 - 1 9 6 5 . Washington Social Security Administra
tion, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, 1970, 231 pp., bibliography. (Research
Report 33.) $1, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington.
Schottland, Charles I., T h e S o c ia l S e c u r ity P r o g r a m i n th e
U n ite d S ta te s . (Second edition.) New York, AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1970, 210 pp. $6.95.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T h e A u to m o b ile W o r k e r a n d R e tir e
Ann Arbor, Mich., Institute for
Social Research, University of Michigan, 1970,49 pp.,
bibliography.
m e n t: A S e c o n d L o o k .
Kelly, L. A.,
I n c o m e M a in te n a n c e ,
T a x S a v in g s , a n d th e
Kingston, Ontario, Queen’s Univer
sity, Industrial Relations Center, 1970, 18 pp.,
bibliography. $1.
I n c e n tiv e to W o r k .
Kleiler, Frank M., C a n a d ia n R e g u la tio n o f P e n s i o n P la n s .
Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, 1970, 97 pp.
Current
Labor
Statistics
1
Employment and unemployment—household data
1.
Employment status of noninstitutional population, 1947 to date..................................................................................
89
2.
Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages...............................................
89
3.
Full-and part-time status of civilian labor force...............................................................................................................
90
4.
Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted, quarterly data............................................
90
5.
6.
7.
Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages.................
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment........................................................................................................
Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted............................................................................................
91
91
92
8.
Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted................................................................................................................
93
9.
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted..............................................................................................................
93
Unemployment insurance 10. Unemployment
Nonagricultural employment—payroll data
insurance and employment service operations.................
94
11.
Employment by industry, 1947 to date..............................................................................................................................
95
12.
Employment by State............................................................................................................................................................
95
13.
14.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted............................................
96
97
Labor turnover and job vacancies
15.
16.
Labor turnover in manufacturing, 1959 to date.................................................................................................................
Labor turnover in manufacturing, by major industry group.............................................................................................
98
99
17. Job vacancies in manufacturing..........................................................................................................................................
99
Hours and earnings—private nonagricultural payrolls
18. Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1947 to date...................................................................................... .........
19. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group.............................................................................
100
101
20.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted.........................................
102
21.
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group........................................................................
103
22.
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group........................................................................
104
23.
Spendable weekly earnings in current and 1957-59 dollars..........................................................................................
105
Prices
24.
Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, 1949 to date...................................................................................................
105
25. Consumer Price Index, general summary and selected items........................................................................................
26. Consumer Price Index, selected areas...............................................................................................................................
106
112
27.
28.
Wholesale Price Index, by group and subgroup of commodities....................................................................................
Wholesale Price Index, for special commodity groupings...............................................................................................
113
115
29.
Wholesale Price Index, by stage of processing.................................................................................................................
116
30.
Wholesale Price Index, by durability of product...............................................................................................................
117
31.
Industry-sector price index for output of selected industries.........................................................................................
117
Labor-management disputes
Work stoppages and time lost.......................................................................
119
Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs............................
120
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series........................................................
120
Productivity
88
33.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
32.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
1.
89
Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, 1947 to date
[In thousands]
Civilian labor force
Total labor force
T o tal n o n
in s titu tio n a l
p o p u latio n
Year
U n e m p lo y e d
Em ployed
N ot in
la b o r fo rce
Total
P e rc e n t of
p o p u la tio n
N um ber
T otal
N o n a g ric u ltu ra l
in d u s tr ie s
A g ric u ltu re
P e rc e n t of
la b o r
fo rce
N um ber
1 9 4 7 ............................. ...................................
1 9 4 8 ...................... ................ ........... .............
1 0 3 ,4 1 8
1 0 4 ,5 2 7
6 0 ,9 4 1
6 2 ,0 8 0
5 8 .9
5 9 .4
5 9 ,3 5 0
6 0 ,6 2 1
5 7 ,0 3 9
58, 344
7 ,8 9 1
7 ,6 2 9
4 9 ,1 4 8
5 0 ,7 1 3
2 ,3 1 1
2 ,2 7 6
3 .9
3 .8
4 2 ,4 7 7
4 2 ,4 4 7
1 9 4 9 .......................................................... ..
1 9 5 0 _____________ _________ ______
1 9 5 1 ........... ............. ..............................
1 9 5 2 .................................................................
1 9 5 3 . . ...................... .....................................
1 0 5 ,6 1 1
1 0 6 ,6 4 5
107,721
1 0 8 ,8 2 3
1 1 0 ,601
6 2 ,9 0 3
6 3 ,8 5 8
6 5 ,1 1 7
6 5 ,7 3 0
6 6 ,5 6 0
5 9 .6
5 9 .9
6 0 .4
6 0 .4
6 0 .2
6 1 ,2 8 6
6 2 ,2 0 8
6 2 ,0 1 7
6 2 ,1 3 8
6 3 ,0 1 5
5 7 ,6 4 9
5 8 ,9 2 0
5 9 ,9 6 2
6 0 ,2 5 4
6 1 ,1 8 1
7 ,6 5 6
7 ,1 6 0
6 ,7 2 6
6 ,5 0 1
6 ,2 6 1
4 9 ,9 9 0
5 1 ,7 6 0
5 3 ,2 3 9
5 3 ,7 5 3
5 4 ,9 2 2
3 ,6 3 7
3 ,2 8 8
2 ,0 5 5
1 ,8 8 3
1 ,8 3 4
5 .9
5 .3
3 .3
3 .0
2 .9
4 2 ,7 0 8
4 2 ,7 8 7
4 2 ,6 0 4
4 3 ,0 9 3
4 4 ,0 4 1
1 9 5 4 ________________________________
1 9 5 5 .......................................................... ..
1 9 5 6 ________________________________
1 9 5 7 ........................................................ ..
1 958 ________________________________
1 1 1 ,671
1 1 2 ,7 3 2
1 1 3 ,811
1 1 5 ,0 6 5
1 1 6 ,3 6 3
6 6 ,9 9 3
6 8 ,0 7 2
6 9 ,4 0 9
6 9 ,7 2 9
7 0 ,2 7 5
6 0 .0
6 0 .4
6 1 .0
6 0 .6
6 0 .4
6 3 ,6 4 3
6 5 ,0 2 3
6 6 ,5 5 2
6 6 ,9 2 9
6 7 ,6 3 9
6 0 ,1 1 0
6 2 ,1 7 1
6 3 ,8 0 2
6 4 ,0 7 1
6 3 ,0 3 6
6 ,2 0 6
6 ,4 4 9
6 ,2 8 3
5 ,9 4 7
5 ,5 8 6
5 3 ,9 0 3
5 5 ,7 2 4
5 7 ,5 1 7
5 8 ,1 2 3
5 7 ,4 5 0
3 ,5 3 2
2 ,8 5 2
2 ,7 5 0
2 ,8 5 9
4 ,6 0 2
5 .5
4 .4
4 .1
4 .3
6 .8
4 4 ,6 7 8
4 4 ,6 6 0
4 4 ,4 0 2
4 5 ,3 3 6
4 6 ,0 8 8
1 9 5 9 .......... ................ .....................................
1 9 6 0 ____________ ________ ___________
1 9 6 1 . . ___________ ___________________
1 9 6 2 ................................................................
1 9 6 3 .......... ............................ .........................
117,881
1 1 9 ,7 5 9
1 2 1 ,3 4 3
1 2 2 ,981
1 2 5 ,1 5 4
7 0 ,9 2 1
7 2 ,1 4 2
7 3 ,0 3 1
7 3 ,4 4 2
7 4 ,5 7 1
6 0 .2
6 0 .2
6 0 .2
5 9 .7
5 9 .6
6 8 ,3 6 9
6 9 ,6 2 8
7 0 ,4 5 9
7 0 ,6 1 4
7 1 ,8 3 3
6 4 ,6 3 0
6 5 ,7 7 8
6 5 ,7 4 6
6 6 ,7 0 2
6 7 ,7 6 2
5 ,5 6 5
5 ,4 5 8
5 ,2 0 0
4 ,9 4 4
4 ,6 8 7
5 9 ,0 6 5
6 0 ,3 1 8
60, 546
6 1 ,7 5 9
6 3 ,0 7 6
3 .7 4 0
3 ,8 5 2
4 ,7 1 4
3 ,9 1 1
4 ,0 7 0
5 .5
5. 5
6 .7
5. 5
5 .7
4 6 ,9 6 0
4 7 ,6 1 7
4 8 ,3 1 2
49, 539
50, 583
1 9 6 4 . . . _____________________________
1 9 6 5 ........................... .....................................
1 9 6 6 ____________________ _________ _
1 9 6 7 ______ _________________________
1 9 6 8 _____________ ___________________
1 9 6 9 ________________________________
1970 ________________________________
1 2 7 ,2 2 4
1 2 9 ,2 3 6
1 3 1 ,1 8 0
1 3 3 ,3 1 9
1 3 5 ,5 6 2
7 5 ,8 3 0
7 7 ,1 7 8
7 8 ,8 9 3
8 0 ,7 9 3
8 2 ,2 7 2
8 4 ,2 3 9
85, 903
5 9 .6
5 9 .7
6 0 .1
6 0 .6
6 0 .7
6 1 .1
6 1 .3
7 3 ,0 9 1
7 4 ,4 5 5
7 5 ,7 7 0
7 7 ,3 4 7
7 8 ,7 3 7
8 0 ,7 3 3
8 2 ,7 1 5
6 9 ,3 0 5
7 1 ,0 8 8
7 2 ,8 9 5
7 4 ,3 7 2
7 5 ,9 2 0
7 7 ,9 0 2
7 8 ,6 2 7
4 ,5 2 3
4 ,3 6 1
3 ,9 7 9
3 ,8 4 4
3 ,8 1 7
3 ,6 0 6
3 ,4 6 2
6 4 ,7 8 2
6 6 ,7 2 6
6 8 ,9 1 5
70, 527
7 2 ,1 0 3
7 4 ,2 9 6
7 5 ,1 6 5
3 ,7 8 6
3 ,3 6 6
2 ,8 7 5
2 ,9 7 5
2 ,8 1 7
2 ,8 3 1
4, 088
5 .2
4. 5
3 .8
3 .8
3 .6
3 .5
4 .9
5 1 ,3 9 4
5 2 ,0 5 8
5 2 ,2 8 8
5 2 ,5 2 7
5 3 ,2 9 1
53, 602
5 4 ,2 8 0
2.
137,841
1 4 0 ,1 8 2
Employment status, by color, sex and age, seasonally adjusted,1 quarterly averages
[In thousands]
1967
1968
1969
1970
A n n u a l averag e
Characteristic
1970
1969
74, 242 73,525 73,263 73,316 72,475 71,942 71,466 71,285 70, 392 70,045 69,851 69,587 69,440
Men, 20 years and over....................... ....... 42,741 42, 503 42, 463 42,245 41,956 41,842 41,639 41,656 41,423 41,373 41,235 41,230 41,175
Women, 20 years and over_______ ____ _ 24,938 24, 664 24, 378 24, 513 24,156 23,949 23,684 23,566 23,122 22, 843 22,741 22,565 22,632
Both sexes, 16-19 years............... ..............
6, 563 6, 358 6,422 6, 558 6,363 6,151 6,143 6,036 5,847 5, 829 5,875 5,792 5,633
73,518
42,463
24,616
6,439
71,778
41,772
23,838
6,168
70, 226 69, 956 70, 059 70, 527 70, 096 69, 575 69,260 69,135 68,267 67, 804 67,617 67,311 67,032
41,048 40,986 41,131 41,180 41,091 40,995 40,871 40,926 40,677 40, 553 40, 405 40, 376 40, 300
23,653 23, 504 23, 347 23, 587 23,327 23,120 22, 891 22,794 22,372 22, 066 21,987 21,777 21,766
5, 525 5, 466 5, 581 5,760 5,678 5,460 5,498 5,415 5,218 5,185 5,225 5,158 4,966
70,182
41,093
23,521
5,568
69,518
40,978
23,032
5, 508
4th
3d
2d
1st
4th
3d
2d
1st
4th
3d
2d
1st
4th
W H IT E
Civilian labor force
Employed
......................................................................................
............................ ................................................... ..........................
Men, 20 years and over................ ..............
Women, 20 years and over_____________
Both sexes, 16-19 years______ ______
Unemployed________________ __________________
Men, 20 years and over______ _________
Women, 20 years and over..........................
Both sexes, 16-19 years. _______ ______
Unemployment rate .................................................................. ...........
Men, 20 years and over...............................
Women, 20 years and over_____________
Both sexes, 16-19 y ears............................
4,016
1,693
1,286
1,038
3, 568
1,517
1, 159
892
3,204
1,332
1,032
841
2,789
1,065
926
798
2,379
865
829
685
2,367
847
829
691
2,206
768
793
645
2,150
730
772
648
2,125
746
750
629
2,241
820
777
644
2,234
830
754
650
2,276
854
788
634
2,408
875
866
667
3,337
1,371
1,095
871
2,260
794
806
660
5.4
3.9
5.1
15.8
4.9
3.6
4.7
14.0
4.4
3.1
4.2
13.1
3.8
2.5
3.8
12.2
3.3
2.1
3.4
10.8
3.3
2.0
3.5
11.2
3.1
1.8
3.3
10.5
3.0
1.8
3.3
10.7
3.0
1.8
3.2
10.8
3.2
2.0
3.4
11.0
3.2
2.0
3.3
11.1
3.3
2.1
3. 5
10.9
3.5
2.1
3.8
11.8
4.5
3.2
4.4
13. 5
3.1
1.9
3. 4
10.7
9,167
4,747
3, 639
781
9,210
4,777
3,653
780
9,226
4j 706
3,688
832
9, 224
4,700
3,682
842
9,056
4,622
3,616
818
8,979
4,593
3,595
791
8,867
4,549
3,535
783
8,914
4,554
3,550
810
8,737
4,513
3,468
756
8,700
4,517
3,414
769
8,828
4,562
3,467
799
8,762
4,543
3,433
786
8,733
4,496
3, 444
793
9,197
4,726
3, 664
807
8,954
4, 579
3, 574
801
8,332
4,428
3,374
530
8,423
4, 484
3,392
547
8,447
4,434
3,416
597
8, 598
4,498
3,468
632
8,500
4,445
3,429
626
8,394
4,416
3,372
606
8,271
4,382
3,307
582
8,371
4,397
3,352
622
8,164
4,335
3,264
565
8,132
4,349
3,205
578
8,233
4,388
3,246
599
8,147
4,351
3,200
596
8,073
4,305
3,191
577
8,445
4, 461
3,412
573
8,384
4,410
3, 365
609
835
320
265
250
787
293
260
234
779
272
272
235
626
201
215
210
556
177
187
192
585
177
223
185
596
167
228
201
543
157
198
188
573
178
204
191
568
168
209
191
595
174
221
200
615
192
233
190
660
191
253
216
752
265
252
235
570
169
209
192
9.1
6.8
7.3
32.0
8.5
6.1
7. 1
30.0
8.4
5.8
7.4
28.2
6.8
4.3
5.8
24.9
6.1
3.8
5.2
23.5
6.5
3.9
6.2
23.4
6.7
3.7
6.4
25.7
6.1
3.4
5.6
23.2
6.6
3.9
5.9
25.3
6.5
3.7
6.1
24.8
6.7
3.8
6.4
25.0
7.0
4.2
6.8
24.2
7.6
4.2
7.3
27.2
8.2
5.6
b. 9
29.1
6.4
3.7
5. 8
24. 0
N EG R O AND O TH ER
Civilian labor force
........................................................... ..........................
Men, 20 years and over..............................
Women, 20 years and over_____________
Both sexes, 16-19 years...... .................. .
Employed
______ ____ ________________________
Men, 20 years and over_______ ____ ___
Women, 20 years and over_____________
Both sexes, 16-19 years_______________
Unemployed__________ _________ ______ ________
Men, 20 years and over......................... .
Women, 20 years and over_____________
Both sexes, 16-19 years............... ...............
Unemployment rate .....................................................................................
Men, 20 years and over_______________
Women, 20 years and o v er....................
Both sexes, 16-19 years________ ____ _
1 These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of
Employment and Earnings.
90
3.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
Full- and part-time status of the civilian labor force
[In thousands—not seasonally adjusted)
1970
1969
Employment status
Annual average
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
1970
1969
Civilian labor force.......................
70,735
70,724
70,756
71,329
74,610
74,884
73,555
69,383
69,255
69,116
69,018
68,869
69,204
71,019
69,700
Employed:
Full-time schedules1____
Part-time for economic
reasons.........................
64,563
64,950
65,239
65,910
68,185
68,044
66,779
64,413
64,166
64,108
63,997
64,155
65, 302
65,376
65,503
2,590
2,352
2,370
2,276
2,984
3, 088
2,831
2,128
2,301
2,139
2,117
2,135
1,998
2,443
2,055
Unemployed, looking for full
time work.............................
Unemployment rate................
3,583
5.1
3,422
4.8
3,146
4.4
3,143
4.4
3,441
4.6
3,753
5.0
3,945
5.4
2,842
4.1
2,787
4.0
2,869
4.2
2,904
4.2
2,579
3.7
1,904
2.8
3,201
4.5
2,142
3.1
Civilian labor force.......................
12,416
12,624
12,420
11,218
9,504
9,917
10,496
12,358
12,706
12,574
12,266
11,850
12,212
11,696
11,032
Employed (voluntary parttime).....................................
11,363
11,439
11,306
10, 069
8,725
9,159
9,772
11,816
11,940
11,711
11,375
11,023
11,488
10,808
10,343
1,053
8.5
1,185
9.4
1,113
9.0
1,149
10.2
779
7.6
757
7.6
724
6.9
542
4.4
765
6.0
863
6.9
890
7.3
827
7.0
724
5.9
887
7.6
689
6.2
FULL TIME
PART TIME
U nem ployed, lo o k in g fo r p a rt-
time work.............................
Unemployment rate.................
>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 1
[In thousands]
1970
Employment status
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
86,432
86,432
86,140
83, 353
78, 686
3,288
75, 398
4,667
83, 031
78,424
3,399
75, 025
4,607
Aug.
July
June
85, 810
85,967
85,304
82,676
78, 445
3,420
75, 025
4,231
82,813
78,638
3, 519
75,119
4,175
82,125
78,225
3,554
74,671
3,900
1969
Annual average
Dec.
1970
1969
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
85,783
86,143
86,087
85,590
85,599
85,023
85,903
84,239
82, 555
78, 449
3,613
74, 836
4,106
82,872
78, 924
3, 586
75,338
3, 948
82,769
79,112
3,550
75, 562
3,657
82,249
78,822
3,499
75,323
3,427
82,213
79,041
3,426
75,615
3,172
81,583
78,737
3,435
75,302
2,846
82,715
78,627
3,462
75,165
4,088
80,733
77, 902
3,606
74,296
2,831
May
Jan.
TOTAL
Total labor force............................ 86,459
Civilian labor force......................... . 83,446
Employed............................. 78,472
Agriculture___________
3,411
Nonagriculture................. 75, 061
Unemployed....................... 4,974
83, 393
78,535
3,333
75,202
4,858
MEN 20 YEARS AND OVER
Total labor force.............................. 50,047
50,139
50,173
50,136
49,905
50, 024
49,906
50, 020
50, 032
49,920
49,707
49,736
49,534
49,948
49,406
Civilian labor force........................... 47,420
Employed............ ............... 45, 365
Agriculture_____ ____ _ 2,458
Nonagriculture................. 42,907
Unemployed...................... 2,055
47, 503
45,511
2,452
43, 059
1,992
47, 502
45, 538
2,451
43,087
1,964
47,439
45, 522
2,510
43, 012
1,917
47,178
45, 424
2,523
42,901
1,754
47,294
45, 524
2, 593
42, 931
1,770
47,154
45, 521
2,603
42,918
1,633
47, 226
45, 593
2,625
42, 968
1,633
47,199
45,667
2,602
43, 065
1,532
47,060
45,709
2, 537
43,172
1,351
46,836
45, 534
2,479
43, 055
1,302
46,826
45,674
2,473
43,201
1,152
46,578
45,553
2,499
43, 054
1,025
47,189
45, 553
2,527
43,026
1,636
46,351
45,388
2,636
42, 752
963
WOMEN, 20 YEARS AND OVER
Civilian labor force.......................... 28, 654
28, 541
28, 534
28,200
28,447
28, 500
28,026
27, 885
28,274
28, 295
28, 066
28,073
27,875
28,279
27,413
26,962
514
26,448
1,579
27, 082
505
26, 577
1,452
26, 750
507
26, 243
1,450
27, 092
514
26,578
1,355
27, 073
545
26, 528
1,427
26, 772
573
26,199
1,254
26,476
567
25, 909
1,409
27,022
571
26, 451
1,252
27, 016
583
26, 433
1,279
26,925
630
26,295
1,114
27,060
586
26,474
1,013
26,897
585
26,312
978
26,932
549
26, 384
1,347
26,397
593
25,804
1,015
Employed............................
Agriculture.......................
Nonagriculture________
Unemployed......................
BOTH SEXES, 16-19 YEARS
Civilian labor force.........................
Employed........... ...............
Agriculture_____ _____
Nonagriculture............. .
Unemployed........................
27,025
549
26,476
1,629
7,372
7,349
7,317
7,392
7, 051
7,019
6,945
7,444
7,399
7,414
7,347
7,314
7,130
7, 246
6,970
6,082
404
5,678
1,290
6,062
367
5,695
1,287
6, 066
332
5,734
1,251
6,152
382
5,770
1,240
5,929
383
5, 546
1,122
6, 041
381
5,660
978
5,932
378
5, 554
1,013
6,380
421
5,959
1,064
6,235
413
5,822
1,164
6,387
430
5,957
1,027
6,363
390
5,973
984
6,307
367
5.940
1,007
6,287
351
5,936
843
6,141
386
5,755
1,105
6,117
377
5, 739
853
1 These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
5.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
91
Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted,1 quarterly averages
1970
1969
1968
1967
Characteristic
3d
2d
78, 564
78, 502
78,533
78,992
38,144
Professional and te ch n ica l. ........................... 11,161
Managers, officials, and
8,401
p ro p rie to rs ________ ________ _______ _
Clerical w o rk e rs ___________ ______________ 13,648
Sales w o r k e r s ..................................................... 4,935
37,939
11,257
37,981
11,129
37,938
11,026
8, 248
13, 560
4, 873
8 ,290
13,748
4,815
27, 640
10, 078
13,824
3,738
4 th
EMPLOYMENT (in thousands)___________________
White-collar workers................................ ..............
Blue-collar workers..............................................
27, 644
C raftsm en and fo re m e n __________________ 10,193
O peratives______________________________ 13,746
N onfarm la bo re rs________________________ 3,705
4th
3d
2d
78,570
78,090
77, 550
37,509
10,936
36,923
10,764
36,677
10,740
8,215
13,906
4,791
8,141
13,655
4 ,777
7 ,970
13,478
4,711
27,663
10,109
13,891
3,663
28, 236
10. 264
14,168
3,804
28, 389
10,265
14,412
3,712
1st
1st
4th
3d
2d
77,418
76,409
76,017
75, 898
75,392
36,264
10,638
35,906
10,473
35,732
10,392
35,419
10,295
35,140
10,142
7 ,993
13,281
4 ,663
7,841
13,171
4,6 1 4
7,897
12,876
4,6 6 0
7,827
12,823
4,6 9 0
7,661
12,816
4 ,647
28,425
10,174
14,589
3 ,662
27,931
10,044
14,208
3 ,679
28,202
10,298
14,264
3,640
27,774
10,147
14,051
3 ,576
27,491
9 ,972
13,911
3,6 0 8
1st
4th
A nn u al average
1970
1969
75,121
78,627
77,902
34,888
10,067
37,997
11,140
36,845
10,769
7,716
12,694
4 ,5 8 8
7 ,633
12, 624
4 ,5 6 4
8,289
13,714
4, 854
7 ,987
13,397
4,6 9 2
27,513
10,003
13,956
3,5 5 4
27,297
9,9 3 6
13,896
3,4 6 5
27,279
9,8 2 7
13,918
3 ,5 3 4
27,791
10,158
13,909
3,724
28, 237
10,193
14,372
3 ,672
Service workers................................................ .......
9, 793
9,795
9, 589
9,673
9,589
9,4 9 3
9,467
9,5 5 8
9,411
9 ,3 8 5
9,3 9 5
9 ,3 3 7
9 ,3 3 0
9,712
9 ,5 2 8
Farm workers..........................................................
2,997
3,108
3 ,234
3,153
3 ,089
3,231
3,417
3 ,4 3 8
3 ,346
3 ,400
3,507
3,6 4 9
3 ,6 5 4
3,126
3 ,2 9 2
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE_____ _____________
5 .8
5 .2
4 .8
4 .1
3 .6
3 .6
3 .5
3 .4
3 .4
3 .6
3 .6
3 .7
3 .9
4 .9
3 .5
White-collar workers.............................................. .
3 .5
2 .5
2 .9
2 .0
2 .8
1 .9
2 .4
1 .9
2 .2
1 .5
2 .2
1 .4
2 .0
1 .3
2 .0
1.1
1 .9
1 .2
2 .0
1 .3
2 .0
1 .2
2 .0
1 .2
2 .2
1 .3
2 .8
2 .0
2 .1
1 .3
1.6
5 .0
4 .6
1 .5
4 .1
3 .9
1 .3
4 .0
4 .0
1 .0
3 .3
3 .2
.9
3 .2
2 .8
1 .0
3 .2
3 .0
.9
2 .8
2 .9
.9
2 .9
2 .9
1 .0
2 .8
2 .8
1.1
2 .9
2 .6
.9
3 .0
2 .7
.9
3 .1
3 .0
1 .0
3 .4
3 .2
1 .3
4 .0
3 .9
.9
3 .0
2 .9
7 .4
4 .4
8 .7
10.5
7 .0
4 .9
7 .6
10.6
6 .0
3 .9
6 .6
9 .4
4 .9
2 .6
5 .7
7 .9
4 .3
2.2
5 .0
6 .9
4 .0
2.2
4 .4
7 .2
3 .8
2 .1
4 .3
6 .5
3 .7
2 .1
4 .1
6 .4
3 .8
2.2
4 .3
6 .7
4 .2
2 .4
4 .5
7 .4
4 .0
2 .4
4 .3
7 .0
4 .4
2 .5
4 .8
7 .7
4 .5
2 .5
5.1
7 .8
6 .2
3 .8
7 .1
9 .5
3 .9
2.2
4 .4
6 .7
Professional and te c h n ic a l.......................... ..
Managers, officials, and
p ro p rie to rs ........ ............... .................................
C lerical w o rk e rs ..................................................
Sales w o rk e rs ................................................... ..
Blue-collar workers............................................ .
C raftsm en and fo re m e n __________ _______
O peratives........... ..................................................
N onfarm la bo re rs........................ ........................
Service workers........................................................
5 .9
5 .6
5 .0
4 .7
3 .9
4 .5
4 .4
4 .0
4 .3
4 .5
4 .6
4 .3
4 .9
5 .3
4 .2
Farm workers...........................................................
2 .9
3 .2
2 .5
2.1
1 .8
2.2
1 .9
1 .6
1 .6
2 .4
2 .3
1 .9
2 .3
2 .6
1 .9
1 These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of a seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
6.
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment
[In thousands—not seasonally adjusted]
1970
Reason for unemployment,
age, and sex
Dec.
1969
Annual average
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
1970
1969
Total, 16 years and over..................
4,636
4,607
4,259
4, 292
4,220
4,510
4,669
3,384
3,552
3,733
3,794
3, 406
2,628
4,088
2, 831
Lost last job.........................
Left last job____________
Reentered labor force..........
Never worked before_____
2,412
505
1,269
450
2,082
586
1,398
541
1,866
629
1,254
510
1,698
675
1,404
514
1,773
639
1,242
567
1,778
635
1,342
756
1,598
565
1,567
939
1,658
447
944
333
1,669
507
1,001
375
1,797
441
1,143
351
1,787
473
1,158
377
1,595
485
999
328
1,133
378
825
292
1,809
549
1,227
503
1,017
436
965
413
Male, 20 years and over.......... ........
2,108
1,815
1,636
1,562
1,622
1,667
1,584
1,403
1,498
1,606
1,678
1,456
1,052
1,636
963
Lost last job____________
Left last job____________
Reentered labor force.........
Never worked before.........
1,464
209
384
52
1,211
214
341
48
1,063
235
287
51
969
235
313
46
1,016
217
342
48
1,013
230
368
56
911
206
413
55
942
170
251
40
988
214
261
34
1,059
200
312
35
1,144
185
310
39
997
197
230
32
693
150
188
20
1,065
209
318
44
556
164
216
27
Female, 20 years and over.................
1,399
1,557
1,491
1,598
1,461
1,391
1,302
1,205
1,171
1,264
1,238
1,086
840
1,347
1,015
Lost last job........................
Left last job...... ..................
Reentered labor force..........
Never worked before_____
676
190
489
44
617
239
631
70
610
246
579
56
536
273
711
78
515
274
611
61
574
256
500
62
540
192
473
97
562
174
435
34
497
188
439
47
542
156
530
36
451
200
529
58
418
177
437
54
303
138
354
46
545
214
530
58
335
171
455
55
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years.................
1,129
1,235
1,133
1,131
1,137
1,451
1,783
776
883
863
878
864
736
1,105
853
Lost last job____________
Left last job____ ________
Reentered labor force____
Never worked before..........
272
107
396
354
255
132
426
423
193
149
388
404
193
168
380
391
242
148
288
458
191
149
474
638
147
167
682
786
155
103
259
259
184
104
301
293
196
85
302
280
192
88
319
280
180
111
331
241
137
90
283
226
200
126
379
401
126
101
294
331
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
92
7.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1
1970
Age and sex
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
1969
Annual average
Dec.
1970
1969
TOTAL
16 years and over..................................................
6.0
5.8
5 .6
5.5
5.1
5.0
4.7
5.0
4.8
4.4
4.2
3.9
3.5
4.9
16 to 19 years__________
16 and 17 years_____
18 and 19 years- . . . .
17.5
19.3
16.1
17.5
18.2
16.3
17.1
20.1
15.9
17.4
14.7
13.9
15.2
13.2
14.6
16.0
13.3
14.3
15.6
13.8
15.7
18.7
13.8
13.9
15.7
12.4
13.4
16.3
11.7
13.8
17.2
1 1.8
15.1
16.8
19.6
14.6
1 1. 6
10.2
15.3
17.1
13.8
20 to 24 years__________
25 years and over_______
25 to 54 years_______
55 years and over........
9.8
4.1
4.3
3.5
9.9
3.8
4.1
3.2
9.5
3.7
3.9
3.1
9.8
3.5
3.6
3.1
8.3
3.4
3.6
2.7
8.6
7.4
3.2
3.3
3.0
8.1
3.5
3.7
2.9
3.3
3.4
3.3
7.7
3.1
3.2
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.2
3.6
3.6
3.3
15.0
16.4
14.6
15.2
17.2
13.9
12.5
14.6
13.0
15.4
12.6
10.8
1 1. 0
10.8
7.7
2.9
7.9
6.4
2.4
2.3
6.9
5 5
2.8
2.4
6 1
2 0
2 0
2. 1
8. 4
2.8
2.8
2.8
6.8
3.0
3.1
2.7
7.3
2.6
2.7
2.4
6.1
2.4
2.5
2.0
13.7
3.5
?
14 5
10.5
1?
5 7
5.8
8.2
2.2
2.3
3 3
3.4
2.1
2.8
2 3
2.0
2.9
4.4
2.8
11 0
15. 0
16.9
13.4
9.3
M ALE
5.4
5.2
5.1
5.0
16 to 19 years.....................
16 and 17 years_____
18 and 19 years............
16.8
19.4
14.7
16.6
17.6
14.7
17.1
19.9
15.0
16.7
19.6
14.1
15.8
17.2
14.6
14.1
15.2
13.6
14.8
16.6
13.2
20 to 24 years___________
25 years and over_______
25 to 54 years___ . . .
