View original document

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

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

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

Monthly Labor Review
Bureau o f Labor Statistics
Washington, dc 20212
Telephone: (202) 6 9 1-5900
E-mail: mlr@bls.gov
Inquiries on subscriptions and circulation, including address
changes, should be sent to: Superintendent o f Documents
G overn m en t Printing O ffic e W ash in gton , dc 2 0 4 0 2
Telephone: (202) 512-1800
Subscription price per year— $45 domestic; $56.25 foreign.
Single copy— $13 domestic; $16.25 foreign. Make checks
payable to the Superintendent o f Documents.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the Monthly
Labor Review ( issn 0 0 9 8 -1 8 1 8 ) and other government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office, an
agency o f the U.S. Congress.
The Secretary o f Labor has determined that the publication o f
this periodical is necessary in the transaction o f the public
business required by law o f this Department. Periodicals
postage paid at Washington, dc , and at additional mailing
addresses.
U n le s s sta ted o th e r w is e , a rticles ap pearing in this
publication are in the public domain and may be reprinted
without express permission from the Editor-in-Chief. Please
cite the specific issue o f the Monthly Labor Review as the
source.
Information is available to sensory impaired individuals
upon request:
Voice phone: (202) 691-5200
Federal Relay Service: 1 -8 0 0 -8 7 7 -8 3 3 9 .
P ostmaster :
Send address changes to Monthly Labor
Review, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, dc
20402-0001.

Cover designed by Melvin B. Moxley


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

MONTHLY LABOR

REVIEW_______________________
Volume 125, Number 2
February 2002

Labor market in 2001: economy enters a recession

3

The crisis of September 11 exacerbated an already
weakened economy, resulting in downturns within several industries
David S. Langdon, Terence M. McMenamin, and Thomas J. Krolik

Measuring time use
The American Time Use Survey: cognitive pretesting

34

Pretesting has resulted in redesign of a number of questions;
further testing will ensure that the survey delivers high-quality data
Lisa K. Schwartz

Measuring time use in households with more than one person

45

The U.S. Government’s time-use survey does not provide information
on how nonmarket time is allocated between husbands and wives
Anne E. Winkler

Response to Anne E. Winkler

53

The Bureau’s current survey is constrained by data quality requirements
and budgetary limitations; however, the topic is on the agenda for 2002
Lisa K. Schwartz, Diane Herz, and Harley Frazis

Departments
Labor month in review
Precis
Book reviews
Publications received
Current labor statistics

3
60
61
63
65

Editor-in-Chief: Deborah P. Klein • Executive Editor: Richard M. Devens • Managing Editor: Anna Huffman Hill • Editors: Brian I. Baker,
Bonita L. Boles, Richard Hamilton, Leslie Brown Joyner, Lawrence H. Leith • Book Reviews: Roger A. Comer, Richard Hamilton
• Design and Layout: Catherine D. Bowman, Edith W. Peters • Contributors: Katie Kirkland, Sylvia Kay Fisher


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

Labor Month in Review

The February Review
The official first year of the 21 st century
was remarkably difficult. The end of the
first quarter marked the end of a record­
setting economic expansion. September
witnessed a series of terrorist attacks
that deepened and accentuated the en­
suing recession. By the fourth quarter,
the unemployment rate was higher than
it had been in more than 7 years. At the
time this is being written, payroll em­
ployment had continued to fall and job
losses over the period since March 2001
totaled 1.4 million.
D avid S. Langdon, Terence M.
McMenamin, and Thomas J. Krolik re­
port more completely on the labor mar­
ket in 2001. They find employment de­
clining in a wide range of industries,
earnings growth slowing in most occu­
pations, and joblessness rising for all
major demographic groups. One particu­
larly important development they note
was the relatively small share of job loss
accounted for by workers on temporary
layoffs and the continued increase in the
share accounted for by permanent sepa­
rations.
The remaining three articles discuss
time use surveys. Such surveys both
supplement our knowledge of the hours
spent at work and provide complemen­
tary information about how the rest of
our time is spent. Lisa K. Schwartz leads
with an account of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics testing the instruments and
methods proposed for the forthcoming
American Time Use Survey. Such test­
ing and improvement has become a
much more important part of survey de­
sign and helps avoid such problems as
ambiguous wording and awkward inter­
view procedures.
Anne Winkler and Lisa Schwartz,
Diane Herz, and Harley Frazis exchange
views on a specific issue in the design
o f the American Time Use Survey—the
use of “stylized” questions to measure
intrahousehold allocations o f time.
Winkler notes that the proposed survey
focuses exclusively on the single mem­

2

Monthly Labor Review


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

ber of a household that is the selected
respondent to the survey. As a result,
the survey cannot provide information
on how household members divide the
time they spend on household tasks.
Winkler goes on to suggest that devis­
ing questions to obtain this information
with sufficient accuracy from a single
respondent within the household is one
approach to the problem.
Schwartz, Herz, and Frazis, while
agreeing that intrahousehold time allo­
cation is an important and desirable da­
tum, point out that devising the instru­
mentation and procedure needed to
measure it well is not an easy task. In­
deed, they conclude, “[Tjhese measures
may be difficult to capture with the
present structure of the American Time
Use Survey within reasonable budget­
ary and data quality constraints.”
Readers should note that Professor
Winkler was afforded opportunities to see
the remarks by Schwartz et al prior to pub­
lication. As a result, many minor incon­
sistencies were avoided and the papers
were able to focus on the major issue.
However, the descriptions of the current
survey provided by Schwartz and her col­
leagues should be regarded as the view
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The
Bureau, they also note, is continuing to
explore methods for measuring the
intrahousehold allocation of time.

More mass layoffs in 2001
During 2001, 21,345 layoff events oc­
curred in the N ation, resulting in
2,496,784 initial claims filings for unem­
ployment insurance. Both the number of
events and the number of initial claim­
ants were the highest in the nearly 7year history of the program.
M anufacturing accounted for 42
percent of all mass layoff events and
49 percent of initial claims filed during
2001, the largest annual shares to
date. Initial claim filings were most
num erous in transportation equip­
ment (256,703), followed by electronic

February 2002

and o th er e le c tric a l eq u ip m en t
(167,125) and industrial machinery,
and equipment (146,265).
The number of initial claims filed in
2001 due to mass layoffs was higher in
the Midwest (841,597) than any other
region. Layoffs in transportation equip­
ment, industrial machinery and equip­
ment, and electronic and other electrical
equipment accounted for 39 percent of
the claims in the Midwest. The fewest
number of mass-layoff initial claims was
reported in the N ortheast region
(340,246). For more information, see
“Mass Layoffs in Decem ber 2001”
(news release USDL 02-44) and this
issue’s lead article on employment and
unemployment trends.

Union membership rate
steady in 2001
In 2001,13.5 percent of wage and salary
workers were union m em bers, un­
changed from 2000. The union member­
ship rate has fallen from a high of 20.1
percent in 1983, the first year for which
comparable union data are available.
In both 2001 and 2000, about 16.3 mil­
lion wage and salary workers were union
members. Nearly 4 in 10 government
workers were union members in 2001,
compared with less than 1 in 10 private
wage and salary workers. Protective ser­
vice workers, a group that includes po­
lice officers and firefighters, had the
highest unionization rate among all oc­
cupations, at 3 8 percent. More informa­
tion is found in “Union Members in
2001,” news release USDL 02-28.
□

C om m unications regarding the
Monthly Labor Review may be sent
to the Editor-in-Chief at the ad­
dresses on the inside front cover, or
faxed to (202) 691-5899. News re­
leases discussed in this issue are
available a t :
www.bls.gov/bls/newsrels.htm

U.S. labor market in 2001

U.S. labor market in 2001:
economy enters a recession
The year began with a weakening labor
market, in which manufacturing s downturn
spread into other sectors; unemployment climbed
from the historic lows reached
during the recent economic expansion
David S. Langdon,
Terence M.
M cM enam in,
and
Thomas J. Krolik

David S. Langdon is an
economist in the Divi­
sion of Current Employ­
ment Statistics, Terence
M. M cMenamin is an
economist in the Divi­
sion of Labor Force Sta­
tistics, and Thomas J.
Krolik is an economist in
the Division o f Local
Area Unem ploym ent
Statistics, Bureau of La­
bor Statistics,
e-mail:
langdon_d@ bls.gov;
mcmenamin_t@bls.gov;
and
krolik_t@bls.gov


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

he Nation’s longest postwar expansion
ended in 2001, as the U.S. economy entered
a recession in March 2001, after an unprec­
edented 10 years o f growth.1 Manufacturing’s
downturn started in late summer o f2000 and deep­
ened in 2001, as businesses sharply reduced spend­
ing on machinery, computers, and other capital
goods. However, retail sales and the housing mar­
ket, both of which tend to be highly cyclical, held
steady throughout most 2001. Consumers’ stead­
fastness did waver in the fourth quarter, as rising
unemployment coupled with the psychological and
economic effects of the tragic events of September
11 depressed consumer confidence.2
Nonfarm payroll employment fell 762,000, or
0.6 percent, in 2001. (See table 1.) Falling orders
led factories to cut more than 1 million jobs from
their payrolls. This retrenchment led to job losses
in wholesale trade and transportation, and to a
massive cutback in factories’ use of temporary help
services. Construction and retail trade had small
employment gains, as hiring early in the year barely
offset declines over the rest the year. Job cutbacks
in the travel industry intensified in the aftermath of
September 11. In contrast, health services and pub­
lic and private higher education stepped up hiring

T

in 2001.
The unemployment rate rose to 5.6 percent
in the fourth quarter o f2001, an increase of 1.6
percentage points from the 30-year low of 4
percent, in the fourth quarter o f2000. The num­
ber of unemployed persons, at nearly 8 million
in the fourth quarter of 2001, was up by more
than 2 million from a year earlier. More than
two-thirds of those who lost their jobs in 2001
considered their layoff to be permanent. Total
employment fell by more than 1.3 million in
2001, the first over-the-year decline since 1991,
and the downturn affected workers in a wide
range of occupations.
This article examines these and other devel­
opments affecting the national and State labor
markets in 2001. The data are primarily from
the Current Employment Statistics survey ( c e s )
and the Current Population Survey ( c p s ) . Both
are monthly surveys, although quarterly aver­
ages are used in this analysis, unless otherwise
noted. Over-the-year comparisons measure
changes from fourth quarter 2000 to fourth quar­
ter 2001, unless otherwise noted. See the box
on page 4 for an explanation of differences be­
tween the two surveys.
Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

3

U.S. labor market, 2001

Conceptual differences between employment estimates
from the Current Population Survey
and the Current Employment Statistics Survey
The Bureau of Labor Statistics produces two monthly em­
ployment series that are independently obtained: the esti­
mate of total nonfarm jobs, derived from the Current Em­
ployment Statistics ( c e s or establishment) survey, and the
estimate of total civilian employment, derived from the
Current Population Survey ( c p s or household survey).
The c e s survey is an employer-based survey that pro­
vides data on the number of payroll jobs in nonfarm indus­
tries. The c p s is a survey of households that provides data
on the labor force status (employed, unemployed, and not
in the labor force) of individuals, and includes information
on their demographic characteristics. The surveys are
largely complementary.
Employment estimates from the c p s include both agri­
cultural and nonagricultural sectors and count persons in
any type o f work arrangement: wage and salary workers,
self-employed persons, private household workers, and
unpaid workers who worked 15 hours or more in an enter­
prise operated by a family member. Estimates from the c e s
survey refer only to persons on wage and salary workers
payrolls and exclude private household workers. As a re­
sult, the count of employment from the c p s is larger than
from the c e s survey.
Partially offsetting the higher estimates from the c p s is

A confluence o f factors deepened manufacturing’s downturn
in 2001. While declining auto sales and unfavorable foreign
trade were early factors in the slowdown, declining business
investment, especially in information technology goods, be­
came the dominant factor later in the year. Manufacturing’s
downturn began in 2000, but worsened considerably in 2001.
This downturn followed a weak, short-lived period of expan­
sion in manufacturing. In the fourth quarter of 1999, employ­
ment had barely begun to recover from the losses associated
with the 1998 Asian currency crisis. Even during that period,
hiring was minimal, and by the third quarter of 2000, the job
losses resumed. In 2001, factories eliminated 1,204,000 jobs
while sharply reducing their output, thus sending capacity uti­
lization to its lowest levels since 1983.3 Although no single
factor caused the manufacturing downturn, two important
considerations were declining motor vehicle sales and increas­
ingly unfavorable foreign trade.
By late summer of 2000, U.S. automakers anticipated a
decline in overall demand for new cars and light trucks. They
responded by reducing both output and employment, and by
4

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

the fact that the c p s is a count of persons, and individuals
are counted only once, regardless of the number of jobs
they hold. In contrast, the c e s survey is a count of jobs and
includes each job for persons who work in more than one
establishment.
There are other differences in the surveys’ methodology
and coverage. For example, the reference period for the
c p s is the week that includes the 12th day of the month,
while, for the c e s survey, it is the pay period that includes
the 12th of the month. Pay periods vary in length and can
be longer than 1 week. It is therefore possible for the c e s
survey estimate of employment to reflect a longer refer­
ence period than that used for the c p s .
The “universe” for the c p s is the civilian noninstitutional
population. This includes persons 16 years of age and older
residing in the United States who are not confined to insti­
tutions (for example, correctional, psychiatric, and long­
term care facilities), and who are not on active duty in the
Armed Forces. In this regard, the coverage of the c e s sur­
vey is broader: there is no age restriction in the c e s , and
wage and salary civilian jobs held by uniformed military
personnel are counted, and persons who commute into the
United States from Mexico or Canada to work are counted
as employed.

sharply discounting new cars and light trucks. Although the
incentives did help 2000 to become the industry’s second
straight record sales year, the production cuts were not suffi­
cient enough to prevent overstocked inventories by year’s end.
Accordingly, automakers extended their price incentives into
2001 and held production well below its year-2000 pace.4
As automakers had anticipated, U.S. auto sales did initially
fall in 2001. Employment in motor vehicles continued to drop
as well, with the industry laying off 89,000 workers for the
year. Part of the job losses represented general cost cutting
measures, as opposed to further production cuts, among the
major automakers. These companies had seen their profits
decline in 2001, partly because of the incentive war they ini­
tiated in an effort to regain market share from their European
and Asian competitors. Most of the motor vehicle industry’s
job losses, however, came not from the assembly plants but
from their first-tier suppliers. These suppliers, such as engine
and brake manufacturers, restructured their operations when
it became apparent that auto production would not rebound
to its year-2000 levels, and when automakers began to de-

Table 1.

Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry, quarterly averages, seasonally adjusted, 1995-2001

(In thousands)

Change, fourth quarter to fourth quarter
Industry

Fourth
quarter,
1995

Fourth
quarter,
2000

Fourth
quarter,
2001

Annual average,
1995-2000

1999-2000

2000-2001

Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent

Total nonfarm...............................................
Total private................................................
Goods-producing......................................

117,951
98,627
24,298

132,264
111,669
25,704

131,502
110,480
24,590

2,863
2,608
281

2.3
2.5
1.1

2,157
1,925
136

1.7
1.8
.5

-762
-1,189
-1,114

-0.6
-1.1
-4.3

M ining.......................................................
Metal mining............................................
Oil and gas extraction.............................
Nonmetallic minerals, except fu e ls .........

573
52
315
105

549
40
320
114

567
34
338
113

-5
-2
1
2

-.9
-5.1
0.3
1.7

16
-2
24
0

3.0
-4.8
8.1
0

18
-6
18
-1

3.3
-15.0
5.6
-0.9

Construction...............................................
General building contractors....................
Heavy construction, except building.......
Special trade contractors.........................

5,235
1,219
760
3,256

6,777
1,547
909
4,321

6,850
1,559
939
4,352

308
66
30
213

5.3
4.9
3.6
5.8

238
64
22
151

3.6
4.3
2.5
3.6

73
12
30
31

1.1
0.8
3.3
0.7

Manufacturing............................................
Durable goods..........................................
Lumber and wood products...................
Furniture and fixtures..............................
Stone, clay, and glass products.............
Primary metal industries.........................
Fabricated metal products.....................
Industrial machinery
and equipment...................................
Computer and office equipment...........
Electronic and other electrical
equipment............................................
Electronic components and
accessories........................................
Transportation equipment.......................
Motor vehicles and equipment.............
Aircraft and parts...................................
Instruments and related products..........
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries..............................................

18,490
10,709
772
507
538
712
1,439

18,378
11,116
816
557
577
691
1,536

17,174
10,252
784
501
562
621
1,439

-22
81
9
10
8
-4
19

-.1
.7
1.1
1.9
1.4
-.6
1.3

-118
23
-24
5
4
-6
12

-.6
.2
-2.9
.9
.7
-.9
.8

-1,204
-864
-32
-56
-15
-70
-97

-6.6
-7.8
-3.9
-10.1
-2.6
-10.1
-6.3

2,098
359

2,121
365

1,918
338

5
1

.2
.3

4
2

.2
.6

-203
-27

-9.6
-7.4

1,641

1,738

1,501

19

1.2

63

3.8

-237

-13.6

599
1,766
971
430
845

707
1,820
992
463
864

592
1,704
903
455
843

22
11
4
7
4

3.4
.6
.4
1.5
.4

60
-55
-30
-15
17

9.3
-2.9
-2.9
-3.1
2.0

-115
-116
-89
-8
-21

-16.3
-6.4
-9.0
-1.7
-2.4

390

395

378

1

.3

2

.5

-17

-4.3

Nondurable goods....................................
Food and kindred products....................
Tobacco products....................................
Textile mill products................................
Apparel and other textile products.........
Paper and allied products.......................
Printing and publishing...........................
Chemicals and allied products...............
Petroleum and coal products.................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products..................................
Leather and leather products.................

7,781
1,702
42
644
902
689
1,543
1,035
142

7,262
1,680
32
514
610
654
1,541
1,038
127

6,922
1,688
33
448
535
626
1,454
1,024
127

-104
-4
-2
-26
-58
-7
0
1
-3

-1.4
-.3
-5.3
-4.4
-7.5
-1.0
0
.1
-2.2

-141
-13
-3
-31
-54
-8
-8
2
-2

-1.9
-.8
-8.6
-5.7
-8.1
-1.2
-.5
.2
-1.6

-340
8
1
-66
-75
-28
-87
-14
0

-4.7
.5
3.1
-12.8
-12.3
-4.3
-5.6
-1.3
0

978
102

997
69

928
60

4
-7

.4
-7.5

-18
-5

-1.8
-6.8

-69
-9

-6.9
-13.0

Service-producing......................................
Transportation and public u tilitie s...........
Transportation.........................................
Railroad transportation..........................
Local and interurban passenger
transit.....................................................
Trucking and warehousing....................
Water transportation..............................
Transportation by a ir .............................
Pipelines, except natural g a s ...............
Transportation services.........................

93,653
6,193
3,963
236

106,560
7,092
4,572
234

106,912
6,962
4,425
224

2,581
180
122
0

2.6
2.7
2.9
-.2

2,021
177
115
-2

1.9
2.6
2.6
-.8

352
-130
-147
-10

.3
-1.8
-3.2
-4.3

426
1,607
174
1,098
15
407

478
1,864
200
1,307
14
476

481
1,831
205
1,228
14
442

10
51
5
42
0
14

2.3
3.0
2.8
3.5
-1.4
3.2

2
30
13
61
1
11

.4
1.6
7.0
4.9
7.7
2.4

3
-33
5
-79
0
-34

.6
-1.8
2.5
-6.0
0
-7.1

See footnote at end of table.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

5

U.S. labor market, 2001

Table 1.

Continued— Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry, quarterly averages, seasonally adjusted, 1995-2001

(In thousands)

Change, fourth quarter to fourth quarter
Fourth
quarter,
1995

Industry

Fourth
quarter,
2000

Fourth
quarter,
2001

Annual average,
1995-2000

1999-2000

2000-2001

Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent
Communications and public utilities......
Communications....................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services.....

2,230
1,326
904

2,521
1,673
848

2,537
1,689
848

58
69
-11

2.5
4.8
-1.3

64
74
-11

2.6
4.6
-1.3

16
16
0

0.6
1.0
0

Wholesale trade........................................
Durable goods.........................................
Nondurable goods...................................

6,410
3,746
2,664

7,066
4,204
2,861

6,948
4,095
2,853

131
92
39

2.0
2.3
1.4

111
45
65

1.6
1.1
2.3

-118
-109
-8

-1.7
-2.6
-.3

Retail tra d e ...............................................
Building materials and garden
supplies...................................................
General merchandise sto re s.................
Department stores.................................
Food stores.............................................
Automotive dealers and service
stations...............................................
New and used car dealers......................
Apparel and accessory sto re s...............
Furniture and home furnishings
sto re s.................................................
Eating and drinking p laces.....................
Miscellaneous retail establishments......

21,314

23,394

23,404

416

1.9

325

1.4

10

0

872
2,688
2,356
3,393

1,011
2,829
2,484
3,528

1,012
2,765
2,417
3,537

28
28
26
27

3.0
1.0
1.1
.8

6
21
21
24

.6
.7
.9
.7

1
-64
-67
9

.1
-2.3
-2.7
.3

2,211
1,006
1,103

2,426
1,123
1,208

2,430
1,137
1,203

43
23
21

1.9
2.2
1.8

46
29
25

1.9
2.7
2.1

4
14
-5

.2
1.2
-.4

953
7,424
2,671

1,145
8,143
3,105

1,138
8,196
3,123

38
144
87

3.7
1.9
3.1

40
85
79

3.6
1.1
2.6

-7
53
18

-.6
.7
.6

Finance, insurance, and real estate........
Finance...................................................
Depository institutions...........................
Commercial banks.................................
Savings institutions...............................
Nondepository institutions.....................
Security and commodity brokers...........
Holding and other investment
offices.................................................

6,820
3,241
2,018
1,460
271
480
532

7,575
3,730
2,024
1,420
253
678
770

7,633
3,767
2,043
1,427
259
719
747

151
98
1
-8
-4
40
48

2.1
2.9
.1
-.6
-1.4
7.2
7.7

-1
29
-26
-36
-2
-25
60

.0
.8
-1.3
-2.5
-.8
-3.6
8.5

58
37
19
7
6
41
-23

.8
1.0
.9
.5
2.4
6.0
-3.0

211

258

258

9

4.1

20

8.4

0

0

Insurance..................................................
Insurance carriers...................................
Insurance agents, brokers,
and service...........................................
Real e sta te ...............................................

2,218
1,518

2,339
1,582

2,356
1,598

24
13

1.1
.8

-30
-27

-1.3
-1.7

17
16

.7
1.0

700
1,361

757
1,507

759
1,509

11
29

1.6
2.1

-3
2

-.4
.1

2
2

.3
.1

Services1...................................................
Agricultural services................................
Hotels and other lodging places............
Personal services...................................
Business services1..................................
Services to buildings.............................
Personnel supply services...................
Help supply services............................
Computer and data processing
services............................................
Auto repair, services, and parking.........
Miscellaneous repair services...............
Motion pictures........................................
Amusement and recreation services.....
Health services1......................................
Offices and clinics of medical doctors...
Nursing and personal care facilities.....
Hospitals................................................
Home health care services....................

33,591
592
1,677
1,165
6,999
891
2,531
2,238

40,838
811
1,937
1,262
9,922
998
3,858
3,443

40,942
842
1,852
1,280
9,389
994
3,302
2,936

1,449
44
52
19
585
21
265
241

4.0
6.5
2.9
1.6
7.2
2.3
8.8
9.0

1,177
29
69
26
346
5
100
61

3.0
3.7
3.7
2.1
3.6
.5
2.7
1.8

104
31
-85
18
-533
-4
-556
-507

.3
3.8
-4.4
1.4
-5.4
-.4
-14.4
-14.7

1,147
1,041
365
502
1,428
9,328
1,638
1,708
3,784
650

2,150
1,271
366
593
1,754
10,165
1,942
1,801
4,015
644

2,193
1,302
360
582
1,772
10,457
1,998
1,838
4,147
657

201
46
0
18
65
167
61
19
46
-1

13.4
4.1
.1
3.4
4.2
1.7
3.5
1.1
1.2
-.2

173
53
-3
-9
79
151
47
11
40
6

8.8
4.4
-.8
-1.5
4.7
1.5
2.5
.6
1.0
.9

43
31
-6
-11
18
292
56
37
132
13

2.0
2.4
-1.6
-1.9
1.0
2.9
2.9
2.1
3.3
2.0

Legal services.........................................
Private schools and other
educational services..........................

920

1,014

1,031

19

2.0

11

1.1

17

1.7

1,987

2,341

2,446

71

3.3

51

2.2

105

4.5

See footnote at end of table.

6

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

Table 1.

Continued— Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry, quarterly averages, seasonally adjusted, 1995-2001

(In thousands)

Change, fourth quarter to fourth quarter
Industry

Fourth
quarter,
1995

Fourth
quarter,
2000

Fourth
quarter,
2001

Annual average,
1995-2000

1999-2000

2000-2001

Thousands Percent Thousands Percent Thousands Percent
Social services1.......................................
Child day care services.........................
Residential care.....................................
Museums and botanical
and zoological gardens.....................
Membership organizations.....................
Engineering and management
services’ .............................................
Engineering and architectural
services............................................
Management and public relations........

2,363
564
653

2,960
727
820

3,101
756
854

119
33
33

4.6
5.2
4.7

130
38
35

4.6
5.5
4.5

141
29
34

4.8
4.0
4.1

82
2,163

108
2,485

111
2,505

5
64

5.7
2.8

6
29

5.9
1.2

3
20

2.8
.8

2,774

3,478

3,540

141

4.6

165

5.0

62

1.8

824
833

1,036
1,112

1,066
1,125

42
56

4.7
5.9

58
62

5.9
5.9

30
13

2.9
1.2

Government..............................................
Federal....................................................
Federal, except Postal Service............
State government....................................
State government, except education ....
State government education................
Local government...................................
Local government, except education ....
Local government education................

19,324
2,795
1,948
4,622
2,708
1,915
11,906
5,271
6,635

20,595
2,618
1,759
4,802
2,767
2,035
13,175
5,725
7,450

21,022
2,615
1,777
4,922
2,811
2,111
13,485
5,859
7,627

254
-35
-38
36
12
24
254
91
163

1.3
-1.3
-2.0
.8
.4
1.2
2.0
1.7
2.3

232
-28
-21
48
27
21
212
131
81

1.1
-1.1
-1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.6
2.3
1.1

427
-3
18
120
44
76
310
134
177

2.1
-.1
1.0
2.5
1.6
3.7
2.4
2.3
2.4

11ncludes other industries not shown separately.
N ote : December figures are preliminary.

mand lower prices for parts.5
The production cutbacks further affected second-tier sup­
pliers—that is, auto-related manufacturing industries, such as
automotive stampings and flat glass, which are not classified
within the same category as motor vehicles and equipment.
These auto-related industries, moving in step with the
automakers they serve, eliminated 9.5 percent o f their
workforce, or 29,000 workers.6
The difficulties for primary metals manufacturers, like
those o f the auto industry, date well before 2001, but wors­
ened in 2001. Employment followed that same pattern, fall­
ing by 70,000 in 2001, after having decreased slightly—6,000
jobs—the prior year. Certainly, the slowing auto industry hurt
demand for steel, but the underlying, and fundamental, prob­
lem facing the industry was tenacious foreign competition, a
by-product of the strong dollar.
The dollar rose in 2001 to a 15-year high as the U.S.
economy and currency inspired confidence in investors, es­
pecially relative to the Euro-zone and Japan.7 By raising the
relative price of U.S. goods abroad, the elevated exchange
rate could potentially hurt export-dependent industries. At the
same time, it also could lead to import substitution in the
United States by lowering the relative price of foreign goods
here—thus exacerbating the dwindling demand for goods
manufactured domestically.


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

Heavy foreign exports to the United States first began to
erode steel prices, and the profits o f U.S. steel companies, in
1998.8 Prices recovered somewhat in 2000, but falling do­
mestic demand for steel drove them back down in 2001. Be­
cause of falling profits, numerous U.S. steel companies filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, with Bethlehem Steel
marking the 20th bankruptcy filing in the industry since late
1998.9 Given the industry’s plight, in 2001, the International
Trade Commission initiated a review of the impact of steel
imports on U.S. manufacturers and found that 12 product
lines, covering 74 percent of imported steel, had been seri­
ously injured because of imports.10
Paper and allied products, like primary metals, suffered
from a combination of falling demand from other domestic
manufacturers and a worsening trade outlook—in this case,
falling export demand.11 At the same time that the economic
slowdown in the United States hurt domestic demand for con­
tainer board for shipping, exports of paper and allied prod­
ucts also fell sharply.12 As a result, this industry slashed
28,000 jobs, quadrupling its prior 6-year average declines.
The recession also cut into advertising revenue for all types
of media, including print media, a fundamental client o f pa­
per manufacturers.13 Job losses in printing and publishing
totaled 87,000 positions. Commercial printing and newspa­
pers accounted for most of the layoffs, although periodicals
Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

7

U.S. labor market, 2001

Chart 1.

Employment in

it

manufacturing, seasonally adjusted

Employment
in thousands

Employment
in thousands

1,400

1,300

1,200

1,100

N ote : Series includes Standard Industrial Classification (sic) codes 357 (computer and office equipment), 366 (communications

equipment) and 367 (electronic components and accessories).

and book publishing also experienced significant, and un­
usual, declines.
As manufacturing profits fell, so did outlays for capital
goods in 2001.14 With the recruiting difficulties firms had re­
cently faced still fresh in their minds, many considered it “less
painful” to slash capital spending, particularly on high-tech­
nology goods, before turning to their payrolls to cut costs.15
As a result, orders for machinery and computer equipment
slumped last year. For many industrial machinery manufac­
turers, weak exports only added to their woes. Overall em­
ployment in industrial machinery dropped by 203,000 jobs
last year, after having grown slightly in 2000. Since this in­
dustry alone accounts for 17 percent of the manufacturing job
losses in 2001, it is worth examining some of the specific
component industries.
Metalworking machinery had the bleakest employment
picture, reducing its ranks by 39,000. Although this industry
had been losing jobs since early 1998—coinciding with the
Asian financial crisis—the layoffs in 2001 easily exceeded
the prior years’ total. Total shipments dropped off by 12 per­
cent, with the foreign sales falling somewhat faster than sales
to U.S. customers.16
Job losses in construction machinery and general indus­
trial machinery, however, derived more from poor U.S. sales
8

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

than from foreign purchases. Indeed, despite rising exports of
construction machinery, total shipments turned downward in
2001, and employment dropped by 21,000 jobs. General in­
dustrial machinery saw its foreign shipments decline, but
this decline accounted for only a fraction of the industry’s
decline in sales. In other words, the drop in domestic demand
contributed to most of the job losses in general industrial
machinery. For 2001, this industry reduced its payrolls by
28.000 jobs, after having cut only 4,000 jobs in 2000.
Special industrial machinery exports and employment both
turned downward in 2001, partly because of this industry’s
ties to high-technology manufacturing. After bringing on
5.000 additional workers in 2000, the industry’s employment
shrank by 29,000 last year. The change in exports was even
more dramatic: after surging 42.2 percent in 2000, exports
slipped back 33.6 percent last year. Although exports to a
variety o f regions fell, Taiwan’s 63.3 percent and South
Korea’s 48.3 percent declines stand out, reflecting the sever­
ity of the information technology ( i t ) downturn in those coun­
tries.17
For producers o f it equipment such as computers, semi­
conductors, and communications equipment, orders dropped
late in 2000, sparking layoffs.18 For the year, i t manufactur­
ers reduced their ranks by 188,000 jobs, directly accounting

for 15.6 percent of manufacturing’s job losses. (See chart 1.)
In 1 year, these industries effectively reversed the net job gains
of the prior 6 years. Capacity utilization fell from a May 2000
high of 88.8 percent to a historic low o f 60 percent. Yet, as
fast as i t manufacturers cut output and payrolls, these cut­
backs still lagged behind the plummeting demand for their
products. The i t slump spread throughout and beyond
manufacturing. Within manufacturing, and aside from the
IT manufacturers already mentioned, the clearest impact was
experienced in miscellaneous electrical equipment and sup­
plies, which includes makers of magnetic and optical record­
ing media, and in measuring and controlling devices. Employ­
ment in the former declined by 21,000, after having declined
by 4,000 the previous year, while the latter eliminated 17,000
jobs, erasing its year-2000 gains.
Beyond manufacturing, the problems in i t involved the
telecommunications industry; indeed, it emanated largely
from the profit problems of telecom companies.19 These woes,
and the ensuing investment cutbacks, began prior to 2001,
although employment in telephone communications held firm
until the second quarter of 2001. The subsequent job losses
totaled 17,000. Although this decline is small, it is a contrast
to the industry’s 8-year expansion, during which employment
ballooned 34 percent to more than 1.1 million.
The rise and fall of the n a s d a q composite index perhaps
best captured the breadth and speed of i t ’ s rapid expansion
and subsequent contraction, given its role as a marketplace
for financing many Internet startups. In a short 10-month
span—between March 10, 2000 and the end of 2000—the
n a s d a q plunged more than 50 percent. Subsequently, equity
underwriting by investment banks slumped. As stock valua­
tions fell, investor interest in Internet ventures waned, and
the ventures’ falling liquidity stifled demand for semiconduc­
tors and other iT-related goods. Yet this slump in Internet in­
vestment did not immediately impact employment in security
and commodity brokers. It was merely symptomatic of
broader economic ills, which hurt the overall securities
industry’s revenues. Even as those ills wore away at the
strength o f the Standard & Poor’s 500 index and other broad
indices, the effect on brokerages’ hiring was not felt immedi­
ately, in part because firms were uncertain about how long
the downturn would last.20 Employment peaked in March
2001, and the first significant employment decline came in
May. For the year, employment in security and commodity
brokerages shrank by 23,000, its first contraction since the
1990 recession.
Manufacturing’s downturn spread deeply into the serviceproducing sector. The close and obvious ties manufacturing
maintains with trucking and warehousing and with wholesale
trade became especially evident as the economy entered re­
cession.21 For 2001, wholesale trade lost 118,000 jobs. Al­


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

though most component industries shrank, more than half of
the losses came in two industries: wholesale trade of profes­
sional and commercial equipment cut 36,000 positions and
electrical goods trimmed 35,000. These layoffs relate directly
to the slump in spending on information technology goods.
Employment decreased by 13,000 in machinery, equipment,
and supplies and by 5,000 in motor vehicles parts and sup­
plies, thus reflecting the downturn in industrial machinery and
in car and truck production. Nondurable goods wholesalers
reduced their ranks by 8,000 jobs in 2001, in contrast to the
prior year’s job growth of 65,000.
Trucking and warehousing cut 33,000 jobs in 2001, eras­
ing all of its year 2000 gains. Trucking companies had been
suffering since early 2000, as decreased truck tonnage, high
fuel prices, and poor used truck values bit into profits and
slowed employment growth.22 Truck tonnage bottomed at the
end of 2000 but recovered slightly in 2001,23 While manu­
facturers purchase 43 percent o f trucking services, other pur­
chasers are spread throughout the economy.24 That diversity
may have kept tonnage from falling even further in 2001, but
it could not allay a decline in employment.
In 2001, it became increasingly apparent that manufactur­
ing was relying heavily on temporary help services— an in­
dustry classified within the service sector. Just as the auto
industry increased its production flexibility and reduced risk
by shifting output from final assembly plants to suppliers
during the 1990s, many companies shifted part of their labor
input from their own payrolls to those of personnel supply
companies (which include agencies that provide temporary
staffing workers).25 That shift applies across the economy and
is an underlying force behind the industry’s 154 percent
growth from fourth quarter 1991 through fourth quarter 2000.
Hiring in personnel supply slowed sharply in mid-2000, and
by the fourth quarter, the temporary help industry’s employ­
ment trend had turned downward, coinciding with the accel­
erating layoffs in manufacturing. This trend continued
throughout 2001, and by the end of the year, personnel sup­
ply services had cut its payrolls by 556,000 jobs, or 14.4 per­
cent. No other industry cut even half that number of posi­
tions, and in percentage terms, only a handful exceeded per­
sonnel supplies’ 14.4-percent pace.26 Almost single-handedly,
this industry pushed services overall employment growth
down to 0.3 percent, its worst showing since 1944.
The employment growth slowdown in computer and data
processing services was even more abrupt than that experi­
enced by personnel services. The computer services industry
provides contract services to other business, including manu­
facturing firms. The expansion in computer services spans
the entire 30-year history of its employment series, but flat­
tened in the summer of 2001. Although computer services
employment ended the year up by 43,000, that annual job
growth pales when compared with the 177,000 averaged over

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

9

U.S. labor market, 2001

the previous 7 years.
The broad customer base and employment trends of man­
agement and public relations closely resemble those of com­
puter services.27 Job growth in management consulting es­
sentially stopped in March 2001, ending a nearly 10-year
expansion— during which employment had surged more than
80 percent. Over the rest of the year, these companies had
managed to keep their job numbers unchanged.
Employment growth slowed markedly in 2001, in another
industry that provides a service to businesses—engineering
and architectural services. This industry brought on 30,000
workers, reaching close to half its year-2000 gains. Still, those
gains easily bettered engineering and architectural services’
stagnant performance during the 1990-91 recession. The fact
that this industry sells most of its services to the construction
industry helped to insulate it from the general economic
downturn.28 Similar ties to the construction industry helped
manufacturing industries that produce building materials and
supplies. In these construction-related manufacturing indus­
tries, employment decreased by 72,000, or 4.1 percent, about
three-fifths the rate of overall manufacturing.29 To assess the
relative strength of these construction-related industries, it is
fundamental to analyze the unusual resiliency of the construc­
tion industry itself as the recession developed.
Low mortgage rates boosted the housing market and soft­
ened the slowdown in construction and real estate. Con­
struction employment continued growing throughout the first
quarter o f2001; this growth was helped by mild winter weather
across the Nation.30 Employment reached a plateau in mid­
year, reflecting the decay in private nonresidential construc­
tion activity. In contrast, residential building activity held
steady for much of the year, while public construction work
increased.31 For the year, employment in construction rose
by 73,000, with all of the growth occurring in the first quar­
ter. While that increase equals only approximately one-fourth
of the industry’s prior 8-year growth rate, it is unusually strong
for a recession year.
Heavy construction showed the greatest resiliency among
construction industries in 2001. The industry added 30,000
workers, equaling its prior 5-year average growth. Highway
spending continued to benefit from the $217 billion, 6-year
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st century.32 Last year’s
increased public spending on sewer systems and water supply
facilities— a related result of continued heavy construction
work— also provided many in the labor force with pro­
longed employment opportunities, even as the recession
deepened.33
In contrast, in 2001, the weakest area of construction was
private nonresidential building. As measured by value put in
place, nonresidential building peaked in mid-spring, but fell
10

Monthly Labor Review February 2002


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

sharply in summer, and by autumn had retreated to levels last
seen in 1996.34 As nonresidential construction activity dete­
riorated, its employment also fell, more than offsetting gains
from earlier in the year. As a result, employment declined by
6,000 over the year—an abrupt departure from the industry’s
average annual gains of 20,000 throughout its prior 8-year
expansion.
Hiring in special trade contractors closely paralleled that
of nonresidential building. Although employment growth held
steady in the first quarter, much of that growth diminished
throughout the following quarters. For the year, employment
in special trade contractors rose by 31,000, only a fraction of
the 200,000 new jobs it had averaged over the prior 8 years.
Sliding mortgage rates and steady consumer confidence
buttressed residential construction, at least until midyear.35
Average rates for conventional 30-year fixed-rate mortgages
peaked at 8.52 in May 2000, but fell more than 1.5 percent­
age points by the start o f2001. Most of the year, interest rates
hovered between 7.0 and 7.1 percent, while dipping down­
ward briefly again in autumn. These conditions revived
housing starts, which had begun to taper off in late 2000. Con­
sequently, employment in residential building contractors
inched upward in 2001, rising 18,000 for the year, versus
growth of 47,000 in 2000.
Sales of existing homes, like those of new homes, hovered
close to their prior 2 years’ levels for much o f 2001, and real
estate employment matched that flat trend. Although the me­
dian price of existing single-family homes continued to grow,
affordability rose as well, thanks to moderating mortgage
rates.36 Appreciating home values reinforced the investment
aspect of home buying, in sharp contrast to falling stock
prices.
Purchasing a home traditionally sparks a buying spree fo­
cused around furnishing the new abode. Conversely, slug­
gish home sales are reflected in decreased furniture sales. In
2001, furniture sales mirrored the plateau in home sales—
employment fell in both furniture manufacturing and retail­
ing. Furniture manufacturers’ troubles date from mid-2000,
when weakening profits led to cuts in production and em­
ployment, and the downturn intensified in 2001. Job losses
reached 56,000, the largest year-to-year employment decline
in the series’ 54-year history. The industry’s problems were
threefold: increasing competition from imports, in particular,
from China, whose furniture exports to the United States in­
creased 13.1 percent in 2001; the bankruptcy declaration of
Montgomery Ward and the closing of numerous J.C. Penney
stores, which eroded a significant share of the furniture mar­
ketplace; and consolidation among traditional furniture re­
tailers.37 Although sales in furniture stores held steady in
2001, the number of bankruptcy filings increased. The indus­
try had become increasingly fragmented in recent years, with

conventional furniture stores losing business to discount
furniture stores and manufacturer-controlled outlets.38 The re­
sulting consolidation dampened employment growth in furni­
ture and home furnishing stores, with payrolls expanding by
only 6,000 jobs last year, after having risen an average of
19,000 during each of the previous 8 years.
Declining mortgage rates benefited not only prospective
home buyers, but also homeowners who either wanted to tap
into their equity or to refinance and take advantage of lower
interest rates, which could result in lower mortgage payments.
Mortgage refinancing skyrocketed early in 2001, and again
in the summer, reaching year-to-year growth of more than 800
percent.39 This new activity, on top of the stable demand for
new mortgages, boosted hiring in mortgage bankers and bro­
kers by 32,000 workers last year, nearly compensating for the
layoffs it had experienced in 2000, when refinancing waned.
As sales growth slackened and competitive pressures intensi­
fied, employment gains in retail trade slowed sharply. Mort­
gage refinancing, spurred by declining mortgage rates and
appreciating home prices, and last summer’s Federal tax re­
bate most likely helped sustain consumer spending and, thus,
employment in retail trade through July 2001.40 The Septem­
ber 11th tragedy outweighed those positives, however, and
retail sales (excluding motor vehicles) did not completely
recover from the initial shock of the attacks.41 Retail trade
hiring reflected that pattern. While the industry as a whole
expanded through July, the subsequent layoffs were severe.
Moreover, stores delayed their traditional Christmas hiring,
adopting a “wait-and-see” attitude. For the year, retail trade
employment rose a mere 10,000— its worst showing since the
1991 recession.
Although that pattern applies to the retail sector in gen­
eral, the situation o f individual industries within that sector
varied, depending principally on their financial health earlier
in the year. For example, the ills of conventional department
stores date from well before 2001. Job losses in department
stores (which includes both financially troubled traditional,
or conventional, chains, as well as their more solvent discount
competitors) date from April 2000. Indeed, in 2000, discount
department stores enjoyed 7.7 percent sales growth while
conventional chains saw essentially no growth in sales.42 That
zero growth turned into a 5.5 percent sales decline in 2001, in
contrast to the 3.4-percent rise for discount chains. Post-Sep­
tember 11th sales figures highlighted this disparity even
more.43 Store closings and bankruptcy filings spanned all of
2001, and so did job losses. Department stores cut 67,000
jobs after having hired an average of 26,000 workers a year
during the prior 4 years.
As discount chains expanded the number of operating
stores, they also broadened the scope of their product offer­


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

ings. As a result, their influence affected other sectors, in­
cluding furniture and home furnishings, as discussed previ­
ously, and food stores. Despite relatively stable sales growth,
employment in food stores rose by only 9,000 jobs, or 0.3
percent, down sharply from the 0.8 annual growth rate it had
averaged between 1996 and 2000. As was true throughout
retailing in general, this growth merely reflected hiring com­
pleted early in the year. May marked the beginning of net job
losses in food stores, with the losses continuing through the
end of 2001.
Unlike department stores, food stores did not see any o f its
largest chains declare bankruptcy. Rather, the chains’ layoffs
resulted largely from the bankruptcy filings of independent
grocers and small chains, in combination with a number of
large chains shutting down some “underperforming” units.44
Although supermarkets often sell their closed stores to other
supermarket chains, such sales became increasingly difficult
for the smaller sized establishments, because their stores were
not perceived as viable assets. Moreover, the opening of a
single supercenter could provoke the closing of several older
supermarkets, which resulted in a glut of small store sites for
sale in some markets.45 In short, an increasingly competitive
market led food stores’ employment to start falling, even as
sales continued to grow.
Competition was the impetus driving the food stores’ clos­
ings, but it had the opposite effect for auto dealers: em­
ployment continued to rise, even as sales slipped from their
year-2000 pace. New and used car dealers increased their
staffing by 14,000 workers, or at about half their 2000 rate.
Historically, employment in auto dealers has tended to be
highly cyclical. (See chart 2.) Between 1989 and 1991 (and
thus encompassing the 1990-91 recession), this industry
eliminated 94,000 jobs, or 9.7 percent of its workforce. Yet,
the 2001 marketplace differed greatly from that o f a decade
ago. During the 1990s, auto dealers began to derive a larger
share of their profit from after-sales services and from usedvehicle sales.46 The increasing incidence of “certified” used
car programs and the need for warranty service on the many
new vehicles sold during 1999 and 2000 (both record sales
years) provided incentives to maintain or expand service pay­
rolls.47 An additional boost to employment came when zeropercent financing jump started auto sales in the fourth quarter
of2001. For the rest of retailing, however, the outlook in au­
tumn was negative, and seasonal hiring was subdued .
Pre- andpost-September 11th labor market. Economic weak­
nesses were intensified by the terrorist attacks of September
11. By September, three separate phenomena were at play.
Retailers already had been anticipating weak holiday sales.
The travel industry struggled with declining business travel
and dampened leisure demand. New orders for civil aircraft

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

11

U.S. labor market, 2001

C hart 2.

Over-the-year percent change in automobile sales (12-month average) and employment

Percent

Percent

30

20

10

-1 0

-2 0

-30
N ote : Data are seasonally adjusted.
S ources : Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis.

C hart 3.