55 years and over____
10.3
3.6
3.5
3.7
10.2
11.3
3.2
3.3
3.1
11.0
8.5
3.0
3.0
2.9
9.1
3.0
3.0
7.2
2.9
2.9
16 years and o v e r ..______________
3.3
3.5
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.1
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.2
2. 1
14. 9
13 1
9.3
1 8
1 7
2 .2
2.9
1.9
FEM A LE
7.0
6.9
6.3
6.4
5.9
5.9
5.5
5.9
5.7
5.7
5.1
4.8
4.5
5.9
4.7
16 to 19 years__________
16 and 17 years_____
18 and 19 years_____
18.4
19.1
17.9
18.6
19.1
18.2
17.1
20.4
15.2
16.9
19.6
15.1
16.0
17.6
14.9
13.7
15.1
12.7
14.3
15.3
13.4
13.4
14.6
12.9
16.4
13.7
13.9
17.3
12.7
15.2
20.3
12.4
12.8
20.6
15.6
17.0
14.3
15.6
17.4
14.4
13.3
15.5
20 to 24 years......................
25 years and over_______
25 to 54 years_______
55 years and over____
9.1
5.0
5.6
3.0
9.5
4.7
5.3
7.5
4.7
5.1
3.2
8.4
4.4
4.8
3.2
8.0
8.1
7.7
3.8
4.1
3.2
8.7
4.2
4.3
3.6
7.5
3.8
4.2
2.7
7.2
4.0
4.4
2.5
7.6
3.3
3.6
2.3
6.2
6.1
7.9
4.2
4.5
6. 3
3.2
3. 5
2.8
2. 2
16 years and over.................................................
2.8
4. 1
4.6
2. 5
i These data have been adjusted to reflect tne experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4.5
4.8
3.1
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of
3.0
3.3
1.7
14. 7
11.2
3. 0
3.3
1.9
Employment and Earnings.
1 1. 8
HOUSEHOLD DATA
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
8.
93
Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[In percent]
1970
1969
Annual average
Selected categories
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
1970
1969
6.0
4.3
5.7
17.5
5.5
9.3
3.3
5.8
5.8
4.2
5.5
17.5
5.5
8.8
3.2
5.5
5.6
4.1
5.1
17.1
5.2
9.3
3.1
5.0
5.5
4.0
5.1
16.8
5.1
9.0
2.9
5.0
5.1
3.7
4.8
15.9
4.8
8.4
2.8
4.7
5.0
3.7
5.0
13.9
4.7
8.3
2.7
4.6
4.7
3.5
4.5
14.6
4.2
8.7
2.5
4.3
5.0
3.5
5.1
14.3
4.6
8.0
2.6
4.7
4.8
3.2
4.4
15.7
4.3
8.7
2.4
4.4
4.4
2.9
4.5
13.9
4.1
7.1
2.2
4.0
4.2
2.8
4.1
13.4
3.8
7.0
2.0
3.7
3.9
2.5
3.6
13.8
3.6
6.3
1.8
3.4
3.5
2.2
3.5
11.8
3.2
5.7
1.7
3.2
4.9
3.5
4.8
15.3
4.5
8.2
2.6
4.5
3.5
2.1
3.7
12.2
3.1
6.4
1.5
3.1
1.3
4.2
6.3
1.0
4.5
6.2
.9
4.4
6.2
1.0
4.2
«6.0
.9
3.7
5.5
.9
3.5
5.4
.8
3.7
4.9
.7
3.6
5.4
.7
3.1
5.1
.7
2.7
4.8
.6
2.7
4.5
.5
2.5
4.2
.5
2.4
3.9
.8
3.6
5.4
.5
2.1
3.9
White-collar workers............... .
Professional and managerial____
_______
Clerical workers_________
Sales workers___________
3.7
3.5
3.2
2.8
2.7
3.1
2.6
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.8
2.1
2.5
5.1
4.8
2.1
5.2
4.6
1.8
4.7
4.3
1.8
3.9
3.9
1.6
3.9
4.0
2.0
4.4
4.0
1.5
4.0
3.4
1.7
3.9
4.4
1.7
4.0
4.1
1.8
3.6
3.5
1.4
3.2
3.4
1.3
3.1
2.8
1.5
2.8
2.6
1.7
4.0
3.9
1.2
3.0
2.9
Blue-collar workers___ _________
Craftsmen and foremen___
Operatives________ _____
Nonfarm laborers..............
7.7
4.8
8.9
10.3
7.3
4.4
8.7
10.0
7.2
4.1
8.5
10.7
7.5
5.8
7.6
11.7
7.0
4.4
7.9
10.2
6.6
4.4
7.2
9.9
6.3
4.0
6.8
10.4
6.2
4.2
6.7
9.1
5.7
3.5
6.3
8.8
5.2
3.1
6.2
7.4
5.0
2.5
6.0
7.7
4.6
2.3
5.1
8.5
4.3
2.3
5.0
7.4
6.2
3.8
7.1
9.5
3.9
2.2
4.5
6.7
Service workers...............................
6.1
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.0
4.9
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.5
3.6
5.3
4.2
Nonagricultural private wage
and salary workers
...........
Construction.........................
Manufacturing....................
Durable goods...............
Nondurable goods............
6.4
11.0
7.5
8.0
6.9
6.2
9.1
7.2
8.1
6.0
6.0
11.9
6.7
7.1
6.1
6.0
13.8
6.1
6.3
5.8
5.5
12.2
5.7
5.5
5.9
5.6
11.0
6.0
5.9
6.2
5.2
10.9
5.3
5.1
5.6
5.2
11.9
5.2
4.9
5.7
4.8
8.1
4.7
4.9
4.5
4.6
8.1
4.7
4.8
4.6
4.3
7.9
4.6
4.7
4.4
3.9
7.1
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.6
6.0
3.8
3.7
3.9
4.9
9.7
5.6
5.7
5.4
3.5
6.0
3.3
3.0
3.7
Transportation and public
utilities.......... ..................
Wholesale and retail trade..
Finance and service industries...... ...........................
4.0
6.4
3.6
6.1
3.5
5.9
2.8
6.0
3.1
5.4
3.3
5.3
3.3
5.4
3.3
5.1
3.9
3.1
4.7
2.4
4.7
2.9
4.3
2.4
3.9
3.2
5.3
2.2
4.1
4.7
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.4
4.8
4.1
4.2
5.5
3.9
4.0
3.2
3.1
2.7
4.2
3.2
Government wage and salary
workers...................................
3.0
2.9
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.2
1.9
Agricultural wage and salary
workers___________ ______
9.9
7.8
8.4
10.2
8.2
8.6
5.5
9.3
5.9
6.4
5.8
6.2
6.5
7.5
6.1
Total (all civilian workers)_____
Men, 20 years and over___
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 y e ars...
White________ _________
Negro and other_________
Married men........................
Full-time workers_______
Unemployed 15 weeks and
over2................................
State insured3__________
Labor force time lost4.........
OCCUPATION
INDUSTRY
'These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
3 Unemployment rate calculated as a percent of civilian labor force.
9.
3 Insured unemployment under State programs as a percent of average covered
employment.
« Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons
as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours.
« Includes mining, not shown separately.
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted 1
[In thousands]
1970
1969
Annual average
Psriod
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
1970
1969
Less than 5 weeks......................
5 to 14 weeks.............................
15 weeks and over......................
15 to 26 weeks.................... .
27 weeks and over.......... .......
2,299
1,591
1,045
697
348
2, 289
1,756
870
550
320
2,447
1,507
745
496
249
2,331
1,501
792
501
291
2,206
1,320
736
479
257
2,061
1,334
711
470
241
1,961
1,303
685
450
235
2,219
1,214
612
352
260
2,295
1,075
569
372
197
1,995
1,154
545
363
182
1,973
1,016
465
306
159
1,756
914
409
276
133
1,515
893
392
272
120
2,137
1,289
662
427
235
1,629
827
375
242
133
15 weeks and over as a percent
of civilian labor force_______
Average (mean) duration, in
weeks_________________ _
1.3
1.0
.9
1.0
.9
.9
.8
.7
.7
.7
.6
.5
.4
.8
.5
9.8
9.4
8.3
8.9
8.8
9.3
9.5
9.0
8.2
8.4
8.1
7.8
8.1
8.8
8.0
1 These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
94
10.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
M ONTHLY
LABOR
R E V IE W ,
FEBRUARY
1971
Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 1
[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1970
1969
Item
Nov.
Employment service:2
New a pplications fo r w o r k . .......................................
Nonfarm placem ents__________ _______ _______
Oct.
*7 8 1
*2 89
Sept.
*8 38
*300
Aug.
*778
*3 4 6
July
759
341
June
882
333
May
1,148
374
A p r.
854
339
M ar.
857
352
Feb.
828
328
Jan.
765
295
Dec.
950
326
Nov.
658
311
711
372
State unemployment insurance programs:
1,068
In itia l c la im s 3«--------- ----------------------------------------1,079
1,502
1,208
1,437
1,118
1 ,333
1,010
1,078
1,169
1,529
1,363
866
Insured u n e m p lo y m e n t5 (average w eekly
1,710
1,724
1,607
2,017
1,761
----------v o lu m e )6----------------------------- --------------1,583
1,770
1,667
1,798
1,874
1,847
1,375
1,030
3 .2
3 .2
3 .0
3 .3
Rate of insured u n e m p lo y m e n t7. ...........................
3 .7
3 .0
3 .4
3 .2
3 .5
3 .6
3 .6
'2 . 7
’ 2 .0
6 ,065
6,504
Weeks of une m p lo ym e nt com pensated________
6 ,058
6,319
6,472
6 ,080
6,142
6,743
6,956
6, 517
6,418
4,692
3,0 5 4
Average w e ekly ben efit am ount fo r tota l
$51.45
$50.64
$50.63
$49. 57
$52.17
$49. 51
u ne m p lo ym e nt.................................................. ...............
$49. 00
$49. 30
$48. 93
$49.11
$48.49
$47.42
$46. 47
Total b enefits p a id _________________________ - $338,251 $304,212 $300,157 $312, 259 $314,201 $291,707 $292, 854 $320,224 $331, 067 $310, 800 $299,352 $ 2 i4 , 260 $136, 585
Unemployment compensation for ex-servicemen:8 9
In itia l c la im s 8 6_____________
____________
Insured
u n e m p lo y m e n t9 (average w e ekly
v o lu m e )___________________________________
Weeks of une m p lo ym e nt co m pensated________
Total benefits p a id _______________ ______ _____
51
49
46
44
51
47
38
47
42
38
44
39
30
97
362
$19,081
83
331
$17,336
81
355
$18,344
89
364
$18,618
84
356
$18, 048
73
303
$15,299
70
280
13,972
70
294
$14,564
69
289
$14,200
66
244
$12, 028
61
242
$11,957
48
193
$9,517
38
126
$6,240
Unemployment compensation for Federal civilian em
ployees: 9 «
In itia l c la im s 8_______________________________
Insured u n e m p lo y m e n t9 (average w e ekly
v o lu m e )___________________________________
Weeks of u n e m p lo ym e n t com pensated________
Total benefits p a id ------ ----------------------- ----------------
13
15
13
15
16
15
10
13
11
11
15
12
13
35
138
$7,255
33
136
$6,971
32
136
$6, 862
33
131
$6,565
31
129
$6, 469
27
107
$5,378
26
107
$5, 323
27
118
$5,824
29
128
$6,192
30
109
$5, 239
28
110
$5,194
24
101
$4,748
22
75
$3, 465
Railroad unemployment insurance:
A pplica tio ns u ___________________ _________ _
Insured
une m p lo ym e nt (average
w e ekly
v o lu m e ) . . . ................ ............................... .................
8
16
12
16
21
12
4
8
9
4
9
5
5
20
22
18
17
15
11
15
16
19
18
21
17
14
N u m b er of p a y m e n ts « .................. ............................
A verage am o un t of benefit p a y m e n t« _________
Total benefits paid « . ___________ _____________
42
$92.97
$3,736
46
$82.07
$3, 482
36
$85.41
$2,877
38
$80.86
$3,014
27
$90. 41
$2, 035
26
$91. 89
$2, 253
30
$84.87
$2, 439
43
$81. 5C
$3, 565
42
$92. 00
$3, 668
38
$96.76
$3, 374
47
$94.78
$4, 091
35
$96. 02
$3,241
28
$96. 28
$2, 513
All programs: «
Insured u n e m p lo y m e n t8. . .................. ...................
2,233
1,889
1,746
1,855
1,897
1,696
1,778
1,885
1,916
1,987
1,957
1,464
1,105
1Includes data for Puerto Rico.
2 Includes Guam and the Virgin Islands.
* Initial claims are notices filed by workers to indicate they are starting periods of
unemployment. Excludes transition claims under State programs.
« Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands.
i Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unemployment.
«Initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program
for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers.
? 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.
9 Includes the Virgin Islands.
10 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs.
>i An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning of his first
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is required for subsequent
periods in the same year.
12 Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods.
13 The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for
recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments.
■«Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments.
«Represents an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under the State,
Ex-servicemen and UCFE programs and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
Includes claims filed under Extended Duration (ED) provisions of regular State laws.
p=preliminary.
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.
CURRENT
11.
LABOR
PAYROLL DATA
S T A T IS T IC S
95
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947 to date1
[In thousands)
TOTAL
Year
Contract
construc
tion
Mining
Transpor
Manufac tation and
turing
public
utilities
Wholesale and retail trade
Total
Wholesale
trade
Retail
trade
Finance,
insurance,
and real
estate
Services
Government
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
6i 868
7,248
7; 696
1966______________
1967...........................
1968______________
1969______________
63,955
65,857
67,915
70,274
627
613
606
619
3,275
3,208
3,285
3,437
19,214
19,447
19,781
20,169
4,151
4,261
4,310
4,431
13,245
13,606
14,084
14,645
3,437
3,525
3,611
3,738
9,808
10,081
10,473
10,907
3,100
3,225
3,382
3,557
9,551
10, 099
10,623
11,211
10,792
11,398
11,845
12,204
2, 564
2,719
2,737
2,758
8,227
8; 679
9i 109
9,446
1The industry series have been adjusted to March 1969 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to July 1970. For comparable back data, see Employment and Earnings, United
States, 1909-70 (BLS Bulletin 1312-7) to be released this spring.
These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all full- and part-time
employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked during, or received pay for
any part of the pay period which includes the 12th of the month. Therefore, persons who
12.
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 State1
[In thousands)
State
Nov. 1970 *
Oct. 1970
Nov. 1969
State
Nov. 1970 p
Oct. 1970
Nov. 1969
A la ba m a ___________________________
A la ska ____ ______________
..
A rizo na ____________________________
A rkansas........... ..................... .....................
C alifornia 1.............. .....................................
996.1
8 8.6
551.6
531.8
7 ,0 1 6.1
996.4
9 3.5
548.7
536.0
7 ,0 2 4.7
1 ,0 1 1 .8
86.3
537.5
535.1
7 ,0 3 1 .7
M ontana_________________ _____ ____
Nebraska......................... ..........................
Nevada______________ ______________
New H am pshire_______ _______ _____
New Jersey________ ________ _______
2 03 .0
486.2
203.3
252.6
2 ,5 9 9 .6
204 .9
487 .0
204.0
256.9
2 ,6 0 1 .4
197.4
479 .6
199.1
256 .2
2 ,6 2 2 .7
Colorado * . ............................................ ..
C o nn e cticut________________________
D e la w a re _______ _____ _____
D is tric t of C o lu m b ia ...............................
F lo rid a ........ ...................... ................. ..........
755 .0
1 ,1 8 1.4
203.7
687.7
2 ,1 7 5 .3
754.1
1 ,1 8 4 .9
204.1
685.4
2 ,1 4 6 .0
730.1
1 ,2 1 4 .2
210.8
681 .4
2 ,1 3 4 .0
New Mexico
............................... ...........
New Y o rk__________ ________________
North C arolina______________________
North D akota______________ ______
Ohio____ _________ _________________
289.0
7 ,2 1 0 .3
1 ,7 6 0.6
168.0
3 ,8 7 1 .6
290.5
7 ,2 0 9 .6
1 ,7 5 8 .2
168.4
3 ,8 8 2 .8
290.9
7 ,2 5 9 .0
1,7 6 2.1
163.4
3 ,9 4 9 .8
Georgia____________________________
H aw aii_______________ _____ ________
Ida h o ____________ _____ ____________
Illin o is ______ ________ ______________
In d ia n a __ _______ ____________ _____
1 ,5 3 2 .5
286.0
209.4
4 ,4 0 5 .2
1 ,8 0 6 .4
1 ,5 2 5 .3
284.9
2 10 .9
4 ,4 0 1 .0
1,8 2 2.1
1 ,5 4 9 .5
278 .3
204.7
4,423. 0
1 ,8 8 5 .4
O k la h o m a .._________ _______________
O regon____________ ___________ ____
P ennsylvania___________ ___________
Rhode Is la n d _______________________
South C a r o lin a ................................ ........
761.0
717.0
4 ,3 2 6 .5
335.1
807.9
760.3
723.1
4 ,3 2 6 .2
335.6
809.8
768.1
715.3
4 ,4 0 7 .0
343.3
818.3
Io w a _______________________________
Kansas__________________ _________
K en tu cky................. .....................................
Louisiana__________ _____ _______ _
886.2
669.5
925.5
886.5
670.1
922.8
891.9
695.2
894.7
1, 054.4
328.3
1, 050.8
331.2
1, 062.4
331.0
176.7
1,3 3 4.1
3 ,7 2 7 .9
177.7
1 ,3 3 1 .5
3 ,7 1 6 .6
175.5
1 ,3 3 4 .6
3 ,6 7 1 .8
M aine...............................................
South Dakota 1............. ..............................
Tennessee_________________________
Texas____ __________ _______________
U tah______ _____ ___________ _______
Vermont.................................. ............
364.4
145.9
364.7
148.7
358.2
146.2
Maryland_____ _____ ___________
Massachusetts_______ ._ _____
Michigan >.........................................
Minnesota......... .............. ....................
Mississippi................. ......................
M issouri.............................................
1 , 315.1
2 , 246.3
2 , 832.9
1, 311.2
586.0
1 , 634.7
1 , 311.1
2 , 232.4
2 , 838.1
1 , 319.3
586.2
1, 638.8
1, 305.9
2 , 255.0
3 , 124.0
1, 326.7
577.5
1, 691.6
Virginia...............................................
Washington 1................ ........................
West Virginia_____ ____ _________
Wisconsin.......................... .................
Wyoming______________________
1, 464.8
1, 071.5
515.3
1, 536.9
107.6
1 , 460.7
1, 086.3
516.3
1, 540.6
109.4
1, 453.3
1 , 123.6
518.7
1, 540.5
106.2
1 Revised series; not strictly comparable with previously published data.
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.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: Current employment data by major industry division are published in Employment
table B-7. For historical data in available industry detail, see the annual
compendium, Employment and Earnings, States and Areas, 1939-69 (BLS Bulletin 1370-7).
and Earnings,
*>=preliminary.
96
13.
PAYROLL DATA
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1
[In thousands]
1970
1969
Industry division and group
TOTAL....___ ______________
Dec. »
Nov. j>
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
71, 309
70, 632
70,692
70,922
70, 527
70, 602
71,385
70,780
70, 758
636
635
635
620
3,344
Mar.
Annual average
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
1969
1968
70,460
70,029
69,933
71,760
70,274
67,915
616
610
608
611
623
619
606
3,286
3,161
3, 071
3, 048
3,398
3,437
3,285
MINING____ ___ ___________
621
624
622
628
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION____
3,215
3, 376
3,471
3, 500
3,606
3, 572
3, 504
MANUFACTURING____ _______
Production workers2. . . . .
18, 946
13,718
18,653
13,414
18, 850
13, 575
19,512
14,224
19, 446
14,101
19,325
13, 958
19, 627
14,261
19,432
14,061
19, 627
14, 240
19,794
14, 385
19,770
14, 346
19,824
14,402
20,110
14,680
20,169
14,768
19,781
14! 514
Durable goods____________
Production workers2. . .
10, 864
7, 808
10, 508
7,440
10,650
7,557
11,207
8,103
11,102
7,964
11,156
7,993
11,392
8,228
11,352
8,164
11,488
8,282
11,607
8,379
11,573
8,327
11,623
8,377
11,802
8,556
11,893
8,648
11,626
8! 457
Ordnance and accessories..
Lumber and wood products.
Furniture and fixtures____
Stone, clay, and glass
products_______ ______
220.7
560.7
454.8
224.1
567.2
458.3
228.1
577.7
459.3
236.3
585.4
460.3
238.8
590.9
457.2
242.6
589.0
446.2
249.9
596.4
454.1
254.1
579.2
451.4
260.1
574.5
462.9
271.0
578.6
468.6
277.6
579.2
470.3
282.8
583.8
475.6
291.3
597.0
482.2
318.8
609.2
483.5
338.0
600.1
471.6
619.0
628.7
635.9
647.3
649.2
643.8
650.0
638.0
639.8
635.1
632.9
632.0
650.9
656.3
635.5
Primary metal industries...
Fabricated metal products..
Machinery, except
electrical.........................
Electrical equipment_____
Transportation equipment..
Instruments and related
products___ ____ _____
Miscellaneous
manufacturing................
Nondurable goods__________
Production workers2. . .
1, 264.7 1,233.7 1,252.3 1, 308. 4 1, 306. 2 1,316.6 1,331.6 1,319.4 1,329.5 1,338.1 1,346.6 1,351.4 1,367.6 1,358.0 1,315.5
1,365.9 1,323.4 1,340.0 1, 402. 3 1,385.7 1,370.0 1,400.9 1,385.6 1, 402. 5 1,416.1 1,421.1 1,433.1 1,456.6 1,442.1 1,390.4
1,863.3 1, 843.1 1,865.0 1,918.0 1,932. 8 1, 969. 3 1,998.1 2,006.4 2, 040. 4 2, 058. 3 2, 055.9 2, 044.6 2, 043. 2 2, 027.7 1,965.9
1,860.9 1,821.6 1,857.3 1, 903.1 1,908.3 1,913.2 1,932.1 1,932.5 1,959.1 1,983.2 1,995.2 1,928.2 1,948.9 2,013.0 1,974.5
1, 800. 0 1,534.4 1, 552.8 1,859.1 1,745.0 1,795.0 1,889.6 1,897.2 1,928.9 1,963.4 1,901.1 1,999.4 2, 042. 9 2, 067.1 2, 038. 6
438.1
443.1
446.7
415.7
430.0
434.7
8, 082
5,910
8,145
5, 974
8, 200
6, 018
452.1
462.6
465.5
412.9
426.7
8,169
5, 965
8,235
6, 033
456.1
457.2
434.5
431.8
8,305
6,121
8,344
6,137
469.1
471.3
471.3
472.6
422.4
421.3
423.0
421.4
8,080
5,897
8,139
5,958
8,178
6, 006
8,197
6, 019
477.7
476.5
461.9
419.0
443.7
440.2
433.4
8,201
6, 025
8,308
6,124
8,277
6,120
8,155
6! 056
Food and kindred products. 1,761.6 1,805.7 1,850.6 1,906.6 1,923.0 1,826.4 1,796.7 1,736.7 1,722.2 1,735.6 1,739.9 1,744.3 1,790.7 1,795.9 1,781.5
84.3
83.1
88.4
71.4
Tobacco manufactures........
89.8
71.8
70.8
88.7
71.4
73.8
77.4
84.0
79.9
82.0
84.6
948.8
949.4
951.6
960.2
948.2
971.5
Textile mill products_____
961.5
967.2
977.3
974.6
979.9
987.6
995.3
998.7
993.9
Apparel and other textile
products........... ............. 1, 368.4 1, 386.1 1,382.9 1,392.5 1, 392. 7 1, 346. 8 1,400.0 1,372.4 1,382.4 1,402.8 1,404.0 1,388.8 1,407.6 1,412.3 1,405.8
703.2
698.3
Paper and allied products.. 698.7
708.6
709.8
720.0
707.8
711.9
714.2
714.9
714.2
716.0
722.7
712.1
691.2
Printing and publishing___ 1,106. 5 1,104.6 1,104.3 1,103.6 1,104.5 1,104.8 1,105.7 1,102.3 1,109.9 1,112.3 1,110.0 1,107.7 1,116.2 1,093.3 1,065.1
Chemicals and allied
products... . . . - . ___ 1, 039.8 1, 040. 5 1,047.7 1,055.5 1,065.4 1,066.0 1,063.7 1,058.3 1,063.8 1,064.1 1, 060. 8 1, 058.5 1,062.1 1, 060. 7 1,029.9
Petroleum and coal
189.4
191.2
191.6
products_____________
192.8
196.7
197.3
191.9
196.7
190.4
189.7
188.4
188.0
188.9
182.9
186.8
Rubber and plastics
563. 6
559.9
561. 8
products, n e c.................
572.1
572.5
569.7
543.2
569.7
580.8
585.0
588.2
593.4
599.6
593.9
561.3
Leather and leather
320.4
321.6
322.3
products_____________
323.5
336.5
328.0
330.0
329.2
329.1
331.6
334. 6
336.7
341.3
345.1
355.2
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES_____ ______ ____
4,452
4,516
4, 527
4,561
4, 574
4, 593
4, 561
4,469
4, 432
4,443
4,420
4,435
4,478
4,431
4,310
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE. 15,717
15,176
15, 038
14,936
14, 869
14,924
14,994
14,878
14,818
14,700
14, 606
14,707
15,638
14,645
14, 084
3, 894
11, 823
3, 887
11,289
3, 884
11,154
3,869
11,067
3, 886
10,983
3,902
11,022
3,872
11,122
3,813
11,065
3,803
11,015
3,797
10,903
3,788
10, 818
3,797
10,910
3,841
11,797
3,738
IO! 907
3,611
IO! 473
Wholesale trade___________
Retail trade___ __________
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND
REAL ESTATE_____________
3,701
3,696
3, 689
3,695
3,732
3,738
3,708
3,670
3,658
3,639
3,615
3,604
3,608
3, 557
3,382
SERVICES__________________
Hotels and other lodging
11,636
11,660
11,677
11,634
11,648
11,698
11,717
11,641
11,564
11,433
11,357
11,254
11,351
11,211
10,623
701.2
990.3
724.3
989.8
771.3
984.1
834 0
981.5
Personal services
___
Medical and other health
services............................
Educational services___
GOVERNMENT.....................
Federal ....... ....... ................
State and Local__________
777 3
717 5
842.6
787 9
759.6
745 3
995 9 1,016.0 1,009.8 1,006.2 1,006.2 1, 003. 0 1,005! 1 1,022.0 1, 025! 8
3,157. 5 3, 140.4 3,123.0 3 117 5 3,116 6 3 091 ? 3,043.2 3 033 9 ^ m q 4 8 nnn 1
1,219.8 1, 204. 5 1, 098. 9
980 3 1 004 5 r i nn 5 l[ 190. 7 1 197 8 1*1Q7 8 1*19fi 1
979 8
]R3’ 0
13, 021
12,931
12,818
12, 456
12,016
12,117
12, 639
12,726
12, 757
12,680
12, 582
12,450
12, 554
12,204
11,845
2,708
10,313
2,648
10, 283
2,643
10,175
2,649
9, 807
2,675
9,341
2,700
2,710
2,765
2,838
2,758
2,694
2,690
2,760
2,758
2,737
9,417
9,929
9,961
9,919
9 ,922
9 ,888
9,7 6 0
9,794
9,4 4 6
9,1 0 9
1 For co m p a ra b ility of data w ith those published in issues p rio r to Ju ly 1970, and
coverage of these series, see footnote 1, tab le 11.
2 P roduction w orkers include w o rkin g forem en and a ll nonsupervisory w orke rs
(in c lu d in g leadmen and tra in ee s) engaged in fab ricatin g, processing, assem bling,
in spe ctio n, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, sh ipp in g , maintenance,
re p a ir, ja n ito ria l, and w atchm an services, p roduct developm ent, a u xilia ry production
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
?
\
fo r p la n t's own use (e.g., p ow e rp la nt), and recordkeeping and other services closely
associated w ith the above production operations.
v = p re lim in a ry.
NOTE: For add itio na l d e ta il, see
Employment and Earnings,
tab le B -2.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
14.
PAYROLL DATA
97
Employees on nonagriculturai payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted »
[In thousands]
1970
1969
Industry division and group
Dec.»
Nov.»
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
T O T A L ___ _______ __________ _____________________
70,364
70, 076
70,182
70, 531
70, 414
70, 587
70,629
70,839
71,149
71,242
71,135
70,992
70,842
M I N I N G .................. .......................... - .................................- ...........................................
625
626
621
621
619
618
620
620
622
626
626
625
627
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N _______________________
3, 308
3, 300
3,278
3, 262
3,305
3,314
3,324
3,351
3,426
3,481
3,466
3,394
3,496
M A N U F A C T U R I N G ____ ________________ ___________
Production workers2..................... .......................................
18,920
13,680
18, 547
13,297
18,684
13,405
19, 285
14, 000
19,271
13,974
19,402
14,090
19,477
14,140
19,572
14,180
19,795
14, 389
19,944
14,512
19,937
Hi 489
20, 018
Hi 573
20 08?
Hi 638
Durable goods.....................................................................................................
Production workers2..................... ..........................
Ordnance and accessories__________________
Lumber and wood products..................... ...................
Furniture and fixtures____________________
Stone, clay, and glass products..........................
10,836
7, 774
220
569
451
627
10,460
7, 388
223
569
453
626
10,602
7, 504
228
574
454
630
11,145
8,039
237
575
457
635
11,134
8,019
240
570
453
631
11,217
8, 082
243
570
454
628
11,286
8,134
250
575
453
636
11,386
8,186
256
582
456
638
11, 529
8,318
261
585
468
644
11,648
8,409
271
593
471
651
11,625
8| 367
'277
598
472
657
11,679
8', 425
'281
605
477
653
11 773
8’ 516
’ ?90
606
478
659
Primary metal industries____________ ____ _
Fabricated metal products.................... ............
Machinery, except electrical_______________
Electrical equipment______________ ______
Transportation equipment...................................................
Instruments and related products___________
1,276
1, 356
1,871
1,842
1, 770
436
1,251
1, 312
1, 85b
1, 802
1, 515
442
1,273
1,331
1,878
1,841
1, 534
447
1,315
1,395
1,926
1,896
1,839
452
1,298
1,387
1,939
1,903
1,841
453
1,301
1,387
1,969
1,934
1,853
458
1,305
1,388
1,982
1,936
1,876
461
1,309
1,394
2,004
1,956
1,897
468
1,323
1,411
2, 032
1,979
1,925
471
1,337
1,425
2j 046
L 995
1,950
'472
1,349
lj 428
048
1,993
i; 890
'472
1,360
l' 436
2, 043
Ï , 922
1 988
474
1^380
1* 447
051
1 930
? no9
“’476
2,
?
Miscellaneous manufacturing.............. .............. .............
418
411
412
418
419
420
424
426
430
437
441
440
447
Nondurable goods___ __________ ________________
Production workers2__________ _____ _
Food and kindred p ro d u cts.................. ...................
8, 084
5, 9U6
1, 776
78
949
1, 3/1
696
8, 087
5,909
1,781
77
945
1, 374
700
8, 082
5,901
1,769
76
948
1,367
698
8,140
5, 961
1,779
76
955
1,380
706
8,137
5,955
1,784
82
954
1,376
703
8,185
6,008
1,789
81
955
1,393
706
8,191
6,006
1,800
81
959
1,385
711
8,186
5,994
1,805
81
971
1,375
714
8,266
6,071
1,805
81
979
1,394
721
8,296
6,103
1,823
81
980
1,396
'721
8,312
6| 122
1,830
80
987
1,398
'720
8 339
6 148
1 817
80
999
1 416
721
8 309
fi’ \ 7 ?
1'805
1,100
1,100
1, 045
192
559
318
1, 045
192
554
319
1,102
1,105
1,056
190
569
324
1,103
1,053
191
567
324
1,105
1,054
191
578
333
1,103
1,055
193
570
334
1,108
1,060
192
548
332
1 , 111
1,063
193
585
334
1,113
1,066
194
589
333
1,113
1' 067
’ 193
591
333
1 113
1 110
1 '067
' 19 ?
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............. ........... ...................
1,052
190
557
323
’
77
99s
1 410
'720
1 068
’ 199
595
594
339
337
4,443
4,494
4, 509
4,511
4, 520
4, 539
4, 511
4,478
4, 468
4, 502
4,496
4,507
4,469
W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A I L T R A D E .......................................................
14,827
14,931
15,011
14,961
14,912
14,933
14,927
14,968
14,991
14,984
14,987
14,938
14,750
Wholesale trade________________________________
Retail trade___________________________________
3,859
10, 968
3,852
11,079
3,857
11,154
3,850
11, 111
3, 840
11,072
3,856
11,077
3,849
11,078
3,859
11,109
3,853
11,138
3,847
IL 137
3,834
Hi 153
1 1 ; 110
3,828
3 807
10,943
F I N A N C E , I N S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E .............................
3, 720
3,711
3,696
3,684
3,670
3,676
3,679
3,677
3,673
3, 665
3,652
3,648
3,626
S E R V IC E S ..........................................................................................................................
11,718
11,695
746
Q86
3 158
1,158
11,665
74fi
987
8 144
ì,’ Ì6Ó
11,622
754
988
3 129
1,143
11,521
715
988
3 in?
1, 143
11,514
7??
11,532
749
11,572
7fi4
11,564
768
11,537
11,530
11,472
'775
11 431
’770
8 0RÇ
l| 147
V 070
Ù 45
V 05R
l| 146
3 034
1 ,151
1,143
1,145
1,125
1,129
12,803
12,772
12,718
12, 585
12, 596
12, 591
12, 559
12,601
12,610
12, 503
12,441
12,390
12,361
2,652
10,151
2,661
10, 111
2,654
10, 064
2, 649
9, 936
2,659
9,937
2,668
9,923
2,689 | 2,768
9,870
9,833
2, 838
9,772
2,766
9,737
2,718
9; 723
2,717
9; 673
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A N D P U B L IC U T I L IT IE S .....................
Hotels and other lodging places ___________
Personal services_____________________ . . .
Medical and other health services...........................
Educational serv ices.......................... ..........................
G O V E R N M E N T ................................................. .................................
3
Federal ________________ __________
State and local..........................................................................
* For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, and
coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11.
2 For definition of production workers, see footnote 2, table 13.
4 12 -8 2 4 0
-
71 - 7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
2,721
9; 640
NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to .reflect experience through
February 1970. For additional detail, see June 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
» =preliminary.
98
15.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
LABOR TURNOVER
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1959 to date 1
[Per 100 employees]
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Annual
average
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
4.8
5.5
6.1
5.3
5.7
5.9
3.2
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.6
3.0
4 .A
4.3
5.0
4. 6
4.7
4.7
4.0
4.5
5.1
4.7
5.1
5.0
3.8
2.6
3.1
2.9
2.8
3.1
2.9
4.4
5.1
5.4
6.4
5.5
5.8
5.6
5.1
Total accessions
1959
- 1960
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
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
_____________
1970_________ _____ _____
3.6
3.8
4.6
4.3
4.2
4.6
4.0
3.4
3.5
4.2
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.6
3.7
4.0
4.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
4.6
3.9
4.3
4.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
5.1
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.2
5.1
5.6
6.7
5.9
5.9
6.6
5.4
4.4
4.5
5.1
4.7
5.0
5.1
4.0
4.4
3.7
4.4
4.6
4.3
*
4. 4
New 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
................ ..
1970____________________
2.0
2.4
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.3
2.9
2.0
2.4
3.1
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.5
2.2
2.8
3.7
2.8
2.9
3.4
2.6
2.4
2.6
3.6
2.8
3.2
3.5
2.6
2.5
3.0
4.1
3.3
3.6
3.8
2.8
3.6
4.3
5.6
4.6
4.7
5.4
3.9
2.9
3.2
3.9
3.3
3.7
3.9
2.9
3.4
3.9
4.8
4.0
4.3
4.3
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.7
4.1
4.6
4.8
3.4
2.8
3. 5
4.2
3.7
4.0
4.0
2.7
2.2
2.9
3.1
2.8
2.9
2. 8
»1.9
1.6
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.6
3.1
3. 8
3.3
3.5
3.7
Total separations
1959
____
1960
1961
............................................... 1962
1 9 6 3 .......... ........................................
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
1 9 6 9 ................................................
1 9 7 0 _____ ___________ ________
4 .0
3 .7
4 .0
4 .5
4 .4
4 .5
4 .8
3 .3
3.1
3 .6
4 .0
3 .9
4.0
4 .3
3 .5
3 .4
4.1
4 .6
4. 1
4 .4
4 .5
3 .5
3.7
4 .3
4 .3
4.1
4 .5
4 .8
3 .6
3 .6
4 .3
4 .2
4 .3
4 .6
4.6
3 .5
3 .6
4 .4
4 .3
4.1
4 .6
4 .4
4 .4
4 .3
5 .3
4 .8
5 .0
5 .3
5.3
4 .3
5. 1
5 .8
5 .3
6 .0
6 .2
5 .6
5.1
5 .6
6.6
6.2
6 .3
6 .6
6 .0
4 .2
4. 5
4.8
4. 7
5. 0
5 .3
Ö . 3
3 .6
3 .9
4. 3
4 .0
4.1
4 .3
? 4. 3
3 .7
4 .1
4 .2
3 .9
3 .8
4 .2
3 .9
4 .1
4. 6
4 .6
4 .6
4 .9
Quits
1 95 9. . . ........................... ................
9 6 0 . . . . .........................................
19 61. . . .........................................
19 62...................................................
19 63 ........................... .......................
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
19 64 .................................. ................
19 65. . . . ..................................
19 66 ..................................................
1 96 7 ..................................................
1 96 8 ...................... ............................
1 9 6 9 _________________________
197 0 ___________ _________ _
2.0
1 .6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1 .2
1.7
1 .6
1.2
1.0
1 .3
1 .2
1.0
1.6
1.6
1 .2
1.0
1.5
1.1
1.0
1 .6
1.4
1 .3
1.0
1.3
1 .0
.9
1 .7
1.4
1. 1
.9
1.1
1. 0
.9
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.1
.9
1 .0
1.5
2.1
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.6
2.3
1.4
1.6
1. 1
1. 2
1 .3
1.1
1.7
1 .5
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.8
1.4
1. 1
1 .3
1. 2
1.3
2.2
1. 7
1. 5
1.3
1.3
1 .2
1.3
V 2.1
2 .1
1.9
1. 7
1.6
1 .4
1.8
1.7
1. 4
1.2
1 .4
1.2
1.2
I
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, 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
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
bor turnover series measures changes during the calendar month, while the employent series measures changes from midmonth to midmonth and (2) the turnover
ries excludes personnel changes caused by strikes, but the employment series
fiortc thp inflnpnpp nf snr.h stnnnapes.
^ p re lim in a ry .
CURRENT
16.
LABO R
LABOR TURNOVER
S T A T IS T IC S
99
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group 1
[Per 100 employees]
Separation rates
Accession rates
Total
Major industry group
Nov.
1970»
M A N U F A C T U R I N G ..........................................
Seasonally adjusted 2 .............................
Durable goods_______________ -
Oct.
1970
Nov.
1969
Nov.
1970»
Oct.
1970
Nov.
1969
Nov.
1970»
Oct.
1970
Quits
Nov.
1969
Nov.
1970»
Oct.
1970
Layoffs
Nov.
1969
Nov.
1970»
Nov.
1969
Oct.
1970
3.0
3.7
3.8
3.6
3.6
4.4
1.9
2.3
2.7
2.4
2.8
3.4
4.3
4.8
5.3
5.0
4.3
4.8
1.5
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.6
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.2
1.3
1.3
2.6
3.2
3.2
1.6
2.2
2.6
4.2
5.3
3.9
1.2
1.7
1.8
2.3
2.5
1.2
14
1.3
.7
.7
3.8
4.0
.9
1.2
2.3
2.0
5.8
5.9
5.4
5.6
2.3
2.2
3.3
3.2
3.0
3.4
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.1
1.3
Ordnance and
Lumber and wood
products.....................
Furniture and fixtures—
Stone, clay, and glass
products...... .............. .
Total
New hires
3.8
3.5
4.7
5.3
4.1
4.6
3.0
2.8
1
4.0
4.4
3.6
4. 1
5.5
4.6
2.3
1.5
2.7
3.7
3.6
2.0
2.9
3.0
4.3
5.0
4.4
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.8
1.7
Primary metal industries.
Fabricated metal
2.3
2.4
2.9
.9
1.4
2.2
4.2
6.2
3.0
.8
1.4
1.5
2.6
3.6
.5
3.6
4. 1
2.9
3.5
5.5
4.6
2.0
2.3
2.4
1.2
Machinery, except
electrical....................
2.0
2.2
2.8
2.8
3.1
1.3
1.8
2.3
2.4
4.2
5.2
2.7
3.6
.8
1.1
1.6
1.3
1.8
2.2
2.5
.6
.9
3.2
2.8
1.4
1.3
3.4
1.8
2.5
2.6
1.2
1.8
1.3
1.1
1.5
.7
1.1
Transportation equip-
3.4
5.9
4.1
4.2
2.7
.8
6.2
7.6
2.0
3.0
2.8
3.3
2.0
3.5
5.3
4.7
1.8
2.6
2.4
1.9
1.9
1.6
7.8
5.1
5.7
7.1
8.5
4.9
2.3
1.1
2.5
3.4
2.2
3.5
3.2
2.0
3.1
3.1
3.3
1.5
3.5
1.9
1.1
3.2
5.7
.9
5.3
5.9
5.2
2.3
2.9
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.4
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.0
1.2
1.2
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.1
.7
1.0
1.0
.7
.5
1.8
1.8
1.7
2.1
Instruments and related
products___________
1.7
Miscellaneous manufacturing......................
3.6
5.8
4.8
2.7
4.6
4.1
6.1
3.5
4.6
4.1
2.4
3.4
3.1
4.4
4.9
4.2
3.9
6.8
4.0
5.2
5.6
4.3
4.6
3.2
2.7
3.0
4.9
3.5
4.0
4.1
3.0
3.6
6.2
5.4
4.9
4.3
5.3
4.2
2.8
3.7)l
2.9
2.3
2.2
2.9
3.2
3.3
3.3
1.7
1.7
2.4
2.6
Nondurable g o o d s................................... ...
Food and kindred
products........ ..............
Tobacco manufactures...
Textile mill products___
Apparel and other textile
products.......................
Paper and allied
Printing and publishing..
Chemicals and allied
products_____ _____ _
Petroleum and coal
products.................
Rubber and plastics
products, n.e.c___. . .
Leather and leather
products........... ...........
2.7
1.5
1.8
1.9
1.1
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.4
2.2
.7
1.0
1.0
.9
.8
.6
1.4
2.2
1.6
1.2
1.9
1.4
1.9
2.5
2.1
.7
.9
1.0
.5
.9
.6
3.4
4.6
4.3
1.9
3.5
3.6
5.4
6.4
5.2
1.7
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.6
1.3
4.6
5.6
5.5
3.3
4.1 >
3.9
5.3
6.4
5.4
2.4
3.4
3.2
2.1
2.0
1.3
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11. For relationship to employment series see footnote 1, table 15.
2 These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through February
1970. For additional detail, see June 1970 issue of Employment and Eainings.
Table 17.
2.0
NOTE. For additional detail, see
_
.. .
»—preliminary.
Employment and Earnings,
table D-2.
Job vacancies in manufacturing
1969
1970
INDUSTRY
Job vacancies in manufacturing (number, in thousands)_____ ________
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
76
93
118
137
126
123
151
158
165
170
186
185
209
.4
.3
.5
.5
.4
.6
.6
.5
.7
0.7
.6
.8
0.6
.6
.7
0.6
.6
.7
0.8
.7
.9
0.8
.7
.9
0.8
.8
.9
0.8
.9
.8
0.9
1.0
.9
0.9
1.0
.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
.2
.4
.3
.4
.4
.3
.4
.4
.4
.6
.4
.5
.6
.4
.7
.6
.6
.7
.6
.7
.4
.5
.6
.5
.6
.5
.6
.6
.5
.7
.6
.8
.8
.6
1.1
.7
.9
.8
.5
1.4
.6
1.0
.9
.7
1.7
.6
1.0
1.1
.6
1.7
.8
1.2
1.1
.8
1.6
.7
1.1
1.2
.8
1.4
.9
1.4
1.2
.8
1.6
.6
1.1
.4
.4
.8
1.1
.4
.4
1.0
1.4
.5
.6
1.0
1.5
.6
.6
.9
1.4
.5
.6
.8
1.4
.5
.7
1.1
1.5
.6
.8
1.1
1.5
.7
.8
1.0
1.6
.7
1.0
.9
1.6
.7
.9
.9
1.6
.8
.9
.9
1. 5
.8
.8
1.0
1.6
.9
.9
JOB VACANCY RATES >
Manufacturing_________ ___ ___ ____
Durable goods industries____ _____
_____________ ___
____ _
. ...
_______ __
Selected durable goods industries:
Electricafequipment and supplies
_________ --Transportation equipment...’. .......................... ........................................ .
Instruments and related p ro d u c ts ................................
.................
Selected nondurable goods industries:
Textile mill products .
.
............... .........
Apparel and other textile products___ ___________ ______________ . . .
Printing and publishing 1.
..
_________________ ____ .
1Computed by dividing the total number of job vacancies'by the sum of employment
plus the total number of job vacancies and multiplying the quotient by 100.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: For additional detail on this series, see Employment and Earnings, tables D 1
D -2, and D-3.
100
18.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
HOURS AND EARNINGS
Gross hours and earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry
division, 1947 to date
Year
Weekly
earnings
Weekly
hours
Averages
Averages
Averages
Hourly
earnings
Weekly
earnings
Weekly
hours
Hourly
earnings
Weekly
hours
Hourly
earnings
Weekly
earnings
Contract construction
Mining
Total private
Weekly
earnings
Averages
Weekly
hours
Hourly
earnings
Manufacturing
1947........................... .
1948................... ..............
1949...........................
1950..................................
$45. 58
49. 00
50. 24
53.13
40.3
40.0
39.4
39.8
$1,131
1.225
1.275
1.335
$59.94
65. 56
62. 33
67.16
40.8
39.4
36.3
37.9
$1,469
1.664
1.717
1.772
$58.87
65. 27
67. 56
69.68
38.2
38.1
37.7
37.4
$1,541
1.713
1.792
1.863
$49.17
53.12
53. 88
58. 32
40.4
40.0
39.1
40.5
$1,217
1.328
1.378
1.440
1951-..........................
1952______ _______ _
1953-_____ __________
1954...........................
1 9 5 5 ....______________
57. 86
60.65
63.76
64. 52
67.72
39.9
39.9
39.6
39.1
39.6
1.45
1.52
1.61
1.65
1.71
74.11
77. 59
83. 03
82.60
89.54
38.4
38.6
38.8
38.6
40.7
1.93
2. 01
2.14
2.14
2.20
76.96
82. 86
86.41
88.91
90.90
38.1
38.9
37.9
37.2
37.1
2.02
2.13
2.28
2. 39
2.45
63. 34
67.16
70. 47
70. 49
75. 70
40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40.7
1.56
1.65
1.74
1.78
1.86
1956-..................... ..........
1957-................................
1958....................................
1959 2........................ .........
I960............................
70.74
73.33
75. 08
78.78
80. 67
39.3
38.8
38.5
39.0
38.6
1.80
1.89
1.95
2. 02
2. 09
95. 06
98.65
96. 08
103.68
105. 44
40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4
2. 33
2.46
2.47
2. 56
2.61
96.38
100.27
103.78
108. 41
113. 04
37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7
2. 57
2.71
2.82
2.93
3. 08
78.78
81.59
82.71
88. 26
89.72
40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7
1.95
2. 05
2.11
2.19
2.26
1961_________________
1962....................................
1963_____ ______ _____
1964-............................. .
1965..................................
82.60
85.91
88. 46
91.33
95. 06
38.6
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.8
2.14
2. 22
2.28
2.36
2.45
106. 92
110. 43
114. 40
117.74
123. 52
40.5
40.9
41.6
41.9
42.3
2. 64
2.70
2.75
2. 81
2.92
118. 08
122. 47
127.19
132. 06
138. 38
36.9
37.0
37.3
37.2
37.4
3. 20
3.31
3.41
3. 55
3.70
92. 34
96. 56
99.63
102.97
107. 53
39.8
40.4
40.5
40.7
41.2
2. 32
2.39
2.46
2. 53
2.61
1966....................................
1967..................................
1968-............................ .
1969___________ _____ _
98. 82
101.84
107.73
114.61
38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
2. 56
2. 68
2. 85
3. 04
130. 24
135. 89
142. 71
154.80
42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
3.05
3.19
3.35
3. 60
146.26
154.95
164.93
181.16
37.6
37.7
37.4
37.9
3. 89
4.11
4.41
4. 78
112. 34
114. 90
122. 51
129. 51
41.3
40.6
40.7
40.6
2. 72
2.83
3.01
3.19
Transportation and public utilities
Wholesale and retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Services
1947
1948
1949
1950
$38.07
40. 80
42.93
44. 55
40.5
40.4
40.5
40. 5
$0. 940
1.010
1.060
1.100
$43.21
45.48
47.63
50. 52
37.9
37.9
37.8
37.7
$1.140
1.200
1.260
1.340
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
47.79
49.20
51.35
53.33
55.16
40. 5
40.0
39.5
39.5
39.4
1.18
1.23
1.30
1.35
1.40
54. 67
57.08
59. 57
62.04
63.92
37.7
37.8
37.7
37.6
37.6
1.45
1.51
1.58
1.65
1.70
1956
1957
1958
1959 2
1960
57.48
59. 60
61.76
64. 41
66.01
39.1
38.7
38.6
38.8
38.6
1.47
1.54
1.60
1.66
1.71
65.68
67. 53
70.12
72.74
75.14
36.9
36.7
37.1
37.3
37.2
1.78
1.84
1.89
1.95
2.02
1961
1962
1963
1964-................................
1 9 6 5 ...............................
$118. 37
125.14
41.1
41.3
$2. 88
3. 03
67.41
69.91
72. 01
74.28
76. 53
38.3
38.2
38.1
37.9
37.7
1.76
1.83
1.89
1.96
2. 03
77.12
80.94
84. 38
85.79
88.91
36.9
37.3
37.5
37.3
37.2
2.09
2.17
2.25
2. 30
2.39
$69. 84
73. 60
36.0
35.9
$1.94
2. 05
1966________ _____ _
1967......... ......................
1968-............... ...............
1969............... ....................
128.13
131.22
138. 85
147. 74
41.2
40.5
40.6
40.7
3.11
3.24
3. 42
3. 63
79.02
81.76
86.40
91.14
37.1
36.5
36.0
35.6
2.13
2.24
2.40
2. 56
92.13
95. 46
101.75
108. 33
37.3
37.0
37.0
37.1
2. 47
2. 58
2.75
2.92
77. 04
80. 38
84. 32
91.26
35.5
35.1
34.7
34.7
2.17
2.29
2. 43
2.63
i For c o m p a ra b ility of data w ith those published in issues p rio r to Ju ly 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11.
Data relate to production w orke rs in m ining and m a n u fa ctu rin g : to construction
w o rke rs in contra ct co n stru ctio n: and to nonsupervisory w orke rs in tra n sp o rta tio n and
p ub lic u tilitie s ; wholesale and retail tra d e ; finance, insurance, and real estate; and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
services. These groups account fo r appro xim a tely fo u r-fifth s of th e .to ta l em p loym en t
on private n onagricultural payrolls.
2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959.
NOTE: For a dditional deta il, see Employment and Earnings, tab le C - l.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
19.
HOURS AND EARNINGS 101
Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry
division and major manufacturing group
1970
Industry division and group
Dec. »
Nov. v
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
TOTAL PRIVATE...........................
37.1
36.9
37.0
37.0
37.6
37.6
37.4
37.0
36.9
37.2
37.0
37.1
MINING________ ___________
41.9
42.7
43.0
42.3
42.7
42.9
42.9
42.7
M
1
4? 4
4? 6
4? 3
1969
Annual average
Dec.
1969
37.7
37.7
1968
37.8
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION.........
37.6
36.2
37.6
36.2
38.5
38.5
38.4
38.1
37.9
37.2
36.8
35.7
37.6
37.9
37.4
MANUFACTURING____________
Overtime hours....................
40.0
2.7
39.7
2.8
39.6
2.9
39.6
3.1
39.8
3.0
39.9
2.9
40.0
3.1
39.8
2.9
39.7
2.8
40.0
3.0
39.8
3.0
40.1
3.2
41.0
3.6
40.6
3.6
40.7
3.6
Durable Goods............ ................
Overtime hours............ .......
40 5
2 .7
40.1
40.1
40.3
2.9
40 6
3.2
40.3
2.9
40 fi
40 3
2.8
40.2
2.9
40 ?
2.6
40.1
3.0
3^0
40 7
3! 3
3'. 8
3.8
3.8
Ordnance and accessories___
Lumber and wood products...
Furniture and fixtures.............
Stone, clay, and glass
products.......... ....................
41.0
40.1
40.2
40.6
39.5
39.7
40.2
39.6
39.9
40.0
39.9
38.9
40.2
40.1
39.5
39.8
39.7
38.8
40.7
40.1
39.1
40.8
40.1
38.5
40.8
39.8
38.7
40.8
39.5
39.1
40.8
39.4
38.7
41.0
39.1
38.9
41.0
40.1
40.8
40.4
40.2
40.4
41.5
40.6
40.6
41.3
41.1
41.4
4.14
41.5
41.3
41.5
41.5
41.5
41.3
40.9
40.9
42.9
42.0
41.8
Primary metal industries........
Fabricated metal products___
Machinery, except electrical..
Electrical equipment and
supplies_____ ____ _____
Transportation equipment___
Instruments and related
products........ .....................
39.9
40.9
41.0
39.3
40.2
40.6
39.5
40.4
40.4
40.9
40.4
40.2
40.3
40.7
40.4
40.6
40.9
40.6
40.7
41.1
41.2
40.4
40.7
41.1
40.4
40.6
41.4
40.8
40.9
42.1
40.8
40.6
41.9
41.3
41.0
42.2
41.7
41.8
43.1
41.8
41.6
42.5
41.6
41 7
42 1
40.2
41.0
39.9
40.5
39.9
40.5
39.5
40.4
39.8
40.0
39.8
40.7
39.6
41.6
39.6
40.4
39.6
39.2
40.1
40.0
39.7
39.6
40.3
40.1
40.9
42.2
40.4
41.5
40.3
42 2
39.9.
40.1
40.0
39.6
39.8
39.9
40.3
40.0
40.3
40.7
40.2
40.5
41.3
40.7
40.5
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries.............................
2.8
3A
38.8
38.9
38.7
38.3
38.6
38.4
38.7
38.6
38.8
39.0
38.8
38.8
39.5
39.0
39.4
Nondurable goods............ ...........
Overtime hours_________
39.2
2.8
39.1
2.9
39.0
3.0
38.9
3.1
39.3
3.1
39.3
2.9
39.2
3.0
39.0
2.9
39.0
2.8
39.2
3.0
39.1
3.0
39.2
3.1
40.0
3.4
39.7
3.4
39.8
3.3
Food and kindred products...
Tobacco manufactures______
Textile mill products_______
Apparel and other textile
products_______________
40.8
37.1
40.1
40.5
38.8
40.0
40.6
39.4
39.9
40.8
37.6
39.1
41.2
37.7
40.0
40.7
37.5
39.9
40.5
38.0
40.3
40.5
36.8
39.7
39.9
37.1
39.9
40.0
36.4
40.1
40.0
36.9
40.0
40.5
37.2
40.0
41.0
36.8
41.3
40.8
37.4
40.8
40.8
37.9
41.2
35.4
35.4
34.9
34.2
35.5
35.4
35.4
35.1
35.4
35.8
35.5
35.2
35.9
35.9
36.1
Paper and allied products___
Printing and publishing.........
Chemicals and allied products.
Petroleum and coal products.
Rubber and plastics products, nec. ..................... .
41.9
38.0
41. 5
42.5
41.9
41.9
41.8
37.7
42.0
43.4
41.9
37.8
41.2
43.2
41.7
37.8
41.4
43.4
41.7
37.7
41.5
42.8
41.8
37.6
41.6
42.8
41.7
37.7
41.6
42.2
42.0
38.0
41.8
41.8
41.9
37.8
41.6
41.8
42.4
37.7
41.7
41.9
43.2
39.0
42.9
41.7
43.0
38.4
41.8
42.6
42.9
38.3
41.8
42.5
40.6
37.4
40.7
3 7 .7
41.5
38.3
41.1
37.2
41 5
38.3
3 /. 5
3 /. 5
41. 5
43.0
41.3
43.4
40.0
39.8
39.7
37.7
3 7.3
TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES_________
40.2
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE.
35.3
Wholesale trade___ ________
Retail trade_______________
40. 5
40.5
40.4
40.4
40.3
40.4
3 7.9
39.9
3 7.0
38.1
3 7.5
3 6.3
37.1
40.7
40.9
41.1
40.7
40.4
39.8
40.2
40.5
40.5
40.8
40.7
40.6
35.3
36.3
36.2
35.6
35.0
34.9
35.0
35.0
35.1
35.7
35.6
36.0
39.9
33.5
39.7
33.9
40.1
35.0
40.3
34.9
40.0
34.1
39.9
33.5
39.9
33.3
40.0
33.4
40.0
33.3
40.2
33.4
40.7
34.1
40.2
34.2
40.1
34.7
36.8
36.8
36.6
36.9
36.8
36.7
36.7
36.9
37.0
37.0
36.9
37.0
37.1
37.0
34.3
34.3
34.4
35.0
34.9
34.5
34.3
34.3
34.7
34.3
34.3
34.6
34.7
34.7
3 6.8
3 6.2
40.6
40.6
35.0
35.1
40.1
33.9
39.7
33. 5
FINANCE. INSURANCE. AND REAL
ESTATE__________________
36.5
SERVICES_____________ ____
34.3
Leather and leather products.
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970,
see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
^prelim inary.
102
20.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
HOURS AND EARNINGS
Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry
division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
19 70
1969
Industry division and group
Dec.
”
Nov. p
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
T O T A L P R I V A T E .........................................................................................................
3 7 .0
3 7 .0
3 6 .9
3 6 .8
3 7 .2
3 7 .3
3 7 .2
3 7 .1
3 7 .2
3 7 .4
3 7 .3
3 7 .5
3 7 .6
M I N I N G .................................................................................................................... — -
4 1 .8
4 2 .9
4 2 .7
4 2 .0
4 2 .2
42 5
4 2 .4
4 2 .6
4 3 .1
4 3 .2
4 3 .4
4 2 .7
4 3 .2
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N ..--------- ------------------------------
3 8 .2
3 7 .1
3 6 .9
3 5 .1
3 7 .3
3 7 .4
3 7 .6
3 8 .1
3 8 .3
3 8 .0
3 8 .2
3 6 .7
3 8 .2
M A N U F A C T U R I N G __________________________ _____
3 9 .7
2 .6
3 9 .6
2 .7
3 9 .4
2 .8
3 9 .3
2 .8
3 9 .8
3 .0
4 0 .1
3 .0
3 9 .8
3 .1
3 9 .8
2 .9
4 0 .0
3 .0
4 0 .2
3 .2
3 9 .9
3 .2
4 0 .3
3 .3
4 0 .7
3 .5
4 0 .1
2 .6
4 0 .0
2 .5
3 9 .9
2 .6
3 9 .8
2 .7
4 0 .3
2 .9
4 0 .7
3 .1
4 0 .4
3 .2
4 0 .3
3 .0
4 0 .4
4 0 .7
4 0 .5
4 1 .0
4 1 .3
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.4
3.6
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
— ... _
40.5
40.3
39.4
41.4
39.9
40.6
40.6
39.6
40.2
39.5
40.3
39.8
39.4
41.0
39.5
40.0
40.6
39.5
39.7
39.9
40.1
39.2
39.2
41.0
39.9
40.1
40.4
39.7
39.8
39.8
39.7
39.6
38.2
40.9
40.9
39.8
40.1
39.2
39.8
39.4
40.4
39.8
39.0
41.0
40.4
40.6
40.9
39.9
40.7
40.0
40.3
39.8
39.3
41.2
40.7
41.3
41.1
40.4
41.2
40.3
40.6
39.6
38.9
41.1
40.4
40.9
41.1
39.5
41.6
40.2
40.8
39.7
38.8
41.3
40.2
40.6
41.1
39.7
40.3
40.1
41.1
39.8
39.3
41.6
40.1
40.9
41.4
40.0
39.7
40.5
41.1
39.5
39.4
41.8
40.7
41.2
41.8
40.2
40.4
40.7
41.3
40.1
39.3
41.7
40.9
41.1
41.9
39.7
40.3
40.2
40.6
39.6
39.5
41.7
41.2
41.4
42.2
40.5
40.2
40.7
40.5
40.3
40.0
42.1
41.7
41.5
42.6
40.3
41.4
40.9
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries---------
38.6
38.6
38.3
38.1
38.6
39.1
38.6
38.7
39.0
39.0
38.6
39.3
39.3
Nondurable G o o d s ..
39.0
2.7
38.9
2.8
38.9
2.8
38.6
2.8
39.1
3.0
39.3
2.9
39.0
3.0
39.1
3.0
39.4
3.0
39.4
3.2
39.3
3.2
39.6
3.4
39.8
3.3
Food and kindred products.................................
Tobacco manufactures_______________ . . .
Textile mill products...----------- ---------------Apparel and other textile products---------------
40.6
36.5
39.7
35.5
40.3
38.7
39.6
35.4
40.5
38.1
39.6
34.9
40.0
36.1
38.8
34.2
40.7
37.4
39.9
35.1
40.2
37.9
40.3
35.5
40.3
37.4
40.0
35.2
40.7
37.1
39.8
35.1
40.6
38.3
40.6
35.5
40.5
37.5
40.2
35.6
40.7
37.3
40.1
35.5
41.0
38.3
40.4
35.6
40.8
36.2
40.9
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______________
41.5
37.6
41.3
43.1
39.4
37.1
41.7
37.5
41.3
42.9
39.4
37.2
41.7
37.4
41.3
43.2
39.6
37.0
41.4
41.7
37.4 — 37.6
42.0
41.3
43.0
43.1
40.0
40.4
36.5
36.8
41.7
37.9
41.5
42.6
40.8
37.6
41.6
37.7
41.5
42.6
40.4
37.6
41.8
37.7
41.5
42.5
40.0
37.7
42.1
37.9
41.4
41.9
40.7
37.4
42.2
38.0
41.8
42.2
40.7
37.4
42.3
38.0
41.8
42.7
41.0
37.1
42.8
38.2
42.0
42.5
40.9
37.5
42.8
38.6
41.8
42.3
41.1
37.7
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A N D P U B LIC U T I L I T I E S __________
40.2
40.4
40.5
40.5
40.6
40.7
40.6
40.6
40.2
40.6
40.7
40.7
40.8
35.2
35.4
35.4
35.4
35.4
35.5
Overtime hours-------- ---------------------Durable Goods ________________________________
Overtime hours........................................
................................................ ........................ -
Overtime hours________ _________
35.1
35.3
35.3
35.4
35.4
35.3
35.3
Wholesale Trade................................................................................................