Over-the-year percent change in health services employment, seasonally adjusted
Percent

Percent
8

N ote : Shaded regions represent recessions as designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

12

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

had started to diminish in the spring. Those negative trends
worsened, with the employment situation in those industries
deteriorating after the events of September 11.
For retailers, the pre-September 11th backdrop included
mounting competition, especially from discount department
stores, and waning consumer confidence. By September, fall­
ing payroll employment and the declining workweek had be­
gun to offset the economic benefits of continued, solid gains
in nominal (and real) average hourly earnings of production
workers. As a result, growth of private aggregate payrolls stag­
nated. This sluggish growth in consumers’ potential holiday
budgets diminished retailers’ holiday sales expectation, with
the terrorist attacks creating a sense of collective apprehen­
sion among the population. Consequently, stores scaled back
their seasonal hiring. As a whole, general merchandise, ap­
parel, and miscellaneous retail stores added 587,000 workers
during the fourth quarter, or nearly 140,000 fewer holiday
workers than they had brought on in prior years (data are not
seasonally adjusted).
Travel-dependent industries span air transportation, travel
services, hotels and other lodging places, and eating and
drinking places— all of which had experienced weakening
demand throughout summer 2001, particularly from business
travelers. Airlines derive much of their revenue from corpo­
rate customers, and travel, like labor, was an outlay many
companies sought to reduce. As a result, passenger revenue
miles from January to August 2001 had shown no growth from
their previous levels for the same period in 2000. Weakened
demand exacerbated an already difficult financial situation
for airlines, which began the year facing rising fuel and labor
costs.48 Together, these factors led to net job losses by mid­
summer.
Hotels and other lodging places faced similar misfortunes
in the summer months. The industry’s principle problem was
reduced business bookings, although leisure travel also
proved lackluster in 2001, providing little economic relief.49
Under these circumstances, the need for additional summer
help diminished and seasonal hiring suffered. Seasonally ad­
justed employment peaked in March and then fell nearly ev­
ery subsequent month for a total decline of 47,000 jobs by
September. Low demand and falling per-ticket commissions
translated into job losses for travel agents as well, with trans­
portation services employment declining by 16,000 between
its March peak and September.
Amusement and recreation services also cut back on sum­
mer hiring, although not nearly to the same degree as had
hotels. After seasonal adjustment, employment reached an
apex in May and was 21,000 lower by September. This
industry’s relative resilience may be due to consumers
shifting, as opposed to stopping, their spending on leisure
activities. For example, attendance slackened at large, inter­


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

nationally-known amusement parks, but consumers did de­
sire vacations closer to home; therefore, attendance at smaller
regional parks increased.50
The limited demand that leisure travel had provided these
industries ended on September 11. Following the initial 1week halt to national air traffic, travel demand experienced
only a partial recovery. The travel industry reacted by imme­
diately announcing and enacting massive layoffs, with airlines
cutting 102,000 jobs and hotels, 70,000 jobs between Sep­
tember and December. Those layoffs exceeded those seen in
any prior downturn on record for those industries.51 The de­
creased demand also led to major cutbacks in transportation
services and auto rentals. Together, employment in these in­
dustries shrank by 39,000 in the fourth quarter.
The layoffs in air transportation accompanied severe
schedule reductions, which in many cases exceeded 20 per­
cent o f airlines’ pre-September 11th levels. With planes
grounded, the need for new aircraft dropped, as did the air­
lines’ ability to pay for them. In October, employment in air­
craft manufacturing fell by 2,000, erasing all of the prior
year’s gains made during the first 9 months of the year. Those
earlier gains had marked the industry’s first, albeit tentative,
expansion since the 1998 Asian financial crisis. The post-September 11th layoffs marked a quick reaction by manufactur­
ers, already concerned because of the weak travel industry.52
New orders for business craft and jetliners had begun to fall
in the spring. After September 11, airline companies revised
their orders, sometimes asking for delayed delivery sched­
ules, and manufacturers responded by reducing their payrolls
to accommodate these new production schedules.53
The terrorist attacks did, however, lead to increased hiring
in one industry: detective and armored car services. Between
September and December 2001, employment in this industry
rose 35,000. Such gains were unprecedented in the history of
that employment series, and more than tripled the industry’s
2001 job growth until September.

Health services and higher education proved countercyclical
in 2001. In 2001, health services and higher public and pri­
vate education proved immune to the widespread economic
downturn. Indeed, both may have benefited from it. Payrolls
in these two countercyclical service industries increased by
434,000 jobs, more than double the 166,000 added in 2000.
Within health services, hospitals led the expansion, grow­
ing by 132,000 jobs, or 3.3 percent—three times the prior
year’s pace. (See chart 3.) Higher reimbursement rates most
likely boosted hiring. Revenue growth, particularly from pub­
lic payers, has tended to follow a countercyclical pattern in
recent decades, and that pattern has remained steady into the
current dow nturn.54 The Medicare, Medicaid, and State
Children’s Health Insurance Program Benefits Improvement

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

13

U.S. labor market, 2001

and Protection Act o f 2000, signed in December of that year,
provided for increased outpatient and inpatient reimburse­
ments totaling about $ 12 billion over 5 years.55 The Act eased
spending restrictions that had been imposed by the 1997 Bal­
anced Budget Act.
On top of higher Medicare reimbursements came increased
payments from private insurers. Changes in the Producer Price
Index ( p p i ) measure changes in nominal revenue streams.56
Thus, growth in the p p i is one indicator of rising revenues in
an industry, such as health services, whose demand varies little
from one year to the next, because it is dependent on demo­
graphic trends. For general medical and surgical hospitals,
the p p i for “all other patients” (that is, those patients who are
covered by private insurers or pay out of pocket) rose 2.8
percent over the year (as of November). Such growth was
approximately 40 percent higher than that o f the p p i for Medi­
care and Medicaid patients.57
Post-acute care providers followed hospitals’ lead in 2001.
Home health care services increased its ranks by 13,000, thus
doubling its 2000 hiring pace, while the 37,000 jobs gained
in nursing and personal care facilities more than tripled this
industry’s prior year growth. Although the Benefits Improve­
ment and Protection Act of 2000 did not address nursing
homes, this industry continued to enjoy strong revenue
C hart 4.

growth. The p p i for skilled and intermediate care facilities rose
by 6.3 percent (November to November), outpacing its prior
year rate of 5.6 percent. Home health’s p p i increase totaled
2.5 percent, which was somewhat lower than the 3.7 percent
growth from 2000, but a marked improvement over 1999’s
0.8-percent growth.
Health care’s vitality extended beyond health services and
into manufacturing, as drug manufacturers expanded their
ranks by 16,000 workers. Including last year’s gains, employ­
ment in drugs increased 28.6 percent since 1996. Medical
instrum ents and supplies also experienced consistent
growth— 10.2 percent—between 1995 and 2000. Its expan­
sion slowed in 2001, with total employment increasing by
2,000. Nonetheless, even that modest gain contrasts sharply
with steep losses in most other manufacturing industries, and
reflects the strength in this industry’s ties to health services.
One other countercyclical factor affecting this industry was
the loosening of the labor market in 2001, which may have
benefited health services’ hiring in some of its lesser-skilled
occupations. Employment in this industry may have been per­
ceived more favorably, especially given the negative outlook
in retail trade, another industry with numerous low-skill jobs.
Those same elements may have also encouraged some people
to return to school for further education, and likely would

Unemployment rate, 1969-2001, seasonally adjusted

Percent

Percent

12

12

o
1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

N ote : Shaded regions represent recessions as designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Data are quarterly.
S ource : Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

14

Monthly Labor Review February 2002


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

2001

have occurred in addition to the enrollment increases that had
been projected for 2001.58 In that light, the hiring increases
in higher private and public education may be better under­
stood.
Hiring by colleges grew considerably in 2001. Employ­
ment in State government education, which primarily consists
of universities, was augmented by 76,000 new positions last
year, more than tripling its pace of recent years. A similar
though much more moderate countercyclical pattern prevailed
in 1991. Payrolls of private colleges and universities increased
by 66,000 jobs, after having fallen by 6,000 in 2000.
The economic recession and concomitant employment losses
in a wide range o f industries were felt by workers in all ma­
jo r demographic groups. Total employment started declin­
ing early in 2001, and fell steeply as the year progressed. The
number of employed persons (as measured in the c p s ) fell by
more than 1.3 million, and unemployment rose sharply. Over
the year, the number of unemployed persons rose by 2.4 mil­
lion to nearly 8 million. In the fourth quarter of 2001, the
national unemployment rate was 5.6 percent, up 1.6 percent­
age points from the fourth quarter of 2000. (See chart 4.)
Unemployment rose for every major worker group.
The number of employed teenagers fell by 528,000 over
the year. (See table 2.) Many teens withdrew from the labor
force; the teen labor force participation rate fell by 3 percent­
age points to 49.1 percent.59 The number o f unemployed
teens—those without a job but available and actively looking
for work—rose by 184,000 in 2001, raising the teen unem­
ployment rate from 12.9 percent in the fourth quarter o f2000
to 15.8 percent a year later, its highest level since the third
quarter of 1997. Teen employment losses were concentrated
in the retail trade industries.
The decrease in teen labor force participation reflects a
marked decline in the demand for young workers that is fairly
typical at the onset of a contraction in economic activity.60
Teens generally have less experience and fewer skills than do
older workers; therefore, often, they are among the first to
experience difficulties retaining jobs or finding new ones
when employers trim payrolls. The decreased labor force par­
ticipation rate suggests that many of these youth have re­
acted to such difficulties by leaving the labor force, possibly
to pursue higher education or leisure activities.
Adults certainly are not immune to the effects of a slow­
down, yet they often do not have the option of withdrawing
from the labor force when labor market conditions deterio­
rate.61 Employment among adults o f both sexes declined
throughout the year, but the labor force participation rate
showed little change among both adult men and women in
2001. Employment among adult men declined by about
481,000, considerably more than the 332,000 decline for adult


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

women. The decline in manufacturing greatly affected em­
ployment among both men and women. Men also experienced
large employment declines in the services industry, worsen­
ing their employment situation even further.
The employment-population ratio for adult women rose to
58.9 percent in the first quarter of 2001, before dropping to
57.9 percent. In 2001, the employment-population ratio for
adult men fell steadily to 72.6 percent. As employment fell,
the number of unemployed persons rose sharply. The unem­
ployment rate for both adult men and women rose by 1.6 per­
centage points to end the year at 5 percent.
All major race and ethnic groups faced deteriorating job
market conditions in 2001. Employment among white work­
ers peaked in the first quarter of 2001, only to fall during the
remaining three quarters. The employment-population ratio
dropped by 1.1 percentage points over the year, to 63.8
percent. (See table 2.) This was the sharpest decline in the
employment-population ratio for whites since the 1990-91
recession. The unemployment rate for whites rose by 1.4 per­
centage points over the year to 4.9 percent. Black employ­
ment losses started early in 2001 and accelerated during the
year, particularly in the fourth quarter. The employment-popu­
lation ratio among blacks also fell markedly—by 2.2 percent­
age points to 58.7 percent—the largest drop since 1975. The
unemployment rate for blacks rose considerably, to 9.9 per­
cent in the fourth quarter o f 2001, up from 7.4 percent a year
earlier. Hispanic workers also experienced declining employ­
ment in the second quarter of 2001, but interestingly, their
rate of employment rose slightly thereafter. Hispanic workers
most likely benefited from the resiliency in construction, in
which a large proportion of Hispanic men are employed, as
well as from a large employment increase within services in­
dustries. The increase in Hispanic employment, however, did
not keep pace with population growth. The employmentpopulation ratio for Hispanics fell by 1.7 percentage points to
a level of 63.1 percent by the fourth quarter of 2001. This
ratio had reached an all-time high in the first half o f2001, but
then drifted downward. As with whites and blacks, the num­
ber of unemployed Hispanic workers rose in 2001. This was
reflected in a rise of 1.9 percentage points in the unemploy­
ment rate, which reached 7.5 percent by year’s end.
Unemployment rose for all family types, particularly af­
fecting married-couple families in 2001,62 Between the fourth
quarters of 2000 and 2001, the family unemployment rate in
families maintained by men rose 2.9 percentage points to 8.9
percent.63 In the same period, the rate in families maintained
by women rose by 2 percentage points to 8.2 percent. More
than two-thirds of the increase in family unemployment was
within the group of married-couple families in 2001. The fam­
ily unemployment rate for this group rose from 3.4 to 5.1 per­
cent over the year. (See table 3.)

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

15

U.S. labor market, 2001

I g l . q a f Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and older, bv selected characteristics.
quarterly averages, seasonally adjusted, 1998-2001
(In thousands )

Fourth quarter

2001

Characteristic

Change
fourth quarter
2000
to
fourth quarter
2001

First
quarter

Second
quarter

Third
quarter

Fourth
quarter

141,257
67.1
135,649
64.4
5,609
4.0

141,749
67.2
135,804
64.4
5,945
4.2

141,549
66.9
135,221
63.9
6,328
4.5

141,700
66.8
134,839
63.6
6,860
4.8

142,291
66.9
134,308
63.1
7,983
5.6

70,481
76.6
68,099
74.0
2,382
3.4

71,230
76.6
68,803
73.9
2,427
3.4

71,321
76.5
68,737
73.7
2,584
3.6

71,479
76.4
68,651
73.4
2,828
4.0

71,609
76.3
68,565
73.1
3,045
4.3

71,954
76.5
68,322
72.6
3,632
5.0

724
-.1
-481
- 1.3
1,205
1.6

60,064
60.6
57,652
58.2
2,412
4.0

61,173
60.8
58,959
58.6
2,214
3.6

61,703
60.8
59,597
58.7
2,106
3.4

62,177
61.1
59,942
58.9
2,235
3.6

62,044
60.9
59,676
58.5
2,367
3.8

62,156
60.8
59,543
58.3
2,613
4.2

62,357
60.9
59,265
57.9
3,092
5.0

654
.1
-3 3 2
-.8
986
1.6

8,313
52.6
7,093
44.9
1,221
14.7

8,382
52.0
7,235
44.9
1,147
13.7

8,324
52.1
7,249
45.3
1,075
12.9

8,251
51.3
7,125
44.3
1,126
13.6

8,026
50.0
6,893
42.9
1,133
14.1

7,935
49.1
6,732
41.7
1,203
15.2

7,980
49.1
6,721
41.4
1,259
15.8

-3 4 4
- 3.0
-5 2 8
- 3.9
184
2.9

115,963
67.4
111,488
64.8
4,476
3.9

116,933
67.3
112,839
65.0
4,094
3.5

117,748
67.3
113,671
64.9
4,077
3.5

118,329
67.4
113,815
64.9
4,329
3.7

117,891
67.1
113,254
64.5
4,636
3.9

118,024
67.0
113,021
64.2
5,003
4.2

118,492
67.1
112,639
63.8
5,852
4.9

744
-.2
1,032
- 1.1
1,775
1.4

16,177
66.0
14,834
60.5
1,343
8.3

16,504
66.0
15,175
60.7
1,329
8.1

16,700
65.8
15,460
60.9
1,239
7.4

16,721
65.8
15,378
60.5
1,343
8.0

16,687
65.4
15,315
60.1
1,372
8.2

16,744
65.4
15,295
59.7
1,449
8.7

16,756
65.1
15,102
58.7
1,654
9.9

56
-.7
-3 5 8
- 2.2
415
2.5

14,474
67.8
13,413
62.8
1,061
7.3

14,896
67.9
13,994
63.8
902
6.1

15,566
68.6
14,697
64.8
869
5.6

15,667
68.6
14,708
64.4
959
6.1

15,663
68.0
14,665
63.7
997
6.4

15,784
68.0
14,777
63.6
1,007
6.4

15,967
68.2
14,776
63.1
1,191
7.5

401
-.4
79
- 1.7
322
1.9

1998

1999

2000

138,440
67.2
132,302
64.2
6,138
4.4

140,036
67.1
134,292
64.4
5,744
4.1

70,063
76.8
67,557
74.1
2,506
3.6

Total
Civilian labor force..............................
Participation rate ............................
Employed..........................................
Employment-population ratio........
Unemployed......................................
Unemployment r a te ......................

-

1,034
-.2
1,341
- 1.3
2,374
1.6

Men, 20 years and older
Civilian labor force..............................
Participation ra te ............................
Employed.........................................
Employment-population ratio........
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment ra te .......................

Women, 20 years and older
Civilian labor force..............................
Participation rate ............................
Employed.........................................
Employment-population ratio........
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment ra te .......................

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian labor force..............................
Participation ra te ............................
Employed.........................................
Employment-population ratio........
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment ra te .......................

White
Civilian labor fo rce ..............................
Participation ra te ............................
Employed.........................................
Employment-population ratio........
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment ra te .......................

-

Black
Civilian labor force..............................
Participation ra te ............................
Employed.........................................
Employment-population ratio........
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment ra te .......................

Hispanic origin
Civilian labor force..............................
Participation ra te ............................
Employed.........................................
Employment-population ratio........
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment ra te .......................

N ote : Detail for race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals
because data for the “other races” group are not presented and Hispanics

16

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

are included in both the white and black population groups,
S ource : Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Table 3.

Employment status of adults in families, quarterly averages, not seasonally adjusted, 1998-2001

(In thousands)

Fourth quarter

2001

Characteristic

Change
fourth quarter
2000
to
fourth quarter
2001

1998

1999

2000

First
quarter

Second
quarter

Third
quarter

Fourth
quarter

All fam ilies...........................................
With unemployed adults1.................
Percent..........................................

70,343
3,211
4.6

71,548
3,013
4.2

71,875
2,938
4.1

71,856
3,733
5.2

71,858
3,515
4.9

72,087
3,852
5.3

71,991
4,259
5.9

116
1,321
1.8

Married-couple fam ilies.......................
With unemployed adults1.................
Percent..........................................

53,836
2,031
3.8

54,525
1,944
3.6

54,631
1,880
3.4

54,748
2,421
4.4

54,863
2,282
4.2

54,548
2,496
4.6

54,444
2,788
5.1

-187
908
1.7

Families maintained by women..........
With unemployed adults1..................
Percent..........................................

12,400
882
7.1

12,848
834
6.5

12,927
799
6.2

12,692
967
7.6

12,657
923
7.3

13,126
1,013
7.7

12,959
1,062
8.2

32
263
2.0

Families maintained by m e n ..............
With unemployed adults1.................
Percent..........................................

4,107
297
7.2

4,176
235
5.6

4,317
259
6.0

4,416
344
7.8

4,339
310
7.1

4,414
343
7.8

4,588
407
8.9

271
148
2.9

1 Persons aged 20 years and older.
S ource : Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Table 4.

Employed persons by occupational group, quarterly averages, not seasonally adjusted, 1998-2001

(In thousands)

Occupational group

Fourth
quarter
1998

Fourth
quarter
1999

Fourth
quarter

Fourth
quarter

2000

2001

Change
fourth quarter
2000

to
fourth quarter
2001

Total, 16 years and older

132,578

134,534

135,865

134,497

-1,368

Executive, administrative, and managerial
Professional specialty.................................
Technicians and related support.............. .
Sales occupations..................................... .
Administrative support including clerical....

19,496
20,420
4,163
16,107
18,276

19,700
21,156
4,442
16,427
18,456

19,732
21,464
4,382
16,571
18,805

20,250
21,794
4,416
15,926
18,345

518
330
34
-645
-460

Service occupations..........................
Precision production, craft and repair
Operators, fabricators, and laborers ..
Farming, forestry, and fishing............

17,838
14,398
18,475
3,405

17,525
14,894
18,678
3,255

18,336
14,932
18,496
3,146

18,305
14,683
17,632
3,147

-31
-249
-864
1

S ource : Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Employment declined across a wide range o f occupational
groups, although the steepest declines reflected thejob losses
in manufacturing-related fields. There was a marked em­
ployment decline among operators, fabricators, and laborers
in 2001, as well as a smaller decline in the precision produc­
tion, craft, and repair field. (See table 4.) These workers are
highly concentrated in the manufacturing industry, and job
losses in these fields reflect the large losses among factory
workers during the year. Sales occupations and service occu-


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

pations showed employment losses as well, mirroring the
weakness in the services and retail trade industries. There was
also a decline in employment in administrative support (in­
cluding clerical) occupations. Employment in the other ma­
jor occupational fields continued to rise, although the pace of
job growth in many areas slowed considerably from that of

2000.
Major occupation-industry pairs can be divided into three
groups based on earnings—the lowest, middle, and highest.
Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

17

U.S. labor market, 2001

Table 5.

Unemployed persons by reason for and duration of unemployment, quarterly averages,
seasonally adjusted, 1998-2001

(In thousands)

Reason and duration

Fourth
quarter
1998

Fourth
quarter
1999

2000

Third
quarter

Fourth
quarter

Change
fourth quarter
2000
to
fourth quarter

2001

Fourth
quarter
First
quarter

Second
quarter

2001

Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons
who completed temporary jobs ...
On temporary layoff..................
Not on temporary layoff...........
Job leavers.....................................
Reentrants......................................
New entrants...................................

2,809
857
1,952
707
518

2,495
817
1,677
802
1,984
468

2,508
881
1,628
772
1,899
433

2,871
980
1,891
810
1,910
412

3,134
1,023
2,111
800
1,913
464

3,442
1,068
2,374
829
2,071
465

4,430
1,184
3,246
879
2,224
486

1,922
303
1,618
107
325
53

Less than 5 weeks...........................
5 to 14 w e e ks..................................
15 weeks and o v e r.........................
15 to 26 w e e ks.............................
27 weeks and o v e r......................

2,648
1,906
1,567
728
839

2,593
1,748
1,383
691
692

2,497
1,772
1,306
689
617

2,693
1,881
1,444
767
677

2,782
2,032
1,527
829
698

2,802
2,229
1,778
1,004
774

3,066
2,606
2,256
1,213
1,044

569
834
950
524
427

Average (mean) duration, in weeks

14.1

13.0

12.4

12.7

12.6

13.1

14.0

1.6

Median duration, In weeks..............

6.4

6.1

6.0

6.1

6.2

6.9

7.7

1.7

2,100

Duration of unemployment

S ource : Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Table 6.

Range of alternative measures of labor underutilization, quarterly averages, not seasonally adjusted
1998-2001
2001

Change
fourth quarter
2000
Fourth
to
quarter fourth quarter
2001

Fourth
quarter
1998

Fourth
quarter
1999

Fourth
quarter
2000

1.1

0.9

0.9

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.5

0.6

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed
temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian
labor force......................................

1.9

1.7

1.7

2.4

2.1

2.3

2.9

1.2

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian
labor force (official unemployment rate).........

4.1

3.8

3.7

4.6

4.4

4.8

5.2

1.5

as a percent of the civilian labor force
plus discouraged w orkers...............................

4.4

4.0

3.9

4.8

4.6

5.0

5.5

1.6

U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers,
plus all other marginally attached workers,
as a percent of the civilian labor force plus
all marginally attached workers.....................

5.0

4.6

4.4

5.4

5.1

5.7

6.1

1.7

7.3

6.8

6.6

7.9

7.5

8.2

9.0

2.4

Measure

First
Second
quarter quarter

Third
quarter

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer,
as a percent of the civilian labor fo rc e ..........

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers,

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached
workers, plus total employed part time for economic
reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force
plus all marginally attached workers.........................

S ource : Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

18

Monthly Labor Review February 2002


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

C hart 5.

Employment growth by earnings group, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages, 1996-2001
50,000

48,000

46,000

44,000

42,000

40,000
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey

Tracking the changes in employment for the three earnings
groups provides additional insight into the nature of recent
weakness in the job market.64 Employment in the middle earn­
ings group fared the worst among the three groups in 2001,
declining by more than 1.3 million over the year. (See chart
5.) Much of the decline in the middle earnings group can be
linked to substantial job losses among operators, fabricators,
and laborers in the Nation’s factories, as well as among skilled
production workers and clerical personnel in manufacturing.
Employment in the highest earnings group has trended up­
ward in recent years, but this pattern reversed in the second
half of 2001, as employment fell by 500,000. The deepening
recession in manufacturing may have contributed to this de­
cline as well, as managers in manufacturing experienced some
o f the sharpest job losses among the occupation-industry cat­
egories in this group. Employment in the lowest earnings
group showed no clear trend in 2001.

Increases in unemployment were concentrated among per­
sons who had lost theirjobs and did not expect to be recalled.
As is typical during a slowdown, much of the unemployment
increase in 2001 was composed of those persons who had
recently lost jobs, rather than those who had voluntarily left
jobs, or who were recent entrants to the workforce. The num­


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

ber of persons who were unemployed because they had lost
their jobs rose by nearly 1.9 million in 2001, to 4.4 million.
(See table 5.) There are two major subcategories of this
group—those on temporary layoff (expecting recall) and those
whose job loss was thought to be permanent (did not expect
recall). The vast majority of the increase occurred in the lat­
ter category, which rose by 1.6 million persons over the year.
The increase among those who expected recall was approxi­
mately 300,000. (The number of the unemployed who were
reentrants or new entrants, rose by nearly 400,000 in 2001, to
more than 2.7 million.65 The number of unemployed persons
who had voluntarily left their last job also increased slightly.)
At the beginning of an economic slowdown, typically, there
is a disproportionate increase in the number of unemployed
people who have been jobless for fewer than 5 weeks. This
pattern occurred in 2001, but as the year unfolded, the in­
crease in joblessness spread across all duration groups, as
workers found it harder to secure employment and, thus, re­
mained unemployed for longer periods.66 Over the year, 24
percent of the increase in unemployment was among those
unemployed fewer than 5 weeks. (See table 5.) Those unem­
ployed 5 to 14 weeks, represented 35 percent of the overall
increase in unemployment, and 40 percent of the increase was
among those unemployed 15 weeks and more.67 Nearly half

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

19

U.S. labor market, 2001

| Table 7. B

pool of available workers,” fourth quarter,
seasonally adjusted, 1994-2001

(In thousands)

Fourth quarter

1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001

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

Total
employ­
ment

Not In labor
force, want
a job

Unem­
ployed

Pool of
available
workers

124,450
125,221
127,840
130,504
132,302
134,292
135,649
134,308

5,898
5,714
5,274
4,797
4,662
4,376
4,394
4,677

7,412
7,392
7,173
6,413
6,138
5,744
5,609
7,983

13,310
13,106
12,447
11,210
10,800
10,120
10,003
12,660

N ote : In general, the pool of available workers comprises those people
who are not in the labor force, but who “want a job,” and the unemployed.
This concept was first proposed by the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, in an attempt to quantify available labor sources.

plus all “marginally attached” workers (including discouraged
workers), and all persons employed part time for economic
reasons, as a percent of the sum of the labor force and all
marginally attached workers.71 Some part-time employees
would prefer to work full time but are unable to do so because
of slack business conditions, seasonal declines in demand, or
other difficulty in finding full-time work. By including this
group, often labeled “persons employed part time for eco­
nomic reasons,” the indicator U-6 treats some part-time work­
ers on an equal basis with the unemployed. Persons who
worked part time for economic reasons totaled more than 4
million persons in the fourth quarter o f2001, having increased
by approximately 1 million workers, or 32 percent over the
year. This was somewhat slower than the increase in the num­
ber of unemployed persons. The U-6 indicator rose by 2.4
percentage points in 2001, to 9 percent.

Labor market concerns: unease over potential labor market

tightness quickly evaporated as unemployment rosefrom his­
torically low levels. Throughout the course of the recordbreaking expansion of the 1990s, employment rose rapidly.
of the increase occurred among those out of work for 6 months At the same time, unemployment rates fell to levels not seen
or more.
since the late 1960s. During periods of economic growth,
employers look first to readily available sources of labor. The
Alternative measures o f labor underutilization provide ad­ most prominent of these—the unemployed—was pushed to
ditional insight into the recession’s effects on the jo b market. exceptionally low levels by the year 2000, and employers were
Although the official unemployment rate is the most widely forced to look hard for potential workers.72
used measure for evaluating the degree to which labor re­
There are many potential sources of labor other than the
sources are not being utilized, b l s has developed a range of unemployed. One of the main sources of potential labor is
indicators to supplement the jobless rate, called alternative population growth.73 Much of this population growth is the
measures o f labor underutilization. (Table 6 displays the result of immigration, and in recent years, the foreign-bom
trends in alternative measures U1-U6 in 2001.)68
population has accounted for an increasingly large share of
The official unemployment rate is U-3, and its rise during U.S. population growth.74
the year is closely mirrored by each of the other alternative
The labor supply also can be expanded by an influx of
measures. Alternative measures U-4 through U-6 are inclu­ persons who previously were not in the labor force. One group
sive of a wider range o f persons facing labor market difficul­ of potential workers that can be easily identified with c p s data
ties than the group captured by the unemployment rate alone. is people who are not currently in the labor force, but claim to
Alternative measure U-4 adds persons classified as “discour­ want a job, although they are not actively searching for one.
aged” to the number of unemployed persons. The increase in The sum of these people—referred to simply as those who
the measure U-4 was roughly in line with the rise in the offi­ “want a job”—and those who are officially unemployed has
cial jobless rate.69
been called the “pool of available workers.” This unofficial
The alternative measure that takes into account all “mar­ measure is sometimes used to gauge changes in the potential
ginally attached” workers is U-5.70 Compared with U-4, this labor supply.75 During the expansion, the pool of available
broader group includes the discouraged, as well as those who workers declined steadily. In the fourth quarter o f 1994, this
are not currently looking for work for reasons other than dis­ pool numbered nearly 13.3 million people.76 (See table 7.)
couragement, such as transportation or child-care problems. By the fourth quarter 2000, it was down to approximately 10
The U-5 indicator rose at a marginally slower pace than the million. Much of the decrease in this group reflected a de­
official unemployment rate rose over the year.
cline in the number of unemployed workers who likely found
The broadest of these alternative indicators, U-6, adds to work, but many new workers were probably drawn from out­
the calculation a group considered to be “underemployed.” side the labor force, including some who had probably come
This indicator represents the number of unemployed persons, from the “want a job” category. Between the fourth quarter
S ource : Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

20

Monthly Labor Review February 2002


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

Table 8.

Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by selected characteristics,
annual averages, 2000-01
Characteristic

Total, 16 years and older......................

2000

2001

Percent
change,
2000-01

$576

$597

3.6

Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations.
Professional specialty occupations.................................
Technicians and related support.....................................
Sales occupations...........................................................
Administrative support, including clerical........................
Private household workers..............................................

840
832
648
550
469
264

867
854
673
574
486
255

3.2
2.6
3.9
4.4
3.6
-3.4

Protective service occupations........................................
Service, except private household and protective.........
Precision production, craft, and repair............................
Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors...........
Transportation and material moving occupations..........
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers ....
Farming, forestry, and fishing occupations....................

623
327
613
436
540
378
334

629
349
629
457
573
389
354

1.0
6.7
2.6
4.8
6.1
2.9
6.0

M en...................................................................................
Women..............................................................................

646
491

672
511

4.0
4.1

W hite..................................................................................
M en.................................................................................
Women ...........................................................................
Black..................................................................................
M en.................................................................................
Women ...........................................................................
Hispanic origin...................................................................
M en.................................................................................
W om en...........................................................................

591
669
500
468
503
429
396
414
364

612
694
521
487
518
451
414
438
385

3.6
3.7
4.2
4.1
3.0
5.1
4.5
5.8
5.8

Educational attainment:
Less than a high school diploma...................................
High school graduates, no college................................
Some college or associate degree................................
College graduates, to ta l................................................

360
506
598
896

378
520
621
924

5.0
2.8
3.8
3.1

N ote : Earnings figures by educational attainment pertain to persons age 25 and older.
S ource : Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

of 1994 and the fourth quarter o f2000, this category declined
by more than 1.5 million people.
The recession that began in 2001 significantly eased any
tightness existing in the labor market. These recessionary la­
bor market conditions were reflected not only in the rising
number of unemployed persons, but also in the increases in
other groups who had been sources of labor during the ex­
pansion, such as those outside the labor force. From the fourth
quarter o f2000 to the fourth quarter o f2001, the pool of avail­
able workers rose to 12.6 million people, an increase of nearly
2.7 million. This increase reflects a net gain of almost 2.4
million in the number of unemployed persons and an increase
o f nearly 300,000 among those out of the labor force who
indicated that they want a job. The tight labor market at the
end of the 1990s expansion led some employers facing labor
shortages to encourage people who were not in the labor force


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

to take jobs. The ensuing slowdown in 2001 quickly eased
the pressure on labor supply—indeed, labor “surpluses” soon
replaced labor shortages as a concern among policymakers.

Earnings growth slowed in most occupations. Throughout
much of the 1990s expansion, real earnings increased for most
major worker groups.77 That trend continued for most worker
groups in 2001, but earnings gains for several groups slowed
and were eroded by inflation. Overall, the median weekly
earnings of full-time wage and salary workers rose 3.6 per­
cent, from $576 per week in 2000, to $597 per week in 2001.
This was somewhat ahead of the 2.8 percent increase in the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
The rise in earnings for all major occupation groups was
lower in 2000—01 than in 1999—2000. The change in earnings
became negative for private household workers, as their me-

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

21

U.S. labor market, 2001

dian usual weekly earnings fell 3.4 percent before accounting
for inflation. (See table 8.) Other occupations—protective ser­
vice occupations, professional specialty occupations and pre­
cision production, craft, and repair—showed small nominal
gains, some o f which were largely or completely negated by
inflation. Most occupations did have real earnings growth,
however. Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors were
among the occupational groups with real earnings growth, a
finding that seems to run counter to the employment trends
within this occupation group and its related industries, manu­
facturing in particular. This apparent incongruity most likely
reflected job losses that were more heavily concentrated
among the mid- to low-wage workers within these occupa­
tions, resulting in a higher “median” wage for the workers
who remained.
M en’s and women’s median weekly earnings both in­
creased by similar proportions between 2000 and 2001, ris­
ing to $672 and $511 per week respectively. As a result, the
women’s-to-men’s earnings ratio held steady at 76 percent.
The women’s-to-men’s earnings ratio has not increased much
in recent years, although it is up substantially from 62.5 per­
cent in 1979.78 It is important to remember that many pos­
sible factors may underlie the disparity between the earnings
o f men and women, for example, differences in work sched­
ules, educational attainment, length of experience in the
workforce, occupational and industry makeup of each group,
and discrimination.
Workers with less than a high school diploma had a nomi­
nal gain of 5 percentage points, the largest gain of the four

main educational categories. This is consistent with this
group’s gains during the latter part of the 1990s expansion.
Earnings for persons with some college or an associate de­
gree increased by 3.8 percentage points, and college gradu­
ates had nominal earnings increases of approximately 3
percentage points. The earnings increase among high school
graduates with no college education was the lowest of the
educational groups at 2.8 percentage points, which was just
enough to keep pace with inflation.
The proportion of hourly paid workers with hourly earn­
ings that were at or below the prevailing Federal minimum
wage of $5.15 per hour decreased by 0.6 percentage point
over the year to 3.1 percent. In 2001, women were more likely
than men to be earning the minimum wage or less—4 percent
of hourly paid women, compared with 2.2 percent of hourly
paid men. This gap closed a bit over the year, as the decrease
in the proportion of women earning the minimum wage or
less was greater than the decrease among men in this group.

Unemployment in subnational areas: rising unemployment
plagued most areas o f the country in 2001. Unemployment
rates rose in each of the four census regions in 2001, with
increases ranging from 1.0 to 1.4 percentage points.79 (See
table 9.) In 2000, joblessness had declined in all four regions.
In fact, unemployment rates in the Midwest, South, and West
fell to historical lows at the end of 2000.80 The Northeast
jobless rate continued to decline into the first quarter o f2001,
establishing a new low and briefly displacing the Midwest
rate as the lowest among census regions for the first time in

| Unemployment rates for regions and divisions, quarterly averages, seasonally adjusted, 2000-01

Region and division

Fourth
quarter,
2000

2001
First
quarter

Second
quarter

Third
quarter

Fourth
quarter

Over-theyear
change

Northeast region............................................................
New England division.................................................
Middle Atlantic division...............................................

3.8
2.5
4.3

3.7
2.6
4.2

4.1
3.2
4.4

4.4
3.8
4.6

4.8
4.0
5.2

1.0
1.5
.9

Midwest reg io n ..............................................................
East North Central division.........................................
West North Central division........................................

3.6
3.8
3.2

4.0
4.3
3.3

4.2
4.5
3.5

4.3
4.7
3.5

4.8
5.2
3.9

1.2
1.4
.7

South region..................................................................
South Atlantic division................................................
East South Central division........................................
West South Central division.......................................

3.8
3.5
4.4
4.1

4.0
3.7
4.5
4.1

4.2
4.0
4.5
4.5

4.4
4.2
4.6
4.8

5.1
4.9
5.3
5.4

1.3
1.4
.9
1.3

West region.....................................................................
Mountain division........................................................
Pacific division............................................................

4.5
3.7
4.8

4.5
3.9
4.7

4.8
4.1
5.1

5.1
4.3
5.4

5.9
5.2
6.2

1.4
1.5
1.4

N ote : Data for 2001 have not been benchmarked.
S ource : Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics program.

22 Monthly Labor Review

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

February 2002

Local Area Unemployment Statistics
The Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program
uses a variety of methodologies to produce monthly esti­
mates of civilian labor force, employment, unemployment,
and unemployment rate for areas below the national level,
including census regions and divisions, the States and the
District of Columbia, and metropolitan areas. The same
concepts that are used in the Current Population Survey
(CPS) for the Nation as a whole are applied in the LAUS
methodologies, so that data are comparable across geo­
graphic levels.
The LAUS methodologies vary by the availability of in­
puts, which tends to reflect differences in geographic
level. A signal-plus-noise modeling approach is used for

11 years.
Unemployment rates in the Midwest and the South began
to climb in the first quarter of 2001. The Midwest—where
the downturn in manufacturing was particularly acute due to
its high proportion of factory jobs—was the first region to
experience a substantial decline in total nonfarm employment
during the year. The South, on the other hand, was the last
region to post significant job losses, showing resilience until
late in the year. The persistence of employment strength in
the South was due largely to job growth in the services indus­
try division.
Joblessness in the Northeast and West began to move
steadily upward in the second quarter. Both regions were
eliminating jobs at least as quickly as the Midwest by the
fourth quarter of 2001. Part of the Northeast’s sharp job loss
stemmed from an atypical decline in finance, insurance, and
real estate, attributable at least in part to the destruction of the
World Trade Center and surrounding area in New York City
on September 11. The West, which had been adding jobs at
the quickest clip before the onset of the recession, experi­
enced a drastic deceleration from employment growth to con­
traction in the third quarter. The relatively low proportion of
factory jobs in the West probably insulated the region from
the initial wave of employment declines.
By the fourth quarter o f2001, the Northeast, Midwest, and
South registered jobless rates of close to 5 percent. The West’s
unemployment rate, at nearly 6 percent, continued to be the
highest among census regions, as it has been for each quarter
in the last 9 years.
Geographic divisions within thefour regions. All geographic
divisions experienced rising unemployment rates over the


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

areas where data from the CPS can reliably serve as in­
puts. Model-based areas include the States and the Dis­
trict of Columbia. Estimates for regions and divisions are
aggregated from the model-based estimates for their con­
stituent states. Due to the methodological differences, es­
timates for regions and divisions may not sum to those for
the United States. Metropolitan area estimates are devel­
oped through a “building block” approach called the
Handbook method and controlled to State totals. Both the
model and Handbook approaches incorporate administra­
tive data from the State Unemployment Insurance (Ul) sys­
tems and establishment payroll data produced by other
BLS programs.

year, albeit with considerably more variation than at the re­
gional level. The New England rate, which had been very low
leading into the current recession, and the Mountain division
rate each climbed 1.5 percentage points. Three other divi­
sions followed closely with rate increases of 1.4 percentage
points apiece. At the other end of the spectrum, the unemploy­
ment rate in the West North Central division rose by only 0.7
percentage point.
The East North Central—most heavily reliant on manufac­
turing employment among geographic divisions—was the first
to experience a substantial over-the-quarter jump in its unem­
ployment rate (0.5 percentage point), in the first quarter of
2001. By contrast, more than half of the over-the-year in­
creases in the jobless rates of the East South Central (0.7 per­
centage point), Middle Atlantic (0.6 point), Mountain (0.9
point), Pacific (0.8 point), and West North Central (0.4 point)
divisions came in the fourth quarter o f2001.
The variation of unemployment rate rises between the fourth
quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of 2001 was generally
wider within regions than between them. In the Northeast, the
dramatic increase in unemployment in New England was tem­
pered by a much smaller increase in the Middle Atlantic. In
the Midwest, the jobless rate in the East North Central divi­
sion rose by twice as much as that of the West North Central.
Also within the South, substantial increases in the South At­
lantic and West South Central division rates contrasted with
the relatively smaller rise in the East South Central rate. The
West region was exceptional in that its two constituent divi­
sions—the Pacific and the Mountain—reported virtually iden­
tical rises in joblessness.
New England reported the lowest unemployment rate
among geographic divisions between the first quarter o f2000

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

23

U.S. labor market, 2001

Over-the-year change in unemployment rates by State,
fourth quarter 2000 to fourth quarter 2001, seasonally adjusted

Pacific

-n

*

_

!►

West
South Central

1.6 points or more
I I I 1.1 to 1.5 points

0.6 to 1.0 point
¡^3 0.1 to 0.5 point
H 0.0 point or less

N ote : Data for 2001 have not been benchmarked.
S ource: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics program.

and the second quarter o f 2001. This was the first period in a
decade that a division other than the West North Central re­
ported the lowest rate. In the third quarter of 2001, however,
the lowest rate distinction reverted to the West North Central
division, as the New England rate rose by a substantial 0.6
percentage point from the previous quarter. The Pacific con­
tinued to report the highest divisional rate throughout this
period, as it has for 10 consecutive years.
States. Unemployment rates rose in 44 States and the District
of Columbia. (See map.) There were increases of at least a
full percentage point in 26 States. O f these, 8 each were lo­
24

Monthly Labor Review February 2002


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

cated in the South and West, and 5 each were in the Midwest
and Northeast.
The most marked unemployment rate rise, 2.7 percentage
points, occurred in Oregon, which also experienced the sharp­
est over-the-year decline in total nonfarm employment. The
State reported substantial job losses in all major industry
groups except finance, insurance, and real estate and govern­
ment. The severity of the construction downturn in Oregon
since the end of 2000 was unusual, as that industry was un­
characteristically resilient throughout much of the rest of the
country.
Unemployment rates were also up a sharp 2.1 percentage

B w a lil

C h a n g e s in u n e m p lo y m e n t ra te s fo r s e le c t la rg e m e tro p o lita n a re a s , n o t s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d , 2000-01

Fourth quarter 2000

Fourth quarter 2001

Metropolitan area
Unemployment
rate

Over-the-year
change

Unemployment
rate

Over-the-year
change

Atlanta, G A ..................................................................................
Baltimore, M D ..............................................................................
Bergen-Passaic, N J....................................................................
Boston, MA-NH............................................................................
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, N Y ...........................................................

2.6
4.1
3.5
1.8
4.8

-0.4
.3
-.5
-.7
.1

4.0
4.7
4.7
3.6
5.2

1.4
.6
1.2
1.8
.4

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC........................................
Chicago, IL...................................................................................
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN..................................................................
Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, O H ......................................................
Columbus, O H .............................................................................

3.6
4.0
3.3
4.0
2.3

1.0
.1
-.1
-.3
-.1

5.2
5.5
3.9
5.1
3.1

1.6
1.5
.6
1.1
.8

Dallas, T X ....................................................................................
Denver, C O ..................................................................................
Detroit, M l....................................................................................
Fort Lauderdale, F L ....................................................................
FortWorth-Arlington.TX ............................................................

2.7
2.0
3.0
3.5
2.8

-.2
-.2
.2
-.3
-.1

5.6
4.5
5.0
5.7
4.6

2.9
2.5
2.0
2.2
1.8

Greensboro—Winston-Salem— High Point, NC........................
Hartford, C T .................................................................................
Houston, T X .................................................................................
Indianapolis, IN ............................................................................
Kansas City, MO-KS...................................................................

3.0
1.7
3.4
1.9
3.1

.6
-1.1
-.9
-.7
.3

5.2
3.0
4.4
3.8
4.0

2.2
1.3
1.0
1.9
.9

Los Angeles-Long Beach, C A ....................................................
Memphis, TN-AR-MS.................................................................
Miami, F L .....................................................................................
Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, N J..........................................
Milwaukee-Waukesha, W l..........................................................

4.9
3.9
5.2
2.5
3.1

-.5
.3
0
-.3
.2

5.9
4.5
7.6
3.7
4.5

1.0
.6
2.4
1.2
1.4

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI.....................................................
Nassau-Suffolk, N Y ....................................................................
New Orleans, L A .........................................................................
New York, NY ..............................................................
Newark, N J ............ .....................................................................

2.3
2.7
4.9
5.0
3.5

.1
-.4
.7
-.6
-.4

3.4
3.6
5.3
6.2
4.7

1.1
.9
.4
1.2
1.2

Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC.........................
Oakland, C A ................................................................................
Orange County, C A ....................................................................
Orlando, F L..................................................................................
Philadelphia, PA-NJ....................................................................

2.4
2.4
2.2
2.5
3.8

-.6
-.4
-.2
0
0

3.6
4.8
3.4
5.0
4.4

1.2
2.4
1.2
2.5
.6

Phoenix-Mesa, A Z ......................................................................
Pittsburgh, PA..............................................................................
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA......................................................
Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA......................................
Riverside-San Bernardino, C A ...................................................

2.5
3.8
3.4
3.3
4.6

-.5
.1
-.7
-.6
0

4.9
4.2
6.8

2.4

Rochester, N Y .............................................................................
Sacramento, C A .........................................................................
Salt Lake City-Ogden, U T ..........................................................
San Antonio, T X ...........................................................................
San Diego, C A .............................................................................

3.7
3.6
2.9
3.0
2.7

-.3
0
-.2
-.1
-.1

San Francisco, C A .....................................................................
San Jose, C A ...............................................................................
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, W A.....................................................
St. Louis, MO-IL...........................................................................
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, F L .......................................

1.9

-.2

1.5
3.5
3.5
2.5

-.9

Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV......................................................

2.2

.4

4.1

3.4
.8

5.1

.5

5.0
4.2

1.3
.6
1.2
1.3
.8

4.1

4.3
3.5

.1
.3
-.2

4.6
6.5
5.8
4.5
4.0

2.7
5.0
2.3
1.0

-.1

3.4

1.2

1.5

N ote : Data for 2001 have not been benchmarked.
S ource: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics program.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

25

U.S. labor market, 2001

C hart 6.