Retail trade______________ _______ _____________
39.9
33.6
39.8
33.9
39.9
33.8
39.7
33.8
39.9
33.9
40.0
33.9
39.9
33.8
40.1
33.9
40.1
33.7
40.1
33.8
40.2
33.7
40.3
33.8
40.5
33.8
F I N A N C E , I N S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E ..............................
36.4
36.8
36.7
36.7
36.9
36.8
36.7
36.8
36.9
37.0
37.0
36.9
36.9
S E R V I C E S ........................................ ................................................................................
34.3
34.4
34.4
34.5
34.7
34.6
34.4
34.5
34.4
34.7
34.4
34.4
34.6
W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A I L T R A D E ________ ________
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
p=preliminary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through
February 1970. For additional detail, see June 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
21.
HOURS AND EARNINGS 1 0 3
Gross average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by
industry division and major manufacturing group
1970
1969
A nn u al average
In d u s try and d ivisio n group
Dec. v
Nov. v
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
Ju ly
June
May
A pr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
1969
T O T A L P R I V A T E ............................................
$3.30
$3.29
$3.28
$3.29
$3.25
$3.2 3
$3.21
$3.20
$3.18
$3.17
$3.15
$3.13
$3.12
$3.04
M IN I N G ......................................................................
3 .9 4
3 .9 5
3 .92
3 .8 9
3 .84
3 .8 2
3 .82
3 .8 0
3 .7 9
3 .78
3. 77
3 .7 6
3.71
3 .6 0
3 .3 5
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N ...............
5.42
5 .4 3
5.42
5 .3 6
5. 30
5 .2 0
5.13
5 .10
5.09
5 .06
5 .06
5 .07
5 .0 3
4 .7 8
4 .41
M A N U F A C T U R I N G _____ ________
3.46
3. 39
3 .3 7
3 .4 2
3. 37
3 .3 7
3. 36
3 .3 4
3 .3 2
3.31
3 .2 9
3 .2 9
3 .2 9
3 .1 9
3. 01
Durable Goods...................................... .
3 .68
3. 58
3 .5 6
3 .6 3
3. 58
3 .5 7
3. 57
3 .5 5
3.52
3.51
3 .4 8
3 .4 9
3 .4 9
3 .3 9
3 .1 9
3 .77
3.72
3 .67
3 .6 5
3 .6 2
3 .6 0
3. 59
3. 59
3 .5 8
3. 57
3. 54
3.53
3.51
3.42
3.26
3.03
2.84
3.05
2.81
3.05
2.80
3.05
2.80
3.05
2.81
2.98
2.78
2.98
2.76
2.92
2.75
2. 88
2.73
2.86
2.71
2.84
2. 70
2.83
2.71
2.84
2.71
2.74
2.62
2.57
2.47
3.50
3. 50
3.47
3.45
3.43
3.42
3.40
3.38
3.35
3.32
3.28
3.28
3. 28
3.19
2.99
4.08
3.99
3.99
4.07
3.99
3.94
3. 92
3.90
3.87
3.86
3.85
3.86
3.87
3.79
3. 55
3.68
3. 54
3.53
3.60
3. 56
3.54
3.54
3.52
3.50
3.48
3.46
3.45
3.44
3.34
3.16
3.85
3.82
3.81
3.80
3.77
3.77
3.77
3.77
3.75
3.75
3.72
3.70
3.72
3. 58
3. 36
3.40
3.35
3.32
3.33
3.31
3.32
3.30
3.27
3. 24
3.24
3.20
3.18
3.17
3.09
2.93
4.22
4.03
4.01
4.15
4.11
4.08
4.10
4.06
4. 00
4. 01
3.97
4. 02
4. 04
3.90
3.69
3.33
3.31
3.30
3. 29
3.28
3.27
3. 26
3.25
3.15
2.98
Ordnance and accessories____ _______ ______
Lum ber and wood
p ro d u cts ............ ...................
F u rn iture and fix tu re s _____
Stone, clay, and glass
p ro du cts................................
P rim ary m etal industrie s _____________ ______
Fabricated m etal
p ro du cts............ ...................
M achinery, except
e le c t r ic a l.. . ____ _______
E lectrical e q u ip m e nt and
su p p lie s _________ ______
Tra n spo rta tion e quipm ent___________________
In stru m e n ts and related
p ro d u c ts ................... ...........
1968
$2.85
3.47
3.41
3.40
3.40
3.36
M iscellaneous m anufactu rin g in d u s trie s .. ............
2.93
2.87
2.85
2.85
2.82
2.82
2.81
2.81
2. 80
2.80
2.80
2.79
2. 76
2.66
2. 50
Nondurable G o o d s ..........................
3.17
3.15
3.13
3.14
3.08
3.09
3. 06
3.05
3. 04
3.03
3.01
3.01
2.99
2.91
2.74
3.26
2.93
2. 53
3.24
2.95
2.52
3.20
2.83
2.50
3. 20
2.88
2.46
3.13
2.78
2.44
3.16
3.03
2.43
3.15
3.03
2.43
3.16
2.99
2.43
3.12
2.98
2.42
3.10
2.90
2. 42
3. 08
2.89
2.42
3.08
2.86
2.42
3.04
2.67
2.42
2.96
2.62
2.34
2.80
2. 48
2.44
2.44
2.42
2.44
2.41
2.39
2.38
2.36
2.37
2. 37
2.36
2. 36
2.35
2.31
2.21
3.55
4.06
3. 53
4.02
3.51
4.01
3.54
4.01
3.49
3.95
3.47
3.92
3.42
3.90
3.40
3.88
3.37
3.85
3.35
3.84
3.35
3.81
3.35
3.80
3.34
3.81
3.24
3. 69
3. 05
3.48
Food and kin dred
p r o d u c t s .. . .................. ..
Tobacco m an ufa ctu re s_____
T e xtile m ill p ro d u c ts ............
A pparel and oth e r textile p ro du cts____ _______
Paper and allie d
p ro du cts_______________
P rin ting and p u b lis h in g ___
Chemicals and allied
p ro d u c ts ................... ...........
Petroleum and coal
pro du cts....................... ........
Rubber and plastics
products, nec___________
Leather and leather
p ro d u c ts ..............................
2 .21
3.80
3.78
3.77
3.78
3.73
3.71
3.68
3.64
3.61
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.58
3.47
3.26
4.34
4.33
4.31
4.32
4.26
4.25
4.23
4.25
4. 26
4. 23
4.23
4.21
4.10
4. 00
3.75
3.31
3.28
3.24
3.26
3.22
3.21
3.15
3.09
3.16
3.15
3.14
3.15
3.14
3. 07
2.92
2. 51
2.51
2.50
2.51
2.48
2.48
2.49
2.49
2. 48
2.47
2.47
2.46
2.44
2. 36
2.23
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A N D P U B LIC
U T I L I T I E S ___________________
3.98
3.95
3.94
3.93
3.90
3.87
3.84
3.79
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.73
3. 72
3.63
3.42
W H O L E S A L E A N D R ET A IL T R A D E .
2.75
2.77
2.76
2.75
2.72
2.71
2.70
2.70
2.69
2.68
2.68
2.65
2.61
2. 56 '
2.40
3.53
2.47
3.52
2.49
3.49
2.48
3.47
2.48
3.45
2.44
3.42
2.44
3.42
2.43
3.41
2.43
3.40
2.41
3.40
2.41
3.38
2. 40
3.35
2.38
3. 34
2.35
3.23
2.30
3. 05
2.16
Wholesale trade...................................
Retail trade________________
I
F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E, A N D
R E A L E S T A T E ................................................
3.14
3.14
3.12
3.09
3.08
3.06
3.04
3.04
3.03
3. 05
3.04
3.02
2.98
2.92
2. 75
S E R V I C E S .................................................................
2.96
2.94
2.91
2.90
2.85
2.83
2.81
2.80
2. 79
2. 79
2.77
2.74
2.72
2.63
2. 43
i For co m p a ra b ility of data w ith those published in issues p rio r to Ju ly 1970, see
foo tno te 1, tab le 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: For a d d itio na l d e ta il, see Employment and Earnings, ta b le C-2.
... .
» = p re h m in a ry .
104
22.
HOURS AND EARNINGS
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
Gross average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by
industry division and major manufacturing group
1970
Industry division and group
Dec. *
Nov. p
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
1969
Annual average
Dec.
1969
TOTAL PRIVATE........................... $122.43 $121.40 $121.36 $121.73 $122.20 $121.45 $120.05 $118.40 $117.34 $117.92 $116.55 $116.12 $117.62 $114.61
1968
$107.73
MINING........................................ 165.09
168.67
168.56
164.55
163.97
163.88
163.88
162.26
163.35
160.27
160.60
159. 05
160.64
154.80
142.71
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION......... 203.79
196.57
203.79
194.03
204.05
200.20
196.99
194.31
192.91
188.23
186.21
181.00
189.13
181.16
164.93
MANUFACTURING........................
138.40
134.58
133.45
135.43
134.13
134.46
134.40
132.93
131.80
132.40
130.94
131.93
134.89
129.51
122. 51
Durable goods......................... 149.04
143.56
142.76
145.56
143.92
143.87
144.94
143.07
141.50
142.51
140.24
142. 04
145. 53
140.01
132. 07
154.57
151.03
147.53
146.00
145.52
143.28
146.11
146.47
146.06
145.66
144.43
144.73
143.91
138.17
135.29
121.50
114.17
120.48
111.56
120.78
111.72
121.70
108.92
122.31
111.00
118.31
107.86
119. 50
107.92
117.09
105.88
114.62
105.65
112.97
105.96
111.90
104.49
110.65
105.42
113.88
110.57
110.15
105.85
104.34
100.28
Ordnance and
accessories...... ............
Lumber and wood
products........ ....... ...........
Furniture and fixtures........
Stone, clay, and glass
products......................... .
144.55
143.85
143.66
142.83
142.35
141.25
141.10
140.27
139.03
137.12
134.15
134.15
137.76
133.98
124.98
Primary metal industries...
Fabricated metal
products____ _________
Machinery, except
electrical..........................
Electrical equipment
and supplies.....................
Transportation
equipment.......................
Instruments and related
products.......... ...............
Miscellaneous manufac
turing industries........... .
162.79
156.81
157.61
166.46
160.80
159.96
159. 54
157.56
156.35
157.49
157. 08
159.42
161.38
158.42
147.68
150.51
142.31
142.61
145.44
144.89
144.79
145.49
143.26
142.10
142.33
140.48
141.45
143.79
138.94
131.77
157.85
155.09
153.92
152.76
152.31
153.06
155.32
154.95
155.25
157.88
155. 87
156.14
160.33
152.15
141.46
136.68
133.67
132.47
131.54
131.74
132.14
130.68
129. 49
128.30
129.92
127. 04
128.15
129.65
124.84
118. 08
173.02
163.22
162.41
167.66
164.40
166.06
170. 56
164. 02
156.80
160.40
157.21
161.20
170.49
161.85
155.72
138.45
136.74
136.00
134.64
133.73
132.87
133.39
132.00
132.59
133. 50
131.45
132. 03
134.23
128.21
120.69
113.68
111.64
110.30
109.16
108.85
108.29
108.75
108.47
108.64
109.20
108.64
108.25
109. 02
103.74
98. 50
Nondurable goods...................
124.26
123.17
122.07
122.15
121.04
121.44
119.95
118.95
118.56
118.78
117.69
117.99
119.60
115.53
109. 05
133.01
108.70
101.45
131.22
114.46
100.80
129.92
111.50
99.75
130.56
108.29
96.19
128.96
104.81
97.60
128.61
113.63
96.96
127. 58
115.14
97.93
127.98
110.03
96.47
124.49
110. 56
96. 56
124. 00
105. 56
97. 04
123. 20
96.80
124.74'
106. 39
96. 80
124.64
98. 26
99.95
120.77
97.99
95.47
114.24
93.99
91. 05
86.38
86.38
84.46
83.45
85. 56
84.61
84.25
82.84
83.90
84. 85
83.78
83. 07
84.37
82.93
79.78
148.75
154.28
147.91
150 75
147.07
150.38
147.97
151.18
146.23
149. 31
144.70
148.18
142. 61
147. 03
142.12
145.89
140.43
145.15
140.70
145.92
140.37
144. 02
142. 04
143. 26
144.29
148. 59
139.32
141.70
130. 85
133. 28
157.70
156.87
155.70
158.76
153.68
153. 59
152.72
151.42
150.18
150. 48
149. 76
150.12
150.36
145. 05
136. 27
187.05
187.49
184.03
184.45
181.04
181.90
179.77
176.81
176. 81
176. 40
170.97
170.40
159. 38
129.60
132.03
130.41
129.68
127.26
123.29
127.35
127. 26
127.48
128.21
130.31
126.18
121.18
91.76
93.99
94.87
93. 38
90.02
91.64
92.38
92.74
93.45
87.79
85.41
138.85
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 e ................
Leather and leather
products....................... ..
184.45
131.74
186.19
130.22
106.64
94.63
93.62
92.00
90.86
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES_______ ________
160.00
160.37
159.96
159.95
159.51
159.06
156.29
153.12
149.25
150. 75
151.88
151.07
151.78
147. 74
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE.
97.08
96.95
97.08
98.74
98.10
96.12
94.50
93.88
93.80
93.80
93. 02
93.18
91.14
86. 40
Wholesale trade....................... 141.55
83.73
Retail trade............................
139.74
83.42
139.25
83.08
137.76
84.07
138. 35
85.40
137. 83
85.16
136.80
82. 86
136. 06
81.41
135.66
80.25
136. 00
80. 49
135.20
79.92
134.67
79.49
135.94
80.14
129. 85
78.66
122. 31
74.95
96.88-
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE.....................................
114.61
115. 55
114.82
113.09
113.65
112.61
111.57
111.57
111.81
112.85
112.48
111.44
110.26
108.33
101.75
SERVICES....................................
101.53
100.84
99.81
99.76
99.75
98.77
96.95
96.04
95.70
96.81
95.01
93.98
94.11
91.26
84.32
i For co m p a ra b ility of data w ith those published in issues p rio r to Ju ly 1970, see
foo tno te 1, ta b le 11. For em ployees covered, see foo tno te 1, ta b le 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: For a dd itio na l deta il, see
»>=p re lim in a ry.
Employment and Earnings, tab le C-2.
HOURS AND EARNINGS/PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
23.
105
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
Manufacturing
Total private
Spendable average weekly earnings
Year and month
Gross average
weekly earnings
Worker with 3
dependents
Worker with no
dependents
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
Worker with no
dependents
1957-59
dollars
Current
dollars
Spendable average weekly earnings
Gross average
weekly earnings
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
Current
dollars
Worker with 3
dependents
1957-59
dollars
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
1960____________ _______
1961.................................. ............
1962________ ____ __________
1 9 6 3 _________________ _
1964_______________________
$80.67
82.60
85.91
88. 46
91.33
$78.24
79.27
81.55
82.91
84. 49
$65. 59
67. 08
69. 56
71.05
75. 04
$63.62
64.38
66. 00
66. 59
69. 42
$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. C8
$80.11
82.18
85. 53
87.58
92.18
$77.70
78.87
81.15
82.08
85.27
1965___________ _____ ______
1966_______________________
1967_______________________
1968_______________________
1969..............................................
95. 06
98. 82
101.84
107.73
114.61
86. 50
87.37
87.57
88.89
89.75
78.99
81.29
83.38
86.71
90. 96
71.87
71.87
71.69
71.54
71.23
86.30
88.66
90.86
95.28
99.99
78.53
78.39
78.13
78.61
78.30
107.53
112.34
114.90
122. 51
129.51
97.84
99. 33
98.80
101.08
101.42
89. 08
91.57
93.28
97.70
101.90
81.06
80.96
80.21
80. 61
79.80
96.78
99.45
101.26
106.75
111.44
88.06
87.93
87.07
88. 08
87.27
1969:
December..................... .........
117.62
89. 58
93.17
70.96
102.30
77.91
134. 89
102.73
105. 85
80. 62
115. 61
88. 05
1970:
January..................................
February________________
March__________________
April___________________
May____________________
June___________________
July.................. ............... .
August_________________
September______________
October. _______________
November»______________
December»______________
116.12
116. 55
117.92
117.34
118.40
120. 05
121.45
122.20
121.73
121.36
121.40
122. 43
88.10
87.96
88. 53
87.57
87.96
88.79
89.50
89.85
89.11
88. 33
88.10
88. 40
93. 43
93.76
94.78
94.35
95.14
96.38
97.43
97.99
97.64
97.36
97. 39
98.16
70. 89
70.76
71.16
70.41
70.68
71.29
71.80
72.05
71.48
70. 86
70.67
70. 87
101.97
102.32
103.39
102.95
103.77
105.08
106.18
106.78
106. 40
106.11
106.14
106. 96
77.37
77.22
77.62
76.83
77.10
77.72
78.25
78. 51
77.89
77. 23
77. 02
77. 23
131.93
130. 94
132.40
131.80
132.93
134.40
134. 46
134.13
135. 43
133.45
134. 58
138. 40
100.10
98. 82
99.40
98.36
98.76
99.41
99.09
98.63
99.14
97.13
97. 66
99. 93
105. 28
104. 53
105. 63
105.18
103.02
107.13
107.17
106.92
107. 90
106.41
107. 26
110.12
79. 88
78. 89
79. 30
78. 49
78.77
79.24
78. 98
78.62
78.99
77. 45
77. 84
79.51
114.48
113.69
114.85
114. 37
115.27
116.43
116.48
116.22
117.25
115.68
116. 58
119.62
86. 86
85. 80
86.22
85.35
85. 64
86.12
85. 84
85.46
85. 83
84.19
84.60
86. 37
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: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-5.
*>=preliminary.
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, 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 worker's Federal social security
and income tax liability. Since the amount of tax liability depends on the number of
dependents supported by 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.
24.
Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, annual averages and changes, 1949 to date1
Indexes: 1957-59=100]
Wholesale prices
Consumer prices
Year
All items
Index
Percent
change
Index
All commodities
Services
Commodities
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Farm products, proc- Industrial commodities
essed foods, and feeds
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
1949............. .................................
83.0
- 1 .0
87.1
- 2 .6
72.6
4.6
83.5
-5 .0
94.3
-1 1 .7
80.0
- 2 .1
1950.................... ...........................
1951____ ______ ____________
1952______ ____ _________ _
1953............. ................... .............
1954............. ..................................
83.8
90.5
92.5
93.2
93.6
1.0
8.0
2.2
0.8
0.4
87.6
95.5
96.7
96.4
95.5
0.6
9.0
1.3
-.3
- .9
75.0
78.9
82.4
86.0
88.7
3.3
5.2
4.4
4.4
3.1
86.8
96.7
94.0
92.7
92.9
4.0
11.4
-2 .8
- 1 .4
.2
98.8
112.5
108.0
101.0
100.7
4.8
13.9
-4 .0
- 6 .5
- .3
82.9
91.5
89.4
90.1
90.4
3.6
10.4
- 2 .3
.8
.3
1955________ ______ _____ _
1956___________________
1957.......................
1958..._______________
1959.............................................
93.3
94.7
98.0
100.7
101.5
- .3
1.5
3.5
2.8
.8
94.6
95.5
98.5
100.8
100.9
- .9
1.0
3.1
2.3
.1
90.5
92.8
96.6
100.3
103.2
2.0
2.5
4.1
3.8
2.9
93.2
96.2
99.0
100.4
100.6
.3
3.2
2.9
1.4
.2
95.9
95.3
98.6
103.2
98.4
-4 .8
-.6
3.5
4.7
- 4 .7
92.4
96.5
99.2
99. b
101.3
2.2
4.4
2.8
.3
1.8
I960....
1961.........
1962.. .
1963......................
1964.....................
103 1
104! 2
105 4
106.7
108.1
16
1 1
1?
1.2
1.3
101 7
102 3
1Û1 2
10411
105.2
8
6
9
.9
1.1
106.6
108.8
110 9
113.0
115.2
3.3
2.1
19
1.9
1.9
100.7
100.3
100.6
100.3
100.5
.1
-.4
.3
-.3
.2
98.6
98.6
99.6
98.7
98.0
.2
1.0
-.9
- .7
101.3
100.8
100.8
100.7
101.2
1965____
1966...................
1967______
1968______
1969__________
1970____
109.9
113.1
116.3
121.2
127.7
135.3
1.7
2.9
2.8
4.2
5.4
6.0
106.4
109.2
111.2
115.3
120.5
126.2
1.1
2.6
1.8
3.7
4.5
4.7
117.8
122.3
127.7
134.3
143.7
155.3
2.3
3.8
4.4
5.2
7.0
8.1
102.5
105.9
106.1
» 108. 8
113.0
117.1
2.0
3.3
.2
2.5
«3.9
3.6
102.1
108.9
105.2
« 107.7
113.5
117.4
4.2
6.7
- 3 .4
«2.4
«5.4
3.4
102.5
104.7
106.3
109.0
112.7
116.9
1 Historical price changes are shown in greater detail and for earlier years in
the Bureau’s Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1969 (BLS Bulletin 1630), in tables 108-120.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
« Corrected,
-0 .5
-.1
.5
1.3
2.1
1.5
2.5
3.4
3.7
106
25.
CONSUMER PRICES
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items
[T h e o fficial name o f the in de x is, "C o n su m e r Price Ind e x fo r Urban Wage Earners and C lerical W o rke rs.” I t measures the average change in prices o f goods and services purchased
by fa m ilie s and single w o rke rs. The indexes shown below represent the average of price changes in 56 m etro po lita n areas, selected to represent a ll U.S. urban places having
p opulations of more than 2500.)
[19 5 7-59 = 1 00 unless o th e rw ise specified]
General summary
Item and group
1970
1969
Annual
average
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
1970
All items_______4* ..- - ______
All items (1947-49 =100)1............
138.5
169.9
137.8
169.1
137.4
168.5
136.6
167.6
136.0
166.8
135.7
166.5
135.2
165.9
134.6
165.2
134.0
164.4
133.2
163.4
132.5
162.5
131.8
161.7
131.3
161.1
135.3
166.0
Food....................... ....... ...........
Food at home.......................
Food away from home____
132.8
127.3
159.2
132.4
126.9
158.7
133.0
127.8
158.0
133.3
128.2
157.4
133.5
128.6
156.8
133.4
128.7
156.2
132.7
128.0
155.3
132.4
127.8
154.7
132.0
127.4
154.0
131.6
127.4
152.4
131.5
127.4
151.5
130.7
126.6
150.6
129.9
125.8
149.9
132.4
127.7
155.4
Housing.....................................
Rent. . . .......................
Hbmeownership__________
140.1
126.6
160.4
139.3
125.7
159.3
138.5
125.2
158.6
137.8
124.6
157.8
137.0
124.2
156.2
136.2
123.8
155.0
135.6
123.4
154.4
135.1
123.0
153.3
134.4
122.6
152.1
133.6
122.3
150.9
132.2
121.8
148.5
131.1
121.3
146.8
130.5
121.0
145.4
135.9
123.7
154.4
Apparel and upkeep________
Transportation«,_____ ____
Health and recreation___ . . .
Medical care.........................
135.9
135.5
147.4
169.8
135.7
134.4
146.9
168.7
134.8
133.5
146.3
167.9
133.6
131.0
145.7
167.6
131.5
130.6
145.1
166.8
131.4
131.4
144.3
165.8
132.2
130.6
143.7
164.7
131.9
129.9
142.9
163.6
131.1
128.9
142.3
162.8
130.6
127.1
141.4
161.6
130.0
127.3
140.7
160.1
129.3
127.3
140.1
159.0
130.8
126.4
139.6
158.1
132.3
130.6
143.9
164.9
Special grtmpsi:
All items less shelter_____
All items less food______ .
All itemsdess medical care..
135.4
140.4
136.6
134.8
139.7
136.0
134.4
138.9
135.6
133.7
137.8
134.8
133.2
136.9
134.2
133.0
136.6
133.9
132.6
136.1
133.4
132.1
135.5
132.9
131.5
134.8
132.2
130.7
133.8
131.5
130.3
133.0
130.8
129.8
132.3
130.1
129.5
131.9
129.7
132.6
136.3
133.5
Gopi nrodMfsSite©^«________
Nond ufifbtesu -------------'Durables-_______________
Services__________________ .................
128.5
131.8
120.2
160.4
128.0
131.4
119.6
159.5
127.7
131.3
118.8
158.5
127.0
131.0
117.3
157.7
126.6
130.5
117.0
156.7
126.5
130.4
116.9
155.8
126.2
130.0
116. 7
155.0
125.8
129.8
115.9
154.1
125.2
129.3
114.8
153.4
124.5
128.7
114.1
152.3
124.2
128.4
113.7
150.7
123.7
127.8
113.7
149.6
123.6
127.7
113.6
148.3
126.2
130.0
116.6
155.3
Commodities teiS food._____
NonduratSes less footf.. _ .
ApparSLcommodities.
____ ____
Apoaflstcommodities’lesS footw e ar,------------------Ndndnraiiles less food and apparel—
Hotisehetd'durableS. _____
HousefurnishingS_________
126.1
130.9
135.2
125.7
130.5
135.2
125.0
129.9
134.2
123.8
129.1
133.0
123.0
127.8
130.6
122.9
127.8
130.5
122.8
127.7
131.4
122. 3
127.5
131.2
121.6
127.0
130.4
120.8
126.1
129.9
120.4
125.8
129.3
120.1
125.2
128.6
120.3
125.7
130.3
122.9
127.9
131.6
132.2
128.4
109.5
113.8
132.3
127.8
109.4
113.6
131.3
127.4
109.0
113.1
129.9
126.7
108.6
112.7
127.2
126.2
108.4
112.4
127.2
126.2
108.3
112.5
128.3
125. 5
108.2
112.4
128.0
125.3
108.0
112.2
127.1
125.0
107.8
112.0
126.7
123.9
107.4
111.7
126.2
123.7
106.9
111.1
125.5
123.2
106.6
110.5
127.5
123.0
106.5
110.6
128.5
125.8
108.2
112.3
Services less r e n t _________
Household services less rent.
Transportation services____
Medical care services_____
Other services\_________ _
167.8
167.1
163.7
187.1
157.2
166.9
166.0
162.9
185.7
156.6
165.8
164.9
161.6
184.5
156.2
164.9
164.0
160.2
184.2
155.3
163.8
162.7
158.9
183 1
154.5
162.8
161.6
158.6
181.8
153.8
161.9
160.6
157.1
180.6
153.4
161.0
160.0
156.1
179.3
152.3
160.1
159.1
155.5
178.4
151.4
158.9
157.7
154.5
177.0
150.3
157.1
155.0
154.1
175.2
149.8
155.8
153.2
152.9
173.8
149.4
154.3
152.4
148.4
172.8
148.9
162.2
161.0
158.0
180.9
153.3
Other
index
bases
FOOD___ ______________ _
U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items
132.8
132.4
133.0
133.3
133.5
133.4
132.7
132.4
132.0
131.6
131.5
130.7
129.9
132.4
Food away from home______
Restaurant meals_______
Snacks................................ Uec. 63
159.2
159.2
139.2
158.7
158.7
138.6
158.0
158.0
138.1
157.4
157.4
137.4
156.8
156.9
137.0
156.2
156.2
136.5
155.3
155.4
135.2
154.7
154.8
134.6
154.0
154.2
134.0
152.4
152.5
151.5
151.6
150.6
150.7
149.9
150.2
155. 4
155.5
132.4
132.0
131.4
129.9
135.5
Food at home___________
Cereals and bakery products....
127.3
132.2
114.0
143. 1
139.7
116.3
137.2
131.0
107.8
124.8
123.2
126.9
131.8
113.9
142.6
138.5
115.8
137.7
129.8
107.3
122.9
123.5
127.8
131.5
113.6
141.3
137.6
115.4
138.1
129.1
107.8
122.5
123.0
128.2
130.6
113.8
140.0
135.2
115.0
139.8
128.4
107.4
122.2
119.9
128.6
130.1
113.6
139.6
131.8
115.0
136.9
127.8
107.6
121.9
120.5
128.7
128.8
113.1
136.7
130.4
114.9
135.0
126.1
107.2
121.8
119.6
128.0
128.2
113.3
136.4
130.4
115.1
133.4
125.7
105.7
121.8
118.8
127.8
128.0
113.2
135.7
130.5
115.0
134.1
125.3
104.7
121.5
118.5
127.4
127.6
114.2
134.3
130.0
114.8
133.3
125.7
103.4
121.7
118.2
127.4
127.0
113.1
132.9
130.4
114.4
133.4
125.6
102.4
121.3
116.4
127 4
126.3
112.1
130.2
130.2
114 2
132 6
125 5
101.7
119.9
116.7
126.6
125.5
111.9
127.8
130.2
113.8
132.2
124.4
101.3
118.1
116.3
125.8
124.9
110.9
127.9
130.0
113.4
131.1
124,1
100.9
118.0
115.8
127.7
129.0
113.3
136.7
132.9
115.0
135.1
127.0
105.4
121.7
119.6
126.4
129.1
133.9
125.4
121.5
126.7
120.9
142.3
123.8
141.8
120.4
176.7
127.1
131.0
134.9
127.5
122.9
128.4
122.6
142.3
125.3
142.0
119.8
176.5
129.1
133.3
136.4
128.8
126.8
131.9
124.0
142. 9
127.1
130.1
131.0
134.7
135.8
136.8
137.2
139.0
129.0
125.7
127 8
131.4
133.1
124.9
124.0
144.6
144.0
128.4
129.1
142.7
144.0
122.0 , (121. 0
175. 5
175r2
130.8
135.2
136.6
128.8
128.0
132.8
123.4
142.5
126.2
143.5
121.4
174.2 ^
130.2
134.5
135.3
127.6
124.3
130.1
123.1
140.6
125.8
142.7
121.2
173.1
130.5
135.0
135.9
129.0
124.3
129.2
124.2
142.7
128.0
142.8
121.8
171.8
130.9
135.6
136.5
131.1
144. 5
130.5
125.1
142. 8 '
130.0
142. V
121. V
171.1-
130.2
134.7
133.6
126.9
121.8
126.8
121.1
141.2
126.9
UQ.“ 8
y ffl. 5
168.1
129.7
133.9
133.0
126.4
120.4
126.4
120.1
141.8
126.7
140.5
119.9
166.0
128.8
132.9
132.2
126.2
121.4
126.6
120.7
141.6
122.1
138.7
118.7
164.0
127.2
131.3
130.6
123.2
119.0
123.9
118.8
140.5
123.2
137.8
118.6
162.0
129.6
133.8
135.2
128.1
124.1
129.5
122.8
142.4
126.6
142.0
120.7
172.4
F lo u r............................ ........
C racker m e a l__________
Corn fla k e s ____________
R ic e .____ ______ ______
Bread, w h ite __________
Bread, whole w h e a t____
Cookies........................... ..
Layer ca ke ____________
Cinnam on ro lls ________
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Meats, poultry, and fish_____
M eats...... ......................
Beef and v e a l_______
Steak, ro u n d ______
Steak, s ir lo i n . . . . .
Steak, porte rh ou se .
Rump ro a st_______
Rib ro a st__________
Chuck ro a st_______
H a m b urge r________
Beef liv e r_________
Veal c u tle ts _______
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A p r. 60
Dec. 63
Uec. 63
Dec. 63
l4^- 6
lid 6
1 *£ ©
CONSUMER PRICES 107
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
25.
Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or {roup
Other
index
bases
1969
1970
Annual
average
1970
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
120.7
119.2
128.9
138.8
120.1
128.1
117.9
124.9
125.3
134.2
143.3
119.9
131.4
122.5
129.9
131.0
140.2
144.3
120.4
134. 1
132.4
133.7
137.1
144.6
148.1
121.3
134.6
137.3
135.9
139.9
146.4
149.8
126.0
135.1
138.7
134.9
137.5
144.3
149.5
125.9
137.2
137.4
134.4
135.5
142.6
150.5
126.5
137.5
137.4
134.8
135.1
143.6
150.4
129.0
138.5
137.1
135.9
135.6
143.5
150.6
133.5
139.9
138.2
137.9
139.7
146.1
150.6
135.3
142.1
138.7
137.2
139.5
146.2
148.6
134.0
139.9
138.8
135.6
136.9
143.7
146.7
136.9
137.7
136.7
133.3
135.7
143.4
146.8
130.7
134.7
133.1
133.0
134.4
142.0
147.6
127.4
136.3
134.4
63
63
63
63
135.0
143.8
134.7
125.7
137.5
130.0
131.4
135.5
142.4
135.1
127.1
139.1
130.3
132.0
135.9
142.5
135.4
129.2
137.9
130.6
133.0
136.2
142.8
134.2
129.3
139.6
130.5
133.7
137.2
142.5
136.9
131.9
139.8
131.9
133.0
137.2
141.9
137.1
132.8
140.5
131.5
132.5
137.4
141.0
137.1
134.4
139.7
131.9
133.2
137.9
141.2
138.2
136.7
139.5
132.0
132.9
138.0
142.0
137.4
138.3
139.7
131.8
131.9
137.3
142.2
136.1
138.3
138.4
130.4
131.6
136.0
140.8
134.2
136.6
137.7
128.6
131.4
135.3
140.9
134.2
134.8
137.2
128.0
130.1
134.4
140.4
134.6
130.4
136.6
127.9
129.9
136.6
142.0
135.9
132.9
138.9
130.6
132.2
Poultry.................
Frying chicken.
Dec. 63
Chicken breasts.
Turkey............................................... Dec. 63
95.9
95.2
106.9
112.7
91.8
89.0
104.7
117.2
93.7
91.2
107.5
116.8
93.8
91.8
107.2
115.2
95.6
93.8
108.5
116.8
97.5
96.6
108.0
117.3
97.4
95.9
108.2
119.2
97.1
95.3
109.2
119.5
97.1
95.4
109.4
119.0
97.9
96.7
110.4
116.9
99.1
98.5
110.4
115.9
99.5
99.4
110.1
114.4
97.9
97.9
110.4
110.3
96.4
94.9
108.4
116.7
Fish......................................................
Shrimp, frozen.................................. Dec. 63
Fish, fresh or frozen........................
Tuna, fish, canned............................
Sardines, canned.............................. Dec. 63
151.5
125.5
164.1
137.6
145. i
149.6
125.6
161.4
136.0
142.5
147.9
126.4
159.6
134.4
138.6
146.0
126.3
158.7
131.0
135.7
144.5
126.8
157.5
129.0
133.0
143.4
127.4
156.2
126.8
131.7
143.2
128.2
154.4
126.6
131.9
142.3
127.8
153.0
126.0
130.8
141.1
126.8
152.5
124.5
129.3
139.8
127.4
150.9
123.1
126.9
138.3
126.2
148.1
121.6
126.5
137.0
125.4
145.2
120.5
126.0
135.4
124.4
143.4
117.9
125.4
143.7
126.7
155.1
128.1
133.2
132.6
128.3
136.9
132.3
135.2
132.4
128.4
136.7
132.0
135.4
132.0
127.9
136.4
131.7
134.9
131.3
127.4
135.4
130.9
134.1
130.8
126.6
134.9
129.5
133.3
130.6
126.6
134.5
129.4
133.1
130.2
126.3
134.2
129.4
131.5
129.9
126.6
134.0
129.2
129.7
129.5
126.5
133.9
128.3
127.9
129.4
126.8
133.5
128.4
127.7
128.8
126.2
133.1
127.3
127.4
128.4
126.1
132.7
127.4
126.4
127.6
125.0
132.3
126.0
125.0
130.5
127.0
134.7
129.7
131.4
105.0
161.4
104.9
159.4
122.4
104.7
158.5
122.1
104.8
158.0
121.5
105.0
158.3
104.5
157.9
121.4
103.8
157.4
121.1
103.4
157.2
121.0
102.7
157.3
120.2
102.7
156.4
119.5
102.1
154.8
119.5
102.1
153.1
119.9
102.0
152.4
119.6
103.8
157.5
121.6
129.3
136.3
134.1
97.2
153.0
90.4
131.0
139.8
171.9
92.9
142.0
89.8
135.0
147.5
182.1
94.5
139.7
90.6
137.5
152.2
178.0
92.4
135.6
90.1
139.4
155.9
166.0
102.4
129.1
89.5
136.8
151.5
149.7
101.6
123.7
90.1
134.7
148.0
141.3
101.4
122.4
89.9
133.1
145.7
139.6
101.9
125.4
90.6
132.4
144.5
135.8
96.5
124.5
90.7
130.9
141.9
134.0
94.5
121.5
90.5
132.1
144.1
129.3
93.3
125.0
91.5
133.2
144.5
150.0
95.5
133.5
90.1
1 8 9 .7
208.8
152.1
2 1 3 .2
1 6 0 .1
152.4
1 5 0 .6
151.7
1 4 3 .7
1 4 2 .0
0
0
0
0
183.4
215.4
197.3
189.7
168.0
141.0
0
123.0
0
128.1
0
133.2
180.7
172.2
175.2
132.1
148.2
144.9
131.4
153.7
147.2
181.8
164.4
145.8
115.9
160.6
124.8
194.2
172.9
133.5
182.4
123.4
FOOD—Continued
Meats, poultry, and fish—Continued
Meats—Continued
Pork..................................
Chops............................
Loin roast.....................
Pork sausage.......... .
Ham, whole..................
Picnics..........................
Bacon.........................
Other m eats...............................
Lamb chops...................
Frankfurters............. .............
Ham,canned...................
Bologna sausage.........................
Salami sausage........... ...............
Liverwurst.....................
Apr. 60
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dairy p rod u cts...............................
Milk, fresh, grocery...
Milk, fresh, delivered.
Milk, fresh, skim........
Milk, evaporated........
Dec. 63
Ice cream...........................
Cheese, American process.
Butter.................................
122.6
Fruits and vegetables...................
Fresh fruits and vegetables.
Apples..............................
Bananas...........................
Oranges............. ............
Orange juice, fresh..........
129.9
136.0
136.0
81.7
138.6
89.3
128.5
134.2
131.6
Grapefruit....
Grapes_____
Strawberries.
Watermelon.
1 4 2 .0
148.7
175.3
Potatoes...
Onions___
Asparagus.
Cabbage..
Carrots___
146.1
129.9
(')
149.6
116.4
143.5
115.2
146.0
135.9
(')
144.4
116.3
125.0
144.3
143.5
167.8
126.1
160.2
129.5
120.3
146.3
156.6
125.8
129.7
128.7
115.7
153.6
139.6
123.7
117.5
119.8
100.2
178.0
136.5
117.5
98.0
117.8
106.9
149.5
145.3
116.4
119.7
133.1
125.9
127.1
174.5
117.2
140.1
Processed fruits and vegetables........................
Fruit cocktail, canned........................
Pears, canned___________________ Dec. 63
Grapefruit-pineapple juice, canned... Dec. 63
Orange juice concentrate, frozen.........
122.5
113.4
112.6
106.8
89.0
« 1 .7
112.4
111.7
106.7
89.5
120.9
111.6
110.3
106.9
89.9
120.1
119.3
108 2
108.2
105.2
92.2
119.1
107.9
107.4
105.6
91.6
Apr. 60
Dec. 63
98.4
119.8
127.3
141.7
125.7
115.3
97.0
119.6
127.1
140.7
123.1
115.1
96.2
119.1
125.2
140.1
121.9
114.2
94.3
118.5
124.8
139.2
121.7
113.7
95.0
117.9
122.9
137.9
95.4
117.2
123.0
153.1
113.0
94.6
117.7
123.0
136.7
121.1
113.5
118.2
105.6
116.9
99.1
117.7
106.3
118.0
112.1
116.1
103.2
112.1
133.2
Celery.............
Cucumbers___
Lettuce______
Peppers, green.
Spinach............
Tomatoes____
Lemonade concentrate, frozen.
Beets, canned...........................
Peas, green, canned________
Tomatoes, canned__________
Dried beans______ ________
Broccoli, frozen.................... .
Dec. 63
(O
O)
(■)
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Other food at home..................................
Eggs........- ........................
Fats and oils:
Margarine______ ___
Salad dressing, Italian.
Salad or cooking o il...
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
88. 6
146.0
89.9
(')
0
(O
109.6
109.3
106.2
91.6
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
117.7
107.0
140.8
115.5
106.7
139.2
114.0
106.1
138.9
112.4
105.3
138.0
134.4
124.2
134.5
135.4
111.6
134.0
123.3
133.7
135.5
111.6
133.6
122.7
133.1
135.4
Dec. 63
135.1
124.8
135.0
136.0
112.5
111.2
O)
O)
121.6
104.7
138.0
122 .2
132.9
135.2
110.8
0
0
(O
0
(O
134.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
177.2
173.0
132.1
219.6
121.0
166.9
180.0
138.9
194.3
117.3
159.9
180.8
119.3
153.3
171.0
176.6
204.5
151.1
166.9
175.6
139.4
126.1
244.1
117.3
154.5
160.5
154;6
138.9
344.4
117.5
145.2
128.7
214.0
125.2
299.7
119.9
159.0
136.2
209.1
123.0
265.5
118.3
136.1
143.6
208.5
122.7
283.9
US. 3
1Q6.3
105.6
105.5
92.4
118.0
106.2
104.9
105.2
92.6
117.3
105.3
104.9
104.1
93.5
113.4
97.0
115.9
122.0
133.3
121.3
112.9
96.5
116.2
123.1
130.7
121.5
113.0
116.0
105.3
113.3
91.9
113.7
97.7
111.9
104.3
137.5
112.0
103.6
135.4
132.7
121.6
132.7
134.2
110.6
132.2
120.3
132.5
133.7
110.5
lit«. 6
106.3
105.9
105.4
92.4
iao. 9
(O
(O
(O
121. 1
0
0
144.3
140.5
141.6
188.7
139.2
142.0
136.4
173.4
146.6
0
160.0
157.8
140.1
178.9
122.7
134.8
140.5
203.4
137.6
231.2
120.3
168.1
132.2
176.5
189.5
217.2
121.8
177.5
136.6
153.5
139.3
215.8
120.2
138.6
117.3
104.9
105.4
103.7
96.5
117.1
105.3
106.0
103.0
96.4
117.1
106.2
106.4
102.4
97.4
119.2
108.1
107.7
105.4
92.3
95.9
115.0
121.8
128.0
122.0
112.7
94.8
114.1
127.2
123.4
111.8
95.1
113.9
122.4
126.7
123.1
110.8
94.7
113.6
122.4
126.6
123.3
109.6
95.9
117.1
123.7
134.8
122.3
113.3
113.8
103.6
116.0
118.1
141.0
117.7
143.0
116.6
140.6
116.3
122.6
111.4
103.2
134.7
108.8
102.3
131.2
106.1
102.2
129.1
105.6
101.9
127.2
105.6
102.5
126.2
105.0
102.6
124.8
131.8
119.6
132.3
133.2
110.6
130.5
118.9
131.3
130.1
110.3
129.7
118.2
131.5
127.9
110.1
128.6
117.2
130.6
126.6
109.3
128.1
116.7
129.7
127.1
108.1
127.5
116.2
128.7
127.4
107.1
202.1
115.3
12 2. 1
0
211.3
145.3
1 22. 0
122 .2
111.0
111.1
104.2
134.7
132.0
120.8
132.5
132.5
110.6
108
25.
CONSUMER PRICES
M ONTHLY
LABOR
R E V IE W ,
FEB R U A R Y
1971
Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Item or group
FOOD—Continued
Other food at home—Continued
Nonalcoholic beverages.......... ......................
Coffee, can and bag_________________
Coffee, in s ta n t_____________ ________
Tea________ ______ _________________
Cola drin k__ ........................... .......... ...........
Carbonated f r u it d r in k .................. ..........
P repared and p a rtia lly prepared fo o d s ..
Bean soup, c a n n e d .________________
Chicken soup, canned............... ...............
S paghetti, canned____________ ______
Mashed potatoes, in s ta n t____________
Potatoes, french frie d , fro ze n ________
Baby foods, canned...................................
Sweet p ickle re lis h ................................
P retzels................................... .................
O ther
index
bases
1970
Dec.
Nov.
Dec. 63
120.7
111.0
120.2
106.9
168.4
133.3
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
63
63
63
63
Dec. 63
A pr. 60
Ju ly 61
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
H O U S I N G ........................... ......................................................
1969
Annual
average
1970
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
Ju ly
June
May
A pr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
120.8
111.4
119.8
107.5
167.5
133.2
120.3
110.6
119.5
107.4
166.8
133.0
119.4
109.9
117.8
107.0
165.2
132.3
118.4
108.7
116.3
106.6
165.0
131.4
117.7
107.3
115.7
106.4
164.8
131.4
116.5
105.4
115.7
105.9
164.2
130.5
115.2
103.6
114.7
104.8
163.0
130.0
114.0
102.2
114.1
103.6
162.0
128.5
112.4
99.7
113.1
103.1
161.9
127.4
110.7
9 7 .4
111.0
103.6
160.3
126.0
109.1
94.9
109.6
103.1
159.3
125.5
107.4
92.3
108.0
102.9
158.4
124.8
116.3
105.2
115.6
105.5
164.0
130.2
111.8
112.4
102.9
126.8
111.6
112.3
102.6
126.5
111.7
112.3
102.6
126.3
111.0
111.8
102.3
124.9
110.6
111.5
102.1
124.2
110.1
111.5
102.1
124.0
110.1
111.3
102.3
123.4
110.1
111.1
102.3
123.2
109.8
110.5
102.0
122.7
109.5
110.4
101.8
121.8
109.0
110.9
101.1
121.1
108.5
109.7
100.8
120.8
108.2
108.8
100.3
120.4
110.3
111.3
102.1
123.8
110.2
9 3 .0
116.9
120.1
112.6
109.6
9 3.4
116.5
120.3
112.4
111.3
9 3.3
117.0
119.4
111.9
111.3
9 3 .2
115.8
118.1
111.4
111.1
9 3 .9
114.0
117.6
111.1
111.0
9 3.3
112.7
116.4
110.4
110.8
9 3 .4
112.6
117.0
110.3
110.7
93.5
112.5
117.6
110.1
110.6
9 3 .2
112.9
118.0
110.0
110.5
93.2
112.0
117.2
109.1
110.3
9 2 .8
112.0
116.0
108.3
109.7
92.7
112.1
115.6
107.1
109.6
92.5
111.9
115.0
107.5
110.6
93.2
113.8
117.8
110.4
140.1
139.3
138.5
137.8
137.0
136.2
135.6
135.1
134.4
133.6
132.2
131.1
130.5
135.9
Shelter______ ________ ____________ _______
Rent_________________________________
h om eo w n ership _______________________
150.8
126.6
160.4
149.8
125.7
159.3
149.1
125.2
158.6
148.4
124.6
157.8
147.2
124.2
156.2
146.2
123.8
155.0
145.6
123.4
154.4
144.7
123.0
153.3
143.7
122.6
152.1
142.8
122.3
150.9
140.9
121.8
148.5
139.6
121.3
146.8
138.5
121.0
145.4
145.7
123.7
154.4
M ortgage in te re st r a t e s . . . ....................
P ro pe rty taxe s_____________ ________
P roperty insurance r a t e s . . . ..................
Maintenance and re p a irs .........................
149.2
145.4
157.0
156.8
149.2
143.2
155.7
156.0
149.6
142.7
156.1
155.2
149.5
142.6
155.2
154.3
149.2
141.4
155.6
153.2
149.1
140.5
154.6
152.4
149.1
139.8
153.5
151.4
149.2
139.4
153.2
149.9
149.1
138.2
153.6
148.8
148.9
134.7
153.2
148.3
143.5
133.6
152.8
146.9
139.9
133.0
152.5
146.4
139.6
132.0
153.3
145.8
147.9
139.5
154.4
151.6
121.3
123.6
117.4
121.4
122.7
116.8
120.7
121.8
115.3
120.6
121.9
115.1
120.7
122.1
115.5
120.3
122.3
115.7
119.6
120.7
115.6
118.4
119.9
115.0
117.8
119.9
114.6
117.2
121.0
114.7
116.5
119.8
114.8
116.1
119.3
114.1
115.9
119.1
114.3
119.2
121.3
115.4
155.9
208.2
177.1
142.7
160.1
159.1
154.8
206.6
175.8
141.8
158.6
157.7
154.0
205.3
175.0
141.4
156.9
157.4
152.8
203.8
173.7
140.6
155.2
156.3
151.2
200.1
170.9
140.0
153.1
155.5
150.4
198.0
169.8
1 9 .2
152.7
155.2
149.3
196.3
168.0
138.3
151.6
154.3
147.9
191.7
167.1
137.4
150.4
153.7
146.7
187.9
165.6
137.1
149.1
152.9
146.2
186.8
166.1
136.7
148.2
152.4
144.7
185.4
165.4
135.0
145.6
151.3
144.1
184.6
164.9
134.6
145.2
150.0
143.5
183.6
164.1
134.0
144.5
149.7
149.8
196.2
169.9
138.7
152.2
154.7
Fuel and utilities....................................................
Fuel oil and c o a l . . . ................
Fuel o il, # 2 ______________ __________
Gas and e le c tric ity ............... ......................
Gas______ ______
E le ctricity__________________________
121.3
128.2
123.9
120.1
126.7
113.1
120.7
127.1
122.7
119.2
125.7
112.4
119.0
125.5
121.2
118.0
123.7
111.8
118.2
124.3
120.3
116.8
123.6
109.8
117.7
122.9
119.2
116.4
123.6
109.0
117.2
122.3
119.1
115.7
122.3
108.7
116.2
121.2
118.3
115.3
122.0
108.3
116.4
121.0
118.0
115.8
123.2
108.2
116.3
120.9
117.8
115.7
123.1
108.0
115.6
120.8
117.8
114.8
121.9
107.5
114.9
120.6
117.5
114.6
121.5
107.4
114.6
119.7
116.6
114.1
120.5
107.4
114.6
119.2
116.2
113.7
119.8
107.2
117.4
122.9
119.4
116.4
123.1
109.3
O ther u tilitie s :
Residential telephone se rvice s_______
R esidential w a te r and sewerage_____
106.4
166.5
106.4
166.5
105.6
158.7
105.5
158.7
105.3
158.7
105.2
158.7
104.9
151.0
104.9
151.0
104.8
151.0
103.9
151.0
102.8
147.5
103.0
147.5
103.8
147.5
104.9
155.6
Household furnishings and operation....................................
H o u s e fu rn is h in g s ............................ .............
124.8
113.8
124.5
113.6
123.9
113.1
123.6
112.7
123.2
112.4
123.0
112.5
122.8
112.4
122.5
112.2
122.0
112.0
121.6
111.7
120.8
111.1
120.1
110.5
120.0
110.6
122.7
112.3
T e x tile s ____ ___________ _____
Sheets, percale o r m u s lin _________
C urtains, ta ilo re d , p olye ster m arq u is e tte _________________
Bedspreads, c h ie fly cotton, t u f t e d . .
D rapery fa b ric, cotton o r rayon/
acetate_____ _________ .
S lipcovers, ready made, ch ie fly
co tto n ........ ........................
119.2
125.6
119.0
125.5
117.4
121.6
116.8
123.1
116.1
119.2
116.7
120.8
116.7
122.0
116.2
121.8
116.7
123.6
116.4
122.7
115.7
120.8
114.2
117.3
116.1
122.2
116.8
122.0
113.6
119.4
112.6
119.0
111.5
118.0
110.4
117.6
113.7
117.2
113.9
117.9
113.1
117.5
113.2
116.8
113.3
117.8
113.7
117.1
112.7
116.6
111.6
115.0
112.3
117.6
112.8
117.5
C o m m o d ities................. ..........................
E xterior house p a in t____________
In te rio r house p a in t____________
S ervices________ _________
R epainting livin g and d ining rooms.
Reshingling ro o fs ..............................
Residing houses.................................
Replacing s in k s _________ _______
Repairing fu r n a c e s ........................
F u rn itu re and b e d d in g ________ . . .
Bedroom fu rn itu re
chest
and
dresser 3 . . ........ ........
L ivin g room suites, good and in expensive q u a lity ________
Lounge chairs, u ph o lste re d ________
D ining room chairs *_______
Sofas, u p h olste re d _____
Sofas, dual purpose. .
M attresses and box springs 6
C rib s _____________
Floor co vering s________
Rugs, s o ft su rface ___
Rugs, hard su rface ______
T ile , v in y l. ................
A pp lia n ce s _____
Washing machines, e le ctric, auto m a tic _________
Vacuum cleaners, c a n iste r ty p e ____
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
131.0
130.5
130.1
128.0
127.8
127.4
126.6
127.3
127.0
126.5
125.8
125.0
126.6
127.7
115.9
115.9
116.2
115.4
115.4
115.2
114.3
112.7
111.8
112.1
112.3
111.0
110.4
114.0
128.3
128.0
127.2
126.9
126.5
126.7
126.7
126.6
126.0
125.4
124.6
124.1
123.9
126.4
101.7
101.6
101.2
101.6
100.9
100.6
100.5
100.4
129.4
125.0
101.5
122.1
125.0
101.2
124.5
128.9
124.2
100.8
120.9
124.3
100.5
121.9
129.4
123.6
100.5
119.3
122.5
9 9 .9
121.3
129.0
122.8
100.2
119.3
123.7
9 9 .6
121.5
128.8
122.2
100.6
121.1
1 2 2 .2
9 9.5
122.1
128.3
122.1
100.6
120.0
123.9
100.0
121.4
128.1
122.5
100.2
119.1
123.3
127.9
121.9
100.2
118.7
122.6
127.3
121.0
126.1
120.0
126.0
120.0
126.3
118.8
118.0
120.6
116.5
120.0
116.3
120.5
116.5
120.0
June 70
Dec. 63
129.8
125.5
101.8
121.8
124.6
101.4
125.3
121.4
120.0
120.6
119.9
119.6
119.8
128.2
122.6
100.6
119.4
122.8
100.3
121.6
Dec. 63
107.8
103.8
116.4
115.2
107.5
103.7
116.1
114.2
107.4
103.7
115.6
114.1
107.1
103.4
114.8
113.8
107.3
103.9
114.0
113.8
107.2
103.7
114.6
113.5
107.2
103.9
114.0
113.1
107.4
104.2
113.7
113.1
106.9
103.8
113.7
111.8
106.9
103.9
113.7
111.7
106.9
104.0
113.6
111.3
106.8
104.0
113.2
110.3
107.1
104.7
112.5
110.3
107.2
103.8
114.4
113.0
Dec. 63
M ar. 70
Dec. 63
M ar. 70
Dec. 63
100.9
100.9
87.9
8 7.8
8 7.6
87.3
8 7.3
87.3
8 7 .2
87.1
87.1
86.8
86.6
8 6.5
8 6.4
87.2
93.6
81.7
9 3 .4
8 1.4
93.1
8 1.8
9 2.7
81.7
93.1
8 1.4
93.1
8 1.4
9 3 .0
8 1.2
92.9
8 1.5
92
9 2.4
9 2.3
8i.o
81.3
81.5
9 1.8
81.8
9 1.5
81.4
9 2.9
81.5
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
25.
CONSUMER PRICES
109
Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or {roup
Other
index
bases
HOUSING—Continued
Household furnishings and operation—Con.
Appliances—Continued
Refrigerators
or
refrigeratorfreezers, electric_____________
Ranges, free standing, gas or
electric.............. .........................
1970
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
87.5
87.6
Feb.
Jan.
1969 Annual
average
1970
Dec.
87.2
86.8
86.1
86.0
May
Apr.
Mar.
87.5
87.3
87.5
June
88.6
88.4
88.1
87.7
101.5
101.2
101.6
101.1
101.1
101.0
100.7
100.2
100.7
100.1
99.3
99.0
99.0
100.6
63
64
63
63
104.0
0
103.2
109.0
103.5
0)
103.4
109.1
103.2
0
102.6
108.8
102.7
(‘)
108.8
102.7
101.6
0
108.7
102.7
101.6
0
108.5
102.6
101.5
0
108.2
101.9
101.3
0
107.4
102.1
101.3
(0
107.2
101.8
0
100.5
106.6
101.3
0
100.6
105.9
100.8
0
100.6
105.5
100.6
0
100.4
105.0
102.4
101.5
101.8
107.8
Other house furnishings:
Dinnerware, earthenware.................
Flatware, stainless steel_________ Dec. 63
Table lamps, with shade.................. Dec. 63
142.2
121.7
124.3
141.9
121.7
124.0
142.0
121.8
123.4
140.3
122.0
121.9
140.5
121.9
121.4
139.6
121.6
120.9
139.3
121.0
121.6
138.3
120.8
121.4
138.1
120.7
121.2
138.1
120.4
119.9
137.1
120.1
118.6
136.2
119.2
118.3
135.6
119.0
118.7
139.5
121.1
121.4
Housekeeping supplies:
Laundry soaps and detergents____
Paper napkins.................................
Toilet tissue.....................................
110.6
140.7
132.6
110.4
140.4
130.9
110.6
140.2
129.5
111.3
139.8
129.9
111.0
140.4
130.0
110.3
140.5
129.9
110.0
139.5
129.7
110.0
138.5
129.4
109.8
136.4
127.8
110.0
134.7
126.8
108.8
131.3
123.5
108.1
129.8
121.9
107.1
131.0
120.3
110.1
137.7
128.5
Dec. 63
194.0
146.1
171.2
156.0
193.5
145.5
171.2
154.9
192.5
144.9
165.5
154.0
191.0
143.9
165.5
153.2
189.5
142.7
165.5
152.3
186.8
142.4
165.5
150.6
186.6
141.8
165.5
150.2
185.5
141.5
165.5
150.0
184.8
140.9
165.5
149.8
182.5
140.0
165.5
149.1
182.0
138.6
165.5
147.9
180.5
137.6
165.5
147.5
179.9
137.4
165.5
146.8
187.4
142.2
166.4
151.3
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
135.9
148.0
135.3
147.8
135.8
146.7
135.1
146.0
134.3
144.5
133.1
140.8
132.7
140.2
132.5
140.4
132.1
139.8
132.0
139.6
132.0
138.3
132.0
136.6
131.8
135.4
133.6
142.4
133.6
131.5
131.4
132.2
131.9
131.1
130.6
130.0
129.3
130.8
132.3
133.4
132.3
131.0
130.8
132.0
133.8
Clothes dryers, electric, automatic.
Air conditioners, demountable. . . .
Room heaters, electric, portable___
Garbage disposal units...... .............
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..............
Dec.
June
Dec.
Dec.
Dec. 63
APPAREL AND UPKEEP.............
0
87.5
135.9
135.7
134.8
136.7
136.8
136.0
134.8
133.2
132.8
134.2
133.9
Men’s:
Topcoats, wool________
Suits, year round weight________
Suits, tropical weight__________
June 64
Jackets, lightweight______________ Dec. 63
Slacks, wool or wool blend _______
Slacks, cotton or manmade blend__
Trousers, work, cotton............... .........
156.2
165.6
,0 ,
125.4
133.8
127.4
119.5
156.5
166.1
0)
125.4
134.3
126.2
119.5
153.7
164.5
0)
125.2
133.7
124.4
119.7
150.6
162.8
0)
124.6
132.7
123.5
118.8
(0
159.6
0
124. 9
130.8
123.5
118.7
(0
158.6
131.8
124.8
130.8
123.4
118.4
0
160.5
140.5
125.2
132.8
123.7
117.8
0
160.2
138.4
125.1
132.7
123.4
117.1
0)
159.8
137.4
125.3
131.8
123.0
117.2
144.1
157.3
136.6
125.3
131.0
120.9
116.6
141.0
153.9
0
125.6
129.6
119.4
116.4
143.7
154.2
(0
125.5
130.0
117.6
116.0
147.4
158.2
0
125.7
131.2
117.6
117.2
149.4
160.3
136.9
125.2
132.0
123.0
118.0
Shirts, work, cotton.............
Shirts, business, cotton.. .
T-shirts, chiefly cotton..............
Socks, cotton______
Handkerchiefs, cotton......................... Dec. 63
128.5
123.0
135.4
123.0
117.6
128.3
126.8
135.3
123.4
116.6
127.9
126.7
134.2
123.4
116.6
128.1
126.5
134.9
123.3
116.0
127.4
125.8
134.7
122.7
115.2
127.0
125.1
135.0
123.3
115.5
126.8
124.6
134.7
123.1
115.3
126.5
124.2
134.6
122.6
115.1
126.4
124.1
134.1
122.6
114.4
126.0
123.7
132.9
121.5
114.2
124.9
123.2
133.3
121.3
113.9
124.4
122.5
132.4
120.9
113.8
124.2
122.3
131.9
120.9
113.8
126.8
124.7
134.3
122.6
115.3
Boys’:
Coats, all purpose, cotton or cotton
blend..........................
Dec. 63
Sport coats, wool or wool blend_____ Dec. 63
Dungarees, cotton or cotton blend
Undershorts, cotton..................
125.3
131.4
133.3
131.4
124.3
133.4
132.9
131.3
122.6
133.2
132.6
131.5
0
130.5
132.0
131.6
(')
(0
130.9
131.5
(0
0
128.0
131.3
0
(0
130.1
131.5
(0
0
130.1
131.6
0
(i)
129.5
130.9
114.6
0
129.5
130.5
114.3
0
129.4
129.9
114.2
127.8
128.9
130.1
116.1
130.3
127.1
130.3
119.2
131.3
130.6
131.1
132.4
132.4
131.1
129.4
125.6
125.8
126.8
126.6
125.2
125.3
125.4
124.2
127.2
127.5
143.1
149.5
0
133.4
147.7
151.2
0
132.5
145.6
143.5
(>)
130.8
141.6
141.0
0
130.4
(0
(>)
125.8
130.2
(i)
(0
130.0
126.2
0
0
136.3
130.6
0
0
136.3
129.7
0
0
135.2
127.1
0
0
0
125.3
0
121.0
<0
124.9
124.9
135.6
0
126.9
136.2
144.6
(0
127.6
140.6
140.3
132.7
129.0
161.4
159.9
0
0
160.1
157.6
(5)
(5)
160.8
154.0
(5)
0
159.5
152.4
(5)
0
158.6
0)
0
0
156.1
0
0
0
155.8
0
(5)
0
156.5
0
0
0
158.9
0
0
0
158.5
0
0
0)
158.7
0
0
153.5
155.9
144.2
0
152.3
158.3
145.7
0)
153.0
158.4
153.6
0
0
Dec. 63
116.1
115.3
124.8
130.9
115.1
115.2
122.9
130.5
114.7
115.2
122.9
129.7
114.5
114.6
122.0
129.0
114.7
114.4
121.9
129.0
115.2
114.5
120.4
128.2
115.8
113.5
121.4
128.9
115.6
113.3
121.4
129.2
114.7
112.7
121.3
128.4
114.2
113.2
121.4
127.4
114.6
112.7
120.9
125.6
113.4
112.0
120.5
124.4
112.3
111.2
120.8
124.9
114.9
113.9
121.8
128.4
Hose, nylon, seamless___
Anklets, cotton_____
Dec. 63
Gloves, fabric, nylon or cotton.......... Dec. 63
Handbags, rayon faille or plastic......... Dec. 63
99.9
120.7
112.5
124.9
100.0
120.5
113.2
124.3
99.6
121.0
112.5
123.5
99.0
120.5
112.3
122.8
99.3
119.3
111.8
120.3
99.4
119.7
111.6
118.7
98.8
118.9
111.4
120.3
99.1
120.1
111.2
119.3
98.9
120.1
110.6
118.8
99.0
120.5
110.9
118.2
98.3
122.5
111.0
118.5
98.5
121.0
110.7
116.4
99.8
121.5
110.5
117.3
99.1
120.4
111.6
120.5
127.7
124.1
128.8
123.4
123.7 120.3
124.0 1 124.1
114.8
0
118.9
(0
118.1
117.4
125.6
123.2
121.8
122.6
Men's and boys'............................
Women's and girls’.....................