Percent distribution of increase in job losers during recessions
MM On temporary layoff
Not on temporary layoff

Average for the initial three quarters of
the four recessions prior to the
downturn of the early 1990s

Early 1990s recession,
initial three quarters

2001 recession, first
three quarters

N ote : Data are quarterly.
S ource : Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey

points each in Colorado, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina,
and South Carolina. All of these States except Nevada expe­
rienced a contraction in total nonfarm employment. The net
job loss in Colorado could be attributed entirely to the de­
cline in business services. In Indiana, the job losses were
heavily concentrated within durable goods manufacturing.
Most of the rise in the Nevada jobless rate came in the fourth
quarter, concomitant with job losses in industries dependent
on tourism following the terrorist attacks of September 11. In
North Carolina, steep employment declines within manufac­
turing industries were partially offset by robust growth within
health services and local government. More than half of the
net employment decline in South Carolina was in textile mill
products within nondurable goods manufacturing.
Only 5 States experienced unemployment rate declines over
the year, with the largest of these in West Virginia (-1.1 per­
centage points) and Delaware (-0.8 point). Alaska and Mon­
tana were the only States to report increases in total nonfarm
employment in addition to declining jobless rates from the
fourth quarter o f2001. Additionally, Wyoming, the only State
posting no net change in joblessness over the year, had one of
the strongest employment advances among States.
Two Pacific States—Oregon and Washington—recorded
the highest unemployment rates, 7.1 and 7.0 percent, respec­
tively, in the fourth quarter o f2001. The deterioration of both
unemployment and employment in Oregon has been noted. In
Washington, job losses were relatively less severe and not as
widespread across industries. Nevada and the District of Co­
lumbia followed with unemployment rates of 6.5 and 6.3 per­
26

Monthly Labor Review February 2002


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

cent, respectively.
North Dakota posted the lowest unemployment rate among
States in the fourth quarter of 2001, 2.4 percent, well below
that of the next lowest, South Dakota, 3.1 percent. Jobless­
ness was down slightly over the year in the former, while up
somewhat in the latter. Both States experienced contractions
in total nonfarm employment. Of the 4 additional States that
registered unemployment rates of less than 3.5 percent in the
fourth quarter, 2 also were located in the West North Central
division.
Metropolitan areas. All of the 51 metropolitan areas with a
1990 census population of 1 million or more saw their unem­
ployment rates move upward in 2001.81 (See table 10.) The
most marked increase over the year occurred in San Jose,
CA—5 percentage points to 6.5 percent. Weakness in busi­
ness services, which accounted for 16.4 percent of the area’s
payroll jobs in the fourth quarter of 2000, was felt acutely in
this area. In Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA, where payroll
employment declines were relatively widespread across in­
dustries, joblessness doubled to a rate of 6.8 percent. Eleven
additional areas experienced increases of at least 2 percent­
age points. Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY, New Orleans, LA, and
Pittsburgh, PA, were the least impacted by rising joblessness,
recording increases of only 0.4 percentage point apiece.
In the fourth quarter of 2001, Miami, FL, registered the
highest unemployment rate among the large metropolitan
areas, 7.6 percent, followed by Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA
(6.8 percent). San Jose, CA, had the third highest unemploy-

ment rate (6.5 percent). This represented a marked departure
from the metropolitan area unemployment situation in the
fourth quarter o f2000, during which San Jose posted the low­
est large area rate. Fifteen additional areas reported rates of 5
percent or more. Hartford, CT, and Columbus, OH, recorded
the lowest rates, 3 and 3.1 percent, respectively. Both of these
areas include the capital cities of their respective States, which
tends to correlate with below-average unemployment. Another
13 additional areas recorded unemployment rates of 4 per­
cent or less.
Comparison with earlier recessions. It often helps, in an
effort to gain perspective on the current economic situation,
to look at the past performance of the economy during similar
phases o f the business cycle. The last downturn in the
economy occurred in the early 1990s. A comparison between
the beginning of that period and the last three quarters o f2001
reveals some of the similarities and dissimilarities between
the two recessionary periods.82
Between the second quarter 1990 and the first quarter 1991,
the unemployment rate increased from 5.3 percent to 6.6 per­
cent. This 1.3 percentage point increase is roughly in line with
the 1.4 percentage point rise in joblessness in the final three
quarters of 2001, although the recent increase was propor­
tionately larger. As is typical during a recession, the increase
in unemployment over both periods was concentrated among
persons with job loss as the reason for their unemployment.
While job losers represented 47.8 percent of the unemployed
in the first quarter of 2001, by the end of 2001, this group
rose to 55.2 percent. The following tabulation shows the per­
cent who were unemployed by reason for unemployment for
selected years, quarterly averages, seasonally adjusted. Data
are from the Current Population Survey:
R ea so n

Total .................. ..
Job lo se r s..................
Job lea v e rs................
R eentrants.................
N e w entrants............

1990
II

1991
I

2001
1

2001
IV

100.0
47.2
15.3
27.7
9.8

100.0
53.8
12.5
24.9
8.8

100.0
47.8
13.5
31.8
6.9

100.0
55.2
11.0
27.7
6.1

The remaining groups—job leavers, reentrants, and new
entrants—all decreased in relative size. As noted earlier, the
job loser group can be broken down into two subcategories—
those on temporary layoff expecting recall, and those who
have permanently lost jobs. In recessions prior to 1990, the
proportion of the rise in job losers who had lost their jobs
permanently was typically only slightly larger than that at­
tributed to those on temporary layoff. The recession of the
early 1990s was the first exception to this pattern, with the


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

portion of the increase in job losers belonging to those not on
temporary layoff being more than twice the size of the por­
tion ascribed to those on temporary layoff. (See chart 6.) Over
the year in 2001, this same pattern emerged, with the dispar­
ity becoming even more exaggerated than in the early 1990s.
The employment-population ratio dropped 1.1 percentage
points at the beginning of the 1990s recession. It dropped by
a similar amount in 2001, falling to 63.1 percent at the end of
the year. The following tabulation shows employment-popu­
lation ratios for selected years, quarterly averages, seasonally
adjusted. Data are from the Current Population Survey:

C haracteristic

T o ta l................................... .
M en, 20 years
and o ld e r .............................. .
Women, 20 years
and o ld e r ................................ .
Both sexes, aged 16 to 1 9 ..... .
W h ite ............................................ .
Black ........................................... .
Hispanic o r ig in ........................ .

1990
II

1991
I

2001
I

2001
IV

63.0

61.9

64.4

63.1

74.5

73.1

73.7

72.6

55.3
46.2
63.8
57.3
62.3

54.7
42.9
62.8
55.8
60.1

58.9
44.3
64.9
60.5
64.4

57.9
41.4
63.8
58.7
63.1

While the proportional decline in the employment-popu­
lation ratio for adult men (1.9 percent) was much greater than
the proportional fall for adult women (1.1 percent) in the early
1990s, the declines were close in proportional size in 2001.
The decline was milder in 2001 for teen workers. Hispanic
workers showed the greatest proportional decline in employ­
ment-population ratio in the early 1990s recession, followed
by blacks, then whites. In the first three quarters of the 2001
downturn, this ratio declined proportionally the most for black
workers, followed by Hispanics, then whites.
The group of persons who work part time for economic
reasons is a measure of labor underutilization (described ear­
lier.) Although these people are not unemployed, measuring
the changes in this group can provide a gauge of “time-re­
lated” underemployment.83 The number o f workers in this
group normally increases during a recession, and the period
between the second quarter 1990 and first quarter 1991 was
no exception. In 2001, there was also an increase in those
working part time for economic reasons, but the percent in­
crease in 2001 was substantially larger than it was in the early
1990s.84
During the downturn that began in 2001, unemployment
rate escalation was geographically widespread. This was also
the case in the 1990-91 recession. One distinguishing feature
of unemployment in the current downturn, as compared with
the prior one, is that unemployment in 2001, began to rise
from markedly lower rates. In fact, unemployment rates were

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

27

U.S. labor market, 2001

Table 11.

Comparison of employment changes during the 1990-91 recession and the first three quarters
of the 2001 recession, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages

(In thousands)

Industry

Second
quarter
1990

First
quarter
1991

First
quarter
2001

Fourth
quarter
2001

Second quarter 1990
to first quarter 1991

Thousands

Thousands

Percent

Total nonfarm..................................
Total private.................................

109,719
91,261

108,530
90,198

132,559
111,886

131,502
110,480

-1,189
-1,063

-1.1
-1.2

-1,057
-1,406

-0.8
-1.3

M ining..........................................
Construction................................
General building contractors.....
Heavy construction, except
building....................................
Special trade contractors..........

711
5,179
1,322

710
4,783
1,186

554
6,878
1,548

567
6,850
1,559

-1
-396
-136

-0.1
-7.6
-10.3

13
-28
11

2.3
-.4
.7

770
3,087

738
2,859

930
4,400

939
4,352

-32
-228

-4.2
-7.4

9
-48

1.0
-1.1

Manufacturing1.............................
Durable goods' ..........................
Industrial machinery and
equipment..............................
Electronic and other electrical
equipment..............................
Electronic components and
accessories..........................
Transportation equipment'......
Motor vehicles and
equipment............................
Aircraft and p a rts ...................

19,187
11,199

18,561
10,701

18,188
10,990

17,174
10,252

-626
-498

-3.3
-4.4

-1,014
-738

-5.6
-6.7

2,102

2,048

2,102

1,918

-54

-2.6

-184

-8.8

1,686

1,618

1,725

1,501

-68

-4.0

-224

-13.0

585
2,021

569
1,889

709
1,778

592
1,704

-16
-132

-2.7
-6.5

-117
-74

-16.5
-4.2

835
717

755
690

958
464

903
455

-80
-27

-9.6
-3.8

-55
-9

-5.7
-1.9

Nondurable goods.....................

7,988

7,859

7,199

6,922

-129

-1.6

-277

-3.8

Service-producing.....................
Transportation and public
utilities' ..................................
Transportation.........................
Transportation by a ir ............
Communications and public
utilities..................................
Wholesale tra d e .......................
Retail tra d e ...............................
Finance, insurance,
and real estate.......................
Finance...................................
Insurance................................
Real estate..............................
Services'...................................
Hotels and other lodging
places...................................
Business services'.................
Services to buildings............
Personnel supply services.....
Help supply services............
Computer and data
processing services...........
Government..............................
Federal....................................
State government..................
State government
education............................
Local government..................
Local government
education............................

84,643

84,477

106,938

106,912

-166

-.2

-26

0

5,781
3,513
969

5,781
3,513
975

7,119
4,587
1,315

6,962
4,425
1,228

0
0
6

0
0
.6

-157
-162
-87

-2.2
-3.5
-6.6

2,268
6,177
19,630

2,268
6,107
19,374

2,531
7,066
23,448

2,537
6,948
23,404

0
-70
-256

0
-1.1
-1.3

6
-118
-44

.2
-1.7
-0.2

6,708
3,276
2,116
1,316
27,889

6,702
3,223
2,169
1,310
28,181

7,607
3,747
2,350
1,510
41,026

7,633
3,767
2,356
1,509
40,942

-6
-53
53
-6
292

-.1
-1.6
2.5
-.5
1.0

26
20
6
-1
-84

.3
.5
.3
-.1
-.2

1,633
5,158
810
1,543
1,292

1,605
5,071
800
1,470
1,253

1,956
9,854
1,007
3,735
3,335

1,852
9,389
994
3,302
2,936

-28
-87
-10
-73
-39

-1.7
-1.7
-1.2
-4.7
-3.0

-104
-465
-13
-433
-399

-5.3
-4.7
-1.3
-11.6
-12.0

771
18,459
3,281
4,294

785
18,332
2,951
4,358

2,186
20,673
2,614
4,820

2,193
21,022
2,615
4,922

14
-127
-330
64

1.8
-.7
-10.1
1.5

7
349
1
102

.3
1.7
.0
2.1

1,725
10,883

1,758
11,023

2,044
13,239

2,111
13,485

33
140

1.9
1.3

67
246

3.3
1.9

6,019

6,105

7,480

7,627

86

1.4

147

2.0

'Includes other industries not shown separately.
Note: December figures are preliminary.

28

Percent

First quarter 2001
to fourth quarter 2001

Monthly Labor Review February 2002


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

still lower in most parts of the country in the fourth quarter of
2001 than they were in the second quarter of 1990. The Mid­
west posted the smallest rate increase from the first to fourth
quarter o f 2001, 0.8 percentage point, while the largest jump,
1.4 percentage points, was recorded in the West. From the sec­
ond quarter of 1990 to the first quarter of 1991, regional un­
employment rate increases ranged from a low of 0.9 per­
centage point—once again in the Midwest—to a high of 1.7
points in the Northeast.
Among geographic divisions, the Pacific experienced the
sharpest upturn in unemployment from the first quarter of
2001, 1.5 percentage points, compared to a relatively steeper
2.4-point increase in New England during the 1990-91 reces­
sion. The Pacific’s unemployment rate rises were similar over
the two periods. In New England, however, the rise of 1.4 per­
centage points over the current period was well below that of
the previous recession. While the Pacific increase in 2001 was
accompanied by relatively modest job losses, the New England
increase in 1990-91 was associated with a severe decline in
total nonfarm employment. New England’s job count, at just
over 6.4 million in the second quarter of 1990, would hit bot­
tom slightly below six million in the first quarter of 1992 and
not rebound to its pre-recession peak until the fourth quarter
of 1997. The West South Central and Mountain were the only
divisions where unemployment rates climbed more rapidly
during the current downturn than the previous one.
There were unemployment rate increases in 45 States and
the District of Columbia in 2001, about the same number as in
the early 1990s. Rates in several States responded very differ­
ently in 2001, however. Most notably, the Delaware unem­
ployment rate fell by 0.5 percentage point from the first to
fourth quarter o f2001, but rose by 2.8 points during the 199091 recession. Similarly, the West Virginia rate fell by 0.8 per­
centage point in 2001, but jumped by 2.1 points over the 199091 period. In contrast, the jobless measure in Colorado climbed
2.0 percentage points over the current period, having dropped
by 0.5 point over the previous one.
Total nonfarm employment contracted in 36 States between
the first and fourth quarter of 2001, compared with 30 States
and the District of Columbia during the last recession. In Indi­
ana—the State with the highest proportion of total nonfarm
employment in manufacturing—the unemployment rate rose
twice as much over the current period as during the 1990-91
recession. During the initial quarter of the recessionary period
in 2001, the steepest unemployment rate increases occurred in
States with relatively high concentrations of manufacturing
employment (0.8 percentage point each in Michigan and Wis­
consin, followed by 0.5 point each in Alabama, Illinois, North
Carolina, and South Carolina). This contrasted with the first
quarter of the 1990-91 recession, during which the largest rate
increases were registered for areas with relatively low propor­


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

tions of their employment in manufacturing (0.6 percentage
point in the District of Columbia and 0.5 point each in Idaho,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire).
Total private employment (as measured by the establish­
ment survey) peaked as the recession began and fell by 1.3
percent, or 1.4 million jobs, over the three following quarters.
That rate about matched that of the 1990-91 recession. (See
table 11.) Yet, such similarity masked important differences
between these two downturns. In 2001, even more than in the
prior recession, manufacturing dominated—accounting for
72.1 percent of the employment decline, versus 58.9 percent
in 1990-91.
The upswing in information technology manufacturing (es­
pecially semiconductors) turned into massive layoffs in 2001,
with the slump extending into wholesale trade and computer
and data processing services. The falling output of i t goods
also forced a cutback in investment in new production capac­
ity—a trend that became generalized in manufacturing and
led to significant job losses in industrial machinery. As the
resulting recession in manufacturing deepened, so did the lay­
offs of temporary help workers. Indeed, the economy’s in­
creased dependency on temporary help came more evident
because of these layoffs, which (unlike in 1990) began well
before the peak in nonfarm employment.
The decline in travel-dependent industries, whose situa­
tion worsened after the September 11th terrorist attacks, fur­
ther distinguishes the 2001 downturn from that of 1990. Most
notable were the layoffs in air transportation and hotels and
other lodging places, both of which had been experiencing
slackening business travel since early in the year. The terror­
ist attacks also hurt consumer confidence, and, hence, retail
sales.
Despite the aftereffects of the terrorist attacks, consump­
tion generally held up better in 2001 than in the 1990-91 re­
cession. As a result, household spending softened job losses
throughout retail trade, while home buying slowed any cycli­
cal downswing in construction and real estate employment.
Indeed, employment continued to rise, albeit at a very slow
pace, in residential building. That growth contrasts starkly
with the 70,000 jobs lost during the 1990-91 recession. Spe­
cial trades contractors also benefited from the new home con­
struction activity. The industry’s job losses totaled 45,000 over
the first three quarters of the recession, approximately onefifth the decline seen during the prior recession. In construc­
tion and in the rest of the economy, consumers helped miti­
gate the effects of the downturn, as steady personal consump­
tion helped compensate for falling business investment.
T h e l a b o r m a r k e t w e a k e n e d c o n s i d e r a b l y i n 2001. Employ­
ment fell and unemployment rose, as the economy entered a
recession. Following an extended period of low unemploy-

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

29

U.S. labor market, 2001

ment rates, in 2001, there were sizeable increases in the un­
employment rates of all major groups. The pace of job growth
in most major occupational fields slowed considerably from
that of 2000, including employment declines in many occu­
pations, especially those concentrated in the manufacturing
and services and retail trade industries. Earnings growth also
slowed over the year.
Nonfarm payroll employment fell by 762,000 in 2001,
dominated by layoffs in manufacturing and in personnel sup­

ply services. Construction and retail sales experienced small
employment gains for the year, as a result of hiring early in
the year, which somewhat outweighed the small employment
declines that occurred after the March 2001 start of the reces­
sion. The September 11th terrorist attacks hurt an already
weakened travel industry and contributed to large-scale lay­
offs in airlines and hotels. Health services and higher educa­
tion, in contrast, accelerated their hiring in 2001, adding more
than 400,000 workers.
□

Notes

1 Recessions are determined by the National Bureau o f Economic
Research. See details at http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/
recessnov.html (visited January 2002).
2 On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked three locations in the
United States. Terrorist pilots hijacked commercial jetliners and crashed
them into each o f the twin towers o f the World Trade Center in N ew
York City, and into the Pentagon, in Arlington, Virginia. The hijacking
attempt o f a fourth jetliner was aborted in a field in Pennsylvania.

11 Caroline Miller, “Big paper cuts,” Printing Impressions, June 2001.
12 Trade data by SIC is available from the U.S. International Trade
C o m m iss io n ’s in te ra c tiv e ta r iff and trade d ataw eb , h ttp ://

dataweb.usitc.gov.
13 “Media companies: sucked into quicksand,” The E conom ist, Oct.
27, 2001, pp. 59-60.
14 Data on before tax profits from National Income and Product A c­
counts produced by the U.S. Bureau o f Economic Analysis http://
www.bea.doc.gov (visited January 2002).

3 The Federal Reserve publishes estimates o f industrial production,
which are available online at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/
G 17/. The Census Bureau produces data on manufacturing inventories
and publishes them online at http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/
m3/index.html (visited January 2002).

15 “Business: The jobs challenge,” The E conom ist, July 14, 2001,
pp. 56-57; “Business: Where did all the money go?” The E conom ist,
June 23, 2001, pp. 55-56.

4 Car and light truck inventory data are produced by the Automotive
N ew s Data Center. Data are available on a subscription basis.

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/m3/index.html (visited Janu­

5 Karen Lundegaard, “Delphi Automotive to Trim Work Force by
5%,” Wall Street Journal, Mar. 30, 2001; Rhoda Miel, “Despite record
auto sales, industry cuts jobs,” A utom otive N ew s, Nov. 19, 2001; Amy
Wilson, “Suppliers strain to make a profit,” A utom otive News, Oct.
15, 2001.
6 Auto-related manufacturing industries include automotive and ap­
parel trimmings (SIC 2396); flat glass (SIC 3211); automobile stampings
(SIC 3465); carburetors, pistons, rings, valves (SIC 3592); vehicular
lighting equipment (SIC 3647); engine electrical equipment (SIC 3694).
7 The twelve European Union member states initially participating
in the Euro are Austria, Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. For
more information, see the European Central Bank’s Euro information
website at http://www.euro.ecb.int (visited February 2002.) Overall
exchange rates as measured by the Federal Reserve’s price-adjusted
broad dollar index, available online at http://www.federalreserve.gov/
releases/H lO /Sum m ary (visited January 2002). A lso, see “The
greenback’s charm,” The E conom ist, July 14, 2001, pp. 67-68.
8 Steel prices as measured by the commodity Producer Price Index
for Iron and Steel, available online at http://www.bls.gov/ppi.
9 “Smeltdown: steel producers,” The E conom ist, Oct. 20, 2001, pp.
62-65.
10 The review is documented at http://www.usitc.gov/steel (visited
January 2002).

30

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

16 Data on shipments are produced by the U.S. Census Bureau at
ary 2002). Data on exports by SIC comes from the U.S. International
Trade Commissions’ dataweb, http://dataweb.usitc.gov (visited Janu­
ary 2002).
17 Together Taiwan and South Korea accounted for 31.4 percent o f
total special industrial machinery exports in 2000.
18 These industries are computers and office equipment (SIC 357),
communications equipment (SIC 366), and electronic components and
accessories (SIC 367), which is principally semiconductor manufac­
turing. N ew orders for information technology goods are produced by
the Census Bureau.
19 Jerry Knight, “Telecoms are Hurting and Their Suppliers Feel the
Pain,” The Washington Post, Oct. 30, 2000.
20 “More time with the family,” The E conom ist, Apr. 28, 2001, pp.
78-79.
21 See, for example, the August 2001 Federal Reserve Beige Book.
It is published online at http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOM C/
BeigeBook/2001/ (visited January 2002).
22 Jennifer R. Martel and David S. Langdon, “The job market in
2001,” M onthly Labor Review , February 2001, pp. 3 -3 0 .
23 Truck tonnage data is published by the American Trucking A sso­
ciation, online at http://www.truckline.com (visited January 2002).
24 Data from input-output tables produced by BLS Employment Pro­
jectio n s Program, available online at http://w w w .bls.gov/em p/
empind3.htm (visited January 2002).

25 Marcelo Estevao and Saul Lach estimated that the temporary help
workers in the manufacturing workforce rose from approximately 1
percent in 1990 to nearly 4 percent in 1997, with high-tech industries
(defined as SIC 35 and SIC 36, excluding SIC 363) reaching nearly 6
percent. Marcelo Estevao and Saul Lach, “The Evolution o f the D e­
mand for Temporary Help Supply Employment in the United States,”
NBER working paper, December 1999. A lso see “Just-in-time inven­
tories and labor: a study o f two industries, 1990-98,” Chapter 1 , 1999
R eport on the A m erican Workforce (Washington, Bureau o f Labor Sta­
tistics).

like home,” New York Times, Aug. 16, 2001. Stephane Fitch and Bran­
don Copple, “What if housing crashed?” F orbes, Sept. 3, 2001, pp.
76-80.

26 Comparison o f Personnel Supply (SIC 736) with all 2-digit indus­
tries.

43 “Nightmare on Fifth Avenue: American retailers,” The E cono­
m ist, Oct. 6, 2001, pp. 58-61. Martha M cNeil Hamilton, “Retail sales
slowed in September; some chains hit hard; discounters post gains,”
The Washington Post, Oct. 12, 2001.

27 Data are from the input-output tables produced by BLS Employ­
ment Projections program.
28 Ibid.

41 The comparisons are based on preliminary December retail sales
estimates, which are produced by the U.S. Census Bureau, and are
available online at http://www.census.gov/econ/www/retmenu.html
(visited February 2002). The industry definitions follow the 1997 North
American Industrial Classification System.
42 Ibid.

44 Devon Spurgeon, “Albertson’s to Cut Staffby 15% to 20%, Close or
Sell 165 Underperforming Stores,” Wall Street Journal, July 18, 2001.

29 Construction-related manufacturing industries include various 4digit industries within lumber products; stone, clay, and glass prod­
ucts; fabricated metals; rubber and other plastic products; and chemi­
cals.

45 Tom Weir, “Retail overstock,” Superm arket B usiness, Oct. 15,
2001, pp. 1, 6, and 8.

30 See the archived Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletins prepared by
the U .S . Department o f Agriculture, available online at http://
www.usda.gov/oce/waob/jawf/wwcb.html (visited February 2002).

w w w .n a d a .o r g /C o n te n t/N a v ig a tio n M e n u /M e d ia C e n te r /
NADAData/NADAData.htm (visited January 2002).

31 Construction activity is measured by its value put in place. These
data are produced by the U.S. Census Bureau and are available online
at http://www.census.gov/const/www/c30index.html (visited Janu­
ary 2002).
32 Debra K. Rubin, and others, “TEA-21: Road and Rail Funding’s
N ew Stake,” E ngineering N ew s Record, Aug. 6, 2001, pp. 32-37.
R eview the FY 2000 data; FY 2001, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/
tablell_part4.htm (visited January 2002).
33 The value o f construction put-in-place statistics are produced by
the U .S . C en su s Bureau and are a v a ila b le on lin e at h ttp ://
www.census.gov/const/www/c30index.html (visited January 2002).
34 Ibid.
35 Monthly mortgage rates are published by the Federal Reserve online
at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/G13/ (visited January
2002). The Conference Board produces the Index o f consumer confi­
dence and published it monthly at http://www.conferenceboard.org
(visited January 2002).
36 Affordability as measured the National Association o f Realtors’
housing affordability indices, available online at http://nar.realtor.org
(visited February 2002).
37 See, for example, “La-Z-Boy Profit Falls 80%,” New York Times
(Reuters), Aug. 15, 2001.
38 Kim Kennedy, “Furniture industry drags despite strong housing,”
F acilities D esign & M anagem ent, Aug. 2001. Mary Ellen Lloyd, “Fur­
niture sellers begin to rethink strategy,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 11,
2000. Leslie Kaufman, “Bankruptcies defy growth in furniture,” New
York Times, Aug. 18, 2000.
39 Year-over-year percent change o f the mortgage refinancing index
published by the Mortgage Bankers Association o f America, http://
www.mbaa.org (visited January 2002).
40 Jonathan Fuerbringer, “During a bear market, there’s no place


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

46 Figures from 2001 A uto D ata, published by the National Auto­
m o b ile D e a ler s A s s o c ia tio n and a v a ila b le o n lin e at h ttp ://

47 Sholnn Freeman, “Big Auto Makers Brace for Waves o f Used
Cars,” Wall Street Journal, Aug. 7, 2001; M icheline Maynard, “Why
Dealers are Putting a N ew Shine on Used Cars,” N ew York Times, Apr.
15, 2001.
48 M ichael Arndt and Williams Symonds, “Suddenly, Carriers Can’t
Get o ff the Ground,” Business Week, Sept. 3,2001, p. 36; Joan Feldman;
“The going gets tough,” A ir Transport World, May 2001, pp. 72-75.
49 See, for example, the Federal Reserve Beige Book for June 2001
and August 2001, available online at http://www.federalreserve.gov/
FOMC/BeigeBook/2001/ (visited January 2002).
50 Tim O’Brien, and others, “Waterparks: Season in Review,” A m use­
m ent Business, Oct. 8, 2001; “Summer summary,” A m usem ent B usi­
ness, Sept. 10, 2001, pp. 18, 20.
51 This comparison excludes the August 1997 strike in air transpor­
tation.
52 Michael Mecham, and others, “Manufacturers’ Layoffs Could
Reach 100,000,” Aviation Week a n d Space Technology, Oct. 1, 2001,
p. 43; “Airbus Gloomy Over Economy,” P rofessional E ngineering,
Aug. 15, 2001, p. 10.
53 J. Lynn Lunsford, “Boeing Raises Estimated Deliveries for ’01,
Foresees Sharper Production Drop in ’02,” Wall Street Journal, Oct.
18, 2001.
54 William Goodman, “Employment in services industries affected
by recessions and expansions,” M onthly L abor R eview , October 2001,
pp. 3-11.
55 “Better late than never,” M odern H ealthcare, Jan. 1, 2001, p. 14.
56 See, for example, the “Frequently asked questions” section about
the Producer Price Index at http://www.bls.gov/ppi/ppifaq.htm (vis­
ited January 2002).
57 The Producer Price Indices are published by BLS and are avail­
able on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ppi.

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

31

U.S. labor market, 2001

58 The enrollment projections are published in Chapter 3 o f the U.S.
Department o f Education’s D igest o f Education Statistics, 2000, which
is available online at http://nces.ed.gOv/pubs2001/digest/ch3.html#l
(visited January 2002).
59 The 2001 annual average labor force participation rate o f teenag­
ers, at 50 percent, was the lowest annual rate since 1971.
60 Labor force participation among teenagers also fell sharply dur­
ing the recessions o f the early 1980s and 1990s. In contrast to move­
ments in previous expansions, during the subsequent expansions o f the
1980s and 1990s, teenage participation in the labor force never fully
recovered to prerecession levels.
61 Persons 20 years o f age and older are referred to as adults.
6“ A family is defined as a group o f two or more persons residing
together who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption; all such per­
sons are considered as members o f one family. Families discussed in
this section do not necessarily include children younger than 18. Per­
sons 20 years o f age and older are referred to as adults.
63 The family unemployment rates refer to the proportion o f families
with an unemployed adult.
64 For a more detailed description o f this methodology, see Randy E.
Ilg, “The nature o f employment growth, 1989-95,” M onthly Labor
R eview , June 1996, pp. 2 9 -36. Following methods employed earlier
by Ilg, major occupation-industry pairs (such as professionals in manu­
facturing) were ranked in descending order by their median weekly
earnings in 1996. The categories were then divided into three groups—
highest, middle, and lowest earnings— each o f which accounted for
approximately one-third o f employment in 1996. An employment time
series for each occupation-industry category from January 1996 through
December 2001 was developed, and data for the job categories were
sorted into the appropriate earnings groups. The monthly time-series
data that were used were independently seasonally adjusted and do not
sum to the total-employment figures.
65 Reentrants are persons who previously worked but were out o f the
labor force prior to beginning their job search. N ew entrants are per­
sons who never worked before and who are entering the labor force for
the first time.
66 During a recession, an increase in those unemployed more than 5
weeks naturally follow s an initial increase in the newly unemployed,
as those who were unemployed early into the slowdown find it in­
creasingly difficult to find a job.
67 Numbers do not sum to 100 due to rounding.
68 For additional information, see John E. Bregger and Steven E.
Haugen, “BLS introduces new range o f alternative unemployment mea­
sures,” M onthly L abor Review, October 1995, pp. 19-26. Two o f the
alternative measures, U -l and U-2, are excluded from the analysis in
this paper because they focus on duration o f unemployment and rea­
sons for unemployment; issues that have been discussed earlier. Data,
as discussed in this section, are not seasonally adjusted.
69 Discouraged workers are persons not in the labor force who want and
are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past
12 months (or since the end o f their last job i f they held one within
the past 12 months), but are not currently looking, because they
believe there are no jo b s available or there are none for which they
qualify.

32

Monthly Labor Review February 2002


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

70 Marginally attached workers are persons who wanted and were
available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12
months but were not counted as unemployed because they had not ac­
tively searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discour­
aged workers are a subset o f marginally attached workers.
71 Part-time workers are persons working 1 to 34 hours per week.
72 See Deborah Feyerick, “Tight Labor Market Holds Risks For
Economy,” CNN.com , February 4, 2000, available on the Internet at
http://europe.cnn.com/2000/US/02/04/labor.shortage/(visited Janu­
ary 2002). A lso see Steve B ills, “Retailers Scram ble for h elp,”
CNN.com, November 24, 2000, available on the Internet at http://
m o n ey .cn n .com /2000/ll/24/p eop le/retailjob s/ (visited January

2002) .
73 Population growth in this section refers to growth in the civilian
noninstitutional population age 16 years or older.
74 For a discussion o f potential sources o f labor, see Jennifer L. Martel
and David S. Langdon, “The job market in 2000: slowing down as the
year ended,” M onthly Labor Review , February 2001, pp. 15-16.
75 The Board o f Governors o f the Federal Reserve System, for ex­
ample, tracks changes in the pool o f available workers to help evaluate
labor supply conditions. One example is its “Monetary Policy Report
to the Congress,” February 17, 2000, available on the Internet at http:/

/ w w w .fe d e r a l r e s e r v e .g o v /b o a r d d o c s /h h /2 0 0 0 /F e b r u a r y /
Testimony.htm (visited February 2002).
76 Strictly comparable data on those not in the labor force, but who
want a job, are not available for years prior to 1994.
77 The data in this section o f the article are annual averages.
78 These data were first available in 1979.
79 The four regions and nine divisions are composed o f the follow ­
ing entities: Northeast: N ew E ngland division—Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, N ew Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont; M iddle A t­
lantic division—N ew Jersey, N ew York, Pennsylvania; M idwest: E ast
N orth C entral division— Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wiscon­
sin; West N orth C entral division— Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota; South: South A tlantic divi­
sion— Delaware, District o f Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia; E ast South
C entral division—Alabama, Kentucky, M ississippi, Tennessee; West
South C entral division—Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas; West:
M ountain division— Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, N ew
M exico, Utah, Wyoming; P acific division—Alaska, California, Ha­
waii, Oregon, Washington.
80 Monthly series for the West region, the Pacific division, and Cali­
fornia begin in 1980. Series for other regions, divisions, and States
begin in 1978.
81 Neither unemployment nor payroll employment data are available
on a seasonally adjusted basis for metropolitan areas. The metropoli­
tan area data presented here are not seasonally adjusted quarterly data,
which preclude analysis o f over-the-quarter changes.
82 The National Bureau o f Economic Research, the official arbiter o f
business cycle peaks and troughs, determined that a business cycle
peak was reached in July 1990. Likewise, a peak was officially recog­
nized to have been reached in March 2001. This section investigates
some o f the effects o f the three quarters o f recession in 2001, by com-

paring and contrasting them with the first three quarters o f the reces­
sion in the early 1990s.
83 Formerly referred to by the International Labor Organization as
“visible” underemployment, time-related underemployment (as it is now
known) “exists when the hours o f work o f an employed person are
insufficient in relation to an alternative employment situation in which
the person is willing and available to engage.” For further discussion
o f this concept, see International Labour Office, “Bulletin o f Labour
Statistics,” (February 1998-4.)
84 Due to the CPS redesign in 1994, the category “part-time for eco­


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

nomic reasons” was redefined, effectively reducing the group o f work­
ers included. Adjustment factors were used in order to compare the
results from the two relevant time periods. After adjustment, the in­
crease in those working part time for economic reasons in the early
1990s period was slightly greater than 14 percent, while the increase
in 2001 was around 31 percent. For a description o f the effects o f the
redesign and the adjustment factors used, see Anne E. Polivka and
Stephen M. Miller, “The CPS After the Redesign: Refocusing the Eco­
nomic Lens,” U.S. Bureau o f Labor Statistics Research Papers, March
1995, pp. 32-34, available on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ore/
abstract/ec/ec950090.htm (visited January 2002).

Where are you publishing your research?
The Monthly Labor Review will consider for publication studies of the labor force,
labor-management relations, business conditions, industry productivity, compensation,
occupational safety and health, demographic trends, and other economic developments.
Papers should be factual and analytical, not polemical in tone.
We prefer (but do not require) submission in the form of an electronic file in
Microsoft Word, either on a diskette or as an attachment to e-mail. Please use separate
files for the text of the article; the tables; and charts. We also accept hard copies of
manuscripts.
Potential articles should be mailed to: Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bu­
reau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC 20212, or by e-mail to mlr@bls.gov

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

33

American Time Use SurviÜ

lillfe

The American Time Use Survey:
cognitive pretesting
Cognitive pretesting o f the American Time Use Survey
has resulted in several redesigns that disambiguated
the wording o f a number o f questions in the instrument;
further testing will ensure that the survey delivers
high-quality data on an ongoing basis

Lisa K. Schwartz

n the early 1990s, the Bureau of Labor Statis­
tics ( b l s , the Bureau) began exploring the
feasibility o f conducting a new survey to
measure how Americans spend their time. The
primary purposes of the survey were (and still
are) to improve estimates o f time spent in
nonmarket activities (for example, child care) and
in market-related work and to provide data on a
variety of quality-of-life indices beyond income
and earnings. In 1998, a b l s working group de­
veloped specifications for the American Time
Use Survey and began pretesting the question­
naire through a series of cognitive studies that
investigated how respondents understood and
interpreted the survey’s concepts and ques­
tions. Today, the Bureau continues developing
and testing the survey, with full production
scheduled for calendar year 2003.

I

Historical background

Lisa K. Schwartz is a
research psychologist
and Associate
Program Manager of
the American Time
Use Survey, Division of
Labor Force Statistics,
Bureau of Labor
Statistics.

34

The application of cognitive psychology to sur­
vey methods is motivated by the need to solve
practical problems associated with question­
naires.1 The Cognitive Aspects of Survey Meth­
odology movement traces its beginnings to a
1980 U.S. conference that explored the implica­
tions of memory and recall on the quality of data
in the National Crime Survey. Following that con­
ference, several hypotheses were generated to
test cognitive methods for improving recall of

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

victimization, and the results were incorporated
into the redesign of the National Crime Survey.
Shortly thereafter, in 1981, the Census Bureau
opened the Center for Survey Methods Research,
and in 1983, the first advanced seminar on the cog­
nitive aspects of survey methodology ( c a s m I) was
held in St. Michaels, Maryland.2 The seminar
brought together cognitive psychologists and
survey practitioners in a deliberate effort to en­
courage interdisciplinary research into how the
cognitive aspects of recall, comprehension, and
judgment affect responses to a survey.3 In 1985,
the National Center for Health Statistics opened
the Questionnaire Design Research Lab, which be­
gan routine testing o f data collection instruments.
From 1986 to 1993, the Census Bureau and the Bu­
reau of Labor Statistics collaborated on cognitive
research to support the Current Population Sur­
vey ( c p s ) redesign and conducted studies that
helped inform the Office of Management and
Budget’s Directive 15, the Government standard
for collecting information about race and ethnicity.
In 1988, the Bureau of Labor Statistics opened the
Collection Procedures Research Laboratory (now
the Behavioral Science Research Center) to foster
interdisciplinary research to improve the quality
of data collected and published by the Bureau.4
This article describes the findings from a se­
ries o f cognitive studies that were conducted
as part o f the American Time Use Survey’s de­
velopment.

Overview of the survey

participate in a single session that lasted approximately 1 hour.

The questionnaire. As mentioned earlier, the b l s American
Time Use Survey is scheduled for full production in January
2003. National estimates are slated to be available in mid-2004.
Eligible respondents5 will be randomly selected from a subset
of households that recently completed their final (eighth) c p s
interview.6 All interviews will be conducted by the Census
Bureau, using computer-assisted telephone interviewing. The
primary focus of the interview will be on the respondent’s
previous day’s activities. The Bureau of Labor Statistics ex­
pects to conduct about 2,000 interviews per month—or 24,000
annually—and production will be continual throughout the
year. The interview that will be conducted in 2003 will com­
prise several sections, described in exhibit 1.

Child care

Summary questions. The original specifications for the sur­
vey that were published in the National Research Council (NRC)
report and Monthly Labor Review articles did not include de­
scriptions of summary questions.7 Shortly after the publica­
tion of those sources, the American Time Use Survey working
group designed a set of summary questions that asked re­
spondents about four specific activities: child care, depend­
ent care, paid work, and absences from home. In the fall and
winter o f2000, researchers completed Phase I pilot tests of the
summary questions. Cognitive interviews revealed a number
of problems resulting from respondents’ differing interpreta­
tions of the wording of questions.8 On the basis of these find­
ings, the question on dependent care was dropped, and Phase
II tests began on a revised set of the remaining summary ques­
tions in the winter o f2000.

General testing methodology
Research contractors and psychologists in the b l s Office of
Survey Methods Research conducted the cognitive pretests
of the American Time Use Survey’s summary questions. Phase
1 testing relied on face-to-face mock time-use interviews, fol­
lowed by intensive cognitive interviews.9 In full production,
however, the survey will be conducted by telephone. The use
of telephone interviewing methodology raises potential recall
issues that needed to be addressed in testing. Thus, in all
subsequent tests, the mock interviews were conducted by
phone. Respondents were tested at the Bureau and at other
research facilities. Researchers greeted respondents and then
phoned them from a separate room to conduct the interview.
Upon completion of the mock interview, respondents partici­
pated in a face-to-face intensive cognitive interview designed
to highlight recall and interpretation difficulties that could jeop­
ardize the quality of the data collected.
Respondents were recruited through databases of research
participants, through advertisements in local newspapers, via
e-mail, and by word of mouth. Each respondent was paid to


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

Background and research objectives. To gain a more com­
plete picture of who is caring for children and to identify the
activities that adults combine with child care, time spent in
secondary child care needs to be measured. Briefly, the con­
cept of secondary child care recognizes a distinction between
two types of parental or caregiver activities. There are times
during which a parent or caregiver may be actively and di­
rectly engaged with a child. In a time-use interview, these pri­
mary child-care activities are reported in the diary. Examples
of respondents’ statements referencing activities that would
be classified as primary child care are “I was feeding my child,”
“I was reading to my child,” and “I was helping my child with
her homework.” There are other times during which a parent or
caregiver is indirectly involved with a child, such as when the
adult is engaged in some other activity, but is still mindful of,
and responsible for, the child. This state of being mindful of,
and responsible for, a child while engaged in some other, pri­
mary activity is termed secondary child care. The Bureau de­
cided that it would be too burdensome to ask respondents,
upon each report of a primary activity, if they were also caring
for a child during that activity.10 Instead, the Bureau opted to
try to measure secondary child care with a summary question
administered upon completion of the diary. Questions about
secondary child care are restricted to care for children under
the age of 13.11
Preliminary development of a survey methodology for col­
lecting information on secondary child care began in 2000.
Focus groups were conducted during which participants were
shown examples of the kinds of activities that the Bureau was
interested in capturing and were asked to provide their own
descriptors for those activities.12 Participants strongly sug­
gested that the concept of secondary child care is not intu­
itively meaningful, because most parents would consider
those activities “just part of being a parent.” When asked,
“What would you call these kinds of activities?” focus group
participants suggested a number of phrases that could be used
to capture secondary child care. Their preferred phrase was
“taking care of,” followed by “looking after.” Participants also
offered the alternative phrase “in your care.” Upon reflection,
“taking care o f ’ seemed to include a more active component
than was intended by the concept of secondary child care and
thus was not considered for further testing. The phrases “look­
ing after” and “in your care” were tested in Study 1. Respond­
ents were asked about their care for children who lived in their
household. Similar questions were then asked about the re­
spondents’ care for children who were not a part of their house­
hold during the previous day. If respondents reported unpaid
care for nonhousehold children 12 years or younger, they were
asked to identify whether they were related to the children for
Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

35

American Time Use Survey

1 Structure of the American Time Use Survey
Section number and title

Description

1. cps updates

Information about the composition of the respondent’s household and the
respondent’s labor force status will be updated.

2. Additional background information

Information on the employment status of the respondent’s spouse or unmarried
partner will be collected. Respondents will also be asked to report the age and sex
of each of their own children under 18 years who do not reside in the household.

3. Time-use component

A 24-hour time diary will be collected. The reference period will begin at 4:00
a . m . on the day before the interview and end at 4:00 a . m . on the day of the
interview.1 The interview will be semistructured, using “conversational inter­
viewing” to probe for detailed information needed for coding.2 Contextual in­
formation about where and with whom an activity occurred will be collected
for each activity, except for personal care activities (sleeping and grooming)
and those the respondent reports as “private.” Information about simultaneous
activities will not be collected.3

4. Summary questions

Upon completion of the diary, respondents will be asked a series of summary
questions which elicit details about the previous day’s activities that may not
have been reported in the diary. Some summary questions also will be used to
collect information about activities that occurred outside the “yesterday” refer­
ence period. (These questions are described more fully in the text.)

5. Additional

Information about employed respondents’ usual earnings and current industry,
occupation, and class of worker will be updated. Information on unemployed
respondents’ jobseeking activities will be collected. Information on school enroll­
ment status will be collected for all respondents aged 15 to 45 years.

cps

updates

6. Modules

1 Original plans called for
New Zealand, and Eurostat all
rily because most people are
spondents may still be doing
from the previous day.

After the first year of full production, the survey will include modules that will
collect detailed information about specific activities of interest to data users.
a midnight-to-midnight diary. Canada,
begin their diaries at 4:00 a .m ., primaasleep at that time. At midnight, reactivities that would be carried over

2 Conversational interviewing is a flexible interviewing style that
allows the interviewer to work with the respondent to ensure that the
respondent interprets the questions consistently. As regards the diary,
the conversational interviewing approach will allow respondents to use
their own language to reconstruct their previous day’s activities and will
permit interviewers to ask follow-up questions of a probing nature when
they are needed to disambiguate verbatim reports.

whom they provided care. The alternative versions of the ques­
tion are shown in exhibit 2. The primary goal of this project
was to determine whether there are important distinctions be­
tween the two expressions “looking after” and “in your care.”
Findings. In testing, the inclusion of a child-care summary
question added dramatically to estimates of time spent provid­

36

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

3 The survey asks respondents to report their main activity at
any given time. The survey does not ask, “What else were you
doing?” for each activity, because (1) doing so was perceived to be
too burdensome in a telephone interview and (2) some respondents
could not accurately report a duration for their secondary or ter­
tiary activities. (See L. Stinson, “Report on Cognitive Testing Phase
1: The American Time Use Survey Summary Questions” (Bureau of
Labor Statistics internal report, 2000).) Summary questions on child
care will be used to estimate time spent caring for a child while doing
other things. Further research will be conducted to examine whether
and how accurate data on simultaneous activities might be collected;
however, such data will not be collected during the first year o f the
survey (2003).

ing secondary child care.13 Across groups, respondents (n =
21)14 reported an average of 3:44 hours (that is, 3 hours and 44
minutes; s e = 0:53) engaged in secondary child-care activities.
This figure contrasts with 2:20 hours ( s e = 0:22) engaged in
primary child-care activities. Respondents preferred the phrase
“in your care” to “looking after,” primarily because it sug­
gested a more nurturing relationship between the parent or

Alternative versions of question on child care
Statement or
question

Description

Lead-in

Now I’d like to talk with you in a little more detail about child care. Child care certainly includes active
things like feeding or playing with your children. But it also includes things that you could do even while
doing something else, like looking after them.

First question

I’d like you to think back over your day yesterday. During any part of the day yesterday, were you
looking after [fill with names from household roster of children less than 13 years]?

Second question [If yes to first question] At which times or during which activities were you looking after [fill with names
from household roster of children less than 13 years]?
Lead-in

Now I’d like to talk with you in a little more detail about child care. Child care certainly includes active
things like feeding or playing with your children. But it also includes times when children are in your care,
even while you are doing other things.

First question

I’d like you to think back over your day yesterday. During any part of the day yesterday, was/were [fill
with names from household roster of children less than 13 years] in your care?

Second question [If yes to first question] At which times or during which activities was/were [fill with names from house­
hold roster of children less than 13 years in your carel
other caregiver and the child; further, those who did prefer “in
your care” reported significantly more time spent engaged in
secondary child care than did respondents who preferred
“looking after.”15 However, a confounding variable in the ex­
perimental design made it impossible to draw firm conclu­
sions from this research: respondents with higher levels of edu­
cation were disproportionately represented among those who
made up the “in your care” group. Another problem that emerged
was that respondents were inconsistent in their determination of
when child care could occur. Some respondents reported care
when they themselves were sleeping. Others reported care when
their children were sleeping. These individual differences in in­
terpretation resulted in large differences in the estimates of time
spent providing secondary child care.
Second child-care study. A second study was conducted to
address the methodological limitations of the first one. Spe­
cifically, Study 2 attempted to control for some inconsisten­
cies in response patterns by implementing rules that bound
the time during which secondary care could occur. Because
respondents inconsistently reported secondary care when
they themselves were asleep,16 it was decided that child care
would be defined to have occurred when, and only when, the
respondent and at least one child were awake. The implemen­
tation of these rules required interviewers to collect informa­
tion about the times the first child woke and the last child went
to bed in order to bound the secondary-care period. This
approach is similar to one that was implemented in a 1998
Canadian time-use survey.17 Because respondents in Study 1
preferred the wording “in your care” to “looking after,” all
respondents in Study 2 (n = 16)18 were asked about times or


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

activities during which children who were 12 years or younger
were in their care. Respondents with lower levels of educa­
tion were recruited for this study.
Findings. Participants in Study 2 were demographically simi­
lar to respondents who were in the “looking after” group in
Study 1; however, they reported significantly more time in sec­
ondary child care than did the latter respondents. Respond­
ents reported an average of 36.9 activities in their time diaries
( s e = 3.2), of which 6 were primary child care ( s e = 1.0). Time
spent in primary child care was an average of 2:23 hours ( s e =
0:26). There were no statistically significant differences be­
tween respondents in Study 2 and either group of respond­
ents in Study 1 with respect to the number of activities they
reported in their time diaries, the number of primary child-care
activities they reported, or the amount of time they spent pro­
viding primary child care. In response to the modified sum­
mary question administered in Study 2, respondents reported
an average of 13.3 ( s e = 1.2) activities during which they were
providing secondary child care. Time spent in secondary child
care was an average of 5:32 hours ( s e = 1:04). Despite their
educational similarity to respondents in the “looking after”
group in Study 1, respondents in Study 2 reported signifi­
cantly more time spent in secondary child-care activities.19
Their reports were comparable to those obtained from respond­
ents with significantly higher levels of education who consti­
tuted the “in your care” group in Study 1. Comparisons across
groups are summarized in table 1.
It is important to note that the direct comparisons of esti­
mates of time spent in secondary child care are complicated by
the modifications to the summary question that were impleMonthly Labor Review

February 2002

37

American Time Use Survey

merited in Study 2. That study bounded the period of care by
the time the first child under the age of 13 got up and the last
child under the age of 13 went to bed. These restrictions were
not imposed in Study 1.
These data, while not conclusive, shed some light on the
findings coming out of Study 1. The findings from Study 2
suggest that the expression “in your care” may be more
broadly interpreted than “looking after” and that this broader
interpretation is shared across respondents with different lev­
els of educational attainment.20
Implications fo r the survey. Although some respondents
had difficulty remembering the times their children got up and
went to bed, bounding the child-care period in this manner
seems to be worthwhile. In the absence of a clearly defined
child-care period in Study 1, respondents varied widely in their
perceptions o f when their parental responsibilities began and
ended. The effectiveness of the summary question on sec­
ondary child care will continue to be evaluated in an additional
cognitive test of the diary and summary questions, with re­
sults likely to be available in February 2002.