Women's:
Coats, heavyweight, wool or wool
blend___________
Skirts, wool or wool blend...
Sept. 61
Skirts, cotton or cotton blend .
Mar. 62
Blouses, cotton_____
Dresses, street, chiefly manmade
fiber ................. .........
Dresses, street, wool or wool blend...
Dresses, street, cotton_______
Housedresses, c o tto n ...........
Slips, nylon___ ____
Panties, acetate___
Girdles, manmade blend.
Brassieres, cotton______
Girls|:
Raincoats, vinyl plastic or chiefly
cotton_______
Skirts, wool or wool blend...
See footnotes at end of table.
4 12 -8 2 4 0
-
71 - 8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec. 63
0
0
(0
1 0
0
(0
(!)
(0
0
0
HO
25,
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or group
APPAREL AND UPKEEP—Continued
Women’s and girls’—Continued
Girls'—Continued
Dresses, cotton.................. ..................
Slacks, cotton________________ _
Slips, cotton blend_______________
Hand-bags_________ ______ ____
Other
index
bases
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
1970
1969 Annual
average
1970
Dec.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
128.5
143.8
108.8
119.3
128.8
142.9
109.1
119.6
132.0
136.8
108.9
11*9.2
129.6
C9
108.1
117.2
130.7
(0
107.8
117.2
131.5
O)
107.9
117.1
133.2
0
108.0
118.3
129.4
0
107.3
117.4
135.1
0
107.5
115.7
134.0
125.5
108.1
115.1
132.3
125.4
107.8
114.9
129.8
128.4
108.0
113.7
133.6
131.8
108.0
114.2
131.2
133.8
108.1
117.0
150.4
148.6
147.9
147.5
147.7
147.6
147.2
146.3
145.0
144.4
144.4
147.7
144.7
142.6
143.8
142.1
142.3
141.4
141.3
140.9
142.6
139.8
145.1
143. 8
149. 9
149.4
148.8
147.0
147.2
146.3
146.3
145.9
146.1
144.9
144.7
144.7
145.2
14314
145.6
143.4
145.3
142.9
Women's:
Shoes, streetyjrump............ ................
•¡Shoes, evening, puflip____ ____ ___ Dec. 63
Shoes, casual, pump........................... Dec. 63
. . . . Dec. 63
Houseslippers, scu ff..........
158.5
159.5
133*7
130.8
158.3
129.6
139.8
130.2
158.6
129.5
138.5
130.5
157.2
128.6
137.9
130.6
156.2
127.7
137.7
129.5
155.5
127.5
137.2
128.2
156. 8
126; 6
138.3
128.1
157.3
126.7
138.7
127.7
157.3
125.8
138.3
127.7
155.5
125.0
136.3
128.2
151.6
124.8
135.7
127.8
151.8
124.2
134.2
128.0
152.7
123.2
134.0
127.5
156.2
127. 1
137.6
128.9
Children’s:
Shoes, oxford.................................... >
Sneakers, boys’, oxford type_______
Dress shoes, girls’, strap--------------- Dec. 63
149.8
124. 2
142. 3
149.2
123.2
141. 6
148.7
123.2
139.9
147.9
122.6
138.0
147.9
123.1
138.5
147.1
122.9
138.6
147.2
123.2
138.3
146.6
122.6
138.3
146.3
122.0
137.5
146.6
120.7
138.0
145.9
120.0
136.6
144.3
119.6
136.6
144.3
119.5
136.4
147.3
122.3
138.7
105.6
128.3
105.4
128.4
105.3
128.7
105.3
128.0
105.4
125.3
105.4
125.4
105.0
127.1
104.9
127.6
104.8
126.8
104.9
125.9
104.3
124.6
104.0
123.3
104.0
123.5
105.0
126.6
138.6
116.5
133.3
138.6
128.6
137.8
116.2
132.0
137.6
128.5
137.2
115.1
131.4
137.1
128.3
136.8
114.6
131.1
134.6
128.0
136.7
114.4
130.6
134.3
127.8
136.4
114.3
130.3
133.7
126.9
136.3
114.0
130.0
133.3
126.8
136.0
113.2
129.0
128.8
126.5
135.7
113.1
128.8
128.4
126.3
135.2
113.2
128.5
127.7
125.5
134.6
112.3
128.0
127.4
125.0
133.8
112.0
126.8
127.0
124.6
133.3
112.0
126.7
127.4
123.7
136.2
114.1
130.0
132.4
126.9
135.5
134.4
133.5
131.0
130.6
131.4
130.6
129.9
128.9
127.1
127.3
127.3
126..4
130.6
126.5
105.6
126.7
117.9
143.8
Footwear..___ ________ ______________
Men's:
Shoes, street, oxford_____________
Shoes, work, high._______________
Miscellaneous apparel:
Diapers, cotton gauze_______________
Yard goods, cotton....................... ...........
Apparel services:
Drycleaning, men’s suits and women’s
dresses............ ....................................
Automatic laundry service.....................
Laundry, men’s shirts______________
Tailoring charges, hem adjustment____
Shoe repairs, women’s heel lift_______
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
TRANSPORTATION_____ __________________
Private___ __________________________
Automobiles, new________ _________
Automobiles, used_________________
Gasoline, regular and premium_______
Motor oil, premium.................................
131.2
111.9
133.0
120.0
147.1
130.1
110.4
132.2
118.6
146.6
129.2
108.7
130.3
119.3
145.8
126.6
103.1
127.4
117.8
145.4
126.4
103.5
129.2
116.9
144.3
127.2
103.7
131.8
118.7
143.7
126.7
103.8
132.0
117.6
143.0
125.9
104.1
127.5
118.6
142.8
124.9
104.3
121.1
119.2
142.6
123.0
104.4
117.6
115.3
142.3
123.3
104.6
117.8
116.7
141.4
123.3
104.7
120.7
116.6
140.7
123.4
104.9
123.9
116.9
140.2
Tires, new, tu b eless.......................... .
Auto repairs and maintenance________
Auto insurance rates..............................
Auto registration.............................. .......
122.4
147.5
189.9
140.9
121.7
146.8
189.6
140.9
122.2
146.3
187.4
140.9
120.9
145.6
186.4
140.9
119.7
144.8
184.0
140.9
119.0
144.3
183.7
140.9
118.0
143.5
181.9
140.9
118.6
142.9
179.5
140.9
118.6
142.1
175.6
140.9
119.4
141.5
176.4
140.3
118.5
140.2
176.0
140.3
118.2
139.2
173.4
140.3
118.2
137.3
171.5
134.2
119.8
143.7
182.2
140.7
176.2
195.8
137.5
131.5
122.9
142.6
175.0
195.1
136.0
131.2
122.6
132.5
173.5
192.6
136.0
131.2
122.6
132.5
173.3
192.3
136.0
131.2
122.6
132.5
171.0
191.1
135.9
121.5
117.9
130.1
170.8
190.9
135.9
121.5
117.9
130.1
167.8
185.8
135.9
121.5
117.9
130.1
166.6
185.2
131.5
121.1
117.8
128.6
165.8
183.9
131.5
121.1
117.8
128.6
165.8
183.8
131.5
121.1
117.8
128.6
165.4
183.8
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
165.1
183.3
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
153.0
163.2
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
169.7
188.6
134.2
123.9
119.4
131.0
147.4
146.9
146.3
145.7
145.1
144.3
143.7
142.9
142.3
141.4
140.7
140.1
139.6
143.9
159.0
99.7
107.2
92.3
106.2
158.1
99.6
107.1
92.8
106.6
164.9
101.3
109.8
92.0
110.9
101.9
122.9
112.7
116.9
90.1
61.5
114.5
90.5
102.8
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________________
169.8
120.0
112.4
91.5
116.4
168.9
101.8
112.0
91.3
115.3
167.9
102.2
111.9
92.2
114.2
167.6
102.1
110.8
92.2
112.7
166.8
102.2
110.5
92.3
112.3
165.8
102.0
110.5
92.7
112.0
164.7
101.6
109.7
92.6
109.8
163.6
101.4
109.2
92.7
109.2
162.8
100.9
108.6
92.0
108.1
161.6
100.3
107.8
91.7
107.3
160.1
100.0
107.2
90.8
107.4
63
63
63
63
102.6
127.6
113.9
120.9
102.3
127.2
113.8
119.9
102.2
128.7
113.4
119.2
102.1
124.9
113.3
118.0
101.8
124.4
113.1
117.7
101.7
125.0
112.7
117.5
101.8
122.7
112.7
117.2
101.9
121.4
112.7
116.4
101.9
119.8
112.6
116.0
101.5
119.7
112.2
113.5
101.2
118.2
111.5
113.0
101.3
117.8
113.4
101.3
117.7
110.5
112.9
60
60
60
60
89.2
56.1
117.7
90.7
104.4
89.3
56.8
117.1
90.6
104.0
90.0
59.3
116.8
90.7
103.6
90.6
61.6
116.3
90.6
103.3
91.0
63.5
115. 1
90.6
103.2
90.7
63.3
114.5
90.7
102.8
90.6
63.2
114.0
90.8
102.6
90.5
63.1
114.2
90.7
102.4
90.3
63.0
113.7
90.7
102.2
89.7
62.8
112.1
90.0
101.7
89.7
63.0
112.0
90.0
101.6
89.3
62.8
110.6
90.0
101.5
89.1
62.8
110.4
89.8
101.3
Medical care__________________________
Drugs and prescriptions_____________
Over-the-counter items.......... ............. Dec. 63
Multiple vitamin concentrates____ Dec. 63
Aspirin compounds......................
Dec. 63
Liquid tonics....................................
Adhesive bandages, package_____
Cold tablets or capsules_________
Cough syrup__________________
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
111.0
Prescriptions.. ________________
Anti-infectives____________ ____
Sedatives and hypnotics............. .
Ataractics................... ......................
Anti-spasmodics............................ .
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Cough preparations_____________
Cardiovasculars and antihypertensives__________________ _
Analgesics, internal____________
Anti-obesity _________________
Hormones........ .................................
Mar. 60
121.5
120.7
120.5
119.4
119.1
118.2
118.1
118.0
118.1
117.1
115.2
112.7
112.0
118.2
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
60
67
67
67
101.6
106.6
111.5
94.6
101.4
106.4
110.8
94.5
101.3
106.3
109.6
94.3
100.9
106.1
109.5
95.0
100.7
105.9
108.9
94.9
100.4
105.4
108.1
94.7
100.4
105.4
107.2
94.2
100.4
105.2
107.2
94.2
100.0
105.3
106.0
93.6
99.0
104.7
105.8
93.9
98.8
105.0
105.5
93.6
98.3
104.3
104. 8
93.6
98.0
103.3
104.3
94.2
100.3
105.6
107.9
94.2
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
See footnotes at end of table.
172.9
176.8
179.7
164.9
156.3
138.6
171.4
174.7
177.8
164.1
156.1
138.3
170.0
173.9
177.2
163.1
154.1
137.3
169.6
173.4
176.9
163.1
153.7
137.3
168.7
171.2
176.6
162.9
153.8
136.8
167.8
171.3
176.0
162.2
151.3
135.3
167.3
170.8
175.6
161.8
151.4
135.0
165.6
168.3
173.6
161.1
151.3
135.0
164.3 163.7
167.3 166.6
172.5 171.7
159.2 159.0
148.7 148.5
134.7 1 134.6
161.6
164.0
169.0
157.6
147.7
133.7
160.7
163.1
167.9
155.9
146.5
133.0
160.0
162.4
167.6
155.0
145.9
132.6
167.0
170.1
174.6
161.2
151. 6
135.8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CONSUMER PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
25.
H I
Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or 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 dispensing of eyeglasses................
Routine laboratory tests...................
Hospital service charges:
Daily service charges ___________
Semiprivate rooms_____________
Private rooms.................. ................
Operating room charges.. .................
X-ray, diagnostic series, upper G.l__
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, c o ld ___
Reading and recreation___ ________ _________________
Recreational goods______________
TV sets, portable and console...
TV replacement tubes_________
Radios, portable and table
model........... ...................... ...........
Tape recorders, portable_____ .
Phonograph records, stereophonic__________ _
Movie cameras, Super 8, zoom
le n s ...__________________
Film, 35mm, color________ .
Bicycle, boys'_____ _________
Tricycles............................ .
Recreational services__________ . .
Indoor movie admissions______
Adult.______ ____________
Children's.................
Drive-in movie admissions, adult.
Bowling fees, evening_____ .
Golf greens fe e s.............
TV repairs, picture tube replacement______ . . . .
..
Film developing, black and white.
Reading and education:
Newspapers, street sale and
delivery 7. . . ........ ................
Piano lessons, beginner_______
Other goods and services_________
Tobacco products____
Cigarettes, nonfilter tip, regular
Si2^__ _______
Cigarettes, filter tip, king size___
- CTgars, domestic, regular size___
Alcoholic beverages___
B.eer__________________
“Whiskey, spirit blended and
straight bourbon___________
Wine, dessert and table..
Beer, away from home.............
Financial and miscellaneous personal
expenses:
Funeral services, adult..........
Bank service charges, checking
accounts........ ..............
Legal services, short form w ill...
Other
index
bases
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Annual
average
1970
137.0
162.4
155.8
136.6
162.0
155.6
133.0
160.9
155.2
132.9
159.7
154.3
132.4
159.3
153.4
130.7
157.5
152.8
130.6
156.7
151.9
129.6
156.1
151.2
128.7
154.2
150.7
127.5
153.8
148.7
126.7
152.6
148.4
126.3
152.3
148.0
125.4
151.6
147.6
131.0
157.3
152.2
Dec. 63
157.5
154.9
136.8
157.3
154.7
136.7
156.8
154.3
136.6
156.4
152.4
135.9
155.5
151.4
135.0
154.9
150.1
134.8
154.1
149.7
133.6
153.3
148.9
133.2
152.5
148.9
132.7
150.6
146.1
131.7
150.3
145.9
131.3
149.8
146.0
130.6
148.7
147.0
130.2
154.1
150.3
134.1
Dec. 63
142.0
123.6
141.6
123.2
140.1
120.2
139.8
121.8
139.2
121.7
138.2
121.9
137.8
121.7
136.9
121.3
136.7
121.2
136.3
120.8
135.7
119.8
134.6
119.6
133.9
119.5
138.2
121.6
304.2
301.1
291.8
191.7
135.0
132.8
115.1
114.6
131.6
111.6
104.3
135.3
96.0
118.2
98.8
154.8
165.2
144.2
129.8
300.7
297.5
288.7
188.9
134.4
132.3
114.5
114.4
131.0
110.8
103.9
134.6
95.2
116.6
99.1
154.4
164.9
143.8
129.5
297.8
294.7
286.0
188.6
133.5
132.1
114.6
115.4
130.6
110.1
103.9
134.3
97.0
116.5
98.8
153.9
164.6
143.1
129.0
295.1
292.1
283.1
186.4
132.8
131.7
114.1
115.1
129.9
109.6
102.5
134.2
96.6
116.6
98.3
153.4
164.1
142.6
128.7
292.5
289.3
281.0
185.9
132.8
131.3
114.0
114.4
129.1
109.3
102.2
133.8
97.0
117.4
98.7
152.7
163.6
141.8
126.7
289.1
285.9
277.9
183.6
131.4
130.6
113.5
113.9
128.3
109.5
102.0
131.9
96.4
117.0
98.8
151.9
162.5
141.2
125.8
284.4
281.1
273.5
181.7
131.4
130.2
113.3
114.4
127.0
111.2
101.3
131.4
95.9
116.4
98.3
151.2
161.0
141.0
125.4
283.1
279.8
272.3
180.9
129.4
130.3
113.3
114.4
126.2
111.5
102.1
131.6
95.8
116.4
98.4
151.3
161.0
141.2
126.4
282.3
279.1
271.4
180.3
128.1
129.8
113.0
114.7
124.3
117.3
102.3
131.0
95.9
116.0
98.3
150.5
159.7
140.9
126.3
279.0
275.6
268.7
177.7
127.7
129.6
112.9
113.9
125.6
110.5
102.2
130.8
96.1
115.5
98.6
150.1
159.1
140.6
126.1
275.6
271.9
265.9
175.4
125.4
129.0
112.4
114.3
124.3
110.0
102.1
129.1
96.1
114.4
98.6
149.5
158.7
140.0
125.4
271.6
268.0
261.8
172.8
124.7
128.5
112.0
114.1
123.0
109.2
102.1
128.1
96.0
113.8
98.6
148.9
158.0
139.2
125.3
267.9
264.1
258.7
170.9
124.7
128.1
111.6
114.6
123.4
109.1
101.9
127.6
94.5
112.5
98.7
148.5
157.8
138.8
125.2
287.9
284.7
276.8
182.8
130.5
130.7
113.6
114.5
127.6
110.4
102.6
132.2
96.2
116.2
98.6
151.9
161.9
141.6
127.0
Dec. 63
162.8
110.9
139.6
100.9
80.7
124.0
162.2
110.5
139.3
100.9
80.7
124.1
161.2
110.3
138.4
100.7
80.4
123.8
160.6
109.8
137.7
100.5
80.1
123.1
160.0
109.8
137.1
100.2
80.0
122.0
159.2
109.8
136.6
100.1
79.9
120.6
159.0
110.0
136.1
100.0
80.1
119.3
159.0
109.6
135.2
99.9
80.1
118.3
158.6
109.4
134.4
99.6
80.0
117.5
158.3
109.0
133.6
99.4
79.9
117.3
157.5
108.9
133.2
99.2
79.9
117.3
156.8
107.5
133.1
99.1
80.0
116.6
156.3
107.2
132.7
99.1
80.2
116.3
159.6
109.6
136.2
100.0
80.1
120.3
Dec. 63
76.5
91.2
76.5
91.1
76.4
90.7
76.4
89.7
76.6
89.2
76.6
89.8
76.6
89.9
76.6
90.4
76.5
90.3
76.0
90.2
76.1
90.2
76.4
90.0
76.5
90.1
76.4
90.2
Dec. 63
97.6
97.6
97.8
97.8
97.6
98.1
98.2
98.3
97.8
98.1
97.9
98.0
98.0
97.9
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
80.6
100.6
110.3
113.5
140.6
226.7
221.4
244.5
180.6
117.5
(>)
81.1
100.5
111.9
113.9
140.3
225.9
220.7
243.3
180.1
117.8
145.6
81.2
100.3
111.8
113.9
140.1
226.9
221.5
245.1
180.4
116.4
145.8
81.9
100.3
111.7
113.8
139.4
226.7
222.2
242.1
178.4
114.8
145.5
82.0
100.1
111.1
113.3
138.0
223.6
218.5
240.7
176.2
114.3
144.8
82.2
100.1
110.7
113.6
137.1
221.4
216.8
237.0
172.3
114.6
145.5
82.3
100.1
110.4
113.7
136.9
220.0
215.6
235.0
171.6
115.7
145.1
82.0
100.0
110.5
113.1
135.9
217.9
212.8
234.8
168.9
115.2
141.5
81.4
99.7
110.8
111.6
135.0
215.4
210.9
230.6
168.1
115.2
139.3
81.3
99.7
111.4
111.2
134.1
212.0
207.7
226.7
167.5
114.8
(2)
81.6
99.7
111.2
112.0
133.7
210.5
206.1
225.4
167.0
115.0
(2)
82.1
99.1
110.7
112.0
133.9
211.7
207.3
226.9
165.6
115.3
(2)
82.3
99.1
110.4
111.6
133.2
210.3
205.4
227.1
165.5
113.7
(2)
81.7
100.0
111.0
113.0
137.1
219.9
215.1
236.0
173.0
115.5
143.9
Dec. 63
97.6
121.6
97.8
121.0
97.5
120.5
97.7
119.8
97.6
118.4.
97.7
116.7
97.6
116.4
98.6
117.7
98.7
117.6
98.9
117.3
99.5
117.7
100.2
117.4
100.2
117.7
98.3
118.5
175.1
131.8
140.1
162.2
173.9
131.6
139.8
162.1
171.3
131.8
139.5
161.9
168.4
130.9
138.8
161.7
167.6
129.3
138.1
160.9
166.8
129.0
177.3
159.7
163.9
128.4
136.7
158.1
161.5
128.2
136.1
156.7
160.4
128.2
135.6
156.4
160.4
127.8
134.8
155.0
159.8
127.7
134.3
154.9
160.2
127.6
133.9
154.1
158.2
127.3
133.5
153.8
165.8
129.3
137.1
158.6
171.0
162.5
109. 1
125.7
120. 5
170.8
162.3
109.1
125.5
120.3
170.6
162.2
108.9
125.1
119.8
170.4
162.0
109.0
124.5
119.5
169.2
161.3
109.0
123.9
119.1
167.9
160.2
108.6
123.2
118.2
1^6. 0
158.5
108.6
123.2
118.3
164.4
157.2
108.6
123.1
118.5
164.1
156.8
108.6
122.5
118.2
162.8
154.9
108.7
122.0
117.7
162.7
154.8
108.7
121.4
116.9
161.8
154.0
109.0
121.0
116.5
161.4
153.5
110.0
120.6
116.5
166.8
158.9
108.8
123.4
118.6
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
113.4
120.4
134.1
113.3
120.4
133.7
113.1
120.1
133.3
113.4
120.0
131.7
113.3
120.0
130.3
113.1
119.8
129.5
112.7
119.6
129.6
112.5
119.4
129.3
111.8
118.9
128.4
111.6
117.4
128.0
111.3
116.8
127.6
111.2
116.5
127.1
111.5
115.2
125.9
112.5
119.1
130.2
Dec. 63
121.7
121.5
121.2
120.7
120.3
119.9
119.6
119.3
119.0
118.6
118.1
117.7
117.4
119.8
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
115.4
158.1
115.6
154.6
110.4
149.9
110.2
149.9
110.2
149.2
110.3
149.0
110.0
146.1
110.0
145.6
110.1
145.1
110.0
142.7
110.3
141.2
111.5
149.0
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
63
63
63
63
63
Dec. 63
Mar. 59
1970
115.6
155.2
1 Priced only in season.
2 Not available.
3This item is a replacement for bedroom suites, good or inexpensive quality, which
was discontinued after March 1970.
4 This item is a replacement for dining room suites, which was discontinued
FRASER
after March 1970.
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1969
110.2
142.3
s Item discontinued.
®This item is a replacement for box springs, which was discontinued after April
1970.
7dune 1970 index revised.
NOTE: Monthly data for individual nonfood items not available for 1968.
112
26.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index1—U.S. city average, and selected areas
(1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]
1970
Area2
1969
Annual
avg.
Dec.
1969
!
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
All items
138.5
137.8
137.4
136.6
136.0
135.7
135.2
134.6
134.0
133.2
132.5
131.8
131.3
127.7
Atlanta, Ga........................... ................................................ 137.1
Baltimore, Md....................... ................................................ 140.1
(9
Boston, M ass......................................................... ..............
Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963 = 1 0 0 )......................... ..................
(9
Chicago, III.-Northwestern Ind............. ................................ 135.4
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky.................................................... 134.5
(9
(9
(9
130.5
134.8
(9
(9
(9
142.3
(9
134.5
134.9
137.2
(9
(9
133.8
132.6
(9
<9
<9
127.9
133.1
<9
(9
(9
139.5
(9
132.3
(9
133.6
135.2
(9
(9
131.5
131.2
(9
(9
(9
127.0
131.1
(9
(9
<9
137.9
(9
130.2
131.9
133.5
(9
<9
129.9
129.2
(9
(9
(9
125.3
129.3
(9
(9
136.1
(9
129.1
(9
129.9
131.9
(9
(9
128.3
127.7
126.7
128.3
131.8
120.5
124.9
124.6
Cleveland, Ohio________ ______ ______ ______ _______ (9
Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963 = 100)...............................................
<9
Detroit, M ich.......................................................... . . ... 137.3
Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 100)......................... ............. 124.7
(9
Houston, Tex.............. ............................................................
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas............................. ....................... 141.3
137.0
128.5
137.8
(9
(9
(9
(9
135. 5
(9
133.7
(9
<9
(9
<9
<9
<9
133.1
122.0
(9
134.6.
132.3
125.6
132.2
(9
<9
(9
(9
O)
137.9
134.3
127.1
134.9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
133.8
138.5
135.6
128.3
135.3
<9
(9
(9
126.3
120.3
127. 1
117.0
127.0
130.1
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif_____ _____ ___________ 137.4
(9
Milwaukee, Wis.................................. .................. ..........—
(9
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn................. ............................... .
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J____ ________________ 145.7
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J_............................................... ......... . 141.7
Pittsburgh, P a .....................................................................
(9
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.5........ ......................................... —
(9
136.7
133.0
134.3
131.2
(9
142.6
137.9
(9
(9
135.1
133.9
(9
(9
141. 6
137.0
(9
(9
133.8
130.0
<9
140.7
136.5
(9
(9
133.5
132.2
144.6
141.4
136.2
(9
(9
143.4
139.8
(9
(9
St. Louis, Mo.—Ill_________________ ________ ___ ____ 137.3
San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965=100)...................... .................. <9
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif.................................... ............ 141.0
Scranton, Pa.5..................... ....................................... ..........
(9
Seattle, Wash___________________________ ________
(9
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va...................................................... (9
(9
123.7
(9
139.7
135.0
139.0
136.2
(9
138.9
(9
(9
<9
(9
121.8
U.S. city average3______ ______-.......... ....................... ........
<9
(9
<9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
<9
137.1
<9
134.9
(9
136.6
(9
138.2
144.2
140.8
136.7
135.3
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
136.0
123.9
(9
<9
137.9
134.6
137.8
O)
136.7
142.1
137.4
134.6
134.1
135.2
123.3
(9
<9
134.1
<9
137.5
<9
<9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
<9
132.9
<9
(9
(9
130.8
119.7
130.9
(9
133.2
131.6
128.5
(9
138.1
134.1
(9
(9
131.2
131.1
132.8
137.0
132.9
129.4
130.7
(9
136.0
132.2
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
130.7
(9
134.5
(9
<9
(9
(9
118.6
(9
134.4
132.2
134.6
(9
(9
(9
127.5
115.1
131.1
129.2
128.3
129.5
(9
(9
139.1
135.4
(9
(9
(9
132.4
<9
<9
<9
<9
(9
(9
131.1
135.1
140.1
135.7
132.4
133.4
120.9
(9
136.9
133.9
136.7
<9
<9
<9
136.1
(9
(9
(9
128.0
123.6
127.4
131.8
128.9
127.0
128.4
Food
U.S.city average3......................................................................
132.8
132.4
133.0
133.3
133.5
133.4
132.7
132.4
132.0
131.6
131.5
130.7
129.9
125. 5
131.4
137.6
138.1
129.5
133.8
130.5
131.1
136.7
137.0
128.6
133.6
129.7
130.0
136.5
136.6
128.1
133.1
129.1
130.6
135.9
135.9
128.4
132.6
128.6
130.5
136.2
135.4
127.3
133.0
127.9
130.7
135.4
135.0
127.0
133.2
127.8
129.0
134.9
134.3
125.4
132.8
127.2
128.4
134.1
133.1
125.1
131.3
126.6
123.8
128.8
129.3
120.6
127.2
122.1
Atlanta, Ga.......................................................................... .
Baltimore, Md. .....................................................................
Boston, Mass........ ........................................... .....................
Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963 = 100)____________________ _
Chicago, 1II.-Northwesternl nd.................... ....................... ...
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky____ ____ ____ _____ ______
132.4
136.6
139.4
128.2
132.9
130.0
131.4
135.8
138.7
127.4
131.9
130.2
132.2
137.4
138.6
127.6
133.3
130.1
131.7
137.7
138.5
127.9
133.4
130.1
131.7
137.8
139.1
128.4
135.0
130.1
Cleveland, Ohio....................................... ................... ..........
Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963 = 100)............. ..................... ..........
Detroit, Mich...........................................................................
Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 100).......... .................... . ._
Houston, Tex......................... .................................................
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas................................................. .
132.8
125.3
130.8
123.6
134.3
136.7
132.4
125.1
130.4
123.6
133.8
136.7
131.0
126.4
131.1
123.4
134.5
137.6
131.8
127.3
133.1
124.8
134.4
138.4
131.9
127.4
133.3
124.3
134.7
138.4
132.1
125.9
133.3
123.5
134.3
138.3
131.2
125.8
132.2
123.8
133.3
136.9
130.8
126.0
132.1
123.2
133.4
136.8
129.7
125.5
131.2
123.4
133.8
136.4
129.3
125.5
130.9
123.4
132.7
135.9
128.4
125.9
130.2
122.9
133.3
135.8
129.0
125.0
129.8
123.0
132.3
135.1
128.5
124.2
129.3
120.8
131.2
134.4
123.2
119.8
124.3
117.4
126.9
129.4
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.5. ............................................... . ..
128.9
128.7
132.1
137.6
133.2
128.9
128.5
128.6
132.0
137.2
133.3
128.0
128.9
129.2
132.3
137.4
134.0
128.9
128.0
128.8
129.2
132.5
137.3
133.3
128.7
128.3
130.0
132.4
137.5
133.0
128.7
128.9
130.0
132.3
137.9
133.1
129.6
127.9
127.8
129.4
131.4
136.8
132.4
128.7
128.1
129.4
131.3
136.0
132.3
128.8
127.4
129.3
131.2
135.7
131.5
128.3
128.5
126.7
130.2
131.2
135.1
132.0
128.2
127.2
130.1
130.6
134.7
132.0
128.0
126.2
129.5
129.5
133.8
130.7
127.5
126.7
125.8
128.4
128.2
132.9
129.7
127.1
122.6
125.2
123.7
127.1
125.5
122.4
124.0
St. Louis, Mo.-lll__________________________
____
San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965 = 100).................. ................. _
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif.......... ................................. .
Scranton , P a ._____ _______
. . . . . . . . . .
Seattle, Wash.................................................. ......................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va............................................. ......
137.3
123.3
130.3
137.1
122.9
128.8
131.4
130.0
134.1
138.1
122.7
128.4
139.0
123.0
128.8
137.7
123.0
130.5
136.7
122.0
129.1
136.6
120.8
128.2
135.5
120.0
127.2
130. 6
137.6
130.3
137.1
130.1
136.6
128.5
135.7
137.4
121.3
128.7
131.3
129.2
136.2
136.6
120.6
128.2
131.0
136.1
136.3
122.3
129.0
131.3
130.6
136.2
136.5
121.3
128.8
130.6
135.4
137.9
122.8
129.7
132.0
131.3
136.1
127.8
134.8
127.6
133.5
129.5
117.0
123.8
125.0
124.5
129. 5
130.6
134.8
1See 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.
2 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
3 Average of 56 "cities” (metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan urban places
beginning January 1966).
* All items indexes are computed monthly for 5 areas and once every 3 months on a
rotating cycle for other areas.
5 Old series.
WHOLESALE PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
27.
1 13
Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified] 1
1970
A L L C O M M O D I T I E S ..................................................................
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-71
02-72
02-73
02-74
02-8
02-9
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
117.8
117.7
117.8
117.8
117.2
117.7
117.0
116.8
116.6
116.6
116.4
116.0
115.1
113.0
115.0
115.6
116.0
118.5
117.0
119.3
117.5
117.0
117.6
118.8
118.7
118.2
116.4
113.5
IN D U S T R IA L C O M M O D I T I E S ......................................