Work-related summary questions
Background and research objectives. The American Time
Use Survey will collect information about time spent working
both in the diary and by means of a series of summary ques­
tions. In testing, the diary successfully captured time spent at
work by individuals who “went to work.” For example, when
reporting about workdays, most respondents reported some
amount of time spent at home engaged in various activities
prior to going to work. They reported traveling to work, and
then they reported the time they started working and the time
they stopped. In response to a question designed to identify
non-work-related activities, respondents reported breaks of
15 minutes or longer that occurred during the workday, such
as lunch breaks or time spent carrying out personal errands. In
addition to recording those activities associated with being
“at a workplace,” the diary captured time spent engaged in
other work-related activities when respondents clearly speci­
fied that an activity constituted work. These activities may be
identified in response to interviewers’ probing for selected
activities. For example, interviewers were trained to probe re­
ports of reading to determine whether the purpose of reading

was primarily work related or for personal interest. The use of
probes in these instances allowed an interviewer to identify
work-related activities accurately and ensured that such ac­
tivities were coded appropriately. Work activities were also
identified through additional information volunteered by the
respondent. Some respondents volunteered additional infor­
mation about activities that are not currently among those
selected to be probed. For example, one respondent reported
that a phone call made to a client was a “work” call. However,
in the absence of predetermined probes for telephone calls,
some work-related calls (and other activities) may not be re­
corded or coded accurately.
L. Stinson conducted a preliminary test of a question that
asked respondents to identify all activities for which they were
paid or for which they expected to be paid.21 This question suc­
ceeded in identifying informal income-generating activities, such
as making handicrafts that are sold on the side, but did not iden­
tify other work-related activities (that is, other than those re­
ported in the diary), such as making business-related phone
calls, engaging in business-related paperwork, mailing packages,
or spending time working for one’s job on a computer. Thus, a
number of issues related to the collection of paid work and workrelated activities remained unresolved. The Bureau attempted to
address these issues through the use of additional time diaiy
probes and a series of summary questions. The purpose of Phase
II testing was to evaluate the effectiveness of these methodolo­
gies in addressing a number of issues:
1. Can the American Time Use Survey measure the amount
of time spent working by self-employed respondents,
telecommuters, and other individuals who work in non­
standard work environments or whose work hours are
staggered throughout the day?
Measuring the amount of time spent working by these indi­
viduals introduces two areas of concern. First, respondents
who “go to work” may have an easy time following instruc­
tions to omit from their reports the individual activities that
constitute their workday. They simply report the time they
started working and the time they stopped. In comparison,
individuals who do not “go to work” may have difficulty re­
sponding in this way; they may report individual activities
that make up their workday. If this is the case, then these
individuals face a more burdensome interview. Second, the
diary may underestimate the amount of time these respond-

Results of testing child-care summary question

Hours spent in child care

Primary child care (hours).............
Secondary child care (hours)......

38

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

Study 1,
“looking after” group

Study 1,
“in your care” group

Study 2,
“in your care” group

Mean

SD

SE

Mean

SD

SE

Mean

SD

SE

2:16
1:42

1:27
1:01

0:27
0:21

2:23
5:23

1:57
4:39

0:35
1:24

2:23
5:32

1:40
4:01

0:26
1:04

ents spend working, because interviewers will be unable to
use travel information (for example, “I went to work”) or loca­
tion information (for example, “I was at work”) to help them
identify work activities.
2. For respondents with multiple jobs, can probes during
the collection of the time diary be used to identify for
which job an activity was undertaken, without unduly
burdening those respondents?
The Bureau is interested in coding work activities done for
a main job separately from activities done for a second or other
job. This classification scheme requires that multiple jobhold­
ers be able to report easily and accurately the job for which an
activity was performed.
3. Can the American Time Use Survey identify work activi­
ties done outside of standard work environments or out­
side of “normal work hours”?
Anecdotal evidence and data collected in the May 1997 c p s
suggest that some people bring work home with them and
work beyond their scheduled work hours. According to the
c p s data, more than 2 1 million persons did some work at home
for their main job. Also, more than half of the people who
worked at home were wage and salary workers who were not
“expressly paid for their time worked at home.”22 About 17
percent of the wage and salary workers who worked from home
were paid for their time. Self-employed workers, most of whom
had home-based businesses, made up the remainder of those
respondents who reported working from home.
Two work-related summary questions designed to address
the preceding issues were evaluated for effectiveness through
the use of cognitive interviewing techniques:
Lead-in: Because so much of our time is spent working,
I’d like to ask you a few questions to make sure that this
survey doesn’t miss any of your work activities.
Question 1: (Other than the times you said you were at

work) Were any of the (other) activities you mentioned
done for your job (or business)?
Question la [if yes to question 1]: Which ones?
Question 2: Were there any (other) activities that you were
paid for or expect to be paid for? [Read if necessary.
These would include things like crafts that you sell on
the side.]
Question 2a [if yes to question 2]: Which ones?
Findings. Thirty of 51 respondents23 reported in the time
diary that they engaged in at least one work activity. Respond­
ents reported an average of 1.3 times during the day that they
were working, and they said they spent an average of 3:58
hours ( s e = 0.32) engaged in activities during those work
blocks.24 In response to the first summary question, 32 of 51
respondents reported that they engaged in at least one activ­
ity which was done for their job or business. Respondents
reported an average of 2.7 activities performed for their job or
business, in which they spent an average of 2:39 hours ( se =
0.28). In the diary, multiple jobholders reported significantly
more time working than did self-employed workers or
freelancers (p < .04). Self-employed respondents and
freelancers reported significantly more time in activities done
for their jobs or businesses (and not also reported as work in
the diary) than did multiple jobholders (p < .02). No other dif­
ferences between any of the groups were statistically signifi­
cant. The data are presented in table 2.
Eight of 51 respondents reported at least one activity that
they performed for pay.25 Respondents who reported any ac­
tivities for pay reported an average of 0.5 activity and spent an
average of 19 minutes engaged in such “income-generating”
activities. There were no statistical differences between groups
with respect to their reports of activities they engaged in for
pay. The relevant data are depicted in chart 1.
The cognitive interview revealed that respondents defined
activities that they engaged in for their job or business more
broadly than had been intended. They included work prepara-

Hours spent in work and work-related activities
Time spent working,
reported in time diary

Time spent in work-related activities,
response to summary question

Category of employment

All workers..............................................
Self-employed...............................................
Multiple jobholders.........................................
Telecommuters..............................................
Salaried workers............................................
Freelancers...................................................

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

3:58
2:41
7:19
4:57
2:46
1:47

0:32
0:58
0:56
1:07
1:21
0:59

2:39
5:03
0:34
1:54
1:15
4:07

0:28
1:14
0:17
0:51
0:31
1:11

1 Salaried workers were interviewed on Monday about Sunday; they reported about work they brought home with them, not about a full workday.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

39

American Time Use Survey

Chart 1. Time spent at work, in work-related activities, and in other activities done for pay
Length of time
(hours:minutes)

Length of time
(hours:minutes)
Self-employed

Salaried worker
Freelancer

Telecommuter

Recorded In time diary

Done for job

All workers

Done for pay

Total time in market activities

tion activities, such as ironing clothes, and networking or
other relationship-building activities in their reports. Similarly,
respondents interpreted activities for which one is paid or
expects to be paid more broadly than had been intended. Some
respondents even included income-generating activities, such
as investment activities and playing the lottery.

asks, “Were there any activities that you were paid for or will
be paid for? Please do not include any paid time off.” The
results from the next round o f testing may be available by
February 2002.

Implications fo r the survey.
The work-related summary
questions are undergoing revision and further testing. On the
basis of the findings from cognitive testing, the first question
has been reworded as follows to clarify the kinds of activities
that should be excluded from respondents’ reports: “(You
told me about your work activities yesterday.) Were any of
the (other) activities you mentioned done for your job (or
business)? Please do not include getting ready for work or
commuting.” The first two parenthetical interpolations are
used for respondents who report work activities in their time
diaries. The third is used for self-employed respondents. The
second summary question about income-generating activi­
ties also has been reworded and is being tested. The new
version, which attempts to further narrow the scope of activi­
ties respondents report, reads, “O f all the activities you men­
tioned, which were done as part o f your job? Please do not
include getting ready for work or commuting.” To ensure that
respondents report income-generating activities beyond
crafts that are sold on the side, the original clarification to a
respondent that “These could include things like crafts that
you sell on the side” was omitted. A stipulation to exclude
reports of paid time off was added.26 The revised question

Background and research objectives. American Time Use
Survey respondents will be contacted at home by telephone
on a designated interviewing day and will asked to provide
detailed information about their activities the previous day
(the reference day). Bounding the reference period this way
reduces the chance that memory deficits will interfere with
accurate reports.27 However, missed interviews are a potential
problem with this collection methodology, because the inabil­
ity to reach a respondent on a specific day may be related to
the respondent’s activities on the reference day.
To illustrate, suppose that a respondent’s designated in­
terview day is Tuesday, March 6 (to collect information about
activities that occurred on Monday, March 5), but she misses
her interview because she is vacationing out of town.28 Sup­
pose further that the respondent is contacted on her 2nd des­
ignated day, Tuesday, March 13th, and reports about activi­
ties from her 2nd reference day, Monday, March 12th. The
report from this completed interview might have differed sub­
stantially from the (missed) report on her 1st reference day
(that is, while she was vacationing), had it been possible to
contact her on March 6th.
Because interviewers cannot reach people by phone when

40

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

Absences from home

Questions dealing with trips away from home
Statement or
question

Description

Lead-in

Thanks for telling me about what you did yesterday. Because this survey focuses on what people did
yesterday, the picture that we get of how people spend their time is incomplete. In particular, we get very little
information about what people do when they travel, even though we know that activities often change when
people travel. To help us get a more accurate picture of how you spend your time, I’d like to ask you a few
very general questions about times when you may have been away from home.

Ql

In the month of [preceding month], how many times were you away from home for 2 or more consecu­
tive nights?

Q2

(Let5s start with the most recent of those trips.) What was the main purpose of that (most recent) trip?1

Q3

Any other purpose?

Q4

How many days were you away to/for [insert main purpose]?

Q5

How many days were you away to/for [insert other purpose]?

1 Text in parentheses is used with respondents who went on more than one trip the preceding month.

they are traveling, the survey may underestimate activities
that respondents engage in when they are away from home
and overestimate the time they spend on activities at home.
Therefore, it is important to have a measure of this potential
bias. To that end, the survey needs to collect normative data
on the number of extended absences from home. The survey
will not be able to collect information about the kinds of activi­
ties respondents engage in when they are on an extended
absence from home. However, obtaining some information
about the purpose of trips away from home may guide future
research on how to minimize the bias. For example, if the major­
ity of absences from home in a given month are for business
travel, workdays could be weighted upwards to account for
missed days.
The Bureau developed a series of summary questions to
collect information about survey respondents’ extended ab­
sences from home. The effectiveness of these questions as
regards collecting information about activities outside of the
1-day reference period was tested by means of cognitive inter­
view techniques. The primary objectives of this study were (1)
to evaluate the accuracy with which respondents could recall
the month they were absent from home and the duration of the
trips they took, (2) to examine the impact of length of recall on
respondents’ reports, and (3) to identify meaningful catego­
ries into which the purposes of a trip could be classified. Ex­
hibit 3 shows the questions related to trips away from home
that were tested in the study.
The b l s Office of Field Operations provided respondents
for this test (n = 22). To help evaluate the accuracy of the


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

responses, the Office verified the month and duration of re­
spondents’ work-related trips.
Findings. The ease and accuracy with which respondents
could recall information about their trips varied with the length
of the recall period and the frequency with which the respond­
ent traveled. Sixty-four percent of trips that were verified were
accurate in terms of the month they occurred. Nine trips ap­
peared on respondents’ records, but were omitted from their
reports, and seven trips were reported for which no record
existed. Errors increased as the recall period increased. Thirtyone percent of trips that were verified were accurate in terms of
their duration. However, when the duration of a trip was re­
ported inaccurately, the report was usually off by only 1 day.
Respondents did not have any difficulty labeling trip scenarios
by purpose and suggested that categories to capture the pur­
pose of business trips, vacation or leisure travel, community
service or volunteer trips, career development trips, emergency
travel, and multipurpose trips be included as response op­
tions. Respondents could easily identify the main purpose of
their trips, but they found questions about “other” purposes
intrusive and difficult to answer.
Implications fo r the survey. On the basis of the findings from
the study, modifications were made to the summary questions
about absences from home. To assuage concerns that respond­
ents would need to report about trips away from home in as
much detail as is required in the time diary, midway through
testing the introduction to the survey was revised to specify
Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

41

American Time Use Survey

that only general information is needed about business, va­
cations, and other types of trips. Further, only information on
the main purpose of trips will be collected, and the response
categories will include a multipurpose option. To facilitate re­
call, respondents will not be asked about trips that occurred
more than 2 months ago.

Current projects and future directions
A cognitive test of the time diary and all three summary ques­
tions is currently underway. The primary objective of this test
is to evaluate the overall flow of the interview, with particular
attention paid to the order in which the summary questions
are asked. The study will also assess the cognitive difficulty
associated with completing the time-use interview and respond­
ents’ perceptions of the survey topic’s intrusiveness. Fortyfive individuals will participate in the study. The sample will
include young adults between the ages of 15 and 24 years and
adults aged 65 years and older, in order to ensure that the
survey content is meaningful to both age groups and that
their activities can be coded accurately with the use of the
survey’s coding lexicon. Results from this test likely will be
available in February 2002.
A separate test related to how travel is best coded is sched­
uled to begin in January 2002 (n = 20). The traditional way of
measuring travel-related behavior is through the use of diaries
in which respondents record their trips,29 together with some
contextual information. The 1954 travel diary of the U.S. Bu­
reau of Public Roads, predecessor to the Federal Highway
Administration, captured the origin and destination of a trip,
the mode of travel, the duration of each travel episode, the
purpose of the trip, the number of occupants in the vehicle,
and details about parking. According to K. W. Axhausen, this
type of diary takes a stage-based approach to recording travel
activities.30 The stage-based approach essentially asks re­
spondents, “Where did you stop next?” and “Why did you
stop there?” Axhausen notes that a stage-based travel diary
has been extremely influential in the United States and has
served as the reference standard for all federally funded travel
projects. In comparison, time-use diaries capture trips as they
occur within the context of all other daily activities. Much of
the same contextual information is offered by respondents
when describing travel in the time-use diary (for example, they
cite the duration of the trip and its origin and destination) or is
derived from other information collected in that kind of diary
(for example, respondents will be asked, “Who accompanied
you?” for activities that take place outside of the respondents’
or someone else’s home).31 This probe will provide informa­
tion about the number of occupants in a vehicle. Similarly, in
the American Time Use Survey, travel will be coded according to
the purpose of each trip, thereby providing an additional piece
of information traditionally collected in travel surveys. The
time-use diary may better match the way respondents think
42 Monthly Labor Review

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

February 2002

of their daily activities, which, if true, means that they will be
less likely to forget relatively unimportant short trips that
tend to be underreported in traditional travel diaries.32 Thus,
time-use surveys may be an excellent source of travel data
and may do a better job of capturing trips of short duration
than do traditional travel surveys. In a recent review of sev­
eral time-use studies, A. S. Harvey found that travel accounts
for about 19 percent of all activities reported and that indi­
viduals report an average of 4.3 trips per day.33
Because the American Time Use Survey is likely to provide
important data about travel and the context in which travel
occurs, and because a high percentage of activities reported
are likely to be travel activities, it is crucial that the Survey
successfully measure and accurately code travel. In a series of
tests designed to evaluate the survey’s coding lexicon, it be­
came apparent that coding travel was problematic.34 In Janu­
ary 2001, the Bureau tested the effectiveness of collecting
additional information about travel episodes to enhance the
reliability of coding. Results from this test are scheduled to be
available in February 2002.
A number of survey methodologists and economists have
raised concerns that the Bureau does not plan to include a
diary with the advance materials for the survey.35 In response
to their concerns, a split-panel test of the effects of advance
diaries on response rates and data quality is scheduled to
begin in March 2002 (« = 550). A number of important issues
will be addressed in this test. First, the Bureau is interested in
the effects of advance diaries on contact, response, and re­
fusal rates. The Bureau is concerned that if respondents
choose to use the advance diaries, they may not wish to com­
plete the telephone interview, which is necessary to collect
detailed descriptions of activities that will permit consistent
and accurate coding. Furthermore, the use of paper diaries as
the principal mode of data collection is cost prohibitive, prima­
rily because at least one personal visit is needed to drop off
the diary and explain the level of detail that the respondent
needs to record. Even if the diary were delivered by mail, the
costs of mailing out diaries, reminder cards, and return post­
age would be higher than the cost of telephone interviews.
Second, the Bureau is interested in evaluating the effects of
the use of advance diaries on data quality. To this end, the test
will include measures o f the number and variety of activities
reported during the telephone interview by respondents who
use the advance diary, compared with those who do not. The
study will also measure the number of gaps in respondents’
time-use diaries (that is, periods for which they cannot recall a
primary activity) and the frequency with which they report
time anchors.36 Last, the Bureau is interested in measuring the
operational costs associated with advance diaries. The results
from this study are slated to be available in August 2002.
A MAJOR OUTCOME OF THE COGNITIVE ASPECTS OF SURVEY METHODS
m ovem ent

w a s t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f c o g n i t i v e r e s e a r c h la b o r a t o -

ries at the Bureau of the Census, the National Center for Health
Statistics, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The work of
researchers in these laboratories has contributed to the de­
velopment and redesign of survey questionnaires, notably
for household and other demographic surveys. As a result,
more attention has been paid to how respondents think about
the content o f surveys and to the processes respondents

must go through in responding to survey questions. This
approach to questionnaire design has been integrated into
the development of the American Time Use Survey and should
help it avoid the pitfalls of ambiguous wording of questions.
Continued testing will further refine its operations and help
ensure that the survey delivers high-quality data once it is in
full production.
□

Notes
c k n o w l e d g m e n t s : Paul Chen, Scott Fricker, Jayme Gortman, and Siri
Lynn assisted with the studies described in this article. Steve Miller
provided statistical guidance. Diane Herz, Marilyn Manser, Bill
Mockovak, and Tom Nardone reviewed the manuscript. The article was
presented as a paper to the Federal Economics Statistics Advisory Com­
mittee on December 14, 2001. The committee is sponsored jointly by
the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, the Bureau o f Economic Analysis, and
the Bureau o f the Census.

views designed to gather information about respondents’ thought proc­
esses as they answer survey questions. Cognitive interviews may reveal
information about the memory, language, and decisionmaking processes
that underlie people’s responses to surveys.

1 M. Sirken, “The Role o f a Cognitive Laboratory in a Statistical
Agency,” in Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Seminar
on Quality o f Federal Data, Statistical Policy Working Paper 20 (U.S.
Office o f Management and Budget, 1991), pp. 268-77.

11 Participants in a cognitive test o f the child-care summary ques­
tions were asked whether the age cutoff (12 years and younger) made
sense to them. Although some parents suggested a lower or a higher
cutoff, most agreed that the proposed age cutoff made sense. Parents
said that 13 years is a “real turning point,” because children become
teenagers and are ready to assume more responsibility. Most parents
agreed that teenagers require a different kind o f supervision than is
implied by a question about times when children are in their care.

A

2

casm

II was held in Charlotteville, Virginia, in 1997.

3 T. Jabine, M. Straf, J. Tanur, and R. Tourangeau (eds.), Cognitive
Aspects o f Survey Methodology: Building a Bridge between Disciplines
(Washington, d c , National Academy Press, 1984).
4 C. Dippo and D. Herrmann, “The Bureau o f Labor Statistics
Collection Procedures Research Laboratory: Accomplishments and Fu­
ture Directions,” in Federal Committee, Quality o f Federal Data, pp.
2 5 3 -6 7 .
5 All civilian noninstitutionalized household members aged 15 years
or older are eligible for the survey.
6 The Current Population Survey ( cps) is a monthly survey o f about
60,000 households that provides data on the Nation’s labor force. House­
holds are interviewed for 4 consecutive months, are out o f the sample
for the next 8 months, and then are interviewed again for 4 consecutive
months.
7 Summary questions may be considered “hindsight” questions. Re­
spondents are directed to refer back to the activities they just reported
in their diaries and are asked to provide additional details about some of
those activities. For example, G. Haraldsen suggests using summary ques­
tions to evaluate respondents’ subjective experiences o f time (for in­
stance, “Were any o f the activities that you reported ones that you
would not have done had you not been obliged to?”). (See G. Haraldsen,
“Framework for Data Collection on Time-Use: Relating Objectives,
Design and Resources,” paper presented at the Expert Group Meeting
on Methods for Conducting Time Use Surveys, United Nations Secre­
tariat, Statistics Division, New York, October 23-27, 2000. By con­
trast, stylized questions are similar to survey questions that ask respond­
ents to indicate how much time they spent, or how often they engaged,
in various activities over a predetermined reference period.
8 L. Stinson, “Report on Cognitive Testing Phase 1: The American
Time Use Survey Summary Questions” (Bureau of Labor Statistics inter­
nal report, 2000).
9 Cognitive interviews are intensive one-on-one structured inter­


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

10 G. Haraldsen, “Framework for Data Collection,” notes that paper
diaries are better suited to the collection of secondary activities than are
recall interviews.

12 Stinson, “Report on Cognitive Testing.”
13 Secondary child care is, by definition, an activity that takes place
simultaneously with another activity. Therefore, secondary child care
could be reported as concurrent with a primary child-care activity. For
example, a respondent could report looking after a child while reading to
that child. When secondary child care was reported as concurrent with
primary child care, the time was attributed to the primary activity only
and was included in estimates o f primary child care.
14 One respondent in the “looking after” group did not report any
time spent in secondary child care.
15 Respondents who were asked about time spent “looking after”
children reported 1:42 hours ( se = 0:21) spent providing secondary child
care. In comparison, respondents in the “in your care” group reported
5:23 hours ( se = 1:24) spent. These differences were statistically signifi­
cant, with /( 18) = -2.551 (p < .03).
16 According to the survey definition, child care could occur during
either a parent’s or child’s daytime nap.
17 In that survey, Statistics Canada collected data on the times that
children woke up and went to bed on the designated reporting day. The
survey then asked about the times that respondents were looking after
their children. (See Overview o f the Time Use o f Canadians in 1998
General Social Survey, catalogue no. 12 f 0 0 8 0 x ie (Ottawa, o n , Statistics
Canada, 1998); on the Internet at http://www.statcan.ca,
18 Data from one respondent were excluded from analyses because
the répondent did not engage in any primary or secondary child care
activities the previous day.
19 i(23) = -3.602 ip < .01).
20 In Study 1, respondents provided their own definitions for these

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

43

American Time Use Survey

terms. Their responses indicated that “looking after” was narrowly
interpreted as “within sight,” whereas “in your care” was broadly inter­
preted as “caring and being responsible for” a child.
21 Stinson, “Report on Cognitive Testing.”
2* Work at home in 1997,” Current Population Survey press re­
lease u sd s 9 8 -9 3 , available at http://stats.bls.gov/new s.release/

homey.nws.htm ,
23 Eleven self-employed respondents, 10 multiple jobholders, 12
telecommuters, 8 salaried workers, and 10 freelancers participated in
this test.
“4 The American Time Use Survey does not ask respondents to
report the individual activities that make up their workday. Instead,
respondents are asked to report the time they started work and the time
they stopped. These blocks o f time include many separate work (and
nonwork) activities.
25 All 51 respondents were asked to identify activities that they per­
formed for pay. Respondents were instructed to exclude previously re­
ported job-related activities. Estimates o f activities performed for pay do
not include work activities reported in the diary or activities identified as
job related in response to the first summary question, “Were any o f the
(other) activities you mentioned done for your job (or business)?” Esti­
mates o f activities performed for pay only include activities identified in
response to the summary question, “Were there any (other) activities
that you were paid for or expect to be paid for? [Read if necessary: These
could include things like crafts that you sell on the side].”
26 During testing, one respondent was interviewed the day after she
had taken paid leave. In response to the question, “Were there any
activities that you were paid for or expect to be paid for?” she said,
“Well, all o f them. I took a paid day off.”
27 The temporally inaccurate placement o f recalled events results
in telescoping. In forw ard telescoping, events that occurred prior to a
reference period are erroneously brought forward and included in it.
Backward telescoping involves pushing recent events back into a pre­
vious reference period. (See S. Sudman and N. Bradburn, Asking Ques­
tions: A P ractical Guide to Q uestionnaire D esign (San Francisco,
Jossey-Bass, 1982).) Telescoping is used most often to explain over- and
underestimation in judgments involving the aggregation of individual oc­
currences for the purpose of producing a summary response (for example,
“Last month, how much did you spend eating out at restaurants?”).

44

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

However, because the American Time Use Survey diary asks about the
previous day’s individual activities in a step-by-step, chronological se­
quence, the effects of memory loss and telescoping bias are minimized.
28 The fielding period (that is, the length o f time a case is active)
for the American Time Use Survey is 8 weeks. Respondents will be
assigned one eligible interviewing day per week to complete an inter­
view about the previous day’s activities. They will be interviewed on
the same day o f the week for up to 8 weeks.
29 Trips can be defined in various ways. A trip may be any move­
ment from one address to another, any movement out from home
coupled with a return trip, or any movement beyond a predetermined
radius around the home.
30 K. W. Axhausen, Travel diaries: An annotated catalog, 2nd ed.
(Innsbruck, Austria, Institut fur Strassenbau and Verkehrsplanung,
Leopold-Franzens-Universitat, 1995).
31 Respondents are asked, “Who was in the room with you?” when
they are at their own or someone else’s home.
32 B. Noble, “Using Simple Time Use Surveys to Investigate
Travel,” paper presented at the International Conference on Trans­
port Survey Quality and Innovation, Kruger National Park, South
Africa, August 2001.
33 A. S. Harvey, “Time-Space Diaries: Merging Traditions,” paper
presented at the International Conference on Transport Survey Qual­
ity and Innovation, Kruger National Park, South Africa, August 2001.
34 D. Herz, L. Schwartz, and T. Shelley, “Coding Activities in the
American Time Use Survey,” internal report (Bureau o f Labor Statis­
tics, 2001).
35 This issue was raised by council members at a June 2001 Federal
Economics Statistical Advisory Committee meeting and by partici­
pants in a separate brainstorming session on survey methods also held
in June 2001.
36 Time anchors are activities for which respondents are certain of
the time the activity started or stopped. These activities may be
landmark events around which the rest o f the respondent’s day is
organized and are considered indicators o f higher quality data. Time
anchors have important implications for how time relationships among
activities are calculated in the survey’s data collection instrument.

Measuring Time Use

Measuring time use in households
with more than one person
The U.S. Government’s first-ever national time-use survey
will collect time diary data from one respondent per household,
forgoing the opportunity to provide information
about how nonmarket time is allocated between husbands and wives;
Canada’s General Social Survey, similar in approach,
uses stylized questions to elicit that very information
n an effort to measure time spent on unpaid
activities such as commuting, performing
housework, and spending time with one’s chil­
dren, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is designing
the Government’s first national time-use survey.1
A large number of countries, including Australia
and Canada, also have national surveys under­
way. A recent publication of the National Research
Council makes a convincing argument that Gov­
ernment time-use surveys should be designed
with an eye toward finding out about how
nonmarket time is allocated in households with
more than one person—that is, how domestic
partners divide the time they spend on tasks such
as housework and child care.2 As just one ex­
ample, time-use data are needed on both partners
to fully assess the challenges faced by workers in
dual-earner families as they seek to balance the
competing demands of paid work and family.3 In­
deed, argues Timothy M. Smeeding, “time use
data may be as important as income, consump­
tion, and wealth data for informing public
policy.”4
As described in the National Research Council
volume and as reviewed in this article, Australia,
the United States, and Canada have adopted
somewhat different survey methodologies. ThenAnne E. Winkler is
varying
approaches have implications for both
associate professor of
economics and public the type and quality of data gathered. Australia,
policy administration.
for instance, which has undertaken one of the
Department of
most
ambitious time-use collection efforts, is able
Economics, University of
to directly investigate how time is divided up be­
Missouri-St. Louis,

Anne E. Winkler


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

I

tween partners. Australia collects personal time
diaries for all household members aged 15 and
older in households with more than one person,
as well as in households with one person. In these
diaries, household members record how they
spend their time as their day unfolds.5 Time-use
estimates collected this way have been found to
be highly reliable.6
In comparison, a considerably more modest
national time-use survey has been proposed by
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ( b l s , the
Bureau). In the b l s survey, diary reports will be
collected from one respondent per household,
using a subsample of households that recently
completed their final Current Population Survey
(CPS) interview.7 The reports will be obtained by
means of a retrospective telephone interview, in
which an interviewer asks the respondent about
what he or she was doing over the course of the
previous day. The response thus requires no more
than a 24-hour recall capability on the part of the
respondent. This approach also has been found
to provide valid estimates and is considerably
less expensive to implement than the Australian
approach.8
One extremely useful feature of the BLS survey
is that it will be possible to match the data from
the diary with demographic and labor force infor­
mation from the CPS. Unfortunately, the useful­
ness of the information gained will fall far short of
that gleaned from the Australian survey because
of the time diary approach used. To make meanMonthly Labor Review

February 2002

45

Measuring Time Use

ingful intrahousehold comparisons, all respondents in a given
household must report on events that occurred on the same
day. Such data, however, are particularly difficult to obtain
when a 24-hour retrospective survey is used, which explains
why only one respondent per household is contacted.9
Hence, the BLS data will make it possible to analyze, for in­
stance, the use of time of a wife or a husband, but not both, in
a given household.
Canada, by contrast, has taken what is termed here a “middle
approach.” In the 1992 and 1998 Canadian General Social Sur­
vey, diary information is collected from one respondent per
household, using a retrospective telephone interview, as in
the BLS survey. However, as pointed out by Loma Bailie in
the National Research Council publication, the Canadian sur­
vey augments the data from the diary by also asking respond­
ents direct, stylized questions about their own and their part­
ners’ use o f time in several unpaid activities.10 Hence, the
Canadian survey appears to have the advantage of eliciting
some information about what is going on within families,
although, as will be discussed, this approach has some im­
portant limitations.
This article more fully considers the Canadian “middle ap­
proach” and assesses its potential usefulness for the United
States. Toward that end, the article draws upon relevant U.S.
and Canadian studies and then analyzes some data on
nonmarket time from the 1992-94 National Survey of Families
and Households.

Assessing the Canadian approach
In the 1992 and 1998 versions of the Canadian General Social
Survey, respondents began the telephone interview by re­
porting on their activities during the previous day in a diary
format. Later, they were asked stylized direct questions about
their own unpaid activities and about those o f their spouses;
in effect, the respondents were thereby serving as proxy re­
porters. Notably, the survey also asked about the activities of
opposite-sex cohabiting partners. For instance, in the 1992
version of the survey, respondents were asked the following
questions:11 (1) “Last week, did you spend any time doing
housework, including cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping
and laundry for your household?” and, if so, “for how many
hours?” (2) Last week, did you do any unpaid work to main­
tain or improve your house, yard, or automobile?” and, if so,
“for how many hours?” and (3) “Last week, how many hours
did you spend looking after children who live in your house­
hold?” Next, respondents were asked identical questions
about their partners (with “he/she” replacing “you” in the
questions). In the 1998 survey, respondents were asked
slightly different versions of these questions, although the
questions about their partners’ activities remained the same.12
This section investigates the pros and cons of following

46

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

Canada’s lead and including similar types of stylized ques­
tions in the proposed BLS survey.13 Notably, such questions
are already included in several U.S. surveys. The National
Survey of Families and Households, for instance, asks both
husbands and wives a series of questions about their own
and their partners’ unpaid activities. Similarly, the Panel Sur­
vey of Income Dynamics regularly asks respondents about
their own and their spouses’ time spent in housework and, on
occasion, has obtained self-reports from both.14 These sur­
veys, among others, have been utilized extensively to analyze
the division of labor within the household for the 1980s and
1990s and have yielded useful information.15
Stylized questions require relatively little time to answer
and are relatively inexpensive to collect, two features that
support the argument to include such questions in the BLS
survey as well. Also, because the questions refer to a 1-week
period, they have the advantage of including all weekdays
and the weekend, not just a single day.16
In addition, incorporating multiple measures of time use
into the same survey has the important advantage of allowing
for direct comparisons of the responses.17 In the past, re­
searchers using U.S. data have invariably had to rely on ad
hoc comparisons in assessing bias—for instance, comparing
diary data from one survey with stylized questions from an­
other.18 Information gleaned from stylized questions may also
be useful in and of itself. For example, it has been argued that
when it comes to child care, diary questions and stylized ques­
tions may actually separately identify two important, but fun­
damentally different, variables.19
The benefits of including stylized questions, however, de­
pend on the quality of the questions being asked, as well as
on their comparability with diary questions. As a case in point,
it is critical that the survey questions that respondents an­
swer about their own and their partners’ use of time have
precisely the same wording, so as to permit meaningful com­
parisons of these reports for each couple. As mentioned, iden­
tical questions were asked in the 1992 Canadian survey, but
not in the 1998 one, making the later survey far less useful for
purposes of comparison.
An often-expressed concern about stylized questions is
that respondents have to go through an extensive “cognitive
process” in answering such questions and may have varying
interpretations of the questions asked.20 For instance, what
specific tasks are subsumed under question (1), which asks
about “housework?” This issue came to the fore in a recent
study by Bemie Faille, in which he used the 1992 Canadian
General Social Survey to compare respondents’ time-use esti­
mates based on the stylized questions set forth at the begin­
ning of this section with estimates based on diary information
from the same survey. While most researchers have found
that estimates from stylized questions are higher than those
obtained from a time-diary approach, Paille found precisely

the opposite regarding time spent in housework. A partial ex­
planation offered in his study is that respondents may not
have counted shopping as part of housework in their response
to question (1), thereby leading estimates based on that ques­
tion to be considerably lower than the diary estimates (which
included estimates of time spent shopping).21 This example
suggests that stylized questions must be worded as carefully
as possible and should be more narrowly focused than in the
Canadian survey.
Other standard concerns have been raised as well, both in
the National Research Council publication and elsewhere. For
instance, the stylized direct questions asked in the Canadian
survey require that respondents recall events during the pre­
vious week, increasing the probability of recall error compared
with its likelihood in a diary approach, which requires 24-hour
recall at most.
Another concern is that direct-question estimates about
unpaid activities, such as time spent reading to children, may
partly reflect societal expectations about those activities.22
Diary estimates are less likely to be subject to this type of bias
because respondents are not prompted to record specific ac­
tivities. Julie E. Press and Eleanor Townsley suggest further
that the degree of bias in responses to stylized questions may
differ for women and men due to “changing and uneven so­
cial perceptions of [their] appropriate domestic roles.”23 For
example, husbands may be especially inclined to overstate
the number o f hours they engage in housework because of
societal expectations that they should be doing more of it.
Further, in answering stylized questions, respondents may
provide estimates for times when simultaneous activities are
being carried out. Indeed, for all these various reasons, directquestion estimates of total hours spent doing housework,
obtained by summing up estimates of time spent performing
specific tasks, may exceed the number of available (or reason­
ably available) hours in a week, as will be seen shortly in data
from the National Survey of Families and Households. All
told, researchers have almost invariably found that stylized
questions overestimate time use, compared with the more re­
liable diary approach.24
While legitimate concerns about stylized questions have
been raised and must be seriously considered, there is some
evidence that the ratio of wives’ to husbands’ estimates of
hours is fairly similar across survey methods.25 Also, trends
and patterns identified in estimates of absolute levels of hours
of housework for men and for women, both employed and
otherwise, have been found to be fairly consistent across
survey methods.26 Further, if stylized questions such as those
used in Canada—with some modifications—were included in
the proposed BLS survey, they would provide at least some
indication of the intrahousehold allocation of nonmarket time,
an issue that cannot be investigated at all with the currently
suggested design.


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

Another important concern about stylized reports also must
be considered: Can we can reasonably rely on husbands’ re­
sponses about wives’ use of time in unpaid activities or wives’
responses about husbands’ use of time? Notably, this issue,
which applies directly to the approach taken in the Canadian
survey, as well as to other surveys, including the Panel Study
of Income Dynamics and the National Survey of Families and
Households, was not mentioned in the recent volume on timeuse measurement by the National Research Council or in the
reports by Statistics Canada reviewed herein.27
Mounting evidence indicates that estimates of time spent
in housework differ, depending on who makes the report: the
individuals themselves or proxy reporters. This difference
suggests that the answer to the question about whether we
can reasonably rely on husbands’ responses regarding wives’
use of time and wives’ responses regarding husbands’ use of
time is “no” or, at best, “It depends.” Results based on data
from the 1990s are presented shortly.28 As might be expected,
this issue is not unique to questions regarding housework or
nonmarket time in general. Proxy reports and self-reports have
been found to differ on issues as diverse as parents’ desired
family size, wives’ performance as parents and spouses, and
parental bequests to children, to name a few. One notable
exception is responses to questions about educational attain­
ment, which generally match up, but this is to be expected,
because such information can be both readily and objectively
ascertained.29
Psychologists and sociologists point to several reasons as
to why self-reports and proxy (spousal) reports of housework
hours obtained from stylized questions might differ. One rea­
son is egocentric bias; that is, individuals tend to recall a
greater proportion of their own housework activity than their
spouses do.30 It is not possible to say whether self-reports or
proxy reports made by spouses are more accurate, but the two
kinds of reports are expected to be correlated. As Sarah F.
Berk and Anthony Shih point out, many household tasks are
performed in clear view for spouses to see, and, they argue,
perhaps as important, spouses tend to share similar views
about gender roles in the household—views that also inform
these reports.31 Further, Berk and Shih argue that there is
likely to be relatively stronger agreement regarding wives’
household activities because the home has been the tradi­
tional sphere for women and its norms and patterns are better
established.

Comparison of self- and spousal reports
An excellent data set that affords information on the degree
to which self-reports and spousal reports on housework are
reasonable proxies for one another is the National Survey of
Families and Households.32 The survey provides four reports
on time spent by couples in housework: wives’ reports on

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

47

Measuring Time Use

their own housework hours; husbands’ reports on their own
housework hours; husbands’ reports about their wives’ house­
work hours; and wives’ reports about their husbands’ house­
work hours. These reports have been compared and analyzed in
a number of studies.33 Following is a similar analysis, pointing
to the patterns and findings that are most relevant in assessing
the usefulness of the Canadian survey.
The National Survey of Families and Households is a nation­
ally representative survey of households that was first con­
ducted in 1987-88. The survey had a sample of 13,007 respond­
ents. Partners and spouses of respondents were interviewed as
well. In the second wave, conducted from 1992 to 1994, the
respondents were reinterviewed. Response rates were 82 per­
cent for main respondents and 86 percent for partners.34 In the
1992—94 wave, which makes up the data to be analyzed shortly,
there were 5,751 married respondents. To create a sample of
matched husbands and wives, the analysis includes only those
couples for whom survey data on both spouses are available
(5,001). The sample was further restricted to those couples in
which both spouses are age 25 or older (4,894).
In the survey, information on time spent on housework was
collected for nine specific tasks, based on the recall of the
respondent (or partner) to the following question: “Write in
the approximate number of hours per week that you, your
spouse/partner, or others in the household normally spend
doing the following things.” The tasks that follow are prepar­
ing meals; washing dishes and cleaning up after meals; house­
cleaning; shopping for groceries and other household goods;
washing, ironing, and mending; outdoor and other house­
hold maintenance tasks; auto maintenance and repair; paying
bills and keeping other financial records; and driving other
household members to work, school, or other activities. Total
weekly housework hours are computed by summing up the
time spent in each of these nine tasks. For a small fraction of
the sample (under 4 percent), the number of hours of house­
work they engaged in totaled in excess of 100 per week, but
were capped at 100.35 The final sample analyzed in this article
(3,662) includes only those couples with “complete” informa­
tion on hours of housework, where “complete” information is
defined as information on all nine housework tasks for all four
reports.36 Weights provided in the survey are used to make
the estimates nationally representative.
As shown in table 1, wives estimate that they spend 37.2
hours per week, on average, engaged in the housework tasks
described in the previous paragraph. Similarly, husbands report
that their wives spend nearly that much time doing housework,
namely, 36.9 hours. The median difference in husbands’ and
wives’ reports about how much time wives spend on house­
work tasks is zero. These findings suggest that who makes the
report regarding wives’ activities matters little when wives’ av­
erage time spent doing housework is the question at hand.
However, the fact that mean reports match up overall does

48

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

not necessarily indicate agreement in reports between hus­
bands and wives who live together. Chart 1 is a plot of reports
from matched pairs of husbands and wives regarding wives’
housework hours. If there were perfect consensus among all
spousal pairs (equal to a correlation coefficient of unity), all
sample points would lie along a 45-degree line, running from
the lower left comer to the upper right comer of the chart. The
actual data show that, while the mean estimate of time spent
on housework by wives (37 hours per week) virtually lies on
this line, the scatter of reports around the line indicates that
there is far less than perfect consensus within couples. In
fact, the correlation of reports is only 0.46. There is, however,
some question as to whether to interpret this correlation as
high or low, because its magnitude is, in part, affected by the
degree of precision required of the reporters.37 In particular,
spouses are being asked to determine their use of time within
a 1-hour increment, which is fairly exacting. As a point of
comparison, the correlation between husbands’ and wives’
estimates of wives’ share of total time spent by the couple in
housework (computed with the use of their reports on hours)
is as high as 0.60, although still less than unity. What we can
safely conclude from these data is that there is less spousal
consensus about wives’ time spent doing housework when
we compare reports by husbands and wives living together
than when we look at averages across all husbands and wives.
Chart 2 plots husbands’ self-reports and wives’ proxy re­
ports regarding husbands' hours of housework. These reports
are more concentrated near zero, because husbands do con­
siderably less housework, on average, than wives. Analysis
of the data indicates that the correlation of husbands’ selfreports and their wives’ proxy reports is 0.37, somewhat lower
than the 0.46 correlation of reports about wives. Further, con­
sensus is lacking even about mean hours husbands spend on
housework tasks. Husbands estimate that, on average, they
spend 20 hours per week doing household tasks, while thenwives report a somewhat lower figure of 17.7 hours.
One important quantitative implication of this brief empiri­
cal analysis is that husbands and wives have very different
assessments about the gender gap in weekly housework hours
within married-couple households. As table 1 shows, hus­
bands’ reports about their own and their wives’ hours indi­
cate a 16.9-hour-per-week gender difference, while wives’ re­
ports about their own and their husbands’ hours point to a
19.5-hour-per-week gender difference. Again, as noted earlier,
it is not possible to discern which assessment is more accu­
rate, but what we can say for sure is that researchers, such as
those using the Canadian data, must carefully consider who
is doing the reporting, as well as the possibility that such
estimates may be inflated compared with diary estimates, re­
gardless of who is the reporter.
The

p r o p o s e d b l s su r v e y w o u l d b e c o n s id e r a b l y m o r e

Chart 1. Wives’ housework hours
Husbands’ reports
about wives

0

20

40

60

80

100

Wives’ seif-reports
NOTE: Plot is based on 3,662 matched husband-wife pairs from the 1992-94 National Survey of Families and Households. Housework
hours are capped at 100 per week.

USEFUL if it regularly

collected time-use data on both partners
living in the same household. These data would aid in achiev­
ing a better understanding of the effects of policies such as
welfare reform, family leave, and child care on the well-being of
couples and their children. Further, as surveys are repeated,
the data would provide important information about the ways
in which women’s and men’s roles in the household are chang­
ing and about the implications of those changes for children.
The Australian approach of collecting diary information from


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

more than one household member does not appear to be a
realistic option for the United States, given present budgetary
constraints. By contrast, the approach taken by Canada, which
is to collect diary information from one respondent per house­
hold and also ask respondents stylized questions about their
own and their partners’ use of time, is feasible for the United
States and has merit, although it is by no means ideal. This
approach would provide information about partners’ division
of labor in the household, but, unfortunately, not about other

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

49

Measuring Time Use

Chart 2. Husbands’ housework hours
Wives’ reports about
husbands
100

80

1
60

■

.

.

-

.

■;

.

\

■
. ■

^ af cyaS'

40

i

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Husbands’ self-reports
NOTE: Plot is based on 3,662 matched husband-wife pairs from the 1992-94 National Survey of Families and Households. Housework
hours are capped at 100 per week.

household members’ use of time. On the positive side again,
including the two major time-use collection methods in the
same survey would allow for valuable sensitivity testing.
Taking this two-pronged approach, though, raises legiti­
mate concerns about biases in stylized data, including those
which result from using proxy reports. For instance, this ar­
ticle has shown that estimates of the within-couple gender
gap in housework differ significantly, depending on whether

50

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

wives or husbands are doing the reporting. In the short term,
this means that findings must be interpreted carefully and
possible biases must be acknowledged.
In the long term, detailed comparisons between responses
to diary and stylized questions asked on the same survey
should make it possible for researchers to improve the quality
of the stylized questions and quantify the extent o f bias,
thereby increasing the reliability and usefulness of the styl-

Table 1.

Weekly hours spent doing housework, responses
based on stylized questions, National Survey of
Families and Households, 1992-94
Category
Mean Standard Median
deviation

Wives’ housework hours:
Wives’ self-reports................................
Husbands’ reports on wives.................
Husbands’ housework hours:
Husbands’ self-reports..........................
Wives’ reports on husbands.................
Discrepancies in housework reports:
Wives’ housework hours.......................
Husbands’ housework hours................
Within-couple gender gap
in housework hours, based on:
Husbands’ and wives’ self-reports........
Wives’ reports.......................................
Husbands’ reports.................................
Wives’ reported gap minus husbands’
reported gap...........................................

37.24
36.85

22.15
21.99

33
32

19.98
17.73

14.66
15.49

17
14

.394
’2.26

22.92
16.94

20
22

17.26
19.51
16.86

25.76
22.18
21.94

214
217
214

’2.65

21.25

22

’ Discrepancy in reports is statistically significant at the 5-percent level
in a two-tailed f-test.
2Median difference in housework reports (not difference in the medians) is
computed.
N ote : Estimates are drawn from 3,662 husband-wife pairs and are
computed with the use of sample weights.

ized-question reports.38 Stylized questions could also be
asked about other household members, including seniors and
children, but the same caveats would apply—indeed, perhaps
even more so—with respect to using proxy reports.
While the discussion and analysis presented in this article
have focused largely on married couples, data should also be
collected on the intrahousehold allocation of time among
««married couples, in light of the increasing prevalence of
that arrangement. For instance, as of the mid-1990s, no less
than 40 percent of women aged 15 to 44 had cohabited for
some period, although such arrangements tend to be of short
duration, because the couple breaks up or marries.39
In conclusion, stylized questions regarding spouses’ ac­
tivities have been included in the Canadian General Social
Survey and in several U.S. surveys and have been found to
provide useful information. If these questions were included
in the proposed b l s survey, they would provide at least some
indication of the intrahousehold allocation of nonmarket time
between partners in the same household, an issue that the
Bureau cannot investigate with its diary approach.
□

Notes
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s : This article has benefited from discussions
with M ichael A llison, Jennifer Coats, Marianne Ferber, Thomas
Ireland, Sharon Levin, Robert Poliak, Shirley Porterfield, David Rose,
and Robert Sorensen. I am grateful to Statistics Canada for providing
needed survey information. A ll errors are m ine alone.

1 See Linda L. Stinson, “Measuring how people spend their time: a
time-use survey design,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1999, pp. 1219; Mary Joyce and Jay Stewart, “What can we learn from time-use
data?” Monthly Labor Review, August 1999, pp. 3-6; Michael Horrigan
and Diane Herz, “A Study in the Process o f Planning and Designing a
Survey Program: The Case o f Time-Use Surveys at the b ls ” (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, December 1999); and National Research Council
(Michele Ver Ploeg, Joseph Altonji, Norman Bradburn, Julie DaVanzo,
William Nordhaus, and Francisco Samaniego, eds.), Time-Use Measure­
ment and Research: Report o f a Workshop (Washington, d c , National
Academy Press, 2000), chapter 6.
2 National Research Council, Time-Use Measurement and Research,
chapter 5.
3 These and many other uses are described in National Research
Council, Time-Use Measurement and Research, chapters 1 and 5.
4 Timothy M. Smeeding, “Time and Public Policy: Why Do We
Care and What Instruments are Needed?” paper presented at the Con­
ference on Time Use, Non-Market Work and Family Well-Being, Wash­
ington, dc, November 20-21, 1997.
5 This description is from National Research Council, Time-Use
M easurement and Research, chapter 4.
6 For evidence, see F. Thomas Juster and Frank P. Stafford, “The
Allocation of Time: Empirical Findings, Behavioral Models, and Prob­
lems o f Measurement,” Journal o f Economic Literature, June 1991
pp. 471-522.
7 Horrigan and Herz, “A Study in the Process o f Planning and
Designing.” The Current Population Survey ( c ps ) is a monthly survey
o f about 50,000 households conducted by the Bureau of the Census for
the Bureau o f Labor Statistics. The survey has been conducted for more
than 50 years.


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

The cps is the primary source o f information on the labor force
characteristics o f the U.S. population. The sample is scientifically
selected to represent the civilian noninstitutional population. Respond­
ents are interviewed to obtain information about the employment status
o f each member o f the household 15 years o f age and older. However,
published data focus on those aged 16 and older. The sample provides
estimates for the Nation as a whole and serves as part of model-based
estimates for individual states and other geographic areas.
Among the data obtained from the cps are estimates o f employment,
unemployment, earnings, hours o f work, and other indicators. These
estimates are available by a variety o f demographic characteristics, in­
cluding age, sex, race, marital status, and educational attainment, and
also by occupation, industry, and class of worker. Supplemental questions
to produce estimates on a variety of topics, including school enrollment,
income, previous work experience, health, employee benefits, and work
schedule, are also often added to the regular cps questionnaire.
8 For evidence regarding the validity o f the approach, see Juster and
Stafford, “The Allocation of Time.” Regarding cost, see Stinson, “Meas­
uring how people spend their time.”
9 Stinson, “Measuring how people spend their time.” In addition, a
pilot survey in Canada examined collecting diaries from more than one
household member by phone, but found that the response rates were
unacceptably low. (See National Research Council, Time-Use Measure­
ment and Research, p. 30.)
10 National Research Council, Time-Use Measurement and Research,
chapter 4.
11 The questions were obtained directly from General Social Science
Time Use Questionnaire, gss 7-2 (Ottawa, Statistics Canada, 1992).
12 Specifically, the 1998 survey asked respondents the following
questions: (1) “Last week, how many hours did you spend looking after
one or more o f your own children or the children o f others, without
pay?” (2) “Last week, how many hours did you spend doing unpaid
housework, yard work, or home maintenance for members o f your
household or others?” and (3) “Last week, how many hours did you
spend providing unpaid care or assistance to one or more seniors?”
These questions were obtained directly from General Social Science

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

51

Measuring Time Use

Survey, gss Cycle 12— Time Use Survey (Ottawa, Statistics Canada,
1998). It appears that the wording o f the questions was made to match
that o f questions in the 1996 Canadian census, although because of the
match, the questions asked o f respondents to the 1998 survey are not
identical to those asked o f their spouses.
13 For critiques o f the stylized-question method, see Bernie Paille,
“Estimating the Volume o f Unpaid Activities in Canada, 1992: An
Evaluation o f Data from the General Social Survey,” General Social
Survey Working Paper No. 10 (Ottawa, Statistics Canada, January
1994); National Research Council, Time-Use M easurement and R e­
search, chapter 4; Margaret Mooney Marini and Beth Anne Shelton,
“Measuring Household Work: Recent Experience in the United States,”
Social Science Research, December 1993, pp. 361-82; and Juster and
Stafford, “The Allocation o f Time.”
14 Most studies investigating the division o f labor using the National
Survey o f Families and Households have relied on husbands’ and wives’
self-reports, rather than on proxy reports, with the exception o f a few
methodological studies, which will be discussed shortly. In contrast,
studies using the Panel Study o f Income Dynamics have relied more
often on proxy reports because self-reports for both spouses are avail­
able for only select years. Joni Hersch and Leslie S. Stratton, for in­
stance, rely on husbands’ proxy reports for their wives in “Housework,
Fixed Effects, and Wages o f Married Workers,” Journal o f Human
Resources, spring 1997, pp. 285-307.
15 For a worthwhile review, see Beth Anne Shelton and Daphne John,
The Division o f Household Labor,” Annual Review o f Sociology vol
22, 1996, pp. 299-322.
16 Paille, “Volume o f Unpaid Activities.”
17 National Research Council, Time-Use Measurement and Research,
chapter 5; and Marini and Shelton, “Measuring Household Work.”
18 See, for instance, Suzanne M. Bianchi, Melissa A. Milkie, Liana C.
Sayer, and John P. Robinson, “Is Anyone Doing the Housework?” Trends
in the Gender Division o f Household Labor,” Social Forces, September
2000, pp. 1-39; and Julie E. Press and Eleanor Townsley, “Wives’ and
Husbands’ Housework Reporting: Gender, Class, and Social Desirabil­
ity,” Gender and Society, April 1998, pp. 188-219. For supporting
evidence, see Marini and Shelton, “Measuring Household Work.”
19 Leroy O. Stone and Sandra Swain, “The 1996 Census Unpaid Work
Data Evaluation Study” (Ottawa, Statistics Canada, 2000).
20 Paille, “Volume o f Unpaid Activities,” p. 6.
21 Ibid, p. 12.
22 For evidence, see Sandra L. Hofferth, “Family Reading to Young
Children: Social Desirability and Cultural Biases in Reporting,” paper
presented at the National Research Council Workshop on Measure­
ment o f and Research on Time Use, May 27-28, 1998.
23 Press and Townsley, “Wives’ and Husbands’ Housework Reporting ”
p. 188.
24 In fact, one study found that estimates of housework hours are as
much as 50 percent higher when obtained from stylized questions. (See
Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, and Robinson, “Is Anyone Doing the House­
work?” See also Juster and Stafford, “The Allocation o f Time”; Marini
and Shelton, “Measuring Household Work”; and National Research
Council, Time-Use Measurement and Research, chapter 4.)
25 See, for instance, Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, and Robinson, “Is Any­
one Doing the Housework?” which compares 1995 diary data collected
by the University o f Maryland with data from the 1992-94 National
Survey o f Families and Households.
26 See Francine D. Blau, Marianne A. Ferber, and Anne E. Winkler,
The Economics o f Women, Men, and Work (Upper Saddle River, n j ,
Prentice Hall, 2002), especially chapter 3; and Marini and Shelton,
“Measuring Household Work.”
27 Stone and Swain, “The 1996 Census,” mention concerns about
proxy reporting in the 1996 Canadian Census, but do not address the
issue with regard to the case of stylized questions.

52

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

28 For early evidence that estimates of time spent in housework differ,
see Michael Ross and Fiore Sicoly, “Egocentric Biases in Availability and
Attribution,” Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, March 1979,
pp. 322-36; Sarah Fenstermaker Berk and Anthony Shih, “Contribu­
tions to Household Labor: Comparing Wives’ and Husbands’ Reports,” in
Sarah Fenstermaker Berk (ed.), Women and Household Labor (Beverly
Hills, ca , Sage, 1980); and Catherine E. Ross and John Mirowsky, “The
Social Construction o f Reality in Marriage: An Empirical Investiga­
tion,” Sociological Perspectives, July 1984, pp. 281-300.
29 Monica Biernat and Camille B. Wortmann, “Sharing o f Home
Responsibilities between Professional Employed Women and Their
Husbands,” Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, June 1991,
pp. 844-60; Richard Williams and Elizabeth Thomson, “Can Spouses
Be Trusted? A Look at Husband/Wife Proxy Reports,” Demography,
February 1985, pp. 115-22; Jere R. Behrman and Mark R. Rosenzweig’
“In-Law Resources, Parental Resources and Distribution within Mar­
riage,” mimeograph, University o f Pennsylvania, 1998; and Orley
Ashenfelter and Cecilia Rouse, “Income, Schooling, and Ability: Evi­
dence from a New Sample o f Identical Twins,” Quarterly Journal o f
Economics, February 1998, pp. 253-84.
30 Ross and Sicoly offer four reasons, none o f which need result from
intentional deceit: (1) selective encoding and storage o f information,
(2) differential retrieval, (3) informational disparities, and (4) motiva­
tional influences.
31 Berk and Shih, “Contributions to Household Labor.”
32 The survey affords only comparisons o f housework, not asking at
all about time spent in child care as a separate activity. However, the
presence o f children is reflected somewhat in the housework data that
are collected, because children increase their parents’ time spent doing
laundry, cleaning up, and so on.
33 See, for example, Yoshinori Kamo, “He Said, She Said: Assessing
Discrepancies in Husbands’ and Wives’ Reports in the Division o f La­
bor, Social Science Research, December 2000, pp. 458-76; and Marini
and Shelton, “Measuring Household Work.”
34 See Pamela J. Smock and Wendy D. Manning, “Cohabiting Part­
ners’ Economic Circumstances and Marriage,” Demography August
1997, pp. 331-41.
35 All studies using the National Survey of Families and Households cap
housework hours in some way, either by choosing an absolute maximum,
as is done here (see Theodore N. Greenstein, “Husbands’ Participation in
Domestic Labor: Interactive Effects o f Wives’ and Husbands’ Gender
Ideologies,” Journal o f Marriage and the Family, March 1996, pp. 58595; and Kamo, “He Said, She Said”), or by adopting a percentile threshold
(see Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, and Robinson, “Is Anyone Doing the House­
work?”). An absolute threshold is chosen in the current analysis so that
husbands’ and wives’ hours are capped at the same number.
36 The results presented do not appear to be sensitive to the deci­
sion to include only observations with “complete” housework records
or to the decision to cap housework hours at 100. The studies by
Kamo and by Marini and Shelton made somewhat different decisions
and obtained fairly similar estimates o f means and discrepancies in
reports. (See Kamo, “He Said, She Said”; and Marini and Shelton,
“Measuring Household Work.”)
37 Rebecca L. Warner, “Alternative Strategies for Measuring House­
hold Division of Labor,” Journal o f Family Issues, June 1986 pp 179—
95.
38 Similar points have been made by Norman Bradbum, cited in Na­
tional Research Council, Time-Use Measurement and Research, chapters
5 and 6; and by Marini and Shelton, “Measuring Household Work.”
39 The 40-percent figure is from Statistical Abstract o f the United
States: 1999 (Bureau of the Census, 2000), table 66. For some evidence
on the division o f labor in unmarried households based on the National
Survey of Families and Households, see Scott J. South and Glenna Spitze,
Housework in Marital and Nonmarital Households,” American Socio­
logical Review, June 1994, pp. 327^47.

Measuring Intrahousehold Allocation

Measuring intrahousehold allocation
of time: response to Anne E. Winkler
Measuring the use o f time by more than one individual
in a household, though important, cannot be accomplished
within the data quality requirements and budgetary
constraints o f the new b l s American Time Use Survey;
the topic, however, is on the Bureau’s agenda fo r 2002
Lisa K. Schwartz,
Diane Herz,
and
Harley Frazis

Lisa K. Schwartz is a
research psychologist
and the Associate
Program Manager of
the American Time
Use Survey, Diane Herz
is an economist and
the Program Manager
of the American Time
Use Survey, and
Harley Frazis is a
research economist in
the Office of
Employment and
Unemployment
Statistics.


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

he current design for the BLS American
Time Use Survey does not include ques­
tions intended to measure the use of time
by household members other than the individual
who is selected as the “designated person.” In an
article in this issue of the Review, Anne E. Winkler
recommends that the United States adopt an ap­
proach similar to one used by Statistics Canada
to obtain some information about time use by
more than one individual in a household.1 The
designers of the American Time Use Survey, as
well as many others, agree that measuring all adult
household members’ use of time would produce
valuable information on how household members
jointly—and not just individuals singly—allocate
their time. However, a conscious decision was
made not to attempt to collect this kind of infor­
mation in the first year of full production of the
survey, chiefly because it was necessary to de­
vote developmental resources to other issues.
Two primary considerations guided the design
of the survey: the needs of prospective data us­
ers and the feasibility of conducting a time-use
survey by telephone.2 A survey o f the time-use
literature and a review of papers presented at two
conferences on time use were conducted to de­
termine user interests. The measurement of mar­
ket work and that of nonmarket work emerged as
frequent areas of interest, with child care identi­
fied as a nonmarket activity of principal concern
to many data users. The Bureau realized that,
given the immense amount of work needed to field
a new, ongoing time-use survey and the limited
resources available, not all prospective data us-

T

ers’ interests could be met. On the basis of the
literature review and the identified needs o f data
users, it was decided to focus development ef­
forts on disambiguating work activities and col­
lecting comprehensive data on child care as both
a primary and a secondary activity.
Because the designers of the American Time
Use Survey agree with Winkler’s suggestion that
measuring the intrahousehold allocation of time
is very important, and because the survey will
not be collecting the relevant data in the first year,
a considered response to Winkler’s suggestion
is merited. Thus, the objective of this article is
twofold: to offer an update on the design of the
survey and to discuss some issues related to the
measurement of time use by more than one indi­
vidual in a household.
Briefly, the survey will interview a randomly
selected individual from a subset of households
that complete month-in-sample 8 (M IS8) of the
Current Population Survey (CPS). Respondents
to the American Time Use Survey will be inter­
viewed one time only, about the previous day’s
activities. The Bureau of the Census will conduct
the survey as a computer-assisted telephone in­
terview. The main component of the survey will
be its core time diary, which covers a 24-hour pe­
riod from 4:00 a .m . the previous morning until 4:00
a . m . the day of the interview.3 Upon completion
of the core time diary, summary questions will be
asked which collect additional information that
may not be reported in the diary. Based on the
results of a feasibility test conducted in 1997 and
an operations field test conducted in April-June
Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

53

Measuring Intrahousehold Allocation of Time

2001, it was decided that the survey would consist of a tele­
phone interview with no field followup. The fielding period
will be 8 weeks, with a new sample introduced weekly. Re­
spondents will be assigned one day per week on which they
will be eligible for an interview.

Summary of Winkler’s article
Neither the initial plans nor the current plans for the American
Time Use Survey include conducting interviews with more than
one member of the same household or allowing proxy reports of
time use. Several other countries that conduct time-use surveys
have collected full diary information from several members of a
household. Most of these surveys have used self-administered
paper diaries to collect information on time use. In her article,
Winkler suggests that the United States adopt a middle-ground
approach to obtaining information about time use by more than
one member of a household. Specifically, she recommends fol­
lowing the Canadian model: in 1998, Statistics Canada conducted
time-use interviews by telephone with one respondent per
household and then collected some information about spouses’
or unmarried opposite-sex partners’ time use through a series of
“stylized” questions.4 For example, Statistics Canada asked re­
spondents, “Last week, did [your spouse or partner] do any
unpaid work to maintain or improve your house, yard, or auto­
mobile?” Positive responses were followed up with a question
that asked respondents to estimate how many hours their
spouse or partner engaged in those activities. The use of a
series of questions of this type allows for some proxy reporting
of time use without requiring the level of detail that is obtained
in the respondent’s own 24-hour recall diary.
Winkler’s comments about the American Time Use Survey
appear to be based chiefly on her review of a National Research
Council report on a time-use measurement and research
workshop that was held in May 1999. Some of her rec­
ommendations were implemented in the most recent plans for
the American Time Use Survey, while others were not. Winkler’s
central point—that measuring the use of time by more than
one member of a household is important—is echoed by others
as well. First, collecting time-use information from more than
one member of a household could shed more light on the
labor force participation of all members of the household.
Second, such data could afford more information on the
division of time and tasks within households— in particular,
information about who, within the household, provides care
for which other members of the household.5

Collecting data on more than one member
of a household
Measurement issues. Many participants in the National
Research Council workshop on time-use measurement and

54

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

research agreed that data should be collected from more than
one member of a household. They also noted that several
problems could arise with this approach. Response rates
could suffer because interviewing a number of individuals
would mean that the survey would take longer.6 Operational
problems could arise due to difficulty in gaining cooperation
from all of the members of the household who are to be
interviewed on the same day, to provide information about
the same day. Note that getting information from each
individual about the activities they engaged in on the same
day would be necessary to fully understand the jo in t
allocation of time within a household.
The quality of the data could suffer due to an extended
recall period for some respondents. It is generally assumed
that the quality of data in time-use surveys suffers the longer
the retrospective recall period. Therefore, most surveys ask
respondents only about the previous day’s activities. In the
event that two or more members of a household are unavailable
on the same day, survey designers are faced with two possible
courses of action: interviewers could conduct the second
person’s interview at a later date, but still seek information
about the original reference day, or the second respondent
could be interviewed at a later date, with the interviewer
seeking inform ation about a different reference day.
Unfortunately, neither of these strategies is ideal: the first
introduces recall error, while the second reduces the reliability
of data with respect to analyzing the intrahousehold allocation
of time.
In addition to this pair of measurement issues, a number of
other important methodological considerations must be
weighed regarding the collection of time-use information from
more than one member of a household. The next subsection
discusses other countries’ experiences with administering
multiple diaries in a household.
Paper diaries versus retrospective interviews by telephone.
Each survey that has collected time-use data from more than
one member of a household has relied on paper diaries,
supplem ented by household or individual-level selfadministered questionnaires or personal visits. The choice of
paper diaries, which are essentially prospective (for example,
with instructions such as “Tomorrow, write down all your
activities”), versus retrospective interviews by telephone (for
example, with questions such as “ W hat did you do
yesterday?”) has important implications for response rates
and survey costs. When paper diaries are combined with
personal visits to drop off the diaries and explain the process
of keeping a diary, they afford interviewers an opportunity to
assess the household’s likely compliance with the instructions
before assigning all household members a designated day on
which to keep their diaries. Eurostat’s pilot harmonized timeuse survey procedures included postponement plans that

were implemented when one or more diarists were unable to
keep the diary on the originally assigned day. This type of
prescreening may not be a viable option with a telephone survey.
In a recent American Time Use Survey field test, researchers
tested the effectiveness of proactive appointment setting, in
which interviewers called respondents in advance to schedule a
time to complete the survey. The procedure failed to increase
response rates, but did increase overall costs.7
Statistics Canada tested the feasibility of conducting timeuse interviews via telephone with more than one member of a
household. In the test, a single household respondent was
interviewed about two different days of the week, and the
married partners of those respondents were interviewed about
the same days of the week. As part of the test, diaries from
spouses o f the respondents were collected only from
households that were asked to complete one weekend and
one weekday interview, for a total of four time-use interviews
per household. Statistics Canada found that the collection of
time-use information from two household respondents
increased the length of the interview by about 40 minutes.
Approximately 16 of the 40 minutes were taken up by extra
explanations and extra calls to reach the spouse, and about 24
minutes were used to conduct the time-diary interview with
the spouse. In addition, the interviewers found it difficult to
collect all of the spouses’ diaries: only 46 percent of those
households completed all four interviews, compared with 88
percent from single-respondent households (that had multiple
interviews). Statistics Canada estimated that if the requirement
for completeness had been only two interviews—one with
the respondent and one with the spouse, about the same
day—the completion rate for both spouses would have
increased to 63 percent. Given the low response rate for
spouses and the high cost in time, Statistics Canada concluded

p a n su «

that it was not advisable to collect this information.8
As Winkler points out, in the United States the National
Survey of Families and Households uses both personal
interviews and self-administered questionnaires to collect
information from more than one member of a household.
However, the interviews and questionnaires are very long. In
developing the survey, designers attempted to maintain an
average interview length of 90 minutes. O f the interviews
conducted between March 1987 and May 1988, the majority
took between 70 and 110 minutes to complete.9 In contrast, the
BLS survey is expected to be completed in approximately 30
minutes.
Two U.S. time-use surveys, the 1975-76 and 1981-82
surveys adm inistered by the University o f M ichigan,
collected multiple 24-hour-recall diaries from respondents and
their spouses in separate interviews conducted at 3-month
intervals. Both spouses were required to report about the same
day. This design specification resulted in some cases that
required respondents to recall activities that occurred more
than 24 hours earlier. In general, the extended recall period
was required when the interview with the spouse could not be
obtained at the same time as that with the respondent and
thus was conducted some days later. One researcher who
examined the effects of the length of the recall period on the
quality of time-use data, as measured by the number of primary
activities reported, found that reports (about Monday Jhrough
Thursday) included 10 percent to 20 percent fewer activities
when the recall period extended beyond 24 hours.10
Exhibit 1 summarizes data collection methods and response
rates of several international time-use surveys. With the
exception of Canada, the countries represented were chosen
because they collect diaries from more than one member of a
household. Canada is included because Statistics Canada’s

Summary of time-use surveys

Household survey
and sponsoring agency

Sample

Methodology

Response rate

GSS 1998, Cycle 12, Time
Use Survey, Statistics
Canada

Sample of households obtained
by random-digit dialing. One
eligible respondent 15 years
or older per household

Computer-assisted telephone
interview of 24-hour-recall
diary

78 percent at individual level

1997 Australia Time Use
Survey, Australian Bureau
of Statistics

All eligible household
members 15 years or
older in 4,100 households

Self-completed 24-hour diary

72 percent for all members
of the household; 84 percent
for one member of the
household

Self-completed 48-hour
paper diary, individual and
household questionnaires,
personal visits

72 percent for both members
of the household

1998/1999 Time Use Survey, National sample of 7,200
Statistics New Zealand,
households. Two eligible
Ministry of Women’s Affairs respondents per household


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

55

Measuring Intrahousehold Allocation of Time

methodology is most similar to that planned for the American
Time Use Survey.
The data from the 1997 Australian time-use survey and from
Statistics Canada’s pretest indicate that household-level
response rates are lower than individual-level rates, which
suggests that interviewing more than one adult per household
could have a negative impact on response rates in the United
States.
Data from a 1985 time-use survey conducted jointly by the
University of Maryland and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency indicate that response rates are highest when paper
diaries are combined with personal visits, but response rates are
only slightly lower for retrospective telephone interviews.
However, personal visits are expensive, and the additional gains
in response may not offset the increases in survey costs.11

Using stylized questions
Cognitive burden. Winkler notes that the use of stylized
questions can be problematic in part because respondents “must
go through an extensive ‘cognitive process’ in order to answer
[them].”12 The cognitive demands associated with answering
these kinds o f questions may be so burdensome that
respondents resort to “satisficing,” rather than maximizing the
quality o f their responses.13 Thus, they may expend less
cognitive effort thinking about the meaning o f a question,
they may not search their memories as thoroughly, they may
not be as careful in integrating information they recall, or
they may respond imprecisely. One author notes that, when
survey interviews become lengthy and burdensome, even
respondents who may wish to provide high-quality data may
become fatigued and resort to satisficing.14 To compound the
problem, the level of effort respondents expend in coming up
with an answer may further decline as their level of motivation
declines.
In another study, F. T. Juster and F. P. Stafford suggest that
the nature of the recall task inherent in recollecting one’s use
of time underscores why diaries are the “only valid measurement
of time use.”15 In providing time-use information, respondents
are asked to recall activities that are not particularly memorable,
that do not recur on a daily basis, and that are not amenable to
the use of market measurements as a proxy. Given the nature
of the task, Juster and Stafford conclude that it is not possible
to get valid estimates of actual time use from simple survey
questions which ask about the respondent’s typical use of
time over some specified period.
In his review of time-use surveys, R. Andorka noted that,
while it is possible to collect time-use data with stylized
questions, time diaries provide valid and reliable data and
“ought to be preferred, in spite of higher costs, to the method
of stylized questions.”16 His conclusions are consistent with
previous research carried out by J. P. Robinson, who found

56

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

that 24-hour recall diaries provided better data than did
stylized survey questions which asked about time spent in
various activities.17 In Robinson’s studies, 24-hour recall
diaries were compared with (1) reports obtained when
respondents wrote down their activities whenever a randomly
programmed beeper signaled, (2) detailed descriptions of
activities that occurred during a randomly selected hour, and
(3) responses to stylized survey questions. The time diaries
were not significantly different from either the reports
prompted by the random beeper or the descriptions of
random-hour activities and were superior to the responses to
stylized questions. Table 1 summarizes Robinson’s findings.
Proxy reports. For certain kinds of observed characteristics,
proxy reports may be as reliable as self-reports. Generally
speaking, though, proxy reports are recognized as a less
reliable source of information. Their reliability is especially
likely to be called into question when a respondent is asked to
report about other household members’ activities. In a recent
cognitive test o f the CPS com puter and Internet use
supplement, L. Schwartz and S. Fricker examined the accuracy
o f proxy reports through a data verification process.18
Accuracy was measured by comparing respondents’ proxy
reports with household members’ reports o f their own
computer and Internet use, using identical questions. Rates
were based on proxy verifications obtained from 21 re­
spondents who reported about their spouses’ computer and
Internet use. Accuracy rates ranged from 20 percent to 100
percent, with the least accurate proxy reports centering on
questions related to other household m em bers’ online
activities and their use of computers at work. In response to a
debriefing question that asked respondents how they knew
what other household members did on the computer, most
respondents said that they would have to have been present
or been told in order to know definitively what someone else
in the household did.
Winkler also expressed concern about the reliability of
proxy reports. She noted that, even though husbands’ and
wives’ mean estimates of their time spent in various activities
match up, there may be little consensus between matched
husband-wife pairs. In fact, the correlation between husbands’
and wives’ reports in the National Survey of Families and
Households was only 0.37 for reports about husbands’
activities and 0.46 for reports about wives’ activities.
Winkler notes that egocentric bias tends to widen the gap
in hours attributed to various activities in self- and proxy
reports.19 According to some psychologists, egocentric bias
occurs in part because information about the self is more
deeply encoded in memory and is more readily available for
retrieval. This is consistent with findings in cognitive
psychology which suggest that self-referencing (that is,
applying to the self m aterials that are to be learned)

Table 1.

Comparisons of time-use estimates for selected activities across methodologies

[Hours per week]

Experiment 1
(women)
Selected
activities

Work for pay............
Housework...............
Child ca re ................
Shopping.................
Entertainment..........
Active leisure..........
Watching television ..
Reading....................
N ote :

Beeper

Diary

9.3
21.4
8.6
4.3
3.7
5.8
“

14.4
18.5
7.1
6.6
5.7
4.0
-

Random hour
22.2
10.6
2.7
7.5
7.4
3.4

Stylized

Diary

Stylized

Diary

23.9
13.9
3.6
6.8
9.1
2.8

14.9
20.9
16.6
2.9
9.6
5.0
18.3
7.6

12.8
16.6
5.5
2.6
10.6
3.6
11.4
2.7

36.1
2.7
3.8
1.3
7.2
3.0
15.2
6.8

34.8
2.7
1.7
1.1
6.6
2.5
11.2
5.3

-

-

-

Dash indicates data not collected.

Adapted from J. P. Robinson, ‘The Validity and Reliability of
Diaries versus Alternative Time Use Measures,” in F. T. Juster and F. P. Stafford

enhances retention.20 Taken together, the evidence suggests
that the use of stylized questions to collect self- and proxy
reports of time use is likely to result in overestimation of selfreports o f socially desirable behaviors and underestimation
o f o thers’ activities. W ithout also interview ing other
household members, the American Time Use Survey would
be unable to provide b l s analysts with reliable enough
information to verify the accuracy of proxy reports and, as
a result, might be unable to measure, to any significant
degree o f accuracy, the true division of resources among
household members.
Varying recall periods. The current design of the American
Time Use Survey focuses the respondent on the previous
day’s activities. The time diary and the work-related and child­
care summary questions all refer the respondent to the
previous day, while the summary question about absences from
home asks respondents to recall trips taken in the previous
month. Asking respondents to focus on different periods
throughout the interview may be a cognitively difficult task.
The implementation of stylized questions requires a careful
consideration of the appropriate reference period in order to
ensure high-quality data and analytical relevance.21

M easuring intra household tim e allocation
with the current survey methods
Because the survey sample will be from the CPS, which gathers
demographic and labor market information for the entire
household, analysts will have available a rich set of controls
for household members other than the respondent. Some of
this information will have been collected in the previous
month, but the survey instrument will update most labor
market information from the respondent, as well as updating

Experiment3
(men)

Diary

-

S ource :


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

Experiments
(women)

Experiment 2

(eds.), Time, Goods, and Well-Being (Ann Arbor,
Press, 1985), pp. 33-62.

mi,

University of Michigan

the spouse’s labor force status and usual hours of work. The
background information from the CPS will allow the American
Time Use Survey to be used in the analysis of the intra­
household allocation of time. Analysts will be able to examine
mean hours of time spent in a given activity by members of
households of a given type, as well as mean differences
between household members with a given relationship to each
other.
For instance, analysts will be able to examine the hours spent
in leisure activities by each member of a married couple. From
this information, they will be able to estimate the average
difference in time spent in that activity between husbands and
wives. To take a numerical example, if one finds that husbands
have, on average, 5 hours of leisure activities per day and wives
have, on average, 3 hours, the average difference in time spent
in leisure activities is obviously 2 hours per day. Such an analysis
can then be extended by investigating labor market and
demographic characteristics of the household. One might
examine the hours spent in leisure and differences in leisure
activities between husbands and wives when both work full
time and compare the findings with hours spent in leisure when
the husband works full time and the wife works part time. Other
examples include estimating the average difference in time spent
in an activity between husbands and wives with a given wage
rate for the wife or a given difference in wage rates between the
husband and wife.22 Other adults in the household can also be
incorporated into the analysis. Assuming a sufficient sample
size, one can examine, for example, the average difference in time
spent in child care between parents with and without a
grandparent in the household, as well as the average time spent
in child care by within-household grandparents.
Because of the absence of data on more than one member
of the same household, there are, of course, limits on what
kinds of analyses are possible. For example, aside from
Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

57

Measuring Intrahousehold Allocation of Time

examining averages, analyzing the distribution of time use
across households is impossible. Thus, one can estimate the
mean, but not the median, difference in leisure time between
husbands and wives.
The absence of data on the time use of the respondent’s
spouse also makes it difficult to know when spouses are
performing the same activity at the same time. For instance,
to return to a previous example, if men give child care for 3
hours and women for 5 hours, how many hours are children
in their parent’s care? Without simultaneous data on both
men and women, it is impossible to tell. However, some
indication of joint activities will be available in the survey,
because respondents will be asked who was with them during
each activity. Note that the stylized questions proposed by
Winkler also do not allow us to detect joint activities.

As

NOTED BY PARTICIPANTS IN THE NATIONAL RESEARCH

“the
availability of data on multiple persons would greatly enhance
the value o f such data for understanding household
behavior.”23 The Bureau of Labor Statistics recognizes the
importance o f measuring the intrahousehold allocation of
time. However, the Bureau also recognizes that these
measures may be difficult to capture with the present structure
o f the Am erican Time Lise Survey w ithin reasonable
budgetary and data quality constraints. On the basis o f a
review of the literature, considerable research would need to
be done before questions of the type suggested by Winkler
could be implemented. The Bureau is exploring methods for
measuring the intrahousehold allocation of time, and the topic
is on the BLS research agenda for 2002.
□
COUNCIL WORKSHOP ON TIME-USE MEASUREMENT,

Notes
1 Anne E. Winkler, “Measuring time use in multiple-person house­
holds,” this issue pp. 45-52.
2 Designers were interested in the feasibility of conducting the survey
by phone mainly for two reasons. First, drawing the sample from, and
linking back to, the Current Population Survey (cps) would be facilitated
if the American Time Use Survey were a telephone survey. The cps will
provide a wealth of demographic information about respondents to the
time-use survey. Second, as noted in F. T. Juster and F. P. Stafford, “The
Allocation of Time: Empirical Findings, Behavioral Models, and Prob­
lems o f Measurement,” Journal o f Economic Literature, June 1991, pp.
471-522, telephone surveys cost a great deal less than personal-inter­
view surveys without compromising the quality of time diary data.
3 The core time diary will be a listing o f the previous day’s activities
and associated contextual information. All citations o f the diary in this
article refer to the listing o f activities collected during the telephone
interview and do not refer to a paper-and-pencil diary completed by the
respondent.
4 Stylized questions are survey questions that ask respondents to
indicate how much time they spent in various activities or to estimate
how often they engage in various activities over a predetermined refer­
ence period (See R. Andorka, “Time Budgets and Their Uses,” Annual
Review o f Sociology, vol. 13, 1987, pp. 149-64.)
5 M ichele Ver Ploeg, Joseph Altonji, Norman Bradburn, Julie
DaVanzo, William Nordhaus, and Francisco Samaniego, eds., Time-Use
Measurement and Research: Report o f a Workshop (Washington, dc,
National Academy Press, 2000).
6 J. Martin and R. Breeten, “The Effect of Interviewer Characteristics
on Survey Response Rates,” paper presented at the International
Conference on Survey Nonresponse, Portland, or, October 1999, found
that household surveys which interviewed only one responsible adult per
household took an average o f 36 minutes to complete. In comparison,
household surveys that interviewed all household adults took an average
o f 85 minutes to complete.
7 K. Piskurich, D. Nelson, and D. Herz, “Maximizing Respondent
Contact in the American Time Use Survey,” 2001 Proceedings o f the
American Statistical Association, in press.
8 D. Paton, personal communication, 2000.
9 Refusals to participate in the survey and breaking off the interview
may be more common with telephone interviews than personal visits

58

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

mainly because it is easier to put the phone down than it is to refuse
someone calling in person. With this in mind, survey designers suggest
that telephone interviews should not last longer than 20 minutes.
However, shorter or longer interviews may be advised, depending on
respondents’ level o f interest in the survey topic. (See R. Thomas and
S. Purdon, “Telephone methods for social surveys,” Social Research
Update, 1994; on the Internet at www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/

SRu8.html.
10 F. T. Juster, “Response Errors in the Measurement o f Time Use,”
Journal o f the American Statistical Association, June 1986, pp. 3 90402. Data showed that recall periods of longer than 24 hours resulted in
reports that mentioned 5 percent fewer activities on Friday through
Sunday. However, the difference was not statistically significant.
11 In the American Time Use Survey field test, a 74-percent response
rate was obtained after 8 weeks o f data collection for households with
telephones. In comparison, after a total o f 8 weeks, a 79-percent
response rate was achieved with households that received a personal
visit after 4 weeks o f first trying to contact the respondent by phone.
Despite this increase in response rate, a field component for the survey
was cost prohibitive: it was estimated that the Bureau would incur an
additional cost of approximately $102 per case if the survey included a
field component.
12 Winkler, “Measuring time use,” p.
13 Satisficing involves superficial searches for information and
adopting decisions that are “good enough.” For a review, see J. L. Irving
and L. Mann, “Satisficing,” in J. Billsberry (ed.), The Effective Manager:
Perspectives and Illustrations (Bristol, pa, The Open University Press
1996), pp. 157-9.
14 J. A. Krosnick, “Survey Research,” Annual Review o f Psychology
vol. 50, 1999, pp. 537-67.
15 Juster and Stafford, “The Allocation o f Time.”
16 Andorka, “Time Budgets,” p. 151.
17 J. P. Robinson, “The Validity and Reliability o f Diaries versus
Alternative Time Use Measures,” in F. T. Juster and F. P. Stafford (eds.),
Time, Goods, and Well-Being (Ann Arbor, mi, University o f Michigan
Press, 1985), pp. 33-62.
18 L. Schwartz and S. Fricker, “What’s on Your Mousepad? Asking
Questions about Computers and the Internet,” internal report (Bureau
o f Labor Statistics, April 2001).
19 Egocentric bias is the tendency to be more sensitive to, and judge

differently, events involving oneself than events involving others.
20 K. L. Hartlep and G. A. Forsyth, “The effect o f self-reference
on learning and retention,” Teaching o f Psychology, vol. 27, no. 4,
2 000 , 2 6 9 -7 1 .
21 For a detailed examination o f the impact o f the length o f the
reference period on the accuracy o f respondents’ reports o f business
trips in the American Time Use Survey, see S. Fricker and L. Schwartz,
“Reporting Absences from Home: Results o f Cognitive Testing o f the

American Time Use Survey’s Missed Days Summary Question, working
paper (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 2001).
22 Note that the analyst will have information on the respondent’s
wages as o f the previous cps month if the respondent has not changed
jobs and as o f the current American Time Use Survey month if he or she
has changed jobs. The analyst will have information on the spouse’s
wages as o f the previous cps month.
23 Ver Ploeg et al., Time Use Measurement and Research, p. 49.

Fax on demand
Users of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can request a fax of news
releases, historical data, and technical information 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, from the Bureau’s fax-on-demand system.
Users can receive news releases of major economic indicators (see schedule
on back cover) at 8:45 a.m. on the morning the data are released. The number to
obtain data from the national office is:
(202) 691-6325
Use a touch-tone telephone and follow the voice instructions for entering
document codes and your fax telephone number. The fax-on-demand catalog,
containing a list of available documents and codes, can be obtained by enter­
ing code 1000. You may request up to four documents with each call. Faxes are
sent immediately following the request. If your fax line is busy, the system
attempts to send the requested material four times before disconnecting.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

59

Précis

Stock options and
wage puzzles
The 1990s, according to Hamid Mehran
and Joseph Tracy’s report in the De­
cember 2001 Economic Policy Review
from the New York Federal Reserve, pro­
vided econom ists with two “wage
puzzles.” First, why did both nominal
compensation growth and the unem­
ployment rate fall in the 1992-95 period?
And, second, why did the compensa­
tion growth rate drop again in 1999 even
as the labor m arket continued to
tighten?
Mehran and Tracy seek answers to
these conundrums in the changing
structure of compensation. A growing
share of compensation for workers at
all levels has been paid as profit shar­
ing or in stock options. While the data
captures straight profit-sharing pay­
ments well enough, stock options are
captured when they are realized, not
when they are granted. Mehran and
Tracy use data available from several
sources to estimate the impact chang­
ing that timing would have on the total
compensation series.
First, they model some o f the fac­
tors that help determine how many stock
options firms will grant in terms of the
standard Black-Scholes value o f those
options. Some significant factors are the
firm’s return on assets (higher returns
are associated with fewer new stock
options), firm size (bigger firms grant
more options), firm age (older firms
grant fewer), and profitability (firms suf­
fering losses often grant more stock
options than similar firms with operat­
ing profits).
Mehran and Tracy then model the
determinants of stock option realiza­
tions, both in terms of the likelihood a
firm will experience any realizations of
its options (about a third of firms that

60 Monthly Labor Review


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

have granted options experience no
realizations in a year) and in terms of
the magnitude o f those realizations.
The number o f previous grants, the
return on the underlying stocks over
the previous 2 years, and the marketto-book value o f the shares have
strong effects on both the incidence
and magnitude o f realizations. Firm
size and higher stock risks have ef­
fects on the likelihood options will be
realized, but not on the magnitude of
the realizations.
Once these model-based results are
taken into account, Mehran and Tracy
attempt to adjust estimates of growth
in compensation hour that include esti­
mates of option realizations to a esti­
mate o f the growth rate in compensa­
tion that includes option grants. Data
constrains limited this analysis to 199599, more or less the time period of the
second wage puzzle. They found that
a measure compensation that included
their estimate of grants and excluded
their estimates of realizations grew in
every year they had data for. In con­
trast, the unadjusted series had that
puzzling slowdown in 1999.

Technology, work, and
wages
The impact o f technological change on
workplace practices, productivity, and,
most especially, wages and wage struc­
tures has been a frustrating and often
controversial research field. Indeed,
Clair Brown and Benjamin A. Campbell
begin their recent Industrial Relations
review article on these topics with two
paradoxes. The “paradox of productiv­
ity” is that the impact of new technol­
ogy on productivity is more evident at
the individual units o f the economy
than at the national level. That is, indi­
vidual firms adopting new technologies

February 2002

often experience significant improve­
ments in productivity, but these impacts
do not seem to percolate up to the ag­
gregate statistics.
The “paradox o f wage inequality”
is that wage premiums for workers us­
ing advanced technology appear to
be much more significant in national
statistics than they do at the firm
level. In other words, while measure
o f aggregate inequality move in con­
cert with measures of technology, in­
dividual units that adopt new tech­
nology do not report much widening
o f their wage distributions.
After reviewing the literature that
has led us to these paradoxes, Brown
and Campbell suggest three critical
topics for future research. First, there
must be additional improvements in
the measurement o f technology and
productivity. They state strongly,
“Our current measures o f technology
usage and costs are woefully inad­
equate, and our measures o f output,
and hence productivity, do not reflect
many of the improvements provided
by the new technology.”
Second, analysts must further un­
ravel the impact o f new technology
on wages. Brown and Campbell as­
sert, “If wage premiums are not di­
rectly related to skills and other ob­
serv ab le p ro d u c tiv ity -e n h a n c in g
characteristics, then we must ask how
institutions governing the rationing
of jobs into higher-paying firms ... are
affected by technological change as
well as other phenomena.”
Third, there should be more studies
of the impact of technical change on
workplace practices and employment
systems. “In particular, say Brown and
Campbell, “we need to study what cre­
ates market rent for a firm, how these
rents are divided among the owners and
the workers, and how new technology
changes these relationships.
□

Book Reviews
Latino immigrants
Latino Workers in the Contemporary
South. Edited by Arthur D. Murphy,
Colleen Blanchard, and Jennifer A.
Hill. Athens, GA, University of Geor­
gia Press. Southern Anthropological
Society, 2001,139 pp. $20, softcover;
$40, cloth.
Latino Workers in the Contemporary
South is a collection o f essays con­
cerning the recent influx of Latino im­
migrants in the southeastern region of
the United States. The authors explain
the trajectory o f immigrants in the
United States and how their destina­
tions are no longer limited to tradi­
tional places like metropolitan areas.
The essays focus on rural communi­
ties in Georgia, North Carolina, and
Florida, where immigrant populations
have been growing rapidly.
The text holds interesting discus­
sions o f Latino immigrant experiences
(primarily Mexican), including their fami­
lies being more inclined to immigrate as
the Mexican economy worsens, their
diaspora, language barriers, and eco­
nomic hardships.
Official data are used to document im­
migrants’ increasingly stable presence
in the South. The authors use data from
the U.S. Census Bureau, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, and other
sources such as public school enroll­
ment records.
In light o f the fact that limited
amounts o f official data are available,
the authors supplem ent these data
with findings from their own surveys
to discuss immigrants living in smaller
geographic areas. Although their sur­
vey samples are small, they state their
methodologies upfront, and the sur­
veys shed light on the phenomenon
o f immigrants’ increasing presence in
the South. The authors use their find­
ings to study the undercount o f immi­
grants in official data, reasons for im­
migrant influx in the South, and their
“settling out” o f agriculture.