118.7
118.3
118.3
117.4
117.1
116.9
116.7
116.6
116.2
115.8
115.5
115.1
114.6
112.7
108.8
113.1
99.6
100.6
65.9
62.5
143.4
107.3
123.2
119.5
106.7
109.4
96.1
102.3
78.0
63.4
142.2
99.3
124.7
120.9
107.5
102.4
96.0
111.8
76.5
64.1
140.6
88.2
123.0
117.1
111.8
113.4
100.5
114.9
81.7
64.9
140.3
117.6
118.3
118.7
108.2
99.6
89.2
118.6
77.5
66.2
139.5
89.6
116.6
118.3
113.1
112.6
89.2
126.2
81.9
66.1
139.7
111.2
116.8
116.5
111.3
122.2
89.2
123.0
77.9
65.7
139.6
85.3
112.6
114.9
111.0
123.5
88.4
122.2
83.7
65.6
139.5
79.7
111.1
115.0
111.3
112.7
87.8
124.8
82.8
65.4
141.1
94.9
109.8
114.7
114.3
118.2
85.5
129.6
90.8
64.9
139.7
120.1
106.3
114.8
113.7
117.2
85.9
124.9
87.1
65.4
140.8
136.9
106.3
115.2
112.5
116.6
85.9
117.3
94.8
65.3
140.5
152.2
107.7
116.3
111.7
112.4
82.9
120.2
86.9
65.7
138.3
155.8
105.1
113.1
108.5
111.0
83.3
118.3
89.8
67.1
134.8
112.9
109.2
109.1
123.6
129.9
109.5
137.5
119.0
133.1
121.7
107.6
117.3
122.6
119.9
126.7
133.9
124.8
129.5
114.2
136.8
119.6
133.5
122.2
124.2
126.7
123.6
121.4
127.6
129.3
124.9
128.7
116.4
136.5
119.1
134.0
121.9
117.8
117.6
114.4
117.5
128.6
127.7
126.2
127.9
120.9
135.8
120.1
133.6
121.5
118.0
104.2
104.8
114.5
129.7
131.2
126.1
126.5
122.5
136.2
119.6
132.4
121.1
118.5
109.9
107.5
114.5
128.6
128.1
126.6
125.8
126.3
135.7
118.9
132.3
120.4
111.3
103.0
103.8
113.2
128.2
127.4
124.8
124.6
123.7
135.4
118.5
130.4
120.3
111.5
105.3
102.8
113.2
126.7
120.8
124.1
124.6
122.5
135.4
118.1
129.4
120.3
116.8
106.6
106.4
113.1
124.1
119.4
124.9
124.6
124.9
135.1
117.5
128.7
118.8
118.8
114.7
107.7
113.6
125.8
121.4
124.9
123.7
127.1
133.1
116.5
127.4
118.4
133.7
110.7
111.9
112.4
127.1
119.0
125.2
123.3
124.9
134.1
117.3
127.7
118.3
115.7
99.5
99.8
107.5
127.4
131.3
125.1
122.3
125.8
133.9
116.9
129.1
117.4
111.0
86.4
97.8
107.5
126.5
131.7
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
119.8
120.2
119.5
131.9
115.7
123.6
112.9
100.3
83.5
90.3
103.5
121.5
118.2
PRO D U C TS , A N D PR O CESSED
AND FEED S
FO O D S
Farm products........................................................................................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables.
G rain s.................................................
Livestock...............................................
Live poultry..........................................
Plant and animal fibers.......................
Fluid milk.............................................
Eggs................................ .....................
Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds................
Other farm products............................
Processed foods and fe e d s .............................................
02-2
Dec
Annual
average
1969
FARM PRODUCTS A N D PR O C ESS ED FO O D S
A N D F E E D S ...................................................................................
FARM
01
01-1
1969
Commodity Group
Coda
Cereal and bakery products..........
Meats, poultry, and fish________
Dairy products................. ..............
Processed fruits and vegetables...
Sugar and confectionery________
Beverages and beverage materials.
Animal fats and o ils ..................
Crude vegetable oils..................... ..
Refined vegetable oils....................
Vegetable oil end products______
Miscellaneous processed foods___
Manufactured animal feeds...........
I N D U S T R IA L C O M M O D I T I E S
03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-41
03-5
03-6
03-7
Textile products and apparel..................................
Cotton products......................
Wool products............................
Manmade fiber textile products.
Silk yarns............ ....... ...............
Apparel......................................
Textile housefurnishings..........
Miscellaneous textile products.
108.8
107.6
100.0
84.3
191.3
119.5
109.5
126.8
109.2
106.9
100.9
84.8
190.1
120.0
111.2
125.2
109.4
106.7
100.9
85.7
193.4
119.9
111.2
125.4
109.6
106.4
102.0
87.1
193.2
119.6
111.3
128.4
109.5
106.3
102.4
88.0
201.0
119.0
110.5
128.2
109.2
105.8
102.6
88.4
201.0
118.4
109.8
125.5
109.3
105.9
102.8
89.0
199.5
118.4
109.7
124.3
109.3
105.8
103.8
89.5
204.8
118.0
108.7
125.6
109.3
105.8
104.0
89.9
201.3
117.9
108.6
121.4
109.5
105.8
104.4
90.4
194.2
117.9
108.6
126.5
109.4
106.1
104.3
91.0
196.3
117.5
109.0
124.3
109.5
106.1
104.3
91.5
193.5
117.2
109.1
129.0
109.2
106.1
104.3
91.1
191.1
116.9
108.1
127.8
108.0
105.2
104.6
92.2
169.7
114.5
106.7
122.8
04
04-1
04-2
04-3
04-4
Hides, skins, leather, and related products__
Hides and skins...............................
Leather............................................
Footwear.........................................
Other leather and related products.
127.9
96.0
118.3
139.1
121.0
128.4
102.9
118.4
139.0
121.1
127.9
97.2
118.1
139.0
121.0
127.3
93.8
116.8
138.8
121.0
127.1
92.8
118.9
137.9
121.1
127.1
90.8
119.8
137.9
121.0
127.3
93.8
119.8
137.9
120.9
127.9
101.8
120.4
137.8
120.4
128.5
106.6
120.4
138.4
120.0
126.8
99.4
118.2
136.9
119.9
126.7
101.1
117.3
136.9
119.8
126.6
102.8
119.6
135.9
119.2
126.5
108.9
119.7
135.0
118.5
05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7
Fuels and related products and power___
116.9
181.6
163.4
143.7
109.5
111.6
109.9
113.7
181.6
163.4
142.4
109.0
103.3
105.4
112.6
181.0
163.4
143.0
108.0
103.3
103.8
111.0
165.3
141.0
142.9
106.1
103.3
103.8
109.6
157.8
141.0
137.2
105.5
103.3
103.1
108.9
155.5
141.0
137.0
104.8
103.3
102.4
108.6
152.8
139.6
136.3
104.3
104.5
102.2
109.1
146.9
139.6
136.1
104.2
104.5
104.2
107.5
145.9
139.6
136.2
103.7
104.5
101.3
106.3
133.4
126.9
135.0
103.6
104.5
100.8
106.4
131.7
126.9
135.2
103.6
104.5
101.2
105.6
125.4
126.9
132.4
103.4
104.5
101.0
106.1
124.6
126.9
131.8
103.4
104.5
102.2
125 8
116.9
119.9
133.2
116.9
104.6
116.2
122.0
124.5
102.7
103.7
101.8
06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7
Chemicals and allied products.......................................................................
101.6
98.8
123.3
92.7
95.7
122.7
92.6
80.6
118.6
101.6
98.9
123.2
92.6
95.5
123.2
92.7
80.5
118.5
101.4
98.9
123.2
91.0
95.1
117.4
92.7
81.3
118.4
100.9
98.7
122.8
91.1
94.8
104.0
92.2
81.1
118.5
101.1
98.6
122.8
91.6
95.5
112.0
91.6
80.6
118.5
100.9
98.8
122.8
91.5
95.0
107.7
91.0
80.8
118.4
100.5
98.0
122.8
91.8
94.8
108.1
91.8
80.2
117.8
100.6
98.2
122.8
93.2
94.7
106.8
91.7
80.6
117.7
100.4
97.9
122.8
92.6
94.7
107.6
92.4
81.1
116.8
100.0
97.3
122.8
92.6
95.0
102.2
92.0
81.2
116.5
99.5
97.7
122.0
92.8
94.6
94.3
91.4
80.3
115.7
99.1
97.9
121.7
93.4
94.5
95.0
87.6
80.0
115.5
98.8
97.8
120.3
93.4
94.6
92.8
86.7
80.1
115.1
98.3
97.7
119.2
92.8
93.8
88.7
89.8
80.7
112.9
07
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-21
Rubher and plastic products............................................................................
106.0
Crude rubber................................................... 85.2
Tires and tubes................. ............................ 107.5
Miscellaneous rubber products....................... 120.0
Plastic construction products (Dec.1969 = 100). 95.2
105.7
84.8
107.5
120.0
94.7
106.1
84.9
107.5
120.2
95.5
106.0
85.5
107.5
119.6
95.5
106.3
85.7
107.5
118.7
97.0
105.6
86.0
107.5
116.5
96.8
104.1
86.8
101.7
115.7
97.4
104.2
87.1
101.7
115.7
97.6
104.2
87.5
101.7
114.3
98.7
104.4
87.6
101.7
114.3
99.1
104.6
89.4
101.7
114.3
99.1
104.7
89.3
101.7
114.0
99.8
104.5
88.1
101.7
113.4
100.0
102.1
89.4
98.2
110.8
08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4
Lumber and wood products.............................................................................
117.1
Lumber............................................................ 120.4
Millwork.......................................................... 127.9
93.3
Plywood........................................................
Other wood products (Dec. 1966 = 100).......... 119.9
117.9
121.6
128.0
94.3
119.2
119.2
123.4
128.3
96.3
119.2
120.4
124.1
129.7
98.9
119.2
120.2
123.0
131.0
99.0
119.4
119.6
121.8
131.1
98.5
119.4
120.2
123.0
131.1
98.5
119.3
121.0
124.3
131.1
99.5
119.3
120.1
123.5
130.8
97.2
119.3
119.5
123.3
130.7
94.5
119.5
120.2
124.1
130.7
96.3
119.5
121.6
126.9
131.5
95.5
119.5
122.5
128.2
131.7
96.9
118.4
132.0
142.6
132.2
109.3
114. 8
Coal.............................................
Coke...................... .....................
Gas fuels (Jan. 1958 = 100)____
Electric power (Jan. 1958=100).
Crude petroleum..................... .
Petroleum products, refined___
Industrial chemicals........................................
Prepared pain t............. .................................
Paint materials......... ......................................
Drugs and pharmaceuticals............................
Fats and oils, inedible........................... .........
Agricultural chemicals and chem. products..
Plastic resins and materials......... .................
Other chemicals and allied products..............
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1 1 4 WHOLESALE PRICES
27.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
Wholesale price index,1 by group and subgroup of commodities—Continued
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]2
1970
Codo
1969
Commodity Group
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Pulp, paper, and allied products..................... ......... 112.6
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding build
ing paper and board.................... .............. 113.4
Woodpulp........ ....................................... ....... 109.6
Wastepaper.___ _____________ ____ _ 84.7
Paper... ............................... ....... ............ . 123.3
94.5
Paperboard__________ _____ ___ _
Converted paper and paperboard products... 113.9
Building paper and board________ _______ 92.2
112.8
113.0
112.4
112.3
112.5
1 12 .2
112.3
112.5
1 1 2 .1
113.5
109.6
85.6
123.3
94.5
114.1
92.7
113.8
109.6
113.2
109.6
90.0
123.1
97.2
114.0
92.7
122.6
113.3
109.6
95.3
121.9
95.5
113.7
93.2
113.0
105.0
99.0
121.7
95.5
113.6
93.3
113.0
105.0
104.2
113.2
105.0
108.5
112.9
104.7
108.5
95.9
113.3
92.8
113.1
109.6
92.6
122.5
95.5
113.2
93.1
96.7
113.4
93.3
97.0
113.5
93.4
97.0
112.9
92.9
Metals and metal products___ __ ___ _________
Iron and steel____________ ____ _____
Steel mill products......... ................ ..........
Nonferrous metals... .................................
Metal containers.................. ................... ....
Hardware...................................................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings_______
Heating equipment_____ . . . ...................
Fabricated structural metal products______
Miscellaneous metal products............... .....
127.4
120.7
123.5
141.1
129.6
130.6
125.1
104.5
120.3
134.0
128.0
120.7
123.4
144.3
129.6
130.3
124.4
104.6
119.9
134.0
129.0
128.7
120.9
129.0
120.4
129.1
123.5
147.5
129.7
128.4
125.0
104.6
128.8
120.3
122.8
122.8
120.2
122.0
127.8
117.3
118.7
157.1
125.0
125.2
123.2
101.3
116.4
127.5
127.0
117.7
118.4
153.4
125.0
124.9
100.5
116.0
127.1
99 9
114 6
125.2
99.7
114.0
124.9
99 7
113 7
124.5
Machinery and equipment........................... ........
Agricultural machinery and equipment____
Construction machinery and equipment____
Metalworking machinery and equipment___
General purpose machinery and equipment..
Special industry machinery and equipment
(Jan. 1961 = 100)____________ _____
Electrical machinery and equipment_______
Miscellaneous machinery.............. .....
127.2
142.4
147.3
142. 5
132.9
126.5
141.0
146.5
142.0
132.0
122 8
121
136
130
138
138.6
110.1
126.4
13? 8
infi ?
Dec
Annual
average
1969
Jan.
Dec.
1 1 1 .8
1 1 1 .1
109.5
108.2
112.5
104.7
108.2
121.5
97.1
111.8
110 .1
103.7
107.5
120.3
96.0
111.9
93.4
98.0
106.7
117.4
96.0
110.7
93.9
108.6
98. 0
108.3
116 6
94 4
108 8
97.1
124.9
114.6
115.5
152.8
123.8
113 9
116 4
150 1
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES—Continued
09
09-1
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2
10
10 -1
86.8
121.6
121.6
121.6
1 1 2 .2
93.0
133.5
148.4
126.1
128.0
127.0
103.8
119.6
133.1
151.1
126.1
127.1
124.8
103.4
119.4
131.6
152.6
126.1
126.3
125.1
103.3
119.1
131.2
155.0
125.0
125.9
124.7
102.4
118.1
130.4
128.7
118.9
120.5
157.2
125.0
125.4
124.0
101.7
117.3
128.3
126.0
139.5
145.0
141.9
131.7
125.3
138.4
142.2
141.5
130.6
124.8
137.6
141.6
141.5
130.1
124.7
137.4
141.2
142.2
129.8
124.1
137.1
141.0
141.7
128.2
123.7
137.4
140.9
141.3
127.9
123.4
137.3
140.8
140.3
127.6
123.1
137.1
140.6
139.8
127.1
137J!
140J
139 3
l?fi s
122.5
136.7
140.2
138.6
126.1
137.1
109.8
125.3
137.0
109.5
124.5
135.8
109.4
124.0
135.4
108.8
123.2
135.1
108.6
123.0
134.3
108.2
123.1
134.0
107.5
122.9
133.6
107.3
122.8
133.6
107.2
122.3
133.4
106.9
121.7
133.3
106.8
121.5
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6
Furniture and household durables........... .................... 109.9
Household furniture...................................... 127.2
Commercial furniture ..... ............................. 130.5
Floor coverings....... ..................................... 93.2
96.0
Household appliances....... .....................
77.8
Home electronic equipment_____ ___
Other household durable goods............ ......... 137.5
109.6
126.9
130.2
93.0
95.7
77.8
136.8
109.2
126.6
128.7
92.9
95.5
77.4
136.6
109.0
126.5
128.4
92.7
95.0
77.2
136.5
108.9
126.6
128.4
92.7
95.1
77.2
135.8
108.8
126.3
127.6
92.7
94.9
77.2
135.8
108.6
126.0
127.6
92.6
94.9
77.0
135.5
108.3
125.9
125.1
92.8
94.9
77.0
135.3
108.3
125.6
125.1
93.1
94.8
77.0
135.6
108.1
125.3
124.9
93.4
94.7
77.2
134.6
107.9
125.1
124.5
93.5
94. 4
134.8
107.5
124.3
124.4
93.5
94.4
77.2
133.0
13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9
Nonmetallic mineral products............... .....................
Flat glass................ .............. .........................
Concrete ingredients_______ _____ ______
Concrete products................... .....................
Structural clay products exc. refractories__
Refractories______________ _________
Asphalt roofing.................. ............................
Gypsum products............ .........................
Glass containers....... .................................. .
Other nonmetallic minerals______________
120.0
122.3
119.3
120.7
122.9
132.7
100.6
97.8
125.7
119.7
119.5
122.1
119.5
120.1
122.4
132.7
99.5
98.7
125.7
117.3
119.1
122.1
122.7
119.8
122.2
125.7
96.2
99.8
120.9
116.9
118.7
122.1
122.6
119.7
122.0
125.7
95.3
99.2
120.9
114.8
118.5
122.1
122.4
118.9
121.3
125.7
93.6
104.7
120.9
114.6
118.1
122.1
122.4
118.3
121.3
125.7
92.0
100.7
120.9
113.9
117.9
121.6
122.3
118.1
121.2
125.8
92.7
100.7
120.9
113.7
117.9
121.1
122.1
117.4
121.2
126.1
95.1
104.0
120.9
113.7
117.8
121.5
121.9
117.2
120.9
125.9
95.1
105.6
120.9
113.5
117.3
119.9
120.8
117.0
119.8
125.4
97.8
107.0
120.9
112.4
116.9
119.0
120.6
116.4
119.4
125.1
100.8
108.3
120.9
111.0
116.5
118.4
120.1
115.9
119.4
123.5
101.8
107.3
120.9
111.0
114.5
117.8
116.7
114.2
118.5
120.9
104.3
116.1
110.6
112.8
114.6
115.6
112.2
117.0
115.1
98.3
106.4
116.1
109.1
14
14-1
14-4
Transportation equipment (Dec. 1968=100)_______ 108.9
Motor vehicles and equipment...................... 115.9
Railroad equipment (Jaii. 1961 = 100)______ 121.0
108.5
115.3
120.4
108.2
115.0
120.2
103.6
109.7
119.5
103.3
109.5
119.3
103.2
109.4
119.3
103.3
109.5
119.3
103.2
109.4
119.0
103.1
109.3
118.8
103.2
109.4
118.7
102.9
109.1
117.7
102.9
109.1
117.4
102 7
109 0
115.7
100.7
107.0
112.4
15
15-1
Miscellaneous products............................. ..................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammuni
tion __ _______ _____ ___________
Tobacco products____ __ ___________
Notions______________________
Photographic equipment and supplies...........
Other miscellaneous products.............
122.3
122.2
122.0
121.9
121.5
121.4
121.0
118.2
117.8
117.8
117.5
117.4
117.0
114.7
116.9
132.1
110.8
117.5
119.8
116.8
132.1
110.4
117.5
119.4
117.0
132.1
110.4
117.3
118.8
116.4
132.1
110.4
117.5
118.8
116.2
131.8
109.8
117.2
118.3
115.9
131.7
109.8
117.0
118.2
115.8
132.3
109.4
116.1
116.8
115.1
124.1
109.0
116.2
116.6
115.0
124.1
109.0
116.2
115.0
115.3
124.1
109.0
115.9
114.8
114.2
124.0
109.0
115.8
114.8
114.1
124.0
107.2
115.7
115.1
112.7
124.0
107.2
115.3
114.9
111.3
120.8
103.6
113.0
113.1
10-13
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
11
11-1
1 1 -2
11-3
11-4
11-6
11-7
11-9
12
1 2 -1
12-2
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-9
121.6
120 .1
1As 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
122.8
122.8
126.1
117. 0
117.7
152. 8
125.0
124 7
122 8
n j2
120.6
124.2
122.8
120 6
123 0
122 8
9
4
8
0
8
121.0
lf)7 ?
j?3 6
1 ?d 1
93 1
93 g
77! 8
133.3
10 1.2
118 9
111 0
113 7
137 4
IliJ
120 5
118 7
07 fi
1119
122.0
119
13?
135
133
1?1
O
8
5
4
4
128.7
104.8
118.1
106.1
122.3
120.0
94.1
93.0
78 2
130.6
2 As 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,
1966), Chapter 11.
WHOLESALE PRICES 1 1 5
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
28.
Wholesale price index for special commodity groupings 1
[1957-59 = 100, unless otherwise specified]*
1969
1970
Commodity group
Annual
average
1969
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
All commodities—less farm products------------All foods______ _____ ___ _____ ____ _
Processed foods..- ________ ________
119.0
120.8
122.0
118.9
122.0
124.1
118.9
121.3
124.5
118.4
124.3
125.6
118.1
122.3
125.9
118.1
124.9
126.7
117.6
123.5
125.2
117.4
122.8
124.6
117.2
123.2
125.4
116.8
124.9
125.7
116.6
124.5
124.6
116.3
125.0
124.5
115.4
123.3
122.8
113.4
119.0
119.9
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).................
97.9
87.7
117.1
109.9
117.7
113.9
106.8
100.0
107.9
98.2
91.7
117.3
105.4
120.3
104.9
99.5
98.7
105.1
98.6
91.7
117.3
103.8
118.1
104.8
98.1
95.0
103.6
99.2
92.1
117.0
103.8
118.1
105.5
98.5
95.0
102.3
99.6
92.2
117.0
103.1
116.7
106.3
98.9
92.3
101.3
99.6
92.2
117.0
102.4
115.0
104.7
97.8
92.3
101.3
99.9
92.2
116.9
102.2
113.2
101.4
97.5
94.8
100.9
100.2
92.3
116.7
104.2
110.2
111.7
99.6
94.8
101.8
100.4
92.3
116.7
101.3
103.6
98.5
98.6
94.0
99.3
100.6
92.4
116.4
100.8
103.4
99.2
99.3
92.2
96.8
101.0
92.8
116.4
101.2
103.4
102.2
99.3
91.2
98.0
101.3
92.8
116.2
101.0
103.4
101.2
98.4
92.5
98.0
101.0
92.7
115.9
102.2
103.4
103.9
100.7
92.5
99.1
101.0
92.7
115.0
101.8
103.4
102.0
100.7
93.0
97.5
Pharmaceutical preparations__________
Lumber and wood products excluding
millwork and other wood products3___
Special metals and metal products4. ........
Machinery and motive products................
Machinery and equipment, except elec
trical....................... ................ ..............
Agricultural machinery, including tractors.
Metalworking machinery------------ -------Total tractors............. ......................... .......
Industrial valves____________________
Industrial fittings......................................
Construction materials_______________
97.7
97.5
97.0
96.8
97.7
97.1
96.9
96.9
96.8
97.4
97.0
97.0
97.1
96.3
114.0
124.7
123.8
115.1
124.9
123.2
117.0
125.3
122.8
118.2
123.3
120.4
117.5
123.2
120.0
116.5
123.3
119.8
117.4
123.4
119.5
118.6
123.1
119.3
117.3
122.5
119.0
116.4
122.0
118.9
117.5
121.4
118.6
119.3
120.6
118.4
120.6
119.9
117.9
134.6
116.0
115.3
138.1
144.9
151.6
137.1
143.4
151.1
136.5
141.7
151.1
135.5
140.5
151.0
135.0
139.8
149.7
134.9
139.6
149.7
134.3
139.4
149.0
134.1
139.8
148.3
133.7
139.7
147.1
133.3
139.6
146.6
132.9
139.7
146.0
132.6
139.3
145.2
131.9
139.1
144.6
128.1
135.2
140.5
149.8
134.5
127.7
111.5
118.1
148.4
134.5
127.7
111.5
118.3
146.3
134.5
127.7
111. 5
118.8
143.5
134.3
127.3
109.7
118.9
142.9
134.3
127.3
107.1
119.2
142.6
133.7
127.7
107.1
118.8
142.6
131.8
124.2
107.1
118.6
142.8
131.2
124.2
107.1
118.5
142.8
130.1
124.2
107.1
118.0
142.9
130.0
124.2
107.1
117.5
143.0
129.4
124.2
107.1
117.4
142.8
128.5
123.2
107.1
117.4
142.5
127.3
119.4
107.1
116.9
138.1
124-2
115.9
103.3
117.7
'See footnote 1, table 27.
2See footnote 2, table 27.
3 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.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
1 1 6 WHOLESALE PRICES
29.
Wholesale price index,1 by stage of processing
[1957-59=100] J
1970
1969
Commodity group
Annual
average
1969
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb
Jan.
Dec.
A L L C O M M O D I T I E S ......................................................— -
117.8
117.7
117.8
117.8
117.2
117.7
117.0
116.8
116.6
116.6
116.4
116.0
115.1
C R U D E M A T E R IA LS F O R F U R T H E R PR O C E S S I N G _______________________________
108.2
108.3
110.9
112.5
110.9
113.8
113.0
112.8
113.4
114.2
113.0
110.7
109.9
107.9
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs_____ _____ ____
107.6
108.2
111.4
114.4
112.4
116.6
114.8
114.4
115.3
117.3
115.5
112.9
112.2
110.4
Nonfood materials except fuel_____ ______
102.9
101.2
121.5
101.9
100.1
121.5
103.6
102.0
121.5
103.9
102.4
121.3
103.6
102.0
121.0
104. 4
102.9
121.0
105.9
104.6
120.7
106.9
105.6
120.3
107.0
105.8
120.2
106.6
105.6
118.0
106.9
105.9
117.5
105.3
104.3
116.4
104.2
103.2
115.3
102.0
101.0
114.0
Manufacturing industries................
Nonmanufacturing industries........
146.8
136.8
160.3
145.9
135.6
159.6
146.2
136.1
159.8
139.7
131.7
150.3
136 9
130.0
146 1
135.9
129.3
144.8
134.4
128.1
143.0
131.8
126.2
139.2
131.5
126.0
138.8
125.2
121.5
130.3
124.7
121.2
129.4
122.2
119.6
125.8
121.5
118.8
125.0
117.6
116.0
119.8
I N T E R M E D I A T E M A T E R I A L S ,S U P P L I E S A N D
C O M P O N E N T S _____ ___________________
117.2
117.1
117.1
116.8
116.6
116.4
115.9
115.7
115.3
114.8
114.7
114.4
113.5
111.8
115.5
122.9
115.8
125.0
116.0
124.5
115.7
124.0
115.8
124.2
115.7
124.3
115.4
123.0
115.3
122.5
115.0
123.4
114.4
122.9
113.9
121.5
113.6
121.1
112.9
119.9
110.8
116.8
102.6
102.5
102.7
102.5
102.8
102.6
102.4
102.8
102.7
102.4
102.3
102.3
101.6
101.2
123.6
122.4
124.3
122.0
125.0
122.0
124.8
121.6
125.3
120.8
125.5
120.3
125.6
119.7
125.4
119.0
124.5
118.7
123.4
118.3
122.7
118.0
122.1
117.7
121.4
117.0
118.1
114.0
Materials and Componentsfor Construction..
119.2
119.2
119.7
119.7
119. 6.
119.1
118.9
118.6
118.2
117.7
117.3
117.3
116.8
116.9
Processed fuels and lubricants..................................
113.6
115.5
110.6
112.0
115.0
107.2
110.4
113.7
105.3
108.7
111.3
104.6
106.4
109.0
102.3
105.5
108.2
101.3
104.8
107.6
100.4
105.1
107.3
101.6
103.6
106.7
98.8
103.0
106.1
98.3
103.0
106.0
98.3
102.4
105.3
97.8
102.7
105.1
99.0
100.9
103.1
97.4
Manufacturing..................................
Construction__________________
Crude fuel___________________________
Materials and Components for Manufacturing_____________ _____ ______
Materials for food manufacturing...
Materials for nondurable manufacturing_____________________
Materials for durable manufacturin g .......................... ............... .
Components for manufacturing----
Manufacturing industries................
Nonmanufacturing industries..........
113.0
Containers__________ ________ _______
120.5
120.8
119.9
118.7
118.7
119.1
118.7
118.5
118.5
118.1
117.6
116.2
114.8
113.3
Supplies____________ _____ __________
Manufacturing industries................
Nonmanufacturing industries____
Manufactured animal feeds____
Other supplies______________
123.3
123.3
122.5
126.3
116.6
122.0
122.8
120.9
121.7
116.6
121.2
122.1
120.0
120.2
116.0
121.7
121.7
121.0
123.6
115.7
120.8
121.9
119.5
120.2
115.3
120.7
122.3
119.2
119.4
115.2
118.9
122.1
116.8
112.9
114.8
118.3
121.9
116.0
111.4
114.5
118.5
121.7
116.4
113.2
114.2
117.6
121.1
115.4
110.7
113.9
120.1
120.9
119.1
122.8
113.4
119.7
120.5
118.6
123.7
112.3
116.9
119.4
115.1
114.1
111.8
114.4
117.0
112.5
110.6
109.8
F I N I S H E D G O O D S (Including Raw Foods and
Fuels)____ ____________________ ________
120.6
120.5
120.0
119.9
119.1
119.7
119.0
118.7
118.6
119.0
118.8
118.8
118.0
115.3
118.2
121.5
120.1
121.7
118.3
111.8
118.2
122.6
116.0
123.8
117.4
111.8
117.8
121.9
108.1
124.5
117.1
111.6
118.1
125.1
120.7
125.9
116.8
108.4
117.2
123.3
107.6
126.2
116.4
108.3
118.0
125.9
118.3
127.3
116.0
108.3
117.3
124.2
115.4
125.8
115.9
108.1
117.0
123.6
115.0
125.2
115.6
108.0
116.8
124.1
114.3
125.9
114.9
107.8
117.4
126.0
123.3
126.4
114.7
107.8
117.3
125.9
128.0
125.4
114.6
107.6
117.3
126.4
131.6
125.3
114.2
107.4
116.5
124.5
129.5
123.5
114.1
107.2
114.0
120.3
117.5
120.7
112.3
105.8
128.3
133.6
123.4
127.5
132.7
122.5
127.0
132.4
121.9
125.3
131.3
119.8
124.9
130.9
119.4
124.6
130.6
119.2
124.2
129.9
119.0
124.0
129.5
118.8
123.7
129.1
118.7
123.5
128.9
118.5
123.1
128.4
118.2
122.9
128.0
118.0
122.3
127.5
117.4
119.3
124.1
114.7
Crude materials for further processing, excluding
crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs, plant and animal fibers, oilseeds and leaf tobacco...............
119.8
118.2
120.6
118.7
117.2
118.0
119.5
120.0
120.3
118.5
118.5
116.0
114.5
110.5
Intermediate materials supplies and compo
nents, excluding intermediate materials for
food m fg., and m fr.’d animal feeds ......................
116.3
116.3
116.3
116.0
115.8
115.6
115.4
115.2
114.7
114.2
113.9
113.5
112.9
111.3
Consumer finished goods, excluding consumer
foods_________________________________
115.9
115.3
115.1
113.6
113.3
113.1
112.9
112.7
112.2
112.1
111.9
111.7
111.5
109.9
Consumer Goods______________________
Foods....................... .......................
Crude...........................................
Processed............... ......................
Other nondurable goods..................
Durable goods___________ _____
Producer Finished Goods_______________
Manufacturing industries..............
Nonmanufacturing industries____
S P E C I A L G R O U P IN G S
1 See footnote 1, table 27.
2See footnote 2, table 27.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: For description of the series by stage of processing, see Wholesale Prices
and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final).
WHOLESALE PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
30.
117
Wholesale price index,1 by durability of product
[19 5 7-5 9 = 10 0 11
1969
1970
Commodity group
All commodities............................ .......................................................
Total durable goods__________ ___
Total nondurable goods................. .
Total manufactures________________________
Durable________________________
Nondurable____________________
Total raw or slightly processed goods...............................
Durable________________________
Nondurable..........................................
1969
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
J u ly
Ju n e
May
A p r.
Mar.
Feb.
Ja n .
Dec.
117.8
123.0
114.0
117.7
122.9
113.9
117.8
123.0
114.0
117.8
121.9
114.8
117.2
121.7
113.9
117.7
121.6
114.8
117.0
121.5
113.8
116.8
121.3
113.6
116.6
120.9
113.6
116.6
120.5
113.9
116.4
120.0
113.9
116.0
119.6
113.4
115.1
119.0
112.4
113.0
116.6
110.3
118.7
123.2
114.3
118.7
123.0
114.4
118.6
123.0
114.4
118.2
121.8
114.6
118.0
121.6
114.4
118.0
121.5
114.5
117.4
121.3
113.6
117.1
121.0
113.4
116.9
120.5
113.4
116.6
120.1
113.2
116.4
119.7
113.2
116.1
119.4
113.0
115.3
118.8
111.9
113.3
116.6
110.1
112.7
112.7
112.8
112.2
113.9
112.2
113.0
121.5
112.6
115.4
122.8
115.0
112.6
121.2
112.1
115.7
124.4
115.2
114.7
128.9
113.9
114.5
131.9
113.6
114.7
131.9
113.8
116.3
134.0
115.3
116.0
133.8
115.1
114.8
128.9
114.1
113.9
125.3
113.3
110.9
115.8
110.7
1See footnote 1, table 27.