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

Possible contributors to the
undercount of immigrants in official es­
timates are explained—the trajectory of
immigrants, their moving around the
country to find seasonal employment,
and border-crossing. The authors pro­
pose that temporary housing arrange­
ments may also be a factor in the
undercount. As in a survey case in
South Florida, immigrants were found to
be living in crowded, low-rent housing.
Many lived in households with several
adults, and nuclear families temporarily
hosted newly arrived relatives.
The authors attribute the influx of
Latino immigrants in the South to the
region’s rapid economic growth that has
occurred in recent decades. Globaliza­
tion and rising demand in the poultry in­
dustry have fueled the industry’s growth
in northern Georgia and provided result­
ant work opportunities there for immi­
grants. Ron Hetrick’s June 1994 Monthly
Labor Review article is used to document
the strong job growth that has occurred
in the poultry processing industry and
to highlight the fact that the industry
has hired more workers to meet increas­
ing demands, because hiring more labor
is relatively cheaper than making capital
improvements.
The book describes two other ex­
amples to show how rapidly growing in­
dustries have brought immigrant labor
to the South: high economic volatility
requires southern Louisiana’s onshore
oil industry to obtain low-skilled periph­
eral labor, and Dalton, home of Georgia’s
high-growth carpet industry, needs im­
migrants to fill positions native residents
cannot in a tight labor market. Employ­
ers of semi-skilled workers, such as con­
struction and landscaping businesses,
also provide work opportunities to im­
migrants in the South.
The authors explain that industries’
heightened demands for cheap, unskilled
labor have drawn immigrants to rural
southern areas like those of northern
Georgia. Using population estimates
from the 1990 and 2000 decennial cen­
suses, one can verify that the Hispanic

population in northern Georgia’s poul­
try-processing region has grown. De­
cennial census data show that in 2000
the Hispanic population in Forsyth
County, Georgia, was more than eight
times what it was in 1990. In neighbor­
ing Hall County, the Hispanic popula­
tion in 2000 was about six times as large
as it was in 1990.
Another trend examined is immigrants
“settling out” of agriculture to find more
permanent, year-round employment to
support their families (who have been
more inclined to immigrate as Mexico’s
economy has weakened). In addition to
their most frequently cited needs— em­
ployment, healthcare, and housing—
immigrants report that learning English
is the key factor in overcoming other
hardships they face when they “settle
out.” Immigrant parents regard educa­
tion as the key to their children’s better
future.
It seems that the authors present evi­
dence of immigrants’ increasingly stable
presence in the South for a purpose—
because o f the undercount o f immi­
grants, we are unable to attend to thenneeds.
Another concern is that U.S. immi­
gration laws have not prevented illegal
immigration but have instead affected the
price and condition of immigrant labor.
For instance, some U.S. employers re­
cruit illegal workers who are willing to
forgo legal amenities.
In a comparative essay on illegal
Latino immigrants in the U.S. South and
Germany’s “guest workers,” the authors
suggest that a German-like guest-worker
program in the United States might stem
illegal immigration. They propose that
countries that import labor or export
workers develop viable and fair policies
on international labor immigration—be­
cause with globalization, immigration
should continue.
—Katie Kirkland
Office of Employment and
Unemployment Statistics,
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

61

Book Reviews

EAP trends
Emerging Trends fo r EAPs in the 21st
Century. Edited by N. Van Den
Bergh. New York, The Haworth Press,
Inc., 2000,145 pp.
Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs)
are an im portant com ponent o f
workforce development and quality of
worklife interventions in contemporary
organizational environments, providing
much-needed clinical and nonclinical
interventions with organizational em­
ployees. EAPs were rapidly introduced
within workplaces during the 1980s, and
became a mainstay of many organiza­
tions during the 1990s, concomitant
w ith w orkforce trends including
downsizing and changing workforce
demographics (for example, aging and
more diverse employees), e a p s have
been a frequent source of support for
employees in personal flux and organi­
zational crisis, and their mission contin­
ues to evolve to accommodate unantici­
pated socio-economic trends affecting
the workplace.
This edited collection of seven pre­
dominantly theoretical and position
papers capture the scope o f contem­
porary EAP practice within varied work
environments, provide a blueprint for
future practice, and define a vision to
meet ever-changing demands of the
EAP client base, namely, workforce
employees. A review o f contributors’
biographies for this highly readable
volume indicates that all are highly
credentialed professionals who work
or teach in the EAP field.
In the introductory article, the vol­
ume editor sets the context for e a p s ,
delineates their history and mission,
and charts a directed course for their
future. Citing numerous workplace
trends that have increased workers’
duress relative to their worklife (for
exam ple, dow nsizing, rightsizing,
mergers, globalization, and acquisi­
tions, and so forth), she proposes that
the organization as a whole is an EAP

62

Monthly Labor Review


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

“client.” This perspective affords a
wider context to implement beneficial
organizational strategies, policies, and
programs, while retaining an important
focus on personal gains made by in­
dividual employees.
Two papers focus on how EAPs can
meet the needs o f changing workforce
segm ents, specifically, female and
older employees. Because female em­
ployees are often caregivers to family
members, they are particularly suscep­
tible to experiencing significant stress
due to the competing demands o f bal­
ancing worklife with dependent care
responsibilities. Hoffman’s position
paper describes how e a p s can coor­
dinate dependent care for employees
within the context o f their work and
offer what may be the sole source of
su p p o rt and re sp ite fo r th ese
caregivers. Similarly, Perkin’s paper
describes a “strengths-based” model
EAPs can apply when providing pre­
retirement and other services to older
employees. Emphasizing positive cli­
ent attributes and a proactive work­
ing relationship between employee
and EAP service provider, the model
focuses on preventing long-term com­
plications for older employees, while
prescribing continuous short-term in­
terventions to address ongoing or pre­
scient client needs and personal goals.
Work/family programs and e a p s
sometimes co-exist, albeit not always ef­
fectively, within a single organization.
They may function independently, and
even be at odds, due to “tu rf’ consider­
ations. While EAPs were created to keep
employees on the job who are function­
ing at a subpar level, work/family pro­
grams generally help working mothers
meet childcare demands. Herlihy delin­
eates a plan for how both services can
be integrated to provide seamless and
effective support for employees facing
a multitude of personal and professional
crises.
Unfortunately, recent events make
Plaggemars’ paper on applying “critical
incident stress debriefing (CISD)” to cur-

February 2002

rent workplaces acutely relevant and
compelling. CISD addresses employee
reactions to severe and traumatic work­
place events such as employee suicide,
homicide, and departmental restructur­
ing by facilitating employees’ ability to
process traumatizing events so they can
continue to function successfully in the
workforce. Needless to say, CISD could
be applied in workplaces currently af­
fected by terrorism.
e a p s provide services for downsized
employees (that is, “survivors”) and
W orster proscribes a “systems ap­
proach” to address significant ripple ef­
fects stemming from organizational
downsizing. This approach strives to
help downsized employees and facilitate
the transformation o f the altered corpo­
rate culture after downsizing. Interest­
ingly, he advises CISD be used to help
downsized employees cope with their
feelings after being downsized. This
paper also illustrates how downsizing
and other traumatic workforce events
can result in workplace violence.
The final paper repositions EAPs
within the context of a new, far-reach­
ing organizational role, that of organi­
zational development consultant. Al­
though this “paradigm shift” may invite
skepticism from organizational higherups, Beard presents seven case studies
where EAPs applied team -building,
“coaching,” and consultation tech­
niques to improve system-wide func­
tioning, increase workplace productiv­
ity, promote worker satisfaction, and
cultivate a healthy climate for profes­
sional development. Impressive anec­
dotal evidence substantiates the thesis
that EAPs functioning as organizational
consultants can promote satisfying and
rewarding workplace environments and
contribute to greater success for the
entire organization.
— Sylvia Kay Fisher
Office of Survey Methods Research,
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Publications received
Economic and social statistics
Altonji, Joseph G , and Ulrich Doraszelski,
The R ole o f P erm a n en t Incom e a n d D e­
m ographics in B lack/W hite D ifferences in
Wealth. Cambridge, MA, National B u­
reau o f Econom ic Research, Inc., 2001,
62 pp. (W orking Paper 8473) $10 per
copy, plus $10 for postage and handling
outside the United States.
T h e B e s t o f T h e E d i t o r ’s D e s k (TED).
Washington, DC, U.S. Department o f Labor/Bureau o f Labor Statistics, June 2001,
55 pp.
G ew ek e, John, G autam G owrisankaran,
and Robert J. Town, B ayesian Inference
f o r H ospital Q uality in a Selection M odel.
Cambridge, M A National Bureau o f Eco­
nom ic Research, Inc., October 2001, 77
pp. (Working Paper 8497) $ 10 per copy,
plus $10 for postage and handling out­
side the United States.

Education
Rosenbaum , James, B e y o n d C o lleg e F o r
All: C areer P aths f o r the Forgotten H alf.
N e w York, R ussell Sage Foundation,
2001, 323 pp. $29.95/hardcover.

Health and safety
F a ta l W orkplace Injuries in 1998 a n d 1999:
A Collection o f D ata a n d Analysis. Wash­
ington, DC, U.S. Department o f Labor/
Bureau o f Labor Statistics, August 2001,
Report 954, 179 pp.

Gray, Wayne B., and Ronald J. Shadbegian,
P la n t Vintage, Technology, a n d E nviron­
m ental R egulation. Cambridge, MA, N a­
tional Bureau o f Economic Research, Inc.,
2001, 25 pp. (Working Paper 8480) $10
per copy, plus $10 for postage and han­
dling outside the United States.

Industrial relations
Franklin, Stephen, Three Strikes: L a b o r s
H eartland L osses a n d W hat They M ean
f o r Working A m ericans. N ew York, The
Guilford Press, 2001, 308 pp. $ 23.95/
hardcover.

Economic growth
and development

Hathaway, Dale, A llies A cross the Border:
M e x ic o ’s “A u th en tic L abor F r o n t” a n d
G lobal Solidarity. Cambridge, MA, South
End Press, 2000, 267 pp. $19/softcover.

Frey, B runo S ., I n s p ir i n g E c o n o m ic s :
H um an M otivation in P olitical E conom y.
Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA,
Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2 0 0 1 ,2 3 6
pp. $80/hardcover.
Raa, Thijs ten, and Ronald Schettkat, eds.,
The G row th o f Service Industries: The
P a ra d o x o f E xp lo d in g C osts a n d P ersis­
te n t D e m a n d . C h elten h am , UK, and
Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar Pub­
lishing, Inc., 2 00 1 ,2 2 5 pp. $85/hardcover.
S ie g el, Jacob S., A p p lie d D e m o g ra p h y :
A p p lica tio n s to Business, G overnm ent,
Law, a n d P ublic P olicy. San D iego and
London, Academ ic Press, 2002, 686 pp.
Zerbe Jr., Richard O., E conom ic E fficiency
in Law a n d E conom ics: N ew H orizons in
L aw a n d E conom ics. Cheltenham, UK,
and Northam pton, MA, Edward Elgar
Publishing, Inc., 2 0 0 1 ,3 2 8 pp. $95/hardcover.


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

C arp en ter, M ic k , and S te v e J e ffe r y s,
M anagem ent, Work a n d Welfare in West­
ern Europe: A H istorical a n d C ontem po­
ra ry A n a ly sis. Cheltenham , UK, and
Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar Pub­
lishing, Inc., 2 0 0 0 ,2 6 6 pp. $90/hardcover.
Richards, Peter, Towards the G oal o f F u ll
Em ploym ent: Trends, O bstacles a n d P oli­
cies. Geneva, International Labour O f­
fice, 2001, 156 pp. $16.95/softcover.

Labor and economic history

Industry and government
organization

Sh y, O z, T h e E c o n o m ic s o f N e tw o r k
Industries. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge
University Press, 2001, 315 pp. $22.95/
softcover.

Easterly, W illiam , The E lu sive Q u est f o r
G row th: E c o n o m ists ’ A d v e n tu re s a n d
M isadventures in the Tropics. Cambridge,
MA, and London, The MIT Press, 2001,
342 pp. $29.95/cloth.

for postage and handling ou tsid e the
United States.

H erod , A n d rew , L a b o r G e o g r a p h ie s :
Workers a n d the L andscapes o f C apital­
ism . N e w York, The G uilford Press,
2001, 352 pp. $25/softcover.
La B o tz , D an , M a d e in In d o n e s ia :
Indonesian Workers Since Suharto. Cam­
bridge, MA, South End Press, 2001, 395
pp. $ 18/softcover.
L ou ie, M iriam C h in g Y oon, S w e a ts h o p
W arriors: Im m ig ra n t Women W orkers
Take On The G lobal Factory. Cambridge,
MA, South End Press, 2 0 0 1 ,3 0 6 pp. $18/
softcover.
Najita, Joyce M., and James L. Stem, eds.,
C ollective B argaining in the P ublic S ec­
tor: The E x p e rie n c e o f E ig h t S ta te s.
Armonk, NY, and London, M.E. Sharpe,
June 2001, 288 pp. $64.95/hardcover.

International economics
Abadie, Alberto, and Javier Gardeazabal,
The Econom ic C osts o f Conflict: A CaseC ontrol Stu d y f o r the B asque C ountry.
Cambridge, MA, National Bureau o f Eco­
nomic Research, Inc., 20 0 1 ,3 2 pp. (Work­
ing Paper 8478) $10 per copy, plus $10

Rosenberg, Nathan, and Manuel Trajtenberg,
A G eneral P urpose Technology A t Work:
The Corliss Steam Engine in the Late 19th
C entury U.S. Cambridge, MA, National
Bureau o f Econom ic Research, Inc., Sep­
tember 2 0 0 1 , 67 pp. (W orking Paper
8485) $10 per copy, plus $10 for post­
age and han dling outsid e the U nited
States.

Labor force
A b rah am , K a th a rin e G., and R ob ert
Shimer, C hanges in U nem ploym ent D u ­
r a tio n a n d L a b o r F o rc e A tta c h m e n t.
Cambridge, MA, National Bureau o f Eco­
nomic Research, Inc., October 2001, 60
pp. (Working Paper 8513) $10 per copy,
plus $10 for postage and handling out­
side the United States.

Labor organization
Sisya, Frank D ., The P o litic a l L ife o f a
P ublic E m ployee Labor Union: R egional
U nion D em ocracy. Lewiston, NY, The
Edwin M ellen Press, 2000, 201 pp.

Management and organization
theory
Holland, Dutch, R e d Z o n e M a n a g em en t:
C h anging the R u les f o r P ivo ta l Times.
Chicago, Dearborn Trade, 2001, 272 pp.
$25/hardcover.

Monetary and fiscal policy
Lewis, M ervyn K., and Latifa M. Algaoud,
Islam ic B anking. Cheltenham, UK, and
Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar Pub­
lishing, Inc., 2 0 0 1 ,2 8 8 pp. $90/hardcover.

Productivity and technological
change
B axter, M arianne, and D o rsey D . Farr,
The E ffects o f Variable C apital U tiliza­
tion on the M easurem ent a n d P roperties
o f Sectoral P roductivity: Som e Interna-

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

63

Book Reviews

tional E vidence. Cambridge, MA, N a­
tional Bureau o f Economic Research, Inc.,
2001, 26 pp. (Working Paper 8475) $10
per copy, plus $10 for postage and han­
dling outside the United States.
C o o m b s, R od , K en G reen , A lb e r t
Richards, and Vivien Walsh, eds., Tech­
no lo g y a n d the M arket: D em and, Users
a n d Innovation. Cheltenham, UK, and
Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar Pub­
lishing, Inc., 2 0 0 1 ,3 2 0 pp. $90/hardcover.
D ia m o n d , W ayne J., and R ich ard B.
Freeman, Will Unionism Prosper in CyberSpace? The P rom ise o f the In tern et f o r
Em ployee O rganization. Cambridge, M A
National Bureau o f Econom ic Research,
Inc., September 2001, 41 pp. (Working
Paper 8483) $10 per copy, plus $10 for
postage and handling outside the United
States.
H all, B ron w yn H ., A dam B. Jaffe, and
M anuel Trajtenberg, The N B E R P atent
C ita tio n s D a ta F ile: Lessons, In sig h ts
a n d M ethodological Tools. Cambridge,
MA, National Bureau o f Econom ic Re­
search, Inc., October 2 0 0 1 ,7 4 pp. (Work­
ing Paper 8498) $10 per copy, plus $10
for postage and handling outsid e the
United States.
Learner, Edward E., and M ichael Storper,
The E conom ic G eography o f the Internet
A g e. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau
o f Economic Research, Inc., August 2001,
34 pp. (Working Paper 8450) $10 per
copy, plus $10 for postage and handling
outside the United States.
Zucker, Lynne G., M ichael R. Darby, and
J e ff S. A rm strong, C o m m e r c ia liz in g
K now ledge: U niversity Science, K n o w l­
edge C apture, a n d F irm P erform ance in
B iotechnology. Cambridge, MA, National
Bureau o f Econom ic Research, Inc., O c­
tober 2 0 0 1 ,4 2 pp. (Working Paper 8499)
$10 per copy, plus $10 for postage and
handling outside the United States.

Social institutions and
social change
Goldin, Claudia, and Maria Shim, M aking
A N am e. Cambridge, MA, National Bu­
reau o f Economic Research, Inc., Septem­
ber 2001, 25 pp. (Working Paper 8474)
$10 per copy, plus $10 for postage and
handling outside the United States.
Lee, David S., The E lectoral A dva n ta g e to
Incum bency a n d V oters’Valuation o f P oli­
ticians ’ E xperience: A R egression D is­
continuity A nalysis o f E lections to the U.S.

64

Monthly Labor Review


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

H ouse. Cambridge, MA, National B u­
reau o f Econom ic Research, Inc., August
2 0 0 1 ,4 3 pp. (Working Paper 8441) $10
per copy, plus $10 for postage and han­
dling outside the United States.

Wages and compensation
Card, David, Charles M ichalopoulos, and
Philip K. Robins, The L im its to Wage
G row th: M easuring the G row th R ate o f
Wages f o r R ecent Welfare Leavers. Cam­
bridge, M A National Bureau o f Economic
R esearch, Inc., A u gust 2 0 0 1 , 46 pp.
(Working Paper 8444) $ 10 per copy, plus
$ 10 for postage and handling outside the
United States.
C o n y o n , M artin J., and R ich ard B.
Freeman, S h a re d M odes o f C om pensa­
tion a n d F irm P erform ance: U.K. E v i­
dence. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau
ofEconom ic Research, Inc., August 2001,
49 pp. (Working Paper 8448) $10 per
copy, plus $10 for postage and handling
outside the United States.
G osling, Amanda, and Thom as Lem ieux,
L a b o u r M arket Reform s a n d C hanges in
Wage In equality in the U nited K ingdom
a n d the U nited States. Cambridge, MA,
National Bureau ofE con om ic Research,
Inc., 2001, 53 pp. (Working Paper 8413)
$10 per copy, plus $10 for postage and
handling outside the United States.
N a tio n a l C o m p en sa tio n Survey: O ccu p a ­
tional Wages in the E a st N orth C entral
C ensus D ivision, 1999. Washington, DC,
U.S. Department o f Labor/Bureau o f La­
bor Statistics, July 2001, Bulletin 2 5 4 4 3, 51 pp.
N a tio n a l C o m p en sa tio n Survey: O ccu p a ­
tional Wages in the E ast S outh C entral
C ensus D ivision, 1999. Washington, DC,
U.S. Department o f Labor/Bureau o f La­
bor Statistics, July 2001, Bulletin 2 5 4 4 6, 32 pp.
N a tio n a l C o m p en sa tio n Survey: O ccu p a ­
tional Wages in the M iddle A tlantic C en­
sus Division, 1999. Washington, DC, U.S.
Department o f Labor/Bureau o f Labor
Statistics, July 2001, Bulletin 2 5 4 4 -2 ,4 5
pp.
N a tio n a l C o m p en sa tio n Survey: O ccu p a ­
tional Wages in the M ountain C ensus D i­
vision, 1999. Washington, DC, U.S. D e­
partment o f Labor/Bureau o f Labor Sta­
tistics, July 2001, Bulletin 2 5 4 4 -8 , 33
pp.
N a tio n a l C o m p en sa tio n Survey: O ccu p a ­
tional Wages in the N ew E n g la n d C ensus

February 2002

D ivision, 1999. Washington, DC, U.S.
Department o f Labor/Bureau o f Labor
Statistics, July 2001, Bulletin 2 5 4 4 -1 ,3 1
pp.
N a tio n a l C o m p en sa tio n Survey: O ccu p a ­
tio n a l Wages in the P acific C ensus D ivi­
sion, 1999. Washington, DC, U .S. D e ­
partment o f Labor/Bureau o f Labor Sta­
tistics, July 2001, Bulletin 2 5 4 4 -9 , 49
pp.
N a tio n a l C o m p en sa tio n Survey: O c c u p a ­
tional Wages in the South A tlantic Census
D ivision, 1999. Washington, DC, U.S.
Department o f Labor/Bureau o f Labor
Statistics, July 2001, Bulletin 2 5 4 4 -5 ,5 3
pp.
N ational C om pensation Survey: O ccupa­
tional Wages in the United States, 1999.
W ashington, DC, U .S . Departm ent o f
Labor/Bureau o f Labor Statistics, July
2001, Bulletin 2539, 185 pp.
N a tio n a l C o m p en sa tio n Survey: O c c u p a ­
tional Wages in the West N o rth C entral
C ensus D ivision, 1999. Washington, DC,
U.S. Department o f Labor/Bureau o f La­
bor Statistics, July 2001, Bulletin 2 5 4 4 4, 38 pp.
N a tio n a l C o m p en sa tio n Survey: O c c u p a ­
tional Wages in the West S outh C entral
C ensus D ivision, 1999. Washington, DC,
U.S. Department o f Labor/Bureau o f La­
bor Statistics, July 2001, Bulletin 2 5 4 4 7, 42 pp.

Welfare programs and
social insurance
Gaynor, M artin, James B. R ebitzer, and
L ow ell J. Taylor, In c e n tiv e s in HMOs.
Cambridge, MA, National Bureau o fE c o ­
nom ic Research, Inc., October 2001, 45
pp. (Working Paper 8522) $ 10 per copy,
plus $10 for postage and handling out­
side the United States.
G u stm an , A la n L ., and T h o m a s L.
Steinmeier, Im perfect Knowledge, R etire­
m ent a n d Saving. Cambridge, MA, N a­
tional Bureau ofEconom ic Research, Inc.,
A ugust 2 0 0 1 , 55 pp. (W orking Paper
8406) $10 per copy, plus $10 for post­
age and han dling ou tsid e the U n ited
States.
P re n d er g a st, C a n ic e , C o n s u m e r s a n d
A g e n c y Problem s. Cambridge, MA, N a­
tional Bureau ofEconom ic Research, Inc.,
A ugust 2 0 0 1 , 22 pp. (W orking Paper
8445) $10 per copy, plus $10 for post­
age and handling ou tsid e the U n ited
States.

Current Labor Statistics

Notes on labor statistics

66

Labor compensation and collective
bargaining data—continued

78

28. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers,
by bargaining status, region, and area s i z e .......................
29. Participants in benefit plans, medium and large fir m s......
30. Participants in benefits plans, small firms
and governm ent..............................................................................
31. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or m o r e ............

Comparative indicators
1. Labor market in d ica to rs........................................................
2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in
compensation, prices, and prod u ctivity.....................
3. Alternative measures o f w ages and
compensation ch an ges......................................................

79
79

Labor force data
4. Employment status o f the population,
seasonally ad ju sted ...........................................................
5. Selected em ploym ent indicators,
seasonally ad ju sted ...........................................................
6. Selected unemployment indicators,
seasonally ad ju sted ...........................................................
7. Duration o f unemployment,
seasonally ad ju sted ...........................................................
8. U nem ployed persons by reason for unemployment,
seasonally ad ju sted ...........................................................
9. U nem ploym ent rates by sex and age,
seasonally ad ju sted ...........................................................
10. Unem ploym ent rates by States,
seasonally ad ju sted ...........................................................
11. Employment o f workers by States,
seasonally ad ju sted ...........................................................
12. Em ploym ent o f workers by industry,
seasonally ad ju sted ...........................................................
13. Average w eekly hours by industry,
seasonally ad ju sted ...........................................................
14. Average hourly earnings by industry,
seasonally ad ju sted ...........................................................
15. Average hourly earnings by industry................................
16. Average w eekly earnings by ind ustry..............................
17. D iffusion indexes o f em ployment change,
seasonally a d ju sted ...........................................................
18. Establishment size and employment covered under ui,
private ownership, by major industry........................
19. Annual data establishment, employment, and wages,
covered unless ui and ucfe , by ow n ersh ip ................
20. Annual data: Establishments, employment,
and w ages covered under ui and ucfe , by S ta te ......
21. Annual data: Employment and average annual pay o f
ui- and uCFE-covered workers, by largest c o u n tie s..
22. Annual data: Employment status o f the population ...
23. Annual data: Employment levels by ind ustry..............
24. Annual data: Average hours and earnings level,
by in d u stry .........................................................................

108
109

Price data
80
81
82
83
83
84
85
85

86
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96

100
101
101

Labor compensation and collective
bargaining data
25. Employment Cost Index, compensation,
by occupation and industry group...................................... 102
26. Employment Cost Index, w ages and salaries,
by occupation and industry group...................................... 104
27. Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry
workers, by occupation and industry grou p ................... 105


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

106
107

32. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average, by expenditure

category and commodity and service groups.............. 110
33. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and
local data, all items......................................................113
34. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items
and major groups....................................................... 114
35. Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing.................115
36. Producer Price Indexes for the net output of major
industry groups...........................................................116
37. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes
by stage of processing................................................. 117
38. U.S. export price indexes by Standard International
Trade Classification.................................................... 118
39. U.S. import price indexes by Standard International
Trade Classification.................................................... 119
40. U.S. export price indexes byend-use category................120
41. U.S. import price indexes byend-use category............... 121
42. U.S.international price indexes for selected
categories of services................................................... 121

Productivity data
43. Indexes o f productivity, hourly compensation,
and unit costs, data seasonally ad ju sted .............................122
44. Annual indexes o f multifactor productivity........................... 123
45. Annual indexes o f productivity, hourly compensation,
unit costs, and p r ic e s ................................................................124
46. Annual indexes o f output per hour for selected
industries.......................................................................................125

International comparisons data
47. Unem ploym ent rates in nine countries,
data seasonally adjusted...........................................................126
48. Annual data: Employment status o f the civilian
working-age population, 10 countries................................. 127
49. Annual indexes o f productivity and related measures,
12 co u n tries..................................................................................128

Injury and illness data
50. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness
incidence ra tes........................................................................... 129
51. Fatal occupational injuries by event
or exposu re...................................................................................... 131

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

65

Notes on Current Labor Statistics

This section o f the R eview presents the prin­
cipal statistical series collected and calcu­
lated by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics:
series on labor force; employment; unem­
ployment; labor com pensation; consumer,
producer, and international prices; produc­
tivity; international comparisons; and injury
and illness statistics. In the notes that follow,
the data in each group o f tables are briefly
described; key definitions are given; notes
on the data are set forth; and sources o f addi­
tional information are cited.

General notes
The follow in g notes apply to several tables
in this section:
Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly
and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect on the data o f such factors as cli­
matic conditions, industry production sched­
ules, opening and closing o f schools, holi­
day buying periods, and vacation practices,
which might prevent short-term evaluation
o f the statistical series. Tables containing
data that have been adjusted are identified as
“seasonally adjusted.” (A ll other data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Seasonal effects are es­
tim ated on the basis o f past experien ce.
W hen new seasonal factors are computed
each year, revisions may affect seasonally
adjusted data for several preceding years.
Seasonally adjusted data appear in tables
1 -1 4 ,1 6 -1 7 ,3 9 , and 43. Seasonally adjusted
labor force data in tables 1 and 4 - 9 were re­
vised in the February 2001 issue o f the R e­
view . Seasonally adjusted establishment sur­
vey data shown in tables 1, 1 2 -1 4 and 1 6 17 were revised in the July 2001 R eview and
reflect the experience through March 2001. A
brief explanation o f the seasonal adjustment
m ethodology appears in “N otes on the data.”
R evisions in the productivity data in table
49 are usually introduced in the September
issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and per­
cent ch an ges from m onth -to-m onth and
quarter-to-quarter are published for numer­
ous Consumer and Producer Price Index se­
ries. However, seasonally adjusted indexes
are not published for the U.S. average A llItems CPI. O nly seasonally adjusted percent
changes are available for this series.
Adjustments for price changes. Some
data— such as the “real” earnings shown in
table 14— are adjusted to eliminate the ef­
fect o f changes in price. These adjustments
are made by dividing current-dollar values
by the Consumer Price Index or the appro­
priate com ponent o f the index, then multi­
plying by 100. For example, given a current
hourly wage rate o f $3 and a current price
index number o f 150, where 1982 = 100, the

66

Monthly Labor Review


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

hourly rate expressed
($3/150 x 100 = $2).
resulting values) are
“constant,” or “ 1982”

in 1982 dollars is $2
The $2 (or any other
described as “real,”
dollars.

Sources of information
Data that supplement the tables in this sec­
tion are published by the Bureau in a variety
o f sources. D efinitions o f each series and
notes on the data are contained in later sec­
tions o f these N otes describing each set o f
data. For detailed descriptions o f each data
series, see BLS H andbook o f M ethods, Bul­
letin 2490. Users also may wish to consult
M a jo r P rogram s o fth e B ureau o f L a b o r Sta­
tistics, Report 919. N ew s releases provide
the latest statistical information published by
the Bureau; the major recurring releases are
published according to the schedule appear­
ing on the back cover o f this issue.
More information about labor force, em ­
ployment, and unemployment data and the
household and establishment surveys under­
lying the data are available in the Bureau’s
monthly publication, E m ploym ent a n d E arn­
ings. Historical unadjusted and seasonally
adjusted data from the household survey are
available on the Internet:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/
Historically comparable unadjusted and sea­
sonally adjusted data from the establishment
survey also are available on the Internet:

http://www.bls.gov/ces/
Additional information on labor force data
for areas below the national level are pro­
vided in the BLS annual report, G eographic
P rofile o f E m ploym ent a n d Unemployment.
For a com prehensive discussion o f the
Employment Cost Index, see E m ploym ent
C ost Indexes a n d Levels, 1975-95, BLS Bul­
letin 2466. The m ost recent data from the
Em ployee Benefits Survey appear in the fol­
low ing Bureau o f Labor Statistics bulletins:
E m p lo yee B e n e fits in M ed iu m a n d L arge
Firm s; E m ployee B enefits in Sm all P rivate
E stablishm ents; and E m ployee B en efits in
State a n d L o ca l G overnm ents.
More detailed data on consumer and pro­
ducer prices are published in the monthly
periodicals, The CPI D e ta ile d R e p o rt and
P roducer P rice Indexes. For an overview o f
the 1998 revision o f the C P I , see the D ecem ­
ber 1996 issue o f the M onthly L abor R eview .
Additional data on international prices ap­
pear in monthly new s releases.
Listings o f industries for which produc­
tivity indexes are available may be found on
the Internet:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/
For additional information on interna­
tional comparisons data, see In tern a tio n a l

February 2002

C om parisons o f U nemployment, BLS B ulle­
tin 1979.
Detailed data on the occupational injury
and illness series are published in O ccupa­
tional Injuries a n d Illnesses in the U nited
States, by Industry, a BLS annual bulletin.
Finally, the M o n th ly L a b o r R eview car­
ries analytical articles on annual and longer
term developm ents in labor force, em ploy­
ment, and unemployment; em ployee com ­
pensation and collective bargaining; prices;
productivity; international comparisons; and
injury and illness data.

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

not elsew here classified,
not elsew here specified.
preliminary. To increase the tim e­
liness o f som e series, preliminary
figures are issued based on repre­
sentative but incom plete returns,
r = revised. Generally, this revision
reflects the availab ility o f later
data, but also may reflect other ad­
justments.

Comparative Indicators
(Tables 1-3 )
Comparative indicators tables provide an
overview and comparison o f major BLS sta­
tistical series. Consequently, although many
o f the included series are available monthly,
all measures in these comparative tables are
presented quarterly and annually.
Labor market indicators include em ­
ploym ent measures from two major surveys
and information on rates o f change in com ­
pensation provided by the Employment Cost
Index (EC i) program. The labor force partici­
pation rate, the em ploym ent-to-population
ratio, and unemployment rates for major de­
m ographic groups based on the Current
Population (“household”) Survey are pre­
sented, w hile measures o f em ploym ent and
average w eekly hours by major industry sec­
tor are given using nonfarm payroll data. The
Employment Cost Index (compensation), by
major sector and by bargaining status, is cho­
sen from a variety o f b l s compensation and
wage measures because it provides a com ­
prehensive measure o f em ployer costs for
hiring labor, not just outlays for wages, and
it is not affected by employment shifts among
occupations and industries.
Data on changes in compensation, prices,
and productivity are presented in table 2.
M easures o f rates o f change o f com pensa-

tion and w ages from the E m ploym ent C ost
Index program are provided for a ll c iv i l ­
ian non farm w o rk ers (e x c lu d in g Federal
and h ou seh old w orkers) and for all private
nonfarm workers. M easures o f changes in
consum er prices for all urban consum ers;
producer p rices by stage o f p ro cessin g ;
overall prices by stage o f processing; and
overall export and im port price ind exes are
given. M easures o f productivity (output per
hour o f all persons) are provided for major
sectors.

Alternative measures of wage and com­
pensation rates o f change, which reflect the
overall trend in labor costs, are summarized
in table 3. Differences in concepts and scope,
related to the specific purposes o f the series,
contribute to the variation in changes among
the individual measures.

Notes on the data
D efinitions o f each series and notes on the
data are contained in later sections o f these
notes describing each set o f data.

Employment and
Unemployment Data
(Tables 1; 4 -2 4 )

Household survey data
Description of the series
E m p l o y m e n t d a t a in this section are ob­
tained from the Current Population Survey,
a program o f personal interviews conducted
monthly by the Bureau o f the Census for the
Bureau o f Labor Statistics. The sample con­
sists o f about 60,000 households selected to
represent the U.S. population 16 years o f age
and older. H ouseholds are interviewed on a
rotating basis, so that three-fourths o f the
sam ple is the same for any 2 consecutive
months.

Definitions
Employed persons include (1) all those who
worked for pay any tim e during the w eek
which includes the 12th day o f the month or
w ho worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in
a family-operated enterprise and (2) those
who were temporarily absent from their regu­
lar job s because o f illness, vacation, indus­
trial dispute, or similar reasons. A person
working at more than one job is counted only
in the job at w hich he or she worked the
greatest number o f hours.
Unemployed persons are those who did
not work during the survey week, but were
available for work except for temporary ill­
ness and had looked for jobs within the pre­
ceding 4 weeks. Persons w ho did not look


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

for work because they were on la y o ff are
also counted among the unemployed. The
unem ploym ent rate represents the num ­
ber unem ployed as a percent o f the civilian
labor force.
The civilian labor force consists o f all
em ployed or unem ployed persons in the
civilian noninstitutional population. Persons
not in the labor force are those not classified
as em ployed or unem ployed. This group
includes discouraged workers, defined as
persons who want and are available for ajob
and who have looked for work sometime in
the past 12 months (or since the end o f their
last job if they held one within the past 12
m onth s), but are not currently look in g,
b e c a u se they b e lie v e there are no jo b s
available or there are none for which they
w ou ld qualify. The civilian n on in stitu ­
tional population comprises all persons 16
years o f age and older who are not inmates
o f penal or mental institutions, sanitariums,
or hom es for the aged, infirm, or needy. The
civilian labor force participation rate is the
proportion o f the civilian noninstitutional
population that is in the labor force. The
employment-population ratio is em ploy­
m ent as a percent o f the civilian n on in ­
stitutional population.

Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a
decennial census, adjustments are made in
the Current Population Survey figures to
correct for estim atin g errors during the
intercensal years. These adjustments affect
the comparability o f historical data. A de­
scription o f these adjustments and their ef­
fect on the various data series appears in the
E xplan atory N o te s o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d
E arnings.
Labor force data in tables 1 and 4 - 9 are
seasonally adjusted. Since January 1980,
national labor force data have been season­
ally adjusted with a procedure called X - l l
a r i m a w hich w as develop ed at Statistics
Canada as an extension o f the standard X 11 method previously used by BLS. A de­
tailed description o f the procedure appears
in the X - l l ARIMA S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t
M ethod, by Estela B ee Dagum (Statistics
Canada, Catalogue N o. 12-564E, January
1983).
At the beginning o f each calendar year,
historical seasonally adjusted data usually
are revised, and projected seasonal adjust­
ment factors are calculated for use during
the January-June period. The historical sea­
sonally adjusted data usually are revised for
only the m ost recent 5 years. In July, new
seasonal adjustment factors, which incorpo­
rate the experience through June, are pro­
duced for the July-D ecem ber period, but no
revisions are made in the historical data.

F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on na­
tional household survey data, contact the
D ivision o f Labor Force Statistics: (2 02)
6 9 1 -6 3 7 8 .

Establishment survey data
Description of the series
E m plo ym ent,

h o u r s , a n d e a r n in g s d a t a

in this section are com piled from payroll
records reported m onthly on a voluntary ba­
sis to the Bureau o f Labor Statistics and its
cooperating State agencies by about 300,000
establishm ents representing all industries
except agriculture. Industries are classified
in accordance with the 1987 S ta n d a rd In ­
d u stria l C lassification (SIC) M anual. In m ost
industries, the sam pling probabilities are
based on the size o f the establishment; m ost
large establishm ents are therefore in the
sample. (An establishm ent is not necessar­
ily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for e x ­
ample, or w arehouse.) Self-em p loyed per­
son s and others not on a regular civilian
payroll are outsid e the scop e o f the sur­
vey because they are exclu d ed from estab­
lishm ent records. This largely accounts for
the d ifference in em ploym en t figures b e­
tw een the h o u se h o ld and estab lish m en t
su rveys.

Definitions
An establishment is an econom ic unit which
produces goods or services (such as a fac­
tory or store) at a single location and is en­
gaged in one type o f econom ic activity.
Em ployed persons are all persons w ho
received pay (in clu d in g h olid ay and sick
pay) for any part o f the payroll period in­
clu d in g the 12th day o f the m onth. Per­
son s h old in g m ore than one jo b (about 5
percent o f all persons in the labor force)
are counted in each establishm ent w h ich
reports them.
Production workers in manufacturing
include working supervisors and nonsupervisory workers clo sely associated with pro­
duction operations. T hose w orkers m en­
tioned in tables 1 1 -1 6 include production
workers in manufacturing and mining; con­
stru ction w ork ers in co n str u c tio n ; and
nonsupervisory workers in the follow in g in­
dustries: transportation and public utilities;
w holesale and retail trade; finance, insur­
ance, and real estate; and services. These
groups account for about four-fifths o f the
total em ploym ent on private nonagricultural payrolls.
Earnings are the payments production
or nonsupervisory workers receive during
the survey period, including premium pay
for overtim e or late-shift work but exclud-

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

67

Current Labor Statistics
ing irregular b o n u ses and other sp ecial
p aym en ts. R eal ea rn in g s are earn in gs
adjusted to reflect the effects o f changes in
consumer prices. The deflator for this series
is derived from the Consumer Price Index
for U rban W age E arners and C le r ic a l
Workers (C Pi-W ).
H ours represent the average w eek ly
hours o f production or nonsupervisory work­
ers for w hich pay was received, and are dif­
ferent from standard or scheduled hours.
Overtime hours represent the portion o f av­
erage w eekly hours which was in excess o f
regular hours and for which overtime premi­
ums were paid.
T he D iffu sion Index rep resen ts the
percent o f industries in w hich em ploym ent
w as rising over the indicated period, plus
on e-h alf o f the industries with unchanged
em ploym ent; 50 percent indicates an equal
balance between industries with increasing
and decreasing employment. In line with Bu­
reau practice, data for the 1-, 3-, and 6-month
spans are seasonally adjusted, w h ile those
for the 12-month span are unadjusted. Data
are centered within the span. Table 17 pro­
vides an index on private nonfarm em ploy­
ment based on 356 industries, and a manu­
facturing ind ex based on 139 industries.
These indexes are useful for measuring the
dispersion o f econom ic gains or losses and
are also econom ic indicators.

Notes on the data
Establishm ent survey data are annually ad­
justed to com prehensive counts o f em ploy­
ment (called “benchmarks”). The latest ad­
justm ent, w hich incorporated March 2000
benchmarks, w as made with the release o f
M ay 2001 data, published in the July 2001
issu e o f the R eview . C oincident with the
benchmark adjustment, historical seasonally
adjusted data were revised to reflect updated
seasonal factors. Unadjusted data from April
2 0 0 0 forward and seasonally adjusted data
from January 1997 forward are subject to
revision in future benchmarks.
In addition to the routine benchmark re­
visions and updated seasonal factors intro­
duced w ith the release o f the M ay 20 0 0
data, all estim ates for the w holesale trade
division from April 1998 forward were re­
vised to incorporate a new sample design.
T his represented the first major industry
division to convert to a probability-based
sample under a 4-year phase-in plan for the
e sta b lish m e n t su rv ey sa m p le r e d e sig n
project. For additional information, see the
the June 2 0 0 0 issu e o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d
E arnings.
Revisions in State data (table 11) occurred
with the publication o f January 2000 data.
Beginning in June 1996, the BLS uses the
X -12 a r i m a m ethodology to seasonally ad­
just establishm ent survey data. This proce­

68

Monthly Labor Review


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

dure, developed by the Bureau o f the Cen­
sus, controls for the effect o f varying sur­
vey intervals (also known as the 4- versus
5-w eek effect), thereby providing improved
measurement o f over-the-month changes and
underlying econom ic trends. R evisions o f
data, usually for the m ost recent 5-year pe­
riod, are made once a year coincident with
the benchmark revisions.
In the establishm ent survey, estim ates
for the m ost recent 2 months are based on
incom plete returns and are published as pre­
liminary in the tables ( 1 2 -1 7 in the Review).
W hen all returns have been received, the es­
timates are revised and published as “final”
(prior to any benchmark revisions) in the
third month o f their appearance. Thus, D e ­
cember data are published as preliminary in
January and February and as final in March.
For the same reasons, quarterly establish­
ment data (table 1) are preliminary for the
first 2 months o f publication and final in the
third month. Thus, fourth-quarter data are
published as prelim inary in January and
February and as final in March.
F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on estab­
lishm ent survey data, contact the D ivision
o f M onthly Industry E m ploym ent Statis­
tics: (2 0 2 )6 9 1 -6 5 5 5 .

Unemployment data by
State
Description of the series
Data presented in this section are obtained
from the F ocal Area U nem ploym ent Statis­
tics (LA US) program, w hich is conducted in
cooperation with State em ploym ent secu­
rity agencies.
M onthly estim ates o f the labor force,
employment, and unemployment for States
and sub-State areas are a key indicator o f lo­
cal econom ic conditions, and form the basis
for determining the eligibility o f an area for
benefits under Federal econom ic assistance
programs such as the Job Training Partner­
ship Act. Seasonally adjusted unemployment
rates are presented in table 10. Insofar as
possible, the concepts and definitions under­
lying these data are those used in the national
estimates obtained from the CPS.

Notes on the data
Data refer to State o f residence. Monthly data
for all States and the District o f Columbia are
d eriv ed u sin g stan d ard ized p roced u res
established by b l s . Once a year, estimates are
revised to new population controls, usually
with publication o f January estimates, and
benchmarked to annual average CPS levels.
F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on data in
this series, call (202) 6 9 1 -6 3 9 2 (table 10) or
(202) 6 9 1 -6 5 5 9 (table 11).

February 2002

Covered employment and
wage data (ES-202)
Description of the series
Employment, wage, and establishment data
in this section are derived from the quar­
terly tax reports subm itted to State em ­
ploym ent security a gen cies by private and
State and local governm ent em ployers sub­
je c t to State unem ploym ent insurance (ui)
law s and from Federal, agen cies subject to
th e U n e m p lo y m e n t C o m p e n sa tio n for
Federal E m p loyees (ucfe) program. Each
quarter, State agencies edit and process the
data and send the inform ation to the B u ­
reau o f Fabor Statistics.
The C overed E m p loym en t and W ages
data, a lso referred as E S -2 0 2 data, are
the m o st c o m p le te en u m era tio n o f e m ­
p lo y m e n t and w a g e in fo r m a tio n by in ­
du stry at th e n a tio n a l, S tate, m e tr o p o li­
tan area, and c o u n ty le v e ls . T h ey h ave
broad e c o n o m ic sig n ific a n c e in e v a lu a t­
in g lab or m arket tren ds and m ajor in ­
du stry d e v e lo p m e n ts.

Definitions
In general, es-202 m onth ly em ploym en t
data rep resen t the num ber o f cov ered
w orkers w ho w orked during, or received
pay for, the pay period that inclu ded the
12th day o f the m onth. C overed private
industry em ploym ent in clu d es m ost cor­
porate o ffic ia ls, e x ec u tiv es, su pervisory
personnel, professionals, clerical workers,
w age earners, p iece workers, and part-time
w orkers. It ex clu d es proprietors, the un­
incorporated self-em p lo y ed , unpaid fam ­
ily m em bers, and certain farm and d o m es­
tic w orkers. Certain typ es o f non profit
em ployers, such as religiou s organizations,
are given a choice o f coverage or exclu sion
in a number o f States. W orkers in these
organizations are, therefore, reported to a
lim ited degree.
P erson s on paid sic k lea v e , paid h o li­
day, paid v a c a tio n , and th e lik e , are in ­
c lu d e d . P er so n s on the p a y ro ll o f m ore
th an o n e firm d u r in g th e p e r io d are
c o u n te d b y each u i-su b je c t e m p lo y e r i f
th e y m e et th e e m p lo y m e n t d e fin itio n
noted earlier. The em p loym en t co u n t e x ­
c lu d e s w o rk ers w h o earn ed n o w a g e s
du rin g th e en tire a p p lic a b le pay p erio d
b e c a u se o f w ork sto p p a g e s, tem p orary
la y o ffs , illn e s s , or u n p aid v a c a tio n s.
F ed era l em p lo y m en t data are b ased
on rep orts o f m o n th ly e m p lo y m en t and
q u arterly w a g e s su b m itted each quarter
to State a g e n c ie s for all F ed eral in stalla-

t io n s w ith e m p lo y e e s c o v e r e d b y the
U n e m p lo y m e n t C o m p e n sa tio n for F e d ­
eral E m p lo y ees ( u c f e ) program , ex cep t for
certain n ation al se c u r ity a g e n c ie s, w h ic h
are o m itte d fo r se c u r ity reasons. Em ploy­
ment for all Federal agencies for any given
month is based on the number o f persons
w ho worked during or received pay for the
pay period that included the 12th o f the
month.
An establishment is an econom ic unit,
such as a farm, mine, factory, or store, that
produces goods or provides services. It is
typically at a single physical location and
engaged in one, or predominantly one, type
o f econom ic activity for which a single in­
dustrial classification may be applied. Occa­
sionally, a single physical location encom ­
passes two or more distinct and significant
activities. Each activity should be reported
as a separate establishment if separate records
are kept and the various activities are classi­
fied under different four-digit sic codes.
M ost employers have only one establish­
ment; thus, the establishment is the predomi­
nant reporting unit or statistical entity for
reporting em ployment and w ages data. M ost
employers, including State and local govern­
ments w ho operate more than one establish­
ment in a State, file a M ultiple Worksite Re­
port each quarter, in addition to their quar­
terly ui report. The M ultiple Worksite Re­
port is used to collect separate employment
and wage data for each o f the em ployer’s e s­
tablishments, which are not detailed on the ui
report. Som e very small multi-establishment
em ployers do not file a M ultiple Worksite
Report. W hen the total em ploym ent in an
em p loyer’s secondary establishm ents (all
establishments other than the largest) is 10
or fewer, the em ployer generally w ill file a
consolidated report for all establishments. Also,
some employers either cannot or will not re­
port at the establishment level and thus aggre­
gate establishments into one consolidated unit,
or possibly several units, though not at the
establishment level.
For the Federal Government, the reporting
unit is the installation: a single location at
which a department, agency, or other govern­
ment body has civilian employees. Federal agen­
cies follow slightly different criteria than do
private employers when breaking down their
reports by installation. They are permitted to
combine as a single statewide unit: 1) all instal­
lations with 10 or fewer workers, and 2) all
installations that have a combined total in the
State o f fewer than 50 workers. Also, when
there are fewer than 25 workers in all second­
ary installations in a State, the secondary in­
stallations may be combined and reported with
the major installation. Last, if a Federal agency


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

has fewer than five em ployees in a State, the
agency headquarters office (regional office,
district office) serving each State may con­
solidate the employment and wages data for
that State with the data reported to the State
in which the headquarters is located. A s a
result o f these reporting rules, the number o f
reporting units is always larger than the num­
ber o f employers (or government agencies)
but smaller than the number o f actual estab­
lishments (or installations).
Data reported for the first quarter are tabu­
lated into size c a teg o ries ranging from
worksites o f very small size to those with
1,000 em ployees or more. The size category
is determined by the establishment’s March
em ploym ent level. It is important to note
that each establishment o f a m ulti-establish­
ment firm is tabulated separately into the
appropriate size category. The total em ploy­
ment level o f the reporting multi-establish­
ment firm is not used in the size tabulation.
Covered employers in most States report
total wages paid during the calendar quarter,
regardless o f when the services were per­
formed. A few State laws, however, specify
that w ages be reported for, or based on the
period during which services are performed
rather than the period during which compen­
sation is paid. Under most State laws or regu­
lations, wages include bonuses, stock options,
the cash value o f meals and lodging, tips and
other gratuities, and, in some States, employer
contributions to certain deferred compensa­
tion plans such as 401(k) plans.
Covered employer contributions for oldage, survivors, and d isab ility insurance
( oasdi), health insurance, unemployment in­
surance, workers’ compensation, and private
pension and welfare funds are not reported
as w ages. Em ployee contributions for the
same purposes, however, as w ell as money
withheld for incom e taxes, union dues, and
so forth, are reported even though they are
deducted from the worker’s gross pay.
Wages o f covered Federal workers rep­
resent the gross amount o f all payrolls for all
pay periods ending within the quarter. This
includes cash allowances, the cash equiva­
lent o f any type o f remuneration, severance
pay, withholding taxes, and retirement de­
ductions. Federal em ployee remuneration
generally covers the same types o f services
as for workers in private industry.
Average annual wages per em ployee for
any given industry are computed by divid­
ing total annual wages by annual average em­
ployment. A further division by 52 yields
average weekly w ages per employee. Annual
pay data only approximate annual earnings
because an individual may not be employed
by the same employer all year or may work

for more than one employer at a time.

Average weekly or annual pay is af­
fected by the ratio o f full-tim e to part-time
workers as w ell as the number o f individuals
in high-paying and low -paying occupations.
When average pay levels between States and
industries are compared, these factors should
be taken into consideration. For example, in­
dustries characterized by high proportions
o f part-time workers w ill show average wage
levels appreciably less than the w eekly pay
levels o f regular full-time em ployees in these
industries. The opposite effect characterizes
industries with low proportions o f part-time
workers, or industries that typically sched­
ule heavy weekend and overtime work. Aver­
age wage data also may be influenced by work
stoppages, labor turnover rates, retroactive
payments, seasonal factors, bonus payments,
and so on.

Notes on the data
To insure the highest possible quality o f data,
State em ploym ent security agencies verify
with employers and update, if necessary, the
industry, location, and ownership classifica­
tion o f all establishments on a 3-year cycle.
Changes in establishment classification codes
resulting from the verification process are in­
troduced with the data reported for the first
quarter o f the year. Changes resulting from
improved employer reporting also are intro­
duced in the first quarter. For these reasons,
som e data, especially at more detailed g eo ­
graphic levels, may not be strictly com pa­
rable with earlier years.
The 1999 county data used to calculate
the 1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 changes were adjusted for
changes in industry and county classification
to make them comparable to data for 2000.
A s a result, the adjusted 1999 data differ to
som e extent from the data available on the
Internet at:

http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm.
County definitions are assigned accord­
ing to Federal Information Processing Stan­
dards Publications as issued by the National
Institute o f Standards and Technology. Areas
shown as counties include those designated
as independent cities in som e jurisdictions
and, in Alaska, those areas designated by the
Census Bureau where counties have not been
created. County data also are presented for
the N ew England States for comparative pur­
poses, even though townships are the more
common designation used in N ew England
(and N ew Jersey).
For additional information on the cov­
ered em ployment and w age data, contact the
D ivision o f Administrative Statistics and La­
bor Turnover at (202) 6 9 1 -6 5 6 7 .

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

69

Current Labor Statistics

Compensation and
Wage Data
Compensation and wage data are gathered
by the Bureau from business establishments,
State and local governments, labor unions,
collective bargaining agreements on file with
the Bureau, and secondary sources.

w ages and compensation. For the bargaining
status, region, and metropolitan/non-metropolitan area series, how ever, em ploym ent
data by industry and occu pation are not
available from the census. Instead, the 1980
em ploym ent w eights are reallocated within
these series each quarter based on the cur­
rent sample. Therefore, these indexes are not
strictly comparable to those for the aggre­
gate, industry, and occupation series.

Employment Cost Index

Definitions

Description of the series

Total compensation costs include wages,

(Tables 1-3; 2 5 -3 1 )

The Employment Cost Index (ECi) is a quar­
terly measure o f the rate o f change in com ­
pensation per hour worked and inclu des
wages, salaries, and employer costs o f em ­
p lo y e e b e n e fits. It u se s a fix ed m arket
basket o f labor— similar in concept to the
Consumer Price Index’s fixed market basket
o f goods and services— to measure change
over time in em ployer costs o f em ploying
labor.
Statistical series on total com pensation
costs, on wages and salaries, and on benefit
costs are available for private nonfarm work­
ers excluding proprietors, the self-employed,
and household workers. The total compensa­
tion costs and w ages and salaries series are
also available for State and local government
workers and for the civilian nonfarm economy,
which consists o f private industry and State
and local government workers combined. Fed­
eral workers are excluded.
The Employment Cost Index probability
sample consists o f about 4,400 private non­
farm establishments providing about 23,000
occupational observations and 1,000 State
and local government establishments provid­
ing 6,000 occupational observations selected
to represent total employment in each sec­
tor. On average, each reporting unit provides
w age and com pensation information on five
w ell-sp ecified occupations. Data are c o l­
lected each quarter for the pay period includ­
ing the 12th day o f March, June, September,
and December.
B eginning with June 1986 data, fixed em­
ploym ent w eights from the 1980 Census o f
P o p u la tio n are u s e d e a ch qu arter to
calculate the civilian and private indexes and
the index for State and local governments.
(P rio r to Jun e 1 9 8 6 , th e e m p lo y m e n t
w eights are from the 1970 Census o f Popu­
lation.) These fixed w eights, also used to
derive all o f the industry and occupation
series indexes, ensure that changes in these
indexes reflect only changes in com pensa­
tion, not em ploym ent shifts among indus­
tries or occupations with different levels o f

70

Monthly Labor Review


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

salaries, and the em ployer’s costs for em ­
ployee benefits.
Wages and salaries consist o f earnings
before payroll deductions, including produc­
tion bonuses, incentive earnings, com m is­
sions, and cost-of-living adjustments.
Benefits include the cost to employers
for paid leave, supplemental pay (includ­
ing nonproduction bonuses), insurance, retire­
ment and savings plans, and legally required
benefits (such as Social Security, workers’ com­
pensation, and unemployment insurance).
Excluded from wages and salaries and em­
ployee benefits are such items as payment-inkind, free room and board, and tips.

Notes on the data
The Employment Cost Index for changes in
w ages and salaries in the private nonfarm
econom y was published beginning in 1975.
Changes in total compensation cost— w ages
and salaries and benefits combined— were
published beginning in 1980. The series o f
changes in wages and salaries and for total
compensation in the State and local govern­
m ent sector and in the civ ilia n nonfarm
economy (excluding Federal employees) were
published beginning in 1981. Historical in­
dexes (June 1981=100) are available on the
Internet:

http://www.bls.gov/ect/
F or additional information on the
Em ploym ent Cost Index, contact the O ffice
o f Com pensation L evels and Trends: (202)
6 9 1 -6 1 9 9 .

Employee Benefits Survey
Description of the series
Employee benefits data are obtained from
the E m ployee B enefits Survey, an annual
survey o f the incidence and provisions o f
selected benefits provided by em ployers.
The survey collects data from a sample o f
app roxim ately 9 ,0 0 0 private sector and
State and local government establishments.

February 2002

The data are presented as a percentage o f em­
ployees who participate in a certain benefit, or
as an average benefit provision (for example,
the average number o f paid holidays provided
to employees per year). Selected data from the
survey are presented in table 25 for medium
and large private establishments and in table
26 for small private establishments and State
and local government.
The survey covers paid leave benefits
such as holidays and vacations, and personal,
funeral, jury duty, military, family, and sick
leave; short-term disability, long-term dis­
ability, and life insurance; m edical, dental,
and vision care plans; defined benefit and
defined contribution plans; flexible benefits
plans; reimbursement accounts; and unpaid
fam ily leave.
A lso , data are tabu lated on the in c i­
d en ce o f several other b e n e fits, su ch as
severance pay, child-care assistance, w e ll­
n ess program s, and em p lo y ee assistan ce
programs.

Definitions
Em ployer-provided benefits are benefits
that are financed either w h olly or partly by
the employer. They may be sponsored by a
union or other third party, as long as there is
som e em ployer financing. H owever, som e
benefits that are fully paid for by the em ­
ployee also are included. For example, long­
term care insurance and postretirement life
insurance paid entirely by the em ployee are
included because the guarantee o f insurabil­
ity and availability at group premium rates
are considered a benefit.
Participants are workers who are covered
by a benefit, whether or not they use that benefit.
I f the benefit plan is financed w h olly by
employers and requires employees to complete
a minimum length o f service for eligibility, the
workers are considered participants whether or
not they have met the requirement. If workers
are required to contribute towards the cost o f
a plan, they are considered participants only
if they elect the plan and agree to make the
required contributions.
Defined benefit pension plans use pre­
determined formulas to calculate a retirement
benefit (if any), and obligate the employer to
provide those benefits. Benefits are generally
based on salary, years o f service, or both.
Defined contribution plans generally
sp ecify the level o f em ployer and em ployee
contributions to a plan, but not the formula
for determining eventual benefits. Instead,
individual accounts are set up for partici­
pants, and benefits are based on amounts
credited to these accounts.
Tax-deferred savings plans are a type o f

defined contribution plan that allow par­
ticipants to contribute a portion o f their sal­
ary to an employer-sponsored plan and defer
income taxes until withdrawal.
Flexible benefit plans allow employees
to choose am ong several benefits, such as
life insurance, m edical care, and vacation
days, and am ong several levels o f coverage
within a given benefit.

Definitions

(Tables 2; 32^12)

buying habits o f about 87 percent o f the
noninstitutional population o f the U nited
States at that time, compared with 32 per­
cent represented in the cpi-w . In addition to
w age earners and clerical workers, the CPi-u
covers professional, managerial, and techni­
cal workers, the self-em ployed, short-term
workers, the unem ployed, retirees, and oth­
ers not in the labor force.
The cpi is based on prices o f food, cloth­
ing, shelter, fuel, drugs, transportation fares,
doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods
and services that people buy for day-to-day
living. The quantity and quality o f these
items are kept essentially unchanged between
major revisions so that only price changes
w ill be measured. A ll taxes directly associ­
ated with the purchase and use o f items are
included in the index.
Data collected from more than 23,000 re­
tail establishments and 5,800 housing units
in 87 urban areas across the country are used
to develop the “U .S. city average.” Separate
estimates for 14 major urban centers are pre­
sented in table 33. The areas listed are as
indicated in footnote 1 to the table. The area
indexes measure only the average change in
prices for each area since the base period, and
do not indicate differences in the level o f
prices among cities.

Price data are gathered by the Bureau

Notes on the data

N um ber o f stoppages:

The num ber o f
strikes and lock outs in volvin g 1,000 work­
ers or more and lasting a full shift or longer.
W orkers involved: The num ber o f
workers directly involved in the stoppage.
Number o f days idle: The aggregate
number o f workdays lost by workers in­
volved in the stoppages.

Notes on the data

Days of idleness as a percent of estimated
working time: Aggregate workdays lost as a

Surveys o f em ployees in medium and large
establishm ents conducted over the 1 9 7 9 -8 6
p e r io d in c lu d e d e s ta b lis h m e n ts that
em ployed at least 50, 100, or 250 workers,
d epend ing on the industry (m ost service
in d u str ie s w ere e x c lu d e d ). T he su rvey
conducted in 1987 covered only State and
lo c a l g o v e r n m e n ts w ith 5 0 or m ore
em ployees. The surveys conducted in 1988
and 1 9 8 9 in c lu d e d m e d iu m and large
establishm ents w ith 100 workers or more in
private industries. A ll surveys conducted
o v e r th e 1 9 7 9 - 8 9 p e r io d e x c lu d e d
establishm ents in Alaska and Hawaii, as well
as part-time em ployees.
Beginning in 1990, surveys o f State and
lo c a l g o v e rn m en ts and sm all private
estab lish m en ts w ere con d u cted in even numbered years, and surveys o f medium and
large establishments were conducted in oddnumbered years. The sm all establishm ent
su rv e y in c lu d e s a ll private non farm
establishments with fewer than 100 workers,
while the State and local government survey
includes all governments, regardless o f the
number o f workers. All three surveys include
lull- and part-time workers, and workers in all
50 States and the District o f Columbia.
F or additional information on the
E m ployee B enefits Survey, contact the O f­
fice o f Com pensation L evels and Trends on
the Internet: http://www.bls.gov/ebs/

percent o f the aggregate number o f standard
workdays in the period m ultiplied by total
employment in the period.

Work stoppages
Description of the series
Data on work stoppages measure the num­
ber and duration o f major strikes or lockouts
(involving 1,000 workers or more) occurring
during the month (or year), the number o f
workers involved, and the amount o f work
time lost because o f stoppage. These data are
presented in table 27.
Data are largely from a variety o f pub­
lished sources and cover only establishments
directly involved in a stoppage. They do
not measure the indirect or secondary effect
o f stoppages on other establishm ents w hose
em ployees are idle ow ing to material short­
ages or lack o f service.


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

Notes on the data
This series is not comparable with the one
terminated in 1981 that covered strikes in­
volving six workers or more.
For additional information on work
stoppages data, contact the O ffice o f Com ­
pensation and Working Conditions: (202)
6 9 1 -6 2 8 2 , or the Internet:

http:/www.bls.gov/cba/

Price Data

o f Labor S ta tistic s from retail and pri­
mary markets in the U n ited States. Price
in d exes are given in relation to a base p e­
riod— 1982 = 100 for many Producer Price
Indexes, 1 9 8 2 -8 4 = 100 for m any C on ­
sum er P rice In d e x es (u n le ss oth e r w ise
noted), and 1990 = 100 for International
Price Indexes.

Consumer Price Indexes
Description of the series
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a mea­
sure o f the average change in the prices paid
by urban consum ers for a fixed market bas­
ket o f goods and services. The cpi is calcu­
lated m onthly for tw o population groups,
one con sistin g only o f urban hou seholds
w h ose primary source o f incom e is derived
from the em ploym ent o f w age earners and
clerical workers, and the other consisting o f
all urban households. The wage earner index
(CPi-W) is a continuation o f the historic in­
dex that was introduced w ell over a halfcentury ago for use in w age negotiations. A s
new uses were developed for the CPI in re­
cent years, the need for a broader and more
representative index became apparent. The
all-urban consumer index (CPI-U), introduced
in 1978, is representative o f the 1 9 9 3 -9 5

In January 1983, the Bureau changed the
w ay in w h ich h om eow n ersh ip c o sts are
meaured for the cpi-u . A rental equivalence
m ethod replaced the asset-price approach
to hom eownership costs for that series. In
January 1985, the same change w as made in
the cpi-w . The central purpose o f the change
was to separate shelter costs from the in­
vestm ent com ponent o f hom e-ow nership so
that the index w ould reflect only the cost o f
shelter services provided by ow n er-occu­
pied hom es. A n updated cpi-u and cpi-w
were introduced with release o f the January
1987 and January 1998 data.
F or additional information on co n ­
sumer prices, contact the D iv isio n o f C on ­
sum er P rices and P rice In d ex es: (2 0 2 )
6 9 1 -7 0 0 0 .

Producer Price Indexes
Description of the series
Producer Price Indexes (ppi) measure av­
erage changes in prices received by domestic
producers o f com m odities in all stages o f
processing. The sam ple used for calculating
these indexes currently contains about 3,200
com m odities and about 80,000 quotations

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

71

Current Labor Statistics

per month, selected to represent the m ove­
ment o f prices o f all com m odities produced
in the m anufacturing; agriculture, forestry,
and fishing; m ining; and gas and electricity
and pu blic u tilities sectors. The stage-ofp r o c e s s in g stru ctu re o f ppi o r g a n iz e s
products by cla ss o f buyer and degree o f
fabrication (that is, fin ish ed g o o d s, inter­
m ediate g o o d s, and crude m aterials). The
traditional com m od ity structure o f ppi or­
g a n izes products by sim ilarity o f end use
or m aterial com p osition . The industry and
product structure o f ppi organizes data in
accordan ce w ith the Standard Industrial
C la ssifica tio n (SIC) and the product code
exten sion o f the s ic developed by the U .S.
Bureau o f the Census.
To the exten t p ossib le, prices used in
calcu latin g Producer Price In dexes apply
to the first sign ifican t com m ercial transac­
tion in the U n ited States from the produc­
tion or central m arketing point. P rice data
are gen erally c o lle cte d m onthly, prim arily
by m ail question naire. M ost prices are ob­
tained directly from producing com panies
on a voluntary and confidential basis. Prices
g en erally are reported for the T uesday o f
the w eek con tain in g the 13th day o f the
m onth.
Since January 1992, price changes for the
various com m od ities have been averaged
to g eth er w ith im p lic it qu antity w e ig h ts
representing their importance in the total net
selling value o f all commodities as o f 1987.
The detailed data are aggregated to obtain
indexes for stage-of-processing groupings,
commodity groupings, durability-of-product
groupings, and a number o f special composite
groups. A ll Producer Price Index data are
subject to revision 4 months after original
publication.
F or additional information on pro­
ducer prices, contact the D iv isio n o f In­
dustrial P rices and P rice Indexes: (2 0 2 )
6 9 1 -7 7 0 5 .

International Price Indexes
Description of the series
The International Price Program produces
m onthly and quarterly export and import
price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded
between the United States and the rest o f the
world. The export price index provides a mea­
sure o f price change for all products sold by
U .S. residents to foreign buyers. (“R e si­
dents” is defined as in the national income
accounts; it in clu d es corporations, b u si­
nesses, and individuals, but does not require
the organizations to be U.S. owned nor the
individuals to have U .S. citizenship.) The

72

Monthly Labor Review


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

import price index provides a measure o f
price change for goods purchased from other
countries by U.S. residents.
The product universe for both the import
and export indexes includes raw materials,
agricultural products, semifinished manufac­
tures, and finished manufactures, including
both capital and consumer goods. Price data
for these items are collected primarily by mail
questionnaire. In nearly all cases, the data are
collected directly from the exporter or im­
porter, although in a few cases, prices are
obtained from other sources.
To the extent possible, the data gathered
refer to prices at the U.S. border for exports
and at either the foreign border or the U.S.
border for imports. For nearly all products,
the prices refer to transactions completed dur­
ing the first week o f the month. Survey re­
spondents are asked to indicate all discounts,
allowances, and rebates applicable to the re­
ported prices, so that the price used in the
calculation o f the indexes is the actual price for
which the product was bought or sold.
In addition to general indexes o f prices for
U.S. exports and imports, indexes are also
published for detailed product categories o f
exports and imports. These categories are
defined according to the five-digit level o f
detail for the Bureau o f Econom ic A nalysis
End-use Classification (SiTC), and the four­
d igit lev e l o f detail for the H arm onized
System. Aggregate import indexes by coun­
try or region o f origin are also available.
bls publishes indexes for selected catego­
ries o f internationally traded services, calcu­
lated on an international basis and on a balance-of-payments basis.

Notes on the data
The export and import price ind exes are
w eigh ted ind exes o f the L aspeyres type.
Price relatives are assigned equal importance
within each harmonized group and are then
aggregated to the higher level. The values as­
signed to each weight category are based on
trade value figures com piled by the Bureau
o f the Census. The trade weights currently
used to compute both indexes relate to 1995.
Because a price index depends on the same
items being priced from period to period, it is
necessary to recognize w hen a product’s
specifications or terms o f transaction have
been modified. For this reason, the Bureau’s
questionnaire requests detailed descriptions o f
the physical and functional characteristics o f
the products being priced, as well as informa­
tion on the number o f units bought or sold,
discounts, credit terms, packaging, class o f
buyer or seller, and so forth. When there are
changes in either the specifications or terms o f

February 2002

transaction o f a product, the dollar value o f
each change is deleted from the total price
change to obtain the “pure” change. Once this
value is determined, a linking procedure is em­
ployed which allows for the continued repric­
ing o f the item.
For the export price indexes, the preferred
pricing is f.a.s. (free alongside ship) U .S. port
o f exportation. W hen firms report export
prices f.o.b. (free on board), production point
information is collected which enables the
Bureau to calculate a shipment cost to the
port o f exportation. An attempt is made to
collect two prices for imports. The first is
the import price f.o.b. at the foreign port o f
exportation, which is consistent with the ba­
sis for valuation o f imports in the national
accounts. The second is the import price
c.i.f.(costs, insurance, and freight) at the U.S.
port o f importation, which also includes the
other co sts asso cia ted w ith b ringing the
product to the U.S. border. It does not, how ­
ever, include duty charges. For a given prod­
uct, only one price basis series is used in the
construction o f an index.
For additional information on inter­
national prices, contact the D ivision o f Inter­
national Prices: (202) 6 9 1 -7 1 5 5 .

Productivity Data
(Tables 2; 4 3 -4 6 )

Business sector and major
sectors
Description of the series
The productivity measures relate real output
to real input. A s such, they encom pass a fam­
ily o f measures which include single-factor
input measures, such as output per hour, out­
put per unit o f labor input, or output per
unit o f capital input, as w ell as measures o f
multifactor productivity (output per unit o f
combined labor and capital inputs). The B u­
reau indexes show the change in output rela­
tive to changes in the various inputs. The
measures cover the business, nonfarm busi­
ness, manufacturing, and nonfinancial corpo­
rate sectors.
Corresponding indexes o f hourly compen­
sation, unit labor costs, unit nonlabor pay­
ments, and prices are also provided.

Definitions
Output per hour o f all persons (labor pro­
ductivity) is the quantity o f goods and ser­
vices produced per hour o f labor input. Out-

put per unit o f capital services (capital
productivity) is the quantity o f goods and
services produced per unit o f capital ser­
vices input. M ultifactor productivity is the
quantity o f goods and services produced per
combined inputs. For private business and pri­
vate nonfarm business, inputs include labor
and capital units. For manufacturing, inputs
include labor, capital, energy, non-energy ma­
terials, and purchased business ser-vices.
Com pensation per hour is total com ­
pensation divided by hours at work. Total
com pensation equals the w ages and salaries
o f em ployees plus em ployers’ contributions
for social insurance and private benefit plans,
plus an estimate o f these payments for the
self-em ployed (except for nonfinancial cor­
porations in w h ich there are no self-em ­
ployed). Real com pensation per hour is
c o m p e n sa tio n per hour d efla ted by the
change in the Consumer Price Index for A ll
Urban Consumers.
Unit labor costs are the labor compensa­
tion costs expended in the production o f a unit
o f output and are derived by dividing com ­
pensation by output. Unit nonlabor pay­
m en ts in c lu d e p r o fits , d e p r e c ia tio n ,
interest, and indirect taxes per unit o f out­
put. T hey are com p u ted by su btracting
compensation o f all persons from current-dollar value o f output and dividing by output.
U nit nonlabor costs contain all the
com ponents o f unit nonlabor payments ex­
cept unit profits.
U nit profits include corporate profits
with inventory valuation and capital con­
sumption adjustments per unit o f output.
Hours of all persons are the total hours
at work o f payroll workers, self-em ployed
persons, and unpaid family workers.
Labor inputs are hours o f all persons ad­
justed for the effects o f changes in the edu­
cation and experience o f the labor force.
Capital services are the flow o f services
from the capital stock used in production. It
is developed from measures o f the net stock
o f physical assets— equipment, structures,
land, and inventories— w eighted by rental
prices for each type o f asset.
Combined units o f labor and capital
inputs are derived by combining changes in
labor and capital input with weights which
represent each com ponent’s share o f total
cost. Combined units o f labor, capital, energy,
materials, and purchased business services are
similarly derived by combining changes in each
input with weights that represent each input’s
share o f total costs. The indexes for each input
and for combined units are based on changing
weights which are averages o f the shares in the
current and preceding year (the Tom quist
index-number formula).


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

Notes on the data
Business sector output is an annually-weighted
index constructed by excluding from real gross
domestic product ( g d p ) the following outputs:
general government, nonprofit institutions,
paid employees o f private households, and the
rental value o f owner-occupied dw ellings.
Nonfarm business also excludes farming. Pri­
vate business and private nonfarm business
further exclude government enterprises. The
measures are supplied by the U.S. Depart­
ment o f Com m erce’s Bureau o f Econom ic
Analysis. Annual estimates o f manufacturing
sectoral output are produced by the Bureau o f
Labor Statistics. Quarterly manufacturing out­
put indexes from the Federal Reserve Board
are adjusted to these annual output measures
by the bls . Compensation data are developed
from data o f the Bureau o f Economic Analysis
and the Bureau o f Labor Statistics. Hours data
are developed from data o f the Bureau o f La­
bor Statistics.
The produ ctivity and associated cost
measures in tables 4 3 -4 6 describe the rela­
tionship between output in real terms and
the labor and capital inputs involved in its
production. They show the changes from pe­
riod to period in the amount o f goods and
services produced per unit o f input.
Although these measures relate output to
hours and capital services, they do not mea­
sure the contributions o f labor, capital, or any
other specific factor o f production. Rather,
they reflect the joint effect o f many influences,
including changes in technology; shifts in the
composition o f the labor force; capital invest­
ment; level o f output; changes in the utiliza­
tion o f capacity, energy, material, and research
and development; the organization o f produc­
tion; managerial skill; and characteristics and
efforts o f the work force.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION on this
productivity series, contact the D ivision o f
Productivity Research: (202) 6 9 1 -5 6 0 6 .

Industry productivity
measures

m easures o f com pensation and unit labor
costs for three-digit industries and measures
o f m ultifactor productivity for three-digit
m a n u fa ctu rin g in d u str ie s and railroad
transportation. The industry measures differ
in m ethodology and data sources from the
productivity measures for the major sectors
because the industry measures are developed
independently o f the N ational Incom e and
Product A ccounts framework used for the
major sector measures.

Definitions
Output per hour is derived by dividing an index
o f industiy output by an index o f labor input.
For most industries, output indexes are de­
rived from data on the value o f industry out­
put adjusted for price change. For the remain­
ing industries, output indexes are derived from
data on the physical quantity o f production.
The labor input series consist o f the hours
o f all employees (production workers and non­
production workers), the hours o f all persons
(paid em ployees, partners, proprietors, and
unpaid family workers), or the number o f em­
ployees, depending upon the industiy.
U n it labor costs represent the labor
com pensation costs per unit o f output pro­
duced, and are derived by dividing an index
o f labor com pensation by an index o f out­
put. Labor com pensation includes pay­
roll as w ell as supplemental payments, in­
cluding both legally required expenditures
and payments for voluntary programs.
M ultifactor productivity is derived by
dividing an index o f industry output by an
index o f the com bined inputs consum ed in
producing that output. Combined inputs
include capital, labor, and intermediate pur­
chases. The measure o f capital input used
represents the flo w o f services from the
capital stock used in production. It is devel­
oped from m easures o f the net stock o f
p h y sica l a ssets— eq u ip m en t, structures,
land, and inventories. The measure o f in­
term ediate purchases is a com bination o f
purchased m aterials, services, fu els, and
electricity.

Notes on the data

Description of the series
T h e BLS ind ustry p r o d u ctiv ity data
supplement the measures for the business
econ om y and major sectors w ith annual
measures o f labor productivity for selected
industries at the three- and four-digit levels
o f the Standard Industrial C lassification
system . In addition to labor productivity,
th e in d u stry data a lso in c lu d e ann ual

The industry measures are com piled from
data produced by the Bureau o f Labor Statis­
tics and the Bureau o f the Census, with addi­
tional data supplied by other governm ent
a g e n c ie s, trade a sso c ia tio n s, and other
sources.
For m ost ind ustries, the produ ctivity
indexes refer to the output per hour o f all
em ployees. For som e trade and services in-

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

73

Current Labor Statistics

dustries, indexes o f output per hour o f all
persons (including self-em ployed) are con­
structed. For som e transportation ind us­
tries, only indexes o f output per em ployee
are prepared.
FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION on this se­
ries, contact the D ivision o f Industry Pro­
ductivity Studies: (202) 6 9 1 -5 6 1 8 .

International Comparisons
(Tables 47^19)

Labor force and
unemployment
Description of the series
Tables 47 and 48 present comparative meas­
ures o f the labor force, employment, and un­
e m p lo y m en t— ap p roxim atin g U .S . c o n ­
cepts— for the United States, Canada, A us­
tralia, Japan, and several European countries.
T he u n em p loym en t sta tistic s (and, to a
lesser extent, em ploym ent statistics) pub­
lished by other industrial countries are not,
in m ost cases, comparable to U.S. unemploy­
ment statistics. Therefore, the Bureau ad­
justs the figures for selected countries, where
necessary, for all known major definitional
differences. Although precise comparability
may not be achieved, these adjusted figures
provide a better basis for international com ­
parisons than the figures regularly published
by each country. For further information on
adjustments and comparability issues, see
Constance Sorrentino, “International unem­
ploym ent rates: how comparable are they?”
M o n th ly L a b o r R eview , June 2000, pp. 3-20.

Definitions
For the principal U.S. definitions o f the labor
force, employment, and unemployment, see
the N otes section on Employment and Unem­
ployment Data: Household survey data.

Notes on the data
The adjusted statistics have been adapted to
the age at w hich compulsory schooling ends
in each country, rather than to the U .S. stan­
dard o f 16 years o f age and older. Therefore,
the adjusted statistics relate to the popula­
tion aged 16 and older in France, Sweden, and
the United Kingdom; 15 and older in Austra­
lia, Japan, Germany, Italy from 1993 onward,
and the Netherlands; and 14 and older in Italy
prior to 1993. An exception to this rule is
that the Canadian statistics for 1976 onward

74

Monthly Labor Review


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

are adjusted to cover ages 16 and older,
whereas the age at which compulsory school­
ing ends rem ains at 15. The institutional
population is included in the denominator o f
the labor force participation rates and em ­
ploym ent-population ratios for Japan and
Germany; it is excluded for the United States
and the other countries.
In the U.S. labor force survey, persons on
layoff who are awaiting recall to their jobs
are classified as unemployed. European and
Japanese layoff practices are quite different
in nature from those in the United States;
therefore, strict application o f the U.S. defi­
nition has not been made on this point. For
further information, see M onthly L a b o r R e­
view , Decem ber 1981, pp. 8-1 1 .
The figures for one or more recent years
for France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,
and the United Kingdom are calculated using
adjustment factors based on labor force sur­
veys for earlier years and are considered pre­
liminary. The recent-year measures for these
countries, therefore, are subject to revision
whenever data from more current labor force
surveys becom e available.
There are breaks in the data series for the
United States (1 9 9 0 ,1 9 9 4 ,1 9 9 7 ,1 9 9 8 ,1 9 9 9 ,
2000), Canada (1976) France (1992), Ger­
many (1991), Italy (1991, 1993), the N eth­
erlands (1988), and Sweden (1987).
For the United States, the break in series
reflects a major redesign o f the labor force
survey questionnaire and collection m ethod­
ology introduced in January 1994. Revised
population estimates based on the 1990 cen­
sus, adjusted for the estimated undercount,
also were incorporated. In 1996, previously
published data for the 1990-93 period were
revised to reflect the 1990 cen sus-based
population controls, adjusted for the un­
dercount. In 1997, revised population con­
trols were introduced into the household sur­
vey. T herefore, the data are not strictly
conparable with prior years. In 1998, new
com posite estimation procedures and minor
revisions in population controls were intro­
duced into the household survey. Therefore,
the data are not strictly comparable with data
for 1997 and earlier years. See the N otes sec­
tion on E m ploym ent and U nem ploym ent
Data o f this Review .
bls recently introduced a new adjusted
series for Canada. B eginning with the data
for 1976, Canadian data are adjusted to more
closely approximate U.S. concepts. Adjust­
ments are made to the unemployed and labor
force to exclude: (1) 15-year-olds; (2) pas­
sive jobseekers (persons only reading new s­
paper ads as their method o f job search); (3)
persons waiting to start a new job who did
not seek work in the past 4 weeks; and (4)
persons unavailable for work due to personal

February 2002

or family responsibilities. An adjustment is
made to include full-tine students looking for
full-tim e work. The impact o f the adjust­
ments was to lower the annual average unem­
ployment rate by 0 .1 -0 .4 percentage point
in the 1980s and 0 .4 -1 .0 percentage point in
the 1990s.
For France, the 1992 break reflects the
substitution o f standardized European Union
Statistical O ffice (eurostat) unem ployment
statistics for the unem ploym ent data esti­
mated according to the International Labor
O ffice (ilo) definition and published in the
Organization for Econom ic Cooperation and
D evelopm ent ( oecd) annual yearbook and
quarterly update. This change was made be­
cause the eurostat data are more up-to-date
than the OECD figures. A lso, since 1992, the
eurostat definitions are closer to the U.S.
definitions than they were in prior years. The
impact o f this revision was to lower the un­
employment rate by 0.1 percentage point in
1992 and 1993, by 0.4 percentage point in
1994, and 0.5 percentage point in 1995.
For Germany, the data for 1991 onward
refer to unified Germany. Data prior to 1991
relate to the former West Germany. The im­
pact o f including the former East Germany
was to increase the unemployment rate from
4.3 to 5.6 percent in 1991.
For Italy, the 1991 break reflects a revi­
sion in the method o f weighting sample data.
The impact was to increase the unem ploy­
ment rate by approximately 0.3 percentage
point, from 6.6 to 6.9 percent in 1991.
In October 1992, the survey m ethodol­
ogy was revised and the definition o f unem­
ployment was changed to include only those
who were actively looking for a job within
the 30 days preceding the survey and who
were available for work. In addition, the
lower age limit for the labor force w as raised
from 14 to 15 years. (Prior to these changes,
BLS adjusted Italy’s published unem ploy­
ment rate downward by excluding from the
u n em p loyed th o se person s w h o had not
actively sought work in the past 30 days.)
The break in the series also reflects the incor­
poration o f the 1991 population census re­
sults. The impact o f these changes w as to
raise Italy’s adjusted unem ploym ent rate by
approximately 1.2 percentage points, from
8.3 to 9.5 percent in fourth-quarter 1992.
These changes did not affect em ploym ent
significantly, except in 1993. Estimates by
the Italian Statistical O ffice indicate that em ­
ploym ent declined by about 3 percent in
1993, rather than the nearly 4 percent indi­
cated by the data shown in table 44. This
difference is attributable mainly to the incor­
poration o f the 1991 population benchmarks
in the 1993 data. Data for earlier years have
not been adjusted to incorporate the 1991

census results.
For the Netherlands, a new survey ques­
tionnaire was introduced in 1992 that allowed
for a closer application o f ilo guidelines.
eurostat has revised the Dutch series back
to 1988 based on the 1992 changes. The 1988
revised unem ploym ent rate is 7.6 percent;
the previous estimate for the same year was
9.3 percent.
There have been tw o breaks in series in
the Sw edish labor force survey, in 1987 and
1993. Adjustm ents have been made for the
1993 break back to 1987. In 1987, a new
qu estion naire w as introduced. Q uestions
regarding current availab ility w ere added
and the period o f active w orkseeking w as
reduced from 60 days to 4 w eek s. T hese
ch a n g es low ered S w e d e n ’s 1987 un em ­
p lo y m en t rate by 0 .4 p ercen tage p oin t,
from 2.3 to 1.9 percent. In 1993, the m ea­
surem ent period for the labor force sur­
v e y w as changed to represent all 52 w eek s
o f the year rather than o n e w e ek each
m onth and a n ew adjustm ent for pop ula­
tio n to ta ls w as in troduced. The im pact
w as to raise the u n em p loym en t rate by
approxim ately 0.5 percentage point, from
7 .6 to 8.1 percent. S tatistics Sw ed en re­
vised its labor force survey data for 1987—
92 to take into account the break in 1993.
The adjustm ent raised the S w ed ish unem ­
ploym en t rate by 0 .2 percentage poin t in
1987 and gradually rose to 0.5 percentage
poin t in 1992.
Beginning with 1987, bls has adjusted the
Sw edish data to classify students who also
sought work as unemployed. The impact o f
this change was to increase the adjusted un­
em ployment rate by 0.1 percentage point in
1987 and by 1.8 percentage points in 1994,
when unem ploym ent was higher. In 1998,
the adjusted unem ploym ent rate had risen
from 6.5 to 8.4 percent due to the adjustment
to include students.
The net e ffe c t o f the 1987 and 1993
changes and the bls adjustment for students
seeking work lowered Sw eden’s 1987 unem­
ploym ent rate from 2.3 to 2.2 percent.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION On this se­
ries, contact the D ivision o f Foreign Labor
Statistics: (202) 6 9 1 -5 6 5 4 .

Manufacturing productivity
and labor costs
Description of the series
Table 49 presents comparative indexes o f
manufacturing labor productivity (output per
hour), output, total hours, compensation per
hour, and unit labor costs for the United
States, Canada, Japan, and nine European


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

countries. These measures are trend compari­
sons— that is, series that measure changes
over time— rather than level comparisons.
There are greater technical problems in com ­
paring the levels o f manufacturing output
among countries.
bls constructs the comparative indexes
from three basic aggregate measures— output,
total labor hours, and total compensation.
The hours and compensation measures refer
to all em ployed persons (wage and salary
earners plus self-em ployed persons and un­
paid family workers) in the United States,
Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Norway,
and Sweden, and to all em ployees (wage and
salary earners) in the other countries.

Definitions
Output, in general, refers to value added in
manufacturing from the national accounts o f
each country. However, the output series
for Japan prior to 1970 is an index o f indus­
trial production, and the national accounts
measures for the United Kingdom are essen­
tially identical to their indexes o f industrial
production.
The 1977-97 output data for the United
States are the gross product originating (value
added) measures prepared by the Bureau o f
Economic Analysis o f the U.S. Department o f
Commerce. Comparable manufacturing out­
put data currently are not available prior to
1977.
U.S. gross product originating is a chaintype annual-weighted series. (For more in­
formation on the U.S. measure, see Robert E.
Yuskavage, “Improved Estimates o f Gross
Product by Industry, 1 9 5 9 -9 4 ,” S u rvey o f
C urrent B u sin ess, August 1996, pp. 1 3 3 55.) The Japanese value added series is based
upon one set o f fixed price w eights for the
years 1970 through 1997. Output series for
the other foreign econ om ies also em ploy
fixed price w eights, but the w eights are up­
dated periodically (for example, every 5 or
10 years).
To preserve the comparability o f the U .S.
measures with those for other economies, bls
uses gross product originating in manufac­
turing for the United States for these com ­
parative measures. The gross product origi­
nating series differs from the manufacturing
output series that bls publishes in its news
releases on quarterly measures o f U .S. pro­
ductivity and costs (and that underlies the
measures that appear in tables 43 and 45 in
this section). The quarterly measures are on
a “sectoral output” basis, rather than a valueadded basis. Sectoral output is gross output
less intrasector transactions.
Total labor hours refers to hours worked

in all countries. The measures are developed
from statistics o f manufacturing employment
and average hours. The series used for France
(from 1970 forward), Norway, and Sw eden
are official series published with the national
accounts. Where official total hours series are
not available, the m easures are developed by
BLS using employment figures published with
the national accounts, or other comprehen­
sive em ployment series, and estimates o f an­
nual hours worked. For Germany, bls uses
estimates o f average hours worked developed
by a research institute connected to the M in­
istry o f Labor for use with the national ac­
counts em ploym ent figures. For the other
countries, BLS constructs its own estimates
o f average hours.
Denmark has not published estimates o f
average hours for 1994—97; therefore, the BLS
measure o f labor input for Denmark ends in
1993.
Total compensation (labor cost) includes
all payments in cash or in-kind made directly
to employees plus employer expenditures for
legally required insurance programs and con­
tractual and private benefit plans. The mea­
sures are from the national accounts o f each
countiy, except those for Belgium, which are
developed by bls using statistics on employ­
ment, average hours, and hourly compensa­
tion. For Canada, France, and Sweden, com­
pensation is increased to account for other sig­
nificant taxes on payroll or employment. For
the United Kingdom, compensation is reduced
between 1967 and 1991 to account for em­
ployment-related subsidies. Self-em ployed
workers are included in the all-employed-persons measures by assuming that their hourly
compensation is equal to the average for wage
and salary em ployees.

Notes on the data
In general, the measures relate to total manu­
facturing as defined by the International Stan­
dard Industrial Classification. H owever, the
measures for France (for all years) and Italy
(beginning 1970) refer to m ining and manu­
facturing less energy-related products, and
the measures for Denmark include mining and
exclude manufacturing handicrafts from 1960
to 1966.
The m easures for recent years may be
based on current indicators o f manufacturing
output (such as industrial production in­
d exes), em ploym ent, average hours, and
hourly compensation until national accounts
and other statistics used for the long-term
measures become available.
For additional information on this se­
ries, contact the D ivision o f Foreign Labor
Statistics: (202) 6 9 1 -5 6 5 4 .

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

75

Current Labor Statistics

both, because o f an occupational injury or
illness, bls measures o f the number and
incid en ce rate o f lost w orkdays were d is­
continued beginning w ith the 1993 survey.
The number o f days away from work or
days o f restricted work activity does not
include the day o f injury or onset o f illn ess
or any days on w hich the em ployee w ould
not have worked, such as a Federal h o li­
day, even though able to work.
Incidence rates are com puted as the
number o f injuries and/or illn e sses or lost
work days per 100 lull-tim e workers.

Occupational Injury
and Illness Data
(Tables 5 0 -5 1 )

Survey of Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses
Description of the series
The Survey o f Occupational Injuries and Ill­
nesses collects data from employers about their
workers’ job-related nonfatal injuries and ill­
nesses. The information that employers pro­
vide is based on records that they maintain un­
der the Occupational Safety and Health Act o f
1970. Self-employed individuals, farms with
fewer than 11 employees, employers regulated
by other Federal safety and health laws, and
Federal, State, and local government agencies
are excluded from the survey.
The survey is a Federal-State coopera­
tive program with an independent sample
selected for each participating State. A strati­
fied random sam ple with aN eym an alloca­
tion is selected to represent all private in­
dustries in the State. The survey is stratified
by Standard Industrial C lassification and
size o f em ploym ent.

Definitions
Under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act, employers maintain records o f nonfatal
work-related injuries and illnesses that in­
volve one or more o f the follow ing: loss o f
consciousness, restriction o f work or motion,
transfer to another job, or medical treatment
other than first aid.
Occupational injury is any injury such as
a cut, fracture, sprain, or amputation that re­
sults from a work-related event or a single, in­
stantaneous exposure in the work environment.
Occupational illness is an abnormal con­
dition or disorder, other than one resulting from
an occupational injury, caused by exposure to
factors associated with employment. It in­
cludes acute and chronic illnesses or disease
which may be caused by inhalation, absorp­
tion, ingestion, or direct contact.
Lost workday injuries and illnesses are
cases that involve days away from work, or
days o f restricted work activity, or both.
Lost w orkdays include the number o f
w orkdays (co n secu tiv e or not) on w hich
the em p loyee w as either away from work
or at work in som e restricted capacity, or

76

Monthly Labor Review


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

Notes on the data
The definitions o f occupational injuries and
illnesses are from R ecordkeeping G uidelines
f o r O ccupational Injuries a n d Illnesses (U.S.
Department o f Labor, Bureau o f Labor Sta­
tistics, September 1986).
Estimates are made for industries and em­
ployment size classes for total recordable cases,
lost workday cases, days away from work
cases, and nonfatal cases without lost work­
days. These data also are shown separately for
injuries. Illness data are available for seven cat­
egories: occupational skin diseases or disorders,
dust diseases o f the lungs, respiratory condi­
tions due to toxic agents, poisoning (systemic
effects o f toxic agents), disorders due to physi­
cal agents (other than toxic materials), disor­
ders associated with repeated trauma, and all
other occupational illnesses.
The survey continues to measure the num­
ber o f new work-related illness cases which
are recognized, diagnosed, and reported during
the year. Some conditions, for example, long­
term latent illnesses caused by exposure to
carcinogens, often are difficult to relate to the
workplace and are not adequately recognized
and reported. These long-term latent illnesses
are believed to be understated in the survey’s
illness measure. In contrast, the overwhelming
majority o f the reported new illnesses are
those which are easier to directly relate to
workplace activity (for example, contact der­
matitis and carpal tunnel syndrome).
M ost o f the estimates are in the form o f
incidence rates, defined as the number o f inju­
ries and illnesses per 100 equivalent full-time
workers. For this purpose, 200,000 employee
hours represent 100 employee years (2,000
hours per employee). Full detail on the avail­
able measures is presented in the annual bulle­
tin, O c c u p a tio n a l In ju rie s a n d Illn esses:
Counts, Rates, a n d Characteristics.
Comparable data for more than 40 States
and territories are available from the bls Of­
fice o f Safety, Health and Working Condi­
tions. Many o f these States publish data on
State and local government em ployees in ad­

February 2002

dition to private industry data.
M ining and railroad data are furnished to
bls by the M ine Safety and Health A dm inis­
tration and the Federal Railroad Administra­
tion. Data from these organizations are in­
cluded in both the national and State data
published annually.
With the 1992 survey, bls began publish­
ing details on serious, nonfatal incidents re­
sulting in days away from work. Included are
som e major characteristics o f the injured and
ill workers, such as occupation, age, gender,
race, and length o f service, as w ell as the cir­
cumstances o f their injuries and illnesses (na­
ture o f the disabling condition, part o f body
affected, event and exposure, and the source
directly producing the condition). In general,
these data are available nationwide for de­
tailed industries and for individual States at
more aggregated industry levels.
For additional information on occu­
pational injuries and illnesses, contact the Of­
fice o f Occupational Safety, Health and Work­
ing Conditions at (202) 6 9 1 -6 1 8 0 , or access
the Internet at:

http://www.bls.gov/iip/

Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries
The Census o f Fatal Occupational Injuries
com piles a com plete roster o f fatal job-re­
lated injuries, including detailed data about
the fatally injured w orkers and the fatal
ev en ts. T he program c o lle c ts and cross
checks fatality inform ation from m ultiple
sources, including death certificates, State
and Federal workers’ com pensation reports,
Occupational Safety and Health Administra­
tion and M ine Safety and Health A dm inis­
tration records, m edical examiner and au­
topsy reports, media accounts, State motor
vehicle fatality records, and follow -up ques­
tionnaires to employers.
In ad d ition to private w a g e and salary
w orkers, the self-em p loyed , fam ily m em ­
bers, and Federal, State, and lo ca l g o v e rn ­
m ent w ork ers are c o v e r e d by th e p r o ­
gram. To be in clu d ed in the fatality cen ­
su s, the d eced en t m ust h a v e b e e n e m ­
p lo y e d (that is w ork in g for pay, co m p e n ­
sation , or profit) at the tim e o f the even t,
e n g a g e d in a le g a l w o r k a c t iv it y , or
presen t at the site o f the in c id en t as a
requirem ent o f h is or her jo b .

Definition
A fatal work injury is any intentional or un­
intentional wound or damage to the body re-

suiting in death from acute exposure to energy,
such as heat or electricity, or kinetic energy
from a crash, or from the absence o f such es­
sentials as heat or oxygen caused by a specific
event or incident or series o f events within a
single workday or shift. Fatalities that occur
during a person’s commute to or from work
are excluded from the census, as well as workrelated illn e ss e s , w h ich can be d ifficu lt
to identify due to long latency periods.

Notes on the data
Twenty-eight data elem ents are collected,
coded, and tabulated in the fatality program,
including information about the fatally in­
jured worker, the fatal incident, and the ma­
chinery or equipment involved. Summary
worker demographic data and event charac­
teristics are included in a national new s re­
lease that is available about 8 months after

the end o f the reference year. The C ensus o f
Fatal O ccupational Injuries was initiated in
1992 as a join t Federal-State effort. M ost
States issue summaiy information at the time
o f the national new s release.
F or additional information on the
Census o f Fatal Occupational Injuries con­
tact the BLS O ffice o f Safety, Health, and
Working Conditions at (202) 6 9 1 -6 1 7 5 , or
the Internet at: http ://w w w .b ls.gov/iip /

Bureau of Labor Statistics Internet
The Bureau of Labor Statistics World Wide Web site on the Internet contains a range of
data on consumer and producer prices, employment and unemployment, occupational com­
pensation, employee benefits, workplace injuries and illnesses, and productivity. The
homepage can be accessed using any Web browser:
http://www.bls.gov
Also, some data can be accessed through anonymous FTP or Gopher at
stats.bls.gov


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

77

Current Labor Statistics:

Comparative Indicators

1. Labor market indicators
2000

Selected indicators

2001

1999

2000

IV

1

II

2001
IV

III

I

II

III

IV

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

Employment status of the civilian noninstltutionalized
population (household survey):1
Labor force participation rate.........................................................