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).
2 See footnote 2, table 27.
31.
Annual
average
Industry-sector price index for the output of selected industries1
11957-59=100 unless otherwise indicated]
SIC
Code
1969
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.2
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Annual
aver
age
1969
1970
1963
Other
bases
Industry
M IN IN G
m i
1211
1311
1421
Anthracite. ______
__________
Bituminous coal. ___ . . . . . . . . _____
Crude petroleum and natural gas_____
Crushed and broken stone. . ______
134.8
185.8
117.6
120.3
134.8
185.8
110.3
120.3
126.8
185.8
110.5
120.3
124.0
168.9
110.4
120.1
118.4
161.3
110.5
120.1
118.4
158.8
110.4
120.0
116.8
155.9
111.2
120.0
116.8
149.6
111.2
119.5
119.3
148.2
111.2
119.4
119.3
134.6
111.0
116.6
119.3
132.7
111.0
116.3
119.3
125.9
111.0
115.1
118.4
124.9
110.9
114. 5
109.0
116.7
110.0
113.4
1442
1475
1476
1477
Construction sand and gravel_________
_ __
Phosphate rock___ ______
Rock salt_________________________
Sulfur___________________________
130.0
117.6
113.1
83.5
130.1
117.6
113.1
83.5
130.0
117.6
113.1
91.8
129.8
117.6
113.1
91.8
129.0
117.6
113.1
91.8
129.0
117.6
113.1
91.8
128.4
147.4
113.1
91.8
128.3
147.4
113.1
96.0
128.0
147.4
113.1
93.9
126.7
147.4
107.0
100.1
125.8
147.4
107.0
104.2
124.7
147.4
107.0
115.8
123.0
147.4
107.0
115.8
121.4
147.4
105.5
154.4
2011
2013
2015
2021
2033
Meat slaughtering plants..
____ __
Meat processing plants...
... ......
Poultry dressing plants_____
___
Creamery butter___ _ . __ . . . . . .
Canned fruits and vegetables..
.. _
12/66
12/66
102.3
103.6
86.4
112.6
112.9
107.8
106.4
96.9
111.0
113.3
110.3
110.5
95.8
111.0
113.2
114.6
112.1
101.3
111.3
114.0
117.2
115.0
97.0
110.7
113.2
120.6
117.5
100.9
110.6
112.4
117.9
117.7
96.2
110.7
111.8
115.9
119.3
101.3
110.8
111.4
118.5
121.2
100.9
110.6
110.6
120.1
124.4
107.5
105.1
109.9
116.8
123.3
105.0
104.9
110.0
117.5
119.7
111.4
104.7
109.6
114.0
121.3
105.7
106.3
109.8
112.8
113.1
101.7
104.7
108.4
2036
2044
2052
2061
2062
2063
Fresh or frozen packaged fish________
Rice milling___ _____ ____
Biscuits, crackers and cookies_______
Raw cane su g ar..
....
Cane sugar refining..
..
. . .
Beet sugar________ ___ _______
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
165.3
96.0
117.2
113.8
114.8
114.8
152.8
96.0
116.4
112.4
114.6
114.6
144.7
94.2
116.4
114.5
114.8
114.9
148.4
93.1
115.5
114.4
114.8
114.4
150.9
93.1
115.5
115.3
113.6
112.5
150.9
93.1
115.5
114.6
113.5
112.4
150.7
93.1
115.5
115.5
113.6
112.5
145.6
93.1
115.5
114.5
110.7
110.2
147.4
93.1
115.5
111.0
110.3
109.3
147.9
93.1
112.4
111.0
110.3
109.3
155.9
93.1
110.5
112.2
110.5
108.0
155.3
93.1
109.7
113.9
110.8
108.0
150.8
94.0
109.7
107.0
108.9
106.1
144.0
93.6
105.8
108.5
106.9
105.1
2073
2082
2083
2084
2091
2092
Chewing gum______________
Malt liquors__
___________
Malt_______________
Wines and brandy____ . . . . .
Cottonseed oil mills____
___
Soybean oil mills.. ________
120.4
112.2
94.1
123.7
115.0
107.2
120.3
111.2
94.1
121.7
114.1
106.1
120.3
110.7
94.1
121.7
109.3
103.3
120.2
110.5
94.1
118.8
113.1
102.7
120.1
109.6
94.1
118.8
117.7
101.5
117.1
109.4
94.1
118.8
115.9
99.4
106.3
109.1
94.1
118.8
111.3
93.9
106.2
109.2
94.1
118.8
108.9
92.2
106.2
108.2
94. 1
118.8
108.4
98.6
106.2
107.4
94.1
118.8
105.0
93.6
106.2
107.3
94.1
118.8
108.4
101.6
106.2
107.4
96.8
118.3
109.0
95.9
106.2
107.3
96.8
118.3
99. 4
88.6
106.1
106.3
96.8
116.3
95.1
2094
2096
2098
2111
2121
2131
Animal and marine fats and oils..
Shortening and cooking oils..
____
Macaroniand noodle products__
Cigarettes. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cigars___ _ _ _
______
Chewing and smoking tobacco______
12/66
117.5
120.7
106.6
134.0
107.5
155.1
117.7
122.5
104.6
134.0
107.5
155.1
111.4
118.6
104.6
134.0
107.5
155.1
105.5
115.3
104.6
134.0
107.4
155.1
114.9
115.5
104.6
133.9
107.2
151.4
110.5
114.1
104.6
134.0
107.1
146.3
110.5
114.1
104.6
134.7
107.3
146.4
110.9
114.1
104.6
125. 1
107.3
142.3
113.3
114.7
104.6
125.1
107.2
142.3
109.6
113.7
104.6
125.1
107.2
142.3
111.5
108.6
104.6
125.1
107.2
141.4
105.2
108.3
101.9
125.1
106.8
141.4
96.4
108.8
101.9
125.1
107.3
141. 4
94.5
103.8
101. 5
121.9
104.3
137.2
2254
2272
2311
2321
2322
2327
Knit underwear mills_____ _ _____
Tufted carpets and rugs_________
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
108.6
94.3
149.5
124.4
111.9
108.7
94.1
148.6
123.9
108.2
108.6
94.1
147.0
123.7
110.4
108.0
108.7
94.1
146.1
123.6
110.4
107.8
108.9
94.2
145.7
123.6
109.8
105.7
108.8
93.9
145.4
123.6
109.8
107.9
108.5
94.1
143.9
123.3
109.6
107.7
108.5
94.5
143.9
123.0
109.6
107.5
108.4
94.9
143.7
123.1
109.6
107.5
108.4
95.1
143.6
122.6
109.5
107.4
108.2
95.1
142.7
122.6
109.4
107.3
107.8
1 1 1 .0
108.7
94.0
149.3
124.2
111.8
108.2
142.7
122.1
109.1
106.9
107.0
96. 0
137. 3
119. 6
107.7
1Ü5.8
2328
2381
2426
2442
2515
Work clothing_____ . . . .
Fabric dress in d work gloves____ ____
Hardwood dimension and flooring_____ 12/66
Wirebound boxes and crates____ _ . . . 12/67
Mattresses and bedsprings______ _ __ 12/66
125.3
136.9
109.6
116.5
109.2
125.0
136.4
111.8
114.8
109.2
124.9
136.4
113.5
114.8
109.2
123.5
138.2
113.7
114.8
109.1
123.1
137.3
113.7
114.8
109.2
122.9
137.3
113.2
114.4
109.0
123.1
137.3
114.4
113.6
108.9
121.6
137.3
114.4
113.6
108.9
121.2
137.3
113.1
113.6
108.9
120.9
137.3
113.8
113.4
108.8
120.1
137.3
115.2
113.4
108.8
119.8
136.2
116.8
113.0
108.8
119.1
137.1
116. 5
110. 7
108. 2
117.6
132. 8
118. 2
108. 2
108. 2
2521
2647
2654
Wood office furniture_____________
Sanitary paper products_____________
Sanitary food containers_____________
143.3
12/66 121.1
12/66 . 104.7
142.2
121.2
103.5
140.9
121.2
103.2
140.6
118.7
102.8
140.6
117.9
102.5
140.6
118.0
102.5
140.6
118.3
102.4
140.5
118.0
102.5
140.5
117.9
102.5
140.5
117.5
102.5
140.1
117.0
102.4
139.8
116.9
101.6
139.2
115.3
101.3
134.6
112.2
M A N U FA C T U R IN G
See footnotes a t 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
1 1 1 .8
95. 6
86. 5
1 1 8 WHOLESALE PRICES
31.
Industry-sector price index for the output of selected industries l—Continued
1963
SIC
Code
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
Industry
1970
Other
bases
1969
Annual
1969
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.2
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
96.0
95.4
95.3
96.0
95.4
95.3
96.0
95.4
95.6
96.1
95.5
96.0
96.1
95.7
96.0
96.2
95.7
96.0
96.2
95.9
96.0
96.2
95.9
96.0
96.2
95.8
96.0
96.0
95.8
96.0
95.9
95.7
96.0
96.0
95.7
96.0
96.0
95.6
96.0
95.7
95 7
96'. 0
91.0
98.2
119.4
104.6
119.2
122.7
91.1
98.5
119.0
100.5
j 19.3
122.9
91.1
98.5
119.0
99.1
119.0
122.6
90.8
97.9
118.6
99.0
117.7
122.5
89.1
97.1
118.6
98.5
119.8
122.8
88.2
95.1
118.6
97.9
120.7
122.5
88.3
95.2
118.6
97.6
120.7
121.6
88.2
95.1
118.6
99.4
121.3
120.8
88.3
95.1
118.6
96.8
121.2
120.7
88.2
95.1
118.5
96.3
119.0
120.5
88.3
94.4
118.4
96.7
118.2
121.1
86.6
90.7
117.8
96.6
120.4
117.6
85.0
90.6
117.1
97.8
120.4
118.3
93 1
92 7
116 4
97 4
120 4
114.9
M A N U F A C T U R IN G -C o n tin u e d
2822
2823
2824
Synthetic rubber___________________
Cellulosic man-made fibers_______ _ _
Organic fibers, noncellulosic__________ 12/66
2871
2872
2892
2911
3111
3121
Fertilizers________________________
Fertilizers, mixing only___. . . _______
Explosives. .
_
_____
Petroleum refining______ . . . ___ _
Leather tanning and finishing________
Industrial leather belting___ _______
3221
3241
3251
3255
3259
Glass containers.. . _________ ______
Cement, hydraulic________ ________
Brick and structural clay tile.
Clay refractories_____ . . . ____ __
Structural clay products, nec_________
125.7
114.0
131.9
138.4
120.5
125.7
114.3
130.9
138.4
120.3
120.8
120.5
130.7
131.5
120.3
120.8
120.5
130.2
131.5
120.3
120.8
120.5
128.7
131.5
120.4
120.8
120.5
128.7
131.5
120.4
120.8
120.5
128.7
131.6
120.0
120.8
120.5
128.7
132.0
120.0
120.8
120.3
128.3
131.7
119.6
120.8
120.3
127.3
131.2
117.2
120.8
120.3
126.4
130.9
117.1
120.8
120.4
126.4
129.0
117.2
116.1
114.9
125.1
126.2
116.4
116 1
114 0
123 3
119 7
115.3
3261
3262
3263
3271
3273
3275
3312
3315
Vitreous plumbing fixtures___________
Vitreous china food utensils______ . .
Fine earthenware food utensils____ . . .
Concrete block and brick.. _________
Ready mixed concrete... ___________
Gypsum products__________________
Blast furnace and steel mills_____ _ .
Steel wire drawing, etc_____ . . . . . .
102.8
152.3
135.7
121.6
122.6
98.4
123.4
114.4
101.9
152.3
133.1
121.6
122.1
99.3
123.4
114.1
101.9
149.4
133.0
121.2
121.8
100.4
123.3
114.0
105.4
149.4
133.0
121.2
121.5
99.7
122.2
113.8
105.3
149.4
133.0
120.4
120.8
105.1
121.7
113.4
105.3
149.4
133.0
120.5
120.0
101.2
121.7
113.0
104.7
149.4
133.0
120.8
119.6
101.2
121.0
112.5
104.7
149.4
133.0
120.7
119.0
104.5
119.4
112.5
104.6
149.4
133.0
120.4
118. 7
106.0
117.8
110.5
104.6
146.2
132.8
118.7
118.7
107.4
117.2
109.8
104.6
146.2
132.8
118.1
118.0
108.7
116.4
110.1
104.6
143.7
131.2
117.6
117.3
107.7
114.6
109.3
104.6
143.7
131.2
115.4
115.7
104.7
115.3
108.6
101 7
138 4
128 1
114 3
113.3
106 7
112 6
106.5
3316
3317
3321
3333
3334
3339
3351
3352
3411
Cold finishing of steel s h a p e s ...............
Steel pipe and tu b e ..._____________
Gray iron foundries_________________
Primary zinc_____________ _________
Primary aluminum_________________
Primary nonferrous metals, nec______
Copper rolling and drawing__________
Aluminum rolling and drawing_______
Metal cans........... ................................ .
12 68
12/66
119.4
115.3
111.8
104.3
118.0
128.4
155.8
108.6
117.6
119.3
115. 5
111.7
104.3
118.0
132.7
162.7
108.8
117.7
119.4
115.5
111.1
105.1
118.0
139.3
162.5
109.3
117.8
119.4
115.5
108.4
105.6
118.0
146.0
163.4
109.0
113.9
119.4
115. 5
108.1
109.2
118.0
149.6
173.0
109.0
113.9
119.3
115.3
107.8
109.4
118.0
150.0
174.2
109.0
113.9
118.6
115.2
106.9
109.5
118.0
151.2
177.7
109.0
113.9
116.3
114.9
106.9
109.5
118.0
153.7
177.8
108.9
113.9
114.8
111.7
106.3
109.6
118.0
157.2
176.2
108.3
113.9
114.7
110.7
105.5
109.6
114.0
156.7
172 0
107.4
113.9
114.7
110.6
103.9
107.9
114.0
140.2
175.8
107.4
113.8
112.1
110.6
103.6
108.1
114.0
140.3
176.7
107.4
109.0
113.6
110.5
101. 8
107.7
114.0
134.8
171.4
107.8
109.0
110.1
107 8
101.7
101.6
110.3
125. 5
155.6
104.6
108.7
3423
3431
3493
3496
3498
3519
Hand and edge to o ls ..........................
12/67
Metal plumbing fixtures...........................
Steel springs___ _____ ____________ 12/66
Collapsible tubes______________ ____
1958
Fabricated pipe and fittings . . . ___ _
Internal combustion engines...............
12/66
117.6
100.7
110.7
109.5
142.0
117.0
117.4
99.7
110.7
109.5
137.5
116.4
116.8
99.8
110.5
109.8
137.5
115.6
116.4
102.9
109.9
106.1
137.5
114.1
115.7
102.5
109.8
106.5
134.3
113.6
114.6
102.6
109.3
106. 5
132.9
113.2
113.7
102.2
108.8
106.6
132.3
112.5
113.5
101.3
108.5
106.6
132.3
112.7
113.4
101.2
108.0
106.6
132.2
112.7
113.3
100.5
107.4
106.4
132.2
112.6
112.6
100.4
107.4
104.4
132.2
112.1
111.4
100.4
107.4
104.4
132.2
111.9
110.8
100.4
107.2
103 8
130.9
110.9
107 8
97.8
106. 5
103 4
128. 5
108.7
3533
3534
3537
3552
3562
3572
Oil field machinery................ .................
Elevators and moving stairways_______
Industrial trucks and tractors________
Textile machinery__________________
Ball and roller bearings. ___________
Typewriters____ ____ _____________
12/69
12/66
12/66
132.0
118.5
139.1
105.4
113.2
103.6
131.1
118. 5
138.3
104. 4
110.7
103.6
130.8
118.5
137.8
104.1
110.6
104.0
130.1
116.8
137.7
103.3
108.9
104.4
129.1
116.8
137.7
103.1
107.6
104.5
129.3
116.8
137.7
103.0
107.6
104.5
128.8
115.6
135.4
102.7
107.5
104.6
127.4
115.6
135.4
102.2
107.5
104.6
126.9
115.6
135.3
101.8
107.5
104.6
126.4
114.7
134.3
101.4
107.4
104.1
125.9
114.7
134.3
101.0
107.3
103.9
125.4
114.7
134.0
100.9
107.2
103.9
125.1
110.5
134.0
100.0
105.7
103.9
121.4
106.2
130.8
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
135.5
104.0
114.2
112.0
100.2
110.5
135.4
104.3
114.4
111.7
100.2
106.6
135.4
104.3
114.0
111.5
100.2
106.6
135.4
103.2
113.9
111.5
100.2
106.4
135.1
103.2
112.8
105.4
100.2
106.6
135.1
103.1
111.4
105.2
100.2
106.4
135.0
103.0
109.9
105.2
100.1
106.0
135.9
102.7
109.1
105.2
100.1
106.1
135.8
102.8
108.6
105.2
100.1
105.8
134.7
102.9
108.0
105.2
100.1
104.6
134.7
100.9
107.5
105.2
100.1
101.9
133.3
100.9
107.1
105.2
99.9
101.7
133.4
100.3
107.1
104.8
99.9
98.4
129.6
101.3
105.0
102.9
99.8
101.4
3652
3671
3672
3673
Phonograph records________________
Electron tubes, receiving type________
Cathode ray picture tubes.......................
Electron tubes, transmitting__________
12/66
12/66
12/66
124. 1
133.5
90.2
108.7
124. 1
134.0
89.1
108.2
124.1
133.8
88.5
104.0
124.1
133.8
88.4
103.9
123.5
127.4
88.5
104.0
123. 5
127.4
88.1
103.5
123.5
127.5
88.2
104.3
123.5
121.4
88. 1
104.2
123.5
121.4
87.5
103.8
123.5
121.4
87.5
103.7
123.5
121.4
87.5
103.8
123.5
121.3
87.5
103.4
123.5
121.2
87.5
103.2
122.7
117.3
89.7
102.6
3674
3692
3693
3941
Semiconductors_____________ ____
Primary batteries, dry and wet.............
X-ray apparatus and tubes________
Games and toys________ _________
91.1
117.9
122.8
117.0
91.3
117.9
122.8
117.0
91.2
117.9
121.2
117.0
91.4
117.9
121.2
117.0
91.4
117.9
121.2
117.0
91.4
117.5
121.6
117.0
91.6
117.2
121.0
117.0
91,4
116.9
121.5
115.7
92.2
116.5
119.3
115.7
92.7
116.4
119.1
115.6
92.7
116.1
118.8
113.8
92.8
115.4
119.1
112.5
92.7
115.4
117.4
112.1
92.6
114.9
113.1
111.3
12/66
12/66
12/66
1958
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/68
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/67
12/66
1 For a description of the series, see B LS 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.
2 Current monthly industry-sector price indexes are not available for this issue. At
the beginning of each calendar year, changes in the sample for some indexes must be
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
102.7
102.0
made and necessary internal reweighting accomplished; this has caused the delay.
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.
LABOR-MANAGEMENT DISPUTES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
32.
119
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)
Man-days idle during month or year
In effect during
month
(thousands)
Number
(thousands)
t
Percent of esti7
mated working
time
38,000
116,000
34,600
34,100
50,500
0.31
1.04
.•30
.28
.44,
2,410 ........................... i
2,220
3, 540 ........ r r . ............ I
2,400
1,530
38,800
22, 900
59,100
28, 300
22,600
.33
..is
.48
.22
.18
4,320
3i 825
3! 673
3| 694
3j 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
I960
1961
196?
1969
1964
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
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970 v
3,963
4i 405
4| 595
5,045
5; 700
5 ; 600
1,550
1,960
2,870
2,649
2, 481
3,300
23, 300
25,400
42,100
49,018
42, 869
62,000
.15
.15
.25
.28
.24
.34
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
1950
1951
195?
19**
1954
4, 843
4| 737
5,117
5| 091
3|468
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
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
April...................... .
May......... ..................
J u n e ...................... .
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
J u ly ............. ............
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: January...... ................
February__________
March____________
342
385
436
511
578
651
184.9
177.1
158.1
264.3
339.9
386.3
3,173.3
3,565.8
2,412.5
.21
.18
.16
April________ _____
May______________
June______ ____ _
578
723
565
831
1,054
911
309.7
286.3
214.6
462.3
507.7
500. 0
3, 755. 0
4, 744. 7
4, 722. 7
July_______ _______
August. . . . ___ - .
September................ ..
528
538
554
883
915
904
255.0
191.2
185.6
461.5
394.8
274.5
4,311.0
3,634.3
2,193. 4
.24
.32
.31
.27
.24
.15
October. _________
November.. . . . ___
December_________
531
324
196
850
611
446
337.0
131.0
50.8
420.9
367.6
276.0
3,167. 5
4, 307.6
3,881.8
.19
.31
.24
1970: January”. _________
February”. . ............. .
March”______ ____ _
260
290
390
420
460
570
55
106
294
233
296
364
3,730
1,820
2,230
.25
.13
.14
April ”. . .
___ _
May ”____________
June ”. .......... ............
600
750
600
490
420
550
410
270
160
810
960
840
319
309
212
4,181
7,516
5, 040
750
700
810
650
510
370
192
135
539
159
72
449
385
470
428
354
202
655
608
469
527
.26
.52
.31
.28
.18
. 50
.65
. 45
. 15
July ” ____________
August ”.....................
September j>_...........
October” _____ ____
November”_______
December»________
'T he 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
4,378
2,800
7,625
10, 056
6,458
2,438
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,
^Preliminary.
120
33.
PRODUCTIVITY
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, FEBRUARY 1971
Output per man-hour, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, private economy, seasonally adjusted
[Indexes 1957-59=100]
Output
Output per
man-hour
Man-hours
Compensation
per man-hour ‘
Year and quarter
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
110.6
109.5
110.3
Private
nonfarm
Private
115.5
114.9
115.3
116.1
132.4
134.7
135.2
135.3
Private
nonfarm
Private
128.4
129.8
130.9
130.9
147.6
150.4
152.4
154.3
Real compensa
tion per
man-hour2
Private
nonfarm
Private
143.3
145.6
147.8
149.7
Unit labor
costs
Private
nonfarm
Private
128.7
130.3
130.6
131.1
125.0
126.0
126.6
127.2
Unit nonlabor
payments2
Private
nonfarm
Private
111.5
111.7
112.8
114.1
111.7
112.1
113.0
114.4
117.7
118.8
119.9
120.6
Implicit price
deflator4
Private
nonfarm
Private
117.9
118.8
120.3
120.8
113.8
114.3
115.5
116.5
farm
1967: 1st qtr..............
2d q tr .............
3d qtr...............
4th q tr.............
146.4
147.5
149.1
150.1
148.2
149.1
150.9
152.0
Ann. Avg.....................
148.3
150.1
110.3
115.4
134.4
130.0
151.2
146.6
130.1
126.2
112.5
112.8
119.2
119.4
115.1
115.2
1st qtr_______
2d qtr_______
3d q tr... ____
4th q t r . . . ........
152.4
155.1
156.7
157.9
154.3
157.4
159.0
160.1
111.3
112.3
112.9
113.2
116.5
117.7
118.5
118.9
136.9
138.1
138.8
139.5
132.4
133.7
134.2
134.6
158.5
160.8
164.1
167.5
153.6
155.7
158.4
161.7
133.3
133.7
134.7
135.9
129.2
129.5
130.1
131.3
115.8
116.5
118.2
120.1
116.0
116.5
118.1
120.2
120.4
122.3
122.0
122.3
120.8
122.7
122.6
122.7
117.5
118.7
119.6
120.9
117.8
118.8
119.7
121.1
Ann. Avg........ .............
155.5
157.7
112.4
117.9
138.3
133.7
162.8
157.4
134.4
130.0
117.7
117.7
121.7
122.1
119.2
119.3
1st q t r . . . ........
2d qtr...............
3d qtr_______
4th qtr ______
159.0
159.8
160.9
160.4
161.1
162.4
163.4
163.1
114.2
115.1
115.3
114.8
120.1
121.2
121.7
121.4
139.3
138.9
139.5
139.7
134.1
134.0
134.2
134.3
170.0
172.4
175.9
179.6
163.9
166.2
169.2
172.4
136.3
136.0
136.8
137.8
131.5
131.1
131.6
132.2
122.1
124.2
126.1
128.6
122.2
124.1
126.1
128.4
122.8
123.2
123.6
123.3
123.0
123.0
123.5
123.2
122.4
123.8
125.2
126.6
122.5
123.7
125.1
126.4
Ann. Avg.....................
160.0
162.5
114.9
121.1
139.3
134.2
174.5
167.9
136.8
131.6
125.3
125.2
123.2
123.2
124.5
124.5
1st qtr............
2d q t r . . . . ........
3d qtr_______
159.2
159. 5
160.1
161.9
162.1
162.8
114.7
113.8
113.1
121.4
120.4
119.6
138.9
140.1
141.6
133.3
134.6
136.1
182.6
185.0
188.5
175.1
177.7
181.0
138.0
137.6
138.6
132.3
132.1
133.1
131.5
132.0
133.1
131.4
132.0
133.0
122.7
125.3
127.5
122.0
124.9
127.4
128.3
129.5
131.0
127.9
129.4
131.0
- 1 .6
2.9
5.2
1.8
2.3
1.9
4.0
3.8
3.2
2.1
3.9
3.9
0.0
6.4
- 0 .4
0.4
3.3
4.1
3.3
4.4
3.5
3.5
3.2
4.6
1.1
0.0
1.5
4.8
3.9
4.7
4.3
1968:
1969:
1970:
1 1 1 .0
114.0
114.6
115.6
116.7
Percent change over previous quarter at annual rate«
1967:
1968:
1969:
1970:
1st qtr..............
2d qtr_______
3d qtr_______
4th qtr_______
- 1 .3
3.0
4.3
2.9
- 2 .2
2.5
4.8
2.9
0.0
- 3 .8
2.9
2.5
- 0 .3
- 2 .1
1.6
2.7
- 1 .3
7.0
1.4
0.3
- 1 .8
4.6
3.2
0.3
3.1
7.8
5.4
5.1
4.3
6.3
6.3
5.4
2.4
4.8
1.2
1.6
3.6
3.4
2.0
1.9
4.4
0.7
4.0
4.7
6.2
1.6
3.1
5.1
- 1 .0
1st qtr_______
2d qtr_______
3d qtr...............
4th qtr.......... .
6.1
7.2
4.3
3.1
6.2
8.2
4.2
2.8
1.1
3.7
2.0
1.2
1.5
4.2
2.8
1.3
4.9
3.4
2.2
1.8
4.6
3.9
1.4
1.4
11.2
6.1
8.4
8.5
10.6
5.7
7.0
8.7
6.7
1.2
3.1
3.6
6.2
0.9
1.9
3.8
6.0
2.6
6.0
6.5
5.7
1.8
5.5
7.2
- 0 .8
6.6
1st q tr..............
2d qtr_______
3d qtr_______
4th qtr..............
2.8
2.1
2.5
3.4
3.3
0.9
- 1 .8
4.2
3.6
1.9
- 0 .5
- 1 .1
1.6
0.8
- 1 .5
- 0 .4
0.6
0.3
6.2
5.9
8.2
8.8
5.5
5.8
7.3
7.7
1.2
0.5
- 1 .0
2.6
3.1
2.5
- 0 .6
7.1
6.3
6.6
7.3
1.4
1.5
1.1
- 0 .8
1st qtr...............
2d q t r . . . ..........
3d qtr_______
- 3 .0
0.7
1.6
- 2 .9
0.4
1.7
- 0 .5
- 3 .0
- 2 .6
- 2 .5
3.7
4.3
- 2 .9
3.9
4.5
6.8
5.3
7.7
6.6
5.9
7.9
- 1 .0
- 0 .1
- 3 .3
- 2 .7
3.8
3.9
2.3
- 1 .0
1.1
2.3
3.0
1.4
1.9
6.7
7.1
6.5
7.9
- 1 .0
4.7
4.9
4.5
4.7
0.5
- 1 .1
3.1
0.3
- 0 .6
3.2
9.6
1.5
3.3
9.8
1.9
3.2
- 2 .0
8.6
7.3
- 3 .8
9.8
8.5
5.3
4.1
4.7
4.8
4.6
5.0
- 1 .0
- 1 .0
Percent change over previous year «
1969:
1st qtr..............
2d qtr..........
3d qtr_______
4th q t r . . ..........
4.3
3.1
2.7
1.6
4.4
3.2
2.8
1.9
2.6
2.5
2.2
1.4
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.1
1.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
1.3
0.2
0.0
- 0 .2
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.3
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.6
2.3
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.3
1.2
0.7
5.4
6.6
6.7
7.1
5.4
6.5
6.8
6.8
2.0
0.8
1.3
0.8
1.8
0.2
0.7
0.4
4.1
4.3
4.6
4.7
4.0
4.1
4.5
4.4
1970:
1 stq tr..............
2d qtr________
3d qtr_______
0.2
- 0 .2
- 0 .4
0.5
- 0 .2
- 0 .4
0.5
- 1 .1
- 2 .0
1.1
- 0 .6
- 1 .8
- 0 .3
0.9
1.6
- 0 .6
0.5
1.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
6.8
6.9
7.0
1.2
1.2
1.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
7.8
6.3
5.5
7.5
6.4
5.5
0.0
1.7
3.2
- 0 .8
1.5
3.2
4.8
4.6
4.7
4.4
4.6
4.7
1 Wages and salaries of employees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance
and private benefit plans. Also includes an estimate of wages, salaries, and supple
mentary payments for the self-employed.
2 Compensation per man-hour adjusted for changes in the consumer price index.
2 Nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, rental income and
indirect taxes.
4 Current dollar gross product divided by constant dollar gross product.
1 Percent change computed from original data.
«Current quarter divided by comparable quarter a year ago.
NOTE: Data for 1967, 1968, 1969, and the first quarter of 1970 have been adjusted
to new benchmarks and are not comparable to those published in the Monthly Labor
Review prior to September 1970.
SOURCE: Output data from the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of
Commerce. Man-hours and compensation of all persons from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Scheduled release dates for major BLS statistical series, March 1971
Title
Employment situation....... .
Wholesale Price Index, final___
Consumer Price Index___
Wholesale Price Index, Preliminary
Work stoppages______
Factory labor turnover____
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Date of release
Period covered
March 5
February
February
February
March
February
February
MLR table
numbers
1-14
27-31
25-26
27-31
32
15-16
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1971
O — 4 1 2 -8 2 4
„ Boston
few York
Philadelphia
Chicago
Kansas City
San Francisco
Atlanta
Dallas
Your Bureau of Labor Statistics Regional Office
is prepared t o . . .
•
H elp you find th e in fo rm atio n you need a b o u t prices, em p lo ym e n t,
w a g e s , frin g e b en e fits , earnings, and o th e r c u rren t s ta tis tic a l series.
•
Explain w h a t th e d a ta m ean to your region, your industry,
you r labor m a rk e t.
•
H elp you use th e d a ta correctly.
D eliver th e in fo rm atio n pro m p tly.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
For the address of your nearest Bureau of Labor Statistics Regional Office,
see the inside front cover of this issue of the Monthly Labor Review.
t
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
C
Division of Public Documents
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20402
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
!
Postage and fees paid
U.S. Government Printing Office
FfI r ST CLASS MAIL]
I________________________________________________________ I
i
tC
>
f
<
Il
c
l
✓<•
K
ft
4
@FedFRASER