67.2

66.9

67.1

67.3

Employment-population ratio......................................................... .

64.5
4.0
3.9
9.7

63.8
4.8
4.8
11.4

64.3
4.1

2.8

3.6

10.3
2.9

64.6
4.0
3.9
9.7

Women...........................................................................................
16 to 24 years..............................................................................

4.1
8.9

4.7
9.7

25 years and over.......................................................................

3.2

3.7

Unemployment rate.........................................................................
Men.................................................................................................
16 to 24 years..............................................................................
25 years and over.......................................................................

4.0

67.3
64.6

67.0
64.3
4.1

4.0
3.9
9.7

3.9

2.8

2.8

9.8
2.8

4.2
9.4

4.2
9.5

4.1
9.0

4.2
8.5

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.3

67.1
64.4
4.0
4.0
9.6

67.2
64.4
4.2
4.2

66.8

66.9

63.6
4.8
4.9

63.1
5.6
5.7
12.7

3.4

11.5
3.7

4.0
8.4

3.1
4.1
8.7

4.3
9.2

4.8
10.0

5.5
10.6

3.0

3.3

3.4

3.7

4.4

2.9

10.6

66.9
63.9
4.5
4.6
11.2

4.4

Employment, nonfarm (payroll data), In thousands:1
Total...................................................................................................
Goods-producing.........................................................................

131,759

132,212

129,783

130,984

131,854

131,927

132,264

132,559

132,483

132,358

131,502

111,079

111,339
25,121

109,507
25,524

110,456
25,704

110,917
25,711

111,293
25,732

111,669
25,704

111,886
25,621

111,702

110,480

17,698

18,482

18,504

18,510

18,487

18,378

18,188

25,310
17,882

111,385
24,991

107,090

104,259

105,280

106,143

106,195

106,560

106,938

107,173

Manufacturing..........................................................................

25,709
18,469

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

106,050

17,556
107,367

14,590
17,174
106,912

Average hours:
Private sector.................................................................................
Manufacturing..............................................................................

34.5
41.6

34.2
40.7
3.9

34.5
41.7
4.7

34.5
41.8
4.7

34.5
41.8
4.7

34.4
41.5
4.5

34.3
41.1
4.3

34.3
41.0
4.1

34.2
40.8
3.9

34.1
40.7
4.0

34.1
40.5
3.8

Overtime....................................................................................

4.6

4.1
4.4

4.1
4.2

.9
.9

1.3
1.5

1.0
1.2

1.0
.9

.7
.7

1.3
1.4

.9
1.0

1.2
.9

.8
.8

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

Percent change in the ECI, compensation:
All workers (excluding farm, household and Federal workers).....
Goods-producing3.....................................................................

4.4

3.8

1.0

1.6

1.2

.9

.6

1.3

.9

.7

.8

Service-producing3....................................................................

4.4
3.0

4.3
4.2

.8
1.0

1.4
.6

1.2
.3

1.0
1.3

.7
.7

1.4
.9

1.0
.6

1.0
2.1

.8
.6

Union.................................................................................................

4.0

4.2

.7

1.3

1.0

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.4

4.4

4.1

1.0

1.5

1.2

1.0

.5
.7

.7

Nonunion...........................................................................................

1.5

1.0

.9

.7

Workers by bargaining status (private Industry):

1 Quarterly data seasonally adjusted.
2 Annual changes are December-to-December changes. Quarterly changes are calculated using the last month of each quarter.
3 Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Service-producing industries include all other private sector industries.

78

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

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

2000

1999

2001

2000

IV

I

2001

II

III

IV

I

II

Ml

IV

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

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

4.1

4.1

0.9

1.3

1.0

1.0

0.7

1.3

0.9

1.2

0.8

Private nonfarm....................................................................

4.4

4.2

.9

1.5

1.2

.9

.7

1.4

1.0

.9

.8

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

3.8

3.7

.8

1.1

1.0

1.1

.6

1.1

.9

1.0

.7

Private nonfarm....................................................................

3.9

3.8

.9

1.2

1.0

1.0

.6

1,2

1.0

.8

.8

1.6

3.4

-.2

1.7

.7

.8

.2

1.3

1.0

.2

- .9

P r ic e d a t a 1

Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers): All Items.....
Producer Price Index:
Finished goods...........................................................................

3.5

-1 .8

.1

1.5

1.8

.6

.4

.9

.8

- .3

-3 .2

Finished consumer goods.....................................................

4.3

-2 .4

- .2

1.9

1.3

.8

.1

1.2

1.0

- .3

-4 .3

Capital equipment...................................................................

1.2

1.0

1.2

.1

.1

-7 .2

1.1

-.1

-7.1

-.1

.1

Intermediate materials, supplies, and components...............

4.0

-.2

8.0

1.8

1.4

1.0

-.3

.2

.6

-1 .0

-3 .6

Crude materials...........................................................................

31.1

-8 .8

-3 .5

9.0

-6 .0

2.1

9.4

-3 .5

-6 .6

-1 2 .0

-12.2

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

Output per hour of all persons:
Business sector........................................................................

3.4

1.8

7.4

-.1

7.7

1.2

3.0

-.2

2.2

.7

3.4

Nonfarm business sector...........................................................

3.3

1.8

7.8

.0

6.7

1.6

2.3

-.1

2.1

1.1

3.5

Nonfinancial c o lo ra tio n s 4........................................................

3.1

-

3.5

2.8

5.6

2.6

.7

.5

3.3

.9

-

1 Annual changes are December-to-December changes.

Quarterly changes are

cent changes reflect annual rates of change in quarterly indexes. The

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

data are seasonally adjusted.

seasonally adjusted, and the price data are not compounded.

4 Output per hour of all employees.

2 Excludes Federal and private household workers.
3 Annual rates of change are computed by comparing annual averages. Quarterly per-

3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes
Components

2000
IV

Quarterly average
2001
I

II

III

2000
IV

Four quarters ending
2001

IV

I

II

III

IV

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

9.5
8.9

5.1
4.9

5.2
4.7

3.3
3.7

2.3
2.3

7.9
7.8

7.6
7.3

6.6
6.5

5.8
5.5

4.0
3.9

.7
.7
.5
.7
.7

1.3
1.4
.7
1.5
.9

.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
.6

1.2
.9
1.0
.9
2.1

.8
.8
1.4
.7
.6

4.1
4.4
4.0
4.4
3.0

4.1
4.2
3.4
4.3
3.3

3.9
4.0
3.5
4.2
3.6

4.1
4.0
3.4
4.1

4.1
4.2
4.2
4.1

.6
.6
.9
.6
.7

1.1
1.2
.6
1.2
.7

.9
1.0
1.1
.9
.5

1.0
.8
1.0
.8
1.9

.7
.8
1.6
.7
.5

3.8
3.9
3.4
4.0
3.3

3.8
3.8
3.6
3.9
3.5

3.7
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7

3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.9

3.7
3.8
4.4
3.6
3.6

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

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


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

79

Current Labor Statistics:

4.

Labor Force Data

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

[Numbers in thousands]

Employment status

Annual average
2000
2001

2000
Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

2001
June
July

Aug.

Sept

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

TOTAL
Civilian noninstitutional
population1.......................... 209,699
Civilian labor force............. 140,863
Participation rate.........
67.2
Employed........................ 135,208
Employment-pop-

211,864

210,743

211,026
141,622
67.1
135,734

211,171
141,869
67.2
135,808

211,348
141,734
67.1
135,424

211,525
141,445
66.9
135,235

211,921

212,135

212,357

212,581

212,767

212,927

141,489
67.1
135,836

210,889
141,757
67.2
135,870

211,725

141,815
66.9
135,073

141,468
66.8
135,003

141,651
66.8
135,106

141,380
66.6
134,408

142,068
66.9
135,004

142,280
66.9
134,615

142,279
66.9
134,253

141,390
66.8
134,055

64.5
5,665
4.0
68,836

63.8
6,742
4.8
70,050

64.5
5,653
4.0
69,254

64.4
5,887
4.2
68,934

64.3
5,888
4.2
69,275

64.3
6,061
4.3
69,304

64.1

63.9
6,210
4.4
70,254

63.8
6,465
4.6
70,370

63.8
6,545
4.64.6
70,147

63.4

6,310
4.5
69,592

6,972
4.9
70,785

63.6
7,064
5.0
70,167

63.3
7,665
5.4
70,279

63.1
8,026
5.6
70,523

63.0
8,259
5.8
70,523

93,810

93,917

94,015

94,077

94,161

71,523
76.2
68,388

71,805
76.5
68,696

71,940
76.5
68,486

71,935
76.5
68,204

71,988
76.5
68,276

ulation ratio2.............
Unemployed...................
Unemployment rate...
Not in the labor force......
M en , 20 y e a rs a n d o v er

Civilian noninstitutional
92,580

93,659

93,117

93,184

93,227

93,285

93,410

93,541

93,616

70,930
76.6
68,580

71,590
76.4
68,587

71,289
76.6
68,848

71,374
76.6
68,825

71,289
76.5
68,766

71,300
76.4
68,619

71,541
76.6
68,720

71,468
76.3
68,698

71,429
76.3
68,535

93,708
71,500
76.3
68,610

74.1
2,252

73.2
2,102

73.9
2,232

73.9
2,132

73.8
2,157

73.6
2,150

73.6
2,105

73.4

73.2
2,057

73.2

72.9

2,168

2,035

2,129

83.1
2,138

72.8
2,132

72.5
2,082

72.5
2,141

66,328
2,350
3.3

66,485
3,003
4.2

66,616
2,441
3.4

66,693
2,549
3.6

66,609
2,523
3.5

66,469
2,681
3.8

66,615
2,821
3.9

66,530
2,770
3.9

66,478
2,894
4.1

66,575
2,890
4.0

66,259
3,135
4.4

66,558
3,109
4.3

66,354
3,454
4.8

66,122
3,731
5.2

66,135
3,712
5.2

population1..........................
Civilian labor force.............
Participation rate.........
Employed........................
Employment-pop-

101,078

102,060

101,612

101,779

101,870

101,938

102,023

102,067

102,165

102,277

102,371

102,438

102,492

62,148
60.9
59,596

61,819
60.8
59,708

101,643
62,071
61.1
59,869

101,686

61,565
60.9
59,352

62,130
61.1
59,869

62,331
61.2
60,089

61,102
61.0
59,758

62,068
60.9
59,716

61,961
60.7
59,555

62,103
60.8
59,640

62,142
60.8
59,526

62,222
60.8
59,463

62,269
60.8
59,302

62,321
60.8
59,288

62,481
61.0
59,205

ulation ratio2.............
Agriculture...................
Nonagricultural
industries..................
Unemployed...................
Unemployment rate....

58.7
818

58.4
82

58.8
822

58.9
835

58.9
824

59.0
811

58.7
827

58.6
816

58.4
772

58.4
784

58.3
781

58.1
823

57.9
842

57.9
852

57.8
859

58,535
2,212
3.6

58,779
2,551
4.1

58,886
2,111
3.4

59,034
2,202
3.5

59,045
2,261
3.6

59,278
2,242
3.6

58,931
2,344
3.8

58,900
2,352
3.8

58,783
2,406
3.9

58,856
2,463
4.0

58,745
2,616
4.2

58,640
2,759
4.4

58,460
2,967
3.8

58,436
3,303
4.9

58,346
3,276
5.2

population1..........................
Civilian labor force.............
Participation rate.........
Employed........................
Employment-pop-

16,042

16,146
8,077
50.0
6,889

16,014

16,113
8,203
50.9
7,099

16,108
8,238
51.1
7,100

16,046

16,161

8,048
49.8
6,856

7,715
47.7
6,494

16,195
8,071
49.8
6,827

16,275

7,909
49.3
6,821

16,163
8,041
49.7
6,845

16,252

8,091
50.4
6,946

16,086
8,078
50.2
6,913

16,145

8,381
52.3
7,280

16,063
8,312
51.7
7,176

16,068

8,369
52.2
7,276

8,023
49.4
6,761

7,845
48.2
6,574

ulation ratio2.............
Agriculture...................
Nonagricultural
industries..................
Unemployed...................
Unemployment rate....

45.4

42.7
225

45.5
220

44.7
202

44.1

235

152

44.1
202

43.2
235

42.5
209

43.0
215

42.5
236

40.2
216

42.3
220

42.2
229

41.6
220

40.4
246

7,041
1,093
13.1

6,664
1,187
14.7

7,060
1,101
13.1

6,974
1,136
13.7

6,947
1,104
13.5

6,898
1,138
13.8

6,711
1,145
13.2

6,612
1,088
13.8

6,698
1,165
14.4

6,620
1,192
14.8

6,278
1,221
15.8

6,625
1,106
14.9

6,598
1,244
15.4

6,541
1,262
15.7

6,328
1,271
16.2

population1..........................
Civilian labor force..............
Participation rate.........
Employed........................
Employment-pop-

174,428

175,888

175,145

175,246

175,362

175,416

175,533

175,653

175,789

175,924

176,069

176,220

176,372

176,500

176,607

117,574
67.4
113,475

118,144
67.2
113,220

117,945
67.3
113,811

118,097
67.4
114,015

118,143
67.4
113,902

118,194
67.4
113,853

118,014
67.3
113,434

117,714
67.0
113,185

117,854
67.0
113,037

117,986
67.1
113,237

117,813
66.9
112,703

118,274
67.1
113,147

118,506
67.2
112,878

118,566
67.2
112,652

118,403
67.0
112,388

ulation ratio2.............
Unemployed...................
Unemployment rate....

65.1
4,099
3.5

64.4
4,923
4.2

65.0
4,134
3.5

65.0

64.9
4,364
3.7

64.9
4,384
3.7

64.6
4,640
3.9

64.4
4,541
3.9

64.4

4,240
3.6

4,728
4.0

64.3
4,810
4.1

64.0
5,073
4.3

64.2
5,127
4.3

64.0
5,628
4.7

63.8
5,914
5.0

6,015
5.1

25,218

25,559

25,408

25,382

25,412

25,441

25,472

25,501

25,533

25,565

25,604

25,644

25,686

25,720

25,752

16,603
65.8
15,334

16,719
65.4
15,270

16,742
65.9
15,470

16,754
66.0
15,387

16,660
65.6
15,407

16,750
65.8
15,341

16,678
65.5
15,304

16,644
65.3
15,311

16,739
65.6
15,330

16,685
65.3
15,337

16,720
65.3
15,210

16,827
65.6
15,339

16,748
65.2
15,144

16,687
64.9
15,040

16,833
65.4
15,122

60.8
1,269
7.6

59.7
1,450
8.7

60.9

60.6
1,367
8.2

60.6
1,253
7.5

60.3
1,409
8.4

60.1
1,374
8.2

60.0

59.4

1,333
8.0

60.0
1,409
8.4

60.0

1,272
7.6

1,348
8.1

1,510
9.0

59.8
1,488
8.8

59.0
1,604
9.6

58.5
1,647
9.9

1,711
10.2

population1..........................
Civilian labor force.............
Participation rate.........
Employed........................
Employment-population ratio2.............
Agriculture...................
Nonagricultural
industries..................
Unemployed...................
Unemployment rate....
W o m e n , 20 yea rs a n d o v e r

Civilian noninstitutional

B o th s e x e s , 1 6 t o 1 9 y e a r s

Civilian noninstitutional

W h ite

Civilian noninstitutional

63.6

B la c k

Civilian noninstitutional
population1..........................
Civilian labor force..............
Participation rate.........
Employed........................
Employment-population ratio2..............
Unemployed...................
Unemployment rate....
See footnotes at end of table.

80

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

58.7

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

Annual average
2000
2001

Employment status

2000
Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

2001
June
July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

H is p a n ic o rig in

Civilian noninstitutional
population1..........................
Civilian labor force..............
Participation rate.........
Employed........................
Employment-pop-

22,393

23,122

22,749

22,769

22,830

22,889

22,957

23,021

23,090

23,157

23,222

23,288

23,351

23,417

23,478

15,368
68.6
14,492

15,751
68.1
14,714

15,671
68.9
14,772

15,609
68.6
14,682

15,652
68.6
14,682

15,739
68.8
14,760

15,730
68.5
14,738

15,656
68.0
14,684

15,602
67.6
14,574

15,753
68.0
14,776

15,788
68.0
14,771

15,811
67.9
14,785

15,956
68.3
14,824

15,932
68.0
14,751

16,013
68.2
14,753

ulation ratio2.............
Unemployed...................
Unemployment rate....

64.7
876
5.7

63.6
1,037
6.6

64.9
899
5.7

65.5
927
5.9

64.3
970
6.2

64.5
979
6.2

64.2
992
6.3

63.8
972
6.2

63.1
1,028
6.6

63.8
977
6.2

63.6
1,017
6.4

63.5
1,026
6.5

63.5
1,132
7.1

63.0
1,181
7.4

62.8
1,260
7.9

The population figures are not seasonally adjusted.

NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hlspanic-origln groups will not sum to totals

2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.

5.

becausedata for the "other races" groups are not presented and Hispanics are included in
both the white and black population groups.

Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted

[In thousands]

Selected categories

Annual average

2000

2001

2000

2001

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Employed, 16 years and over..
Men.........................................
W omen...................................

135,208
72,293
62,915

135,073
72,080
62,992

135,836
72,534
63,302

135,870
72,492
63,378

135,734
72,348
63,386

135,808
72,271
63,537

135,424
72,272
63,152

135,235
72,131
63,104

135,003
72,012
62,991

145,106
72,093
63,013

134,408
71,705
62,703

135,004
72,177
62,827

134,615
71,871
62,744

134,253
71,570
62,683

135,88
71,57
62,47

Married men, spouse
present.................................

43,368

43,243

43,293

43,304

43,372

43,385

43,459

43,633

43,357

43,264

43,143

43,099

42,983

42,861

42,77

Married women, spouse
present.................................

33,708

33,613

33,635

33,932

33,959

34,007

33,699

33,692

33,466

33,571

33,685

33,604

33,227

33,330

33,20

Women who maintain
families.................................

8,387

8,364

8,501

8,391

8,380

8,144

2,179

8,335

2,513

1,558

8,328

8,274

8,256

8,331

8,45

2,034
1,233
38

1,884
1,233
27

2,019
1,198
34

1,971
1,186
27

1,843
1,281
29

1,909
1,224
34

1,899
1,220
44

1,957
1,208
34

1,803
1,193
32

1,798
‘ 152
23

1,852
1,239
29

1,882
1,278
24

1,898
1,290
26

1,865
1,276
12

1,87
1,31
2

123,128
19,053
104,076
890
103,186
8,674
101

123,235
19,127
104,108
803
103,305
8,594
101

123,813
19,352
104,461
879
103,582
8,600
121

124,128
18,953
105,175
862
104,313
8,661
112

123,916
19,073
104,843
833
104,010
8,608
130

123,767
19,089
104,678
858
103,820
8,749
128

123,406
18,928
104,478
809
103,669
8,597
99

123,530
19,068
10,442
795
103,667
8,540
111

123,069
18,934
104,135
760
103,375
8,720
102

123,204
18,999
104,205
790
103,415
8,568
98

122,685
19,150
103,535
814
102,721
8,503
111

123,186
19,290
103,896
804
103,092
8,556
101

122,710
19,223
103,487
867
102,620
8,505
95

122,507
19,172
103,335
790
102,545
8,507
77

122,19
19,18
103,01
73
102,27
8,52
9

3,190

3,672

3,234

3,288

3,277

3,221

3,277

3,388

3,649

3,571

3,389

4,148

4,329

4,206

4,26

1,927

2,355

1,964

2,029

2,049

1,965

2,188

2,205

2,276

2,174

2,115

2,796

2,983

2,796

2,80

944

1,007

896

934

925

916

895

921

1,008

1,011

952

1,064

1,108

1,121

1,16

18,722

18,707

18,993

18,696

18,974

18,711

18,698

18,634

18,482

18,812

19,011

18,798

18,644

18,587

18,54

3,045

3,529

3,088

3,172

3,137

3,064

3,120

3,231

3,556

3,425

32,346

4,015

4,222

4,017

4,11

1,835

2,266

1,882

1,955

1,970

1,869

2,011

2,101

2,215

2,111

2,025

2,704

2,898

2,679

2,71

Dec.

C h a r a c t e r is t ic

C la s s o f w o r k e r

Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers.....
Self-employed workers........
Unpaid family workers..........
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary workers.....
Government...........................
Private industries..................
Private households........
Other................................
Self-employed workers.......
Unpaid family workers.........
P e rs o n s a t w o r k p a rt tim e 1

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

924

989

877

935

904

891

883

899

990

993

927

1,045

1,082

1,096

1,13

18,165

18,177

18,437

18,139

18,560

18,162

18,166

18,097

18,066

18,283

18,485

18,232

18,065

18,007

17,96

1 Excludes persons "with a job but not at work" during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

81

Current Labor Statistics:

6.

Labor Force Data

Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted

[Unemployment rates]

Selected categories

Annual average
2000

2001

2001

2000
Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

C h a r a c t e r is t ic

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

4.0
13.1
3.3
3.6

4.8
14.7
4.2
4.1

4.0
13.1
3.4
3.4

4.2
13.7
3.6
3.5

4.2
13.5
3.5
3.6

4.3
13.8
3.8
3.6

4.5
14.2
3.9
3.8

4.4
13.6
3.9
3.8

4.6
14.4
4.1
3.9

4.6
14.8
4.0
4.0

4.9
15.8
4.4
4.2

5.0
14.9
4.3
4.4

5.4
15.4
4.8
4.8

5.6
15.7
5.2
4.9

5.8
16.2
5.2
5.2

White, total................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years................
Men, 16 to 19 years.........................
Women, 16 to 19 years...................
Men, 20 years and over.....................
Women, 20 years and over................

3.5
11.4
12.3
10.4
2.8
3.1

4.2
12.7
13.8
11.4
3.7
3.6

3.5
11.5
12.2
10.7
2.9
3.1

3.6
11.7
13.1
10.2
3.1
3.0

3.7
11.2
12.7
9.6
3.1
3.3

3.7
11.7
12.3
11.0
3.3
3.1

3.9
11.9
12.9
10.9
3.4
3.4

3.9
12.0
13.3
10.7
3.4
3.4

4.0
12.7
14.3
11.0
3.6
3.4

4.1
13.2
13.8
12.6
3.5
3.5

4.3
13.8
15.1
12.4
3.8
3.6

4.3
12.7
13.6
11.7
3.8
3.8

4.7
23.1
14.7
11.5
4.4
4.1

5.0
13.5
15.8
11.1
4.7
4.2

5.1
13.7
14.6
12.8
4.6
4.5

Black, total................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years................
Men, 16 to 19 years.........................
Women, 16 to 19 years...................
Men, 20 years and over.....................
Women, 20 years and over...............

7.6
24.7
26.4
23.0
7.0
6.3

8.7
29.0
30.5
27.5
8.0
7.0

7.6
26.7
30.1
. 23.4
7.3
5.7

8.2
27.5
27.3
27.6
7.0
6.9

7.5
28.1
31.1
25.1
6.7
5.9

8.4
28.3
28.7
28.0
8.2
6.3

8.2
30.5
33.5
27.7
8.1
5.9

8.0
25.7
30/0
21.5
7.6
6.4

8.4
28.0
6.0
25.7
7.8
6.7

8.1
26.6
28.1
25.2
7.9
6.2

9.0
30.1
31.4
28.7
8.8
7.0

8.8
28.5
430.8
26.1
7.8
7.7

9.6
30.2
31.2
29.1
8.2
8.5

9.9
32.1
31.6
32.6
8.7
8.4

10.2
33.4
32.0
34.8
9.1
8.7

Hispanic origin, total.............................

5.7

6.6

5.7

5.9

6.2

6.2

6.3

6.2

6.6

6.2

6.4

6.5

7.1

7.4

7.9

Married men, spouse present..............
Married women, spouse present........
Women who maintain families............
Full-time workers...................................
Part-time workers...................................

2.0
2.7
5.9
3.9
4.8

2.7
3.1
6.6
4.7
5.1

2.2
2.6
5.1
3.9
4.6

2.3
2.6
6.4
4.0
4.9

2.3
2.6
6.0
4.0
4.8

2.4
2.7
6.1
4.1
4.9

2.5
2.8
6.3
4.3
5.3

2.6
2.9
6.2
4.3
4.8

2.6
3.0
6.3
4.5
5.2

2.7
2.9
6.3
4.5
5.1

2.8
3.1
6.8
4.8
5.4

2.8
3.3
7.1
5.0
4.6

3.1
3.6
6.8
5.4
5.5

3.3
3.6
8.0
5.6
5.6

3.4
3.7
8.0
5.8
5.6

4.1
3.9
6.4
3.6
3.4
4.0
3.1
5.0
2.3
3.8
2.1
7.5

5.1
4.7
7.3
5.2
5.3
5.1
4.1
5.6
2.8
4.6
2.2
9.7

4.0
3.6
6.5
3.6
3.4
4.0
3.2
4.8
2.1
3.6
2.2
8.9

4.2
2.2
6.7
4.1
4.0
4.4
2.9
4.9
2.3
3.9
2.2
9.0

4.4
4.5
6.8
4.5
4.1
4.9
3.0
5.1
2.4
4.1
1.6
9.2

4.5
4.0
6.4
4.8
4.7
4.9
3.2
5.3
2.5
4.1
2.1
11.1

4.6
4.8
6.9
4.6
4.4
4.9
4.0
5.2
2.6
4.1
2.2
9.4

4.6
4.9
6.7
4.8
4.8
4.8
3.6
5.2
2.4
4.2
2.0
8.4

4.8
5.9
6.9
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.1
5.4
2.6
4.4
2.1
9.5

4.8
3.9
7.1
5.2
5.0
5.5
3.4
5.3
3.1
4.4
2.1
10.5

5.2
4.7
7.6
5.7
5.8
5.4
3.6
5.6
2.7
4.9
2.1
10.0

5.2
5.0
7.8
5.6
5.8
5.4
3.9
5.9
2.8
4.8
2.2
7.6

5.8
5.8
8.3
6.0
6.5
5.3
6.0
6.1
2.8
5.5
2.3
9.0

6.0
5.3
8.9
6.4
6.9
5.5
6.1
6.4

6.2
6.1
8.9
6.8
7.2
6.1
6.1
7.1

3.6
5.4
2.4
9.3

3.0
5.5
2.4
9.6

6.4
3.5

7.3
4.2

6.3
3.4

6.7
3.7

7.4
3.7

6.8
3.8

6.7
3.8

6.7
3.9

6.9
3.9

6.8
4.1

7.3
4.3

7.7
4.3

7.8
4.6

8.1
5.0

8.8
4.9

2.7
1.7

3.3
2.3

2.7
1.6

2.9
1.6

2.7
1.6

2.7
1.9

2.9
2.2

3.0
2.1

3.1
2.1

3.1
22.2

3.3
2.2

3.5
2.5

3.9
2.7

4.2
2.9

4.3
3.1

In d u s try

Nonagricultural wage and salary
Mining........................................................
Construction..............................................
M anufacturing...........................................
Durable goods......................................
Nondurable goods................................
Transportation and public utilities.........
Wholesale and retail trade.....................
Finance, insurance, and real estate......
Services.....................................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers.......
E d u c a t io n a l a t t a i n m e n t 1

Less than a high school diploma................
High school graduates, no college..............
Some college, less than a bachelor’s
degree..........................................................
College graduates..........................................
1 Data refer to persons 25 years and over.

82

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

7.

Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]

Weeks of
unemployment

Annual average
2000

2001

2001

2000
Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.
3,024

2,543
1,803

2,833

2,749

2,698

2,822

2,714

2,809

2,647

2,955

2,807

3,084

3,090

2,163

2,440
1,852

2,631

5 to 14 weeks.....................................

1,940

1,737

1,967

1,976

2,021

2,573

2,724

1,746

1,326

1,357

1,503

2,042

2,317

2,410

665
644

949
787

675

709

1,510
814

1,507

15 to 26 w eeks...............................

1,466
778

2,366
1,907

2,522

1,309

2,170
1,630

2,152

15 weeks and over............................

2,098
1,571

781

688

696

726

728

948
682

818

1,084
823

1,136
906

1,207

648

862
641

843

651

1,110

1,295
1,115

12.6
5.9

13.2
6.8

12.6
6.1

12.6
5.9

12.8
6.0

12.8
6.4

12.6
6.0

12.4

12.9

12.7

13.2

13.3

6.4

6.3

6.7

6.6

7.3

13.0
7.4

27 weeks and over.........................
Mean duration, in weeks..................
Median duration, in weeks...............

8.

1,798
980

14.4
7.6

14.5
8.2

Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]

Reason for
unemployment
Job losers1.........................................
Not on temporary layoff................
Job leavers.........................................
New entrants......................................

Annual average

2000

2000

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

2,514
937
1,577
746
1,899
466

2,762
1,002
1,760
813
1,921
439

2,856
950
1,906
815
1,900
387

2,995
988
2,007
803
1,908
410

3,020
1,023
1,997
776
1,991
456

3,132
1,055
2,077
818
1,827
467

3,249
990
2,259
807
1,921
470

3,294
1,020
2,274
791
1,948
442

3,438
1,071
2,367
877
2,162
488

3,595
1,114
2,481
819
2,102
466

4,297
1,288
3,009
880
2,113
466

4,501
1,157
3,344
848
2,197
497

4,492
1,107
3,385
908
2,361
495

2001

2,492
842
1,650
775
1,957
431

3,428
1,044
2,379
832
2,029
453

2001

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

On temporary layoff.......................
Not on temporary layoff.................
Job leavers.........................................
New entrants......................................

44.1

50.8

44.7

46.5

47.9

49.0

48.4

50.2

50.4

50.9

49.4

51.5

55.4

56.0

54.4

14.9
29.2
13.7
34.6
7.6

15.6
35.3
12.3
30.1
6.7

16.7
29.7
13.3
33.8
8.3

16.9
32.0
13.7
32.4
7.4

15.9
32.0
13.7
31.9
6.5

16.2
32.8
13.1
31.2
6.7

16.4
32.0
12.4
31.9
7.3

16.9
33.3
13.1
29.3
7.5

15.4
35.0
12.5
29.8
7.3

15.8
35.1
12.2
30.1
6.8

15.4
34.0
12.6
31.0
7.0

16.0
35.5
11.7
30.1
6.7

16.6
38.8
11.3
27.2
6.0

14.4
41.6
10.5
27.3
6.2

13.4
41.0
11.0
28 6
6.0

1.8

2.4

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.3

2.4

2.5

3.0

3.2

3.2

.6
1.4
.3

.6
1.4
.3

.5
1.3
.3

.6
1.4
.3

.6
1.3
.3

.6
1.3
.3

.5
1.4
.3

.6
1.3
.3

.6
1.4
.3

.6
1.4
.3

.6
1.5
.3

.6
1.5
.3

.6
1.5
.3

.6
1.5
.3

.6
1.7
.3

P e r c e n t o f c iv ilia n
l a b o r fo r c e

Job leavers.........................................
New entrants......................................

1 Includes persons who completed temporary jobs.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

83

Current Labor Statistics:

9.

Labor Force Data

Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted

[Civilian workers]

Sex and age

Annual average
2000

Total, 16 years and over...................
16 to 24 years................................

2001

2000
Dec.

2001
Jan.

16 to 19 years.............................
16 to 17 years..........................
18 to 19 years..........................
20 to 24 years.............................
25 years and over..........................
25 to 54 years..........................
55 years and over...................

4.0
9.3
13.1
15.4
11.5
7.1
3.0
3.1
2.6

4.8
10.6
14.7
17.1
13.2
8.3
3,7
3.8
3.0

4.0
9.2
13.1
15.8
11.6
7.0
3.0
3.0
2.6

4.2
9.5
13.7

Men, 16 years and over..................
16 to 24 years..............................
16 to 19 years...........................
16 to 17 years........................
18 to 19 years........................
20 to 24 years...........................
25 years and over........................
25 to 54 years........................
55 years and over.................

3.9
9.7
14.0
16.8
12.2
7.3
2.8
2.9
2.7

4.8
11.4
15.9
18.8
14.1
8.9
3.6
3.7
3.3

Women, 16 years and over............
16 to 24 years..............................
16 to 19 years...........................
16 to 17 years........................
18 to 19 years........................
20 to 24 years...........................

4.1
8.9
12.1
14.0
10.8
7.0

25 years and over........................
25 to 54 years........................
55 years and over.................

84 Monthly Labor Review

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

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

16.6
11.5
7.2
3.1
3.2
2.7

4.2
9.5
13.5
16.9
11.0
7.3
3.2
3.2
2.8

4.3
9.9
13.8
5.9
12.2
7.7
3.2
3.3
2.7

4.5
10.3
14.2
16.7
12.6
8.2
3.4
3.4
2.7

4.4
10.0
13.8
15.8
12.5
7.9
3.4
3.5
2.6

4.6
10.4
14.4
16.5
13.0
8.2
3.5
3.6
2.8

4.6
10.2
14.8
19.0
12.4
7.7
3.5
3.7
2.9

4.9
11.3
15.8
18.6
14.4
8.9
3.8
3.9
3.1

5.0
10.8
14.9
16.6
13.9
8.6
3.8
3.9
3.2

5.4
11.5
15.4
17.4
14.2
9.3
4.2
4.4
3.4

5.6
11.7
15.7
17.5
14.8
9.5
4.4
4.6
3.5

5.8
11.9
16.2
18.8
14.8
9.6
4.5
4.7
4.0

4.0
9.7
14.1
18.4
11.7
7.2
3.0
2.9
2.8

4.2
10.2
14.8
19.0
11.9
7.7
3.1
3.1
2.9

4.2
10.6
15.0
18.4
12.9
8.1
3.0
3.1
2.8

4.4
10.9
14.3
16.2
12.7
8.9
3.2
3.2
3.0

4.6
10.9
15.1
18.7
12.9
8.6
3.4
3.5
2.9

4.5
11.0
15.4
17.9
13.9
8.7
3.3
3.4
2.9

4.7
11.6
15.8
18.5
14.2
9.3
3.4
3.5
3.0

4.7
10.7
15.6
19.1
13.4
8.1
3.6
3.6
3.1

5.1
12.3
17.4
21.9
15.0
9.5
3.8
3.9
3.3

5.0
1.5
16.0
18.7
14.5
9.1
3.7
3.8
3.3

5.5
12.4
17.2
20.3
15.1
9.8
4.2
4.3
3.7

5.9
13.0
17.7
20.4
16.2
10.5
4.5
4.6
4.1

5.8
12.8
17.2
20.0
15.6
10.5
4.5
4.5
4.2

4.7
9.7
13.4
15.3
12.2
7.5

4.0
8.7
12.1
13.2
11.6
6.7

4.1
8.8
12.5
14.0
11.1
6.7

4.1
8.3
11.9
15.3
8.8
6.3

4.2
8.9
13.3
15.6
11.6
6.4

4.3
9.7
13.2
14.5
12.2
7.8

4.3
8.8
12.1
13.8
11.0
7.0

4.4
9.2
13.0
14.4
11.8
7.0

4.6
9.7
14.0
18.8
11.3
7.3

4.8
10.3
14.1
15.4
13.7
8.2

5.0
10.1
13.6
14.3
13.3
8.1

5.3
10.5
13.6
14.5
13.3
8.7

5.4
10.3
13.7
14.5
13.3
8.3

5.8
11.0
15.1
17.6
14.0
8.7

3.2
3.3

3.7
3.8

3.0
3.1

3.2
3.3

3.4
3.4

3.2
3.4

3.3
3.4

3.4
3.6

3.5
3.7

3.5
3.7

3.8
3.9

4.0
4.0

4.2
4.4

4.4
4.7

4.6
4.8

2.6

2.7

2.4

2.4

2.7

2.3

2.5

2.4

2.6

2.6

2.8

3.2

3.2

2.8

3.7

February 2002

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

10. Unemployment rates by State, seasonally adjusted
Nov.
2000

State

Oct.

Nov.

2001p

2001p

State

Alabama.............................................
Alaska...............................................
Arizona..............................................
Arkansas............................................
California...........................................

4.6
6.2
3.7
4.2
4.8

5.3
6.0
.5.2
4.3
5.8

5.8
5.7
5.4
4.8
6.1

Colorado............................................
Connecticut........................................
Delaware............................................
District of Columbia..............................
Florida................................................

2.6
2.0
3.8
6.0
3.6

4.2
3.2
3.0
6.4
5.1

4.7
3.2
3.0
6.7
5.2

Georgia..............................................
Hawaii................................................
Idaho.................................................
Illinois................................................
Indiana...............................................

3.4
4.1
4.8
4.3
2.8

4.1
5.3
4.8
5.6
4.8

4.4
5.7
5.1
5.8
5.0

Iowa..................................................
Kansas...............................................
Kentucky............................................
Louisiana...........................................
Maine.................................................

2.6
3.7
4.1
6.0
2.9

3.4
4.0
5.1
5.6
4.3

3.4
4.1
5.4
6.3
4.2 Utah..........................................

Maryland............................................
Massachusetts....................................
Michigan.............................................
Minnesota..........................................
Mississippi.........................................

3.8
2.5
3.8
3.2
5.6

4.4
4.2
5.3

4.3
4.3
5.8
3.8
6.1

3 .7

5.4

Nov.

Oct.

Nov.

2000

2001p

2001 p

Wyoming............................................

3 .5

4 .5

4 .7

4 .7

4 .5 .

4 .5

2 .9

3 .0

3 .2

4 .4

6 .3

6 .5

2 .3

3 .8

4.1

3 .8

4 .8

4 .7

5 .3

5 .9

6.0

4 .5

5 .0

5 .5

3 .9

5 .5

6.1

2.8

2.0

2 .4

4 .0

4 .5

4 .8

2 .9

3 .8

4.1

4 .4

6.6

7 .4

4 .3

5 .0

5 .0

3 .7

4 .2

4 .4

3 .3

5 .5

5 .4

2 .3

3 .2

2 .9

4 .2

4 .5

4 .6

4 .0

5 .3

5 .5

3 .2

4 .3

4 .5

2.8
2.1

3 .2

3 .7

3 .7

4 .0

5.1

6.6

7.1

5 .6

4 .4

4 .6

3 .3

4 .5

4 .7

3 .9

3 .8

3 .8

p = preliminary

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

State

Nov.
2000

Oct.
2001p

Nov.
2001p

Alabama...................
Alaska......................
Arizona.....................
Arkansas..................
California..................

1,936.4
284.4
2,276.0
1,166.8
14,707.2

14,772.5

1,906.0
289.5
2,253.1
1,165.3
14,721.3

Colorado..................
Connecticut..............
Delaware..................
District of Columbia.
Florida......................

2,244.7
1,695.9
426.0
647.5
7,164.4

2,239.4
1,684.0
422.7
650.5
7,337.0

2,227.4
1,682.4
421.0
651.0
7,327.4

Georgia....................
Hawaii......................
Idaho.........................
Illinois........................
Indiana.....................

4,016.3
557.6
566.9
6,021.3
3,013.3

3,975.3
551.5
568.2
5,989.6
2,966.9

Iowa..........................
Kansas.....................
Kentucky..................
Louisiana..................
Maine........................

1,486.1
1,353.3
1,830.6
1,941.8
610.5

Maryland..................
Massachusetts........
Michigan...................
Minnesota.................
Mississippi................

2,474.9
3,348.7
4,702.0
2,678.2
1,153.3

1,910.0
290.4
2,260.9
1,165.3

Nov.
2000

State
Missouri..........................................
Montana...........................................
Nebraska.........................................

Oct.
2001p

2,764.3
391.1
911.5
1,047.0
624.5

2,724.4
395.0
909.4
1,056.1
619.5

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

4,022.0
747.6
8,680.8
3,970.8
328.0

4,025.8
757.5
8,629.4
3,974.8
327.7

3,937.3
547.7
568.2
5,967.8
2,961.9

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

5,659.7
1,491.4
1,615.3
5,728.2
477.3

5,636.2
1,505.0
1,582.1
5,715.1
478.6

1,488.3
1,367.6
1,832.4
1,943.2
609.1

1,490.0
1,365.5
1,837.6
1,942.0
609.1

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

1,900.5
379.9
2,751.4
9,538.8
1,088.0

1,882.5
378.8
2,751.4
9,658.9
1,091.3

2,473.5
3,354.1
4,660.1
2,658.9
1,133.9

2,470.0
3,350.7
4,651.9
2,653.9
1,133.7

Vermont..........................................
Virginia.............................................
W ashington.....................................
West Virginia..................................
W isconsin.......................................
Wyoming.........................................

299.8
3,539.1
2,737.8
737.1
2,842.6
239.9

299.3
3,563.1
2,731.6
733.3
2,832.7
245.2

New Hampshire.............................
New Jersey.....................................

p = preliminary
NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the data base.

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

85

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

12. Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]______________________________________________________________________________
Annual

a v e ra g e

2000

2000

2001

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

Aug.

S e p t.

O c t.

N o v .p

D e c .p

131,739
P R IV A T E S E C T O R ...................... 111,079

132,212
111,339

132,367
111,753

132,428
111,799

132,595
111,915

132,654
111,943

132,489
111,742

132,530
111,760

132,431
111,603

132,449
111,517

132,395
111,390

132,230
111,249

132,395
110,784

131,782
110,421

131,297
110,234

G O O D S -P R O D U C IN G ......................

25,709

25,121

25,688

25,633

25,627

543
41
311

563
36
337

548
41
320

550
39
325

555
39
328

25,602
557
38
331

25,421
560
37
335

25,324
564
37
339

25,186
565
35
340

25,122
567
34
341

24,963
569
35
342

24,888
569
35
342

24,746
569
35
340

24,577

M in i n g '...............................................

24,448
564
33
336

2001

In d u s tr y

T O T A L ........................................

Metal mining..............................
Oil and gas extraction...............
Nonmetallic minerals,
except fuels.............................
C o n s tr u c tio n .....................................

General building contractors.....
Heavy construction, except
building...................................
Special trades contractors........
M a n u fa c tu r in g ..................................

Production workers..............
D u ra b le g o o d s ..............................

Production workers.............
Lumber and wood products....
Furniture and fixtures..............
Stone, clay, and glass
products................................
Primary metal industries.........
Fabricated metal products......
Industrial machinery and
equipment.............................
Computer and office
equipment...........................
Electronic and other electrical
equipment.............................
Electronic components and
accessories.........................
Transportation equipment......
Motor vehicles and
equipment............................
Instruments and related
products...............................
Miscellaneous manufacturing
N o n d u ra b le g o o d s .......................

Production workers..............
Food and kindred products.....
Tobacco products....................
Textile mill products.................
Apparel and other textile
products................................
Paper and allied products.......
Printing and publishing...........
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum and coal products...
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products....................
Leather and leather products..
S E R V IC E -P R O D U C IN G ...................

114

113

112

111

113

113

113

112

112

113

112

112

113

113

113

6,698
1,528

5,861
1,554

6,791
1,543

6,826
1,538

6,880
1,555

6,929
1,552

6,852
1,548

6,881
1,556

6,864
1,551

6,867
1,554

6,861
1,557

6,871
1,562

6,852
1,560

6,951
1,561

6,847
1,556

901
4,269

629
4,378

913
4,335

921
4,367

930
4,395

938
4,439

915
4,389

923
4,402

925
4,388

935
4,378

932
4,372

932
4,377

933
4,359

942
4,348

942
4,349

18,469
12,628

17,698
11,922

18,349
12,466

18,257
12,394

18,192
12,323

18,116
12,254

18,009
12,166

17,879
12,066

17,757
11,956

17,688
11,900

17,533
11,782

17,448
11,706

17,325
11,626

17,159
11,500

17,037
11,402

11,138
7,591

10,638
7,122

11,102
7,517

11,031
7,462

10,997
7,415

10,941
7,358

10,870
7,308

10,778
7,235

10,692
7,157

10,624
7,102

10,523
7,022

10,460
6,970

10,363
6,897

10,240
6,805

10,153
6,743

832
558

795
527

811
555

806
552

799
549

799
548

800
543

797
540

798
532

797
531

793
519

794
513

789
505

784
499

780
500

579
698
1,537

571
651
1,479

577
686
1,536

579
681
1,526

578
679
1,514

578
671
1,509

577
667
1,503

574
660
1,488

572
654
1,478

569
648
1,478

568
643
1,468

567
638
1,464

566
633
1,454

562
619
1,435

558
612
1,427

2,120

2,014

2,119

2,117

2,105

2,084

2,072

2,054

2,031

2,007

1,980

1,965

1,943

1,917

1,893

361

355

366

369

370

369

367

366

357

353

348

344

342

339

334

1,719

1,612

1,738

1,735

1,726

1,715

1,684

1,656

1,624

1,589

1,565

1,551

1,529

1,499

1,475

682
1,849

647
1,747

710
1,817

714
1,772

711
1,786

702
1,775

686
1,768

670
1,757

650
1,749

634
1,752

618
1,750

613
1,735

601
1,714

591
1,706

583
1,693

1,013
465

933
463

990
464

952
462

967
464

956
465

950
464

939
465

931
465

936
466

931
465

919
465

903
463

903
456

902
447

852

867

870

871

871

866

865

865

865

858

851

849

843

838

394

859
385
385

396

393

390

391

390

387

389

388

379

382

381

376

377

7,331
5,038

7,059
4,800

7,647
4,949

7,226
4,932

7,195
4,908

7,175
4,896

7,139
4,858

7,101
4,831

7,065
4,799

7,064
4,798

7,010
4,760

6,988
4,736

6,962
4,729

6,919
4,695

6,884
4,659

1,684
34
528

1,685
33
473

1,682
32
510

1,684
32
505

1,686
31
496

1,687
32
494

1,687
32
489

1,684
33
480

1,685
33
472

1,680
33
471

1,674
35
465

1,682
33
459

1,689
33
454

1,691
33
446

1,683
32
443

633
657
1,547
1,038
127

604
652
1,539
1,039
127

599
651
1,534
1,039
127

595
645
1,529
1,039
127

590
642
1,524
1,039
126

581
641
1,512
1,036
128

579
639
1,502
1,033
127

567
635
1,495
1,033
128

571
632
1,489
1,039
128

554
628
1,483
1,035
127

551
629
1,473
1,031
128

542
628
1,465
1,027
128

533
627
1,452
1,024
127

529
624
1,445
1,021
127

1,011
71

565
635
1,492
1,033
127
954
64
64

993
69

987
68

979
68

973
68

967
66

959
65

953
64

957
64

947
62

941
61

935
60

927
59

921
59

106,050

107,091

106,679

106,795

106,968

107,052

107,068

107,206

107,245

107,327

107,432

107,342

107,036

106,850

106,849

7,019
4,529
236

7.070
7.070
4,531
227

7,108
4,583
232

7,106
4,580
229

7,123
4,591
231

7,127
4,591
230

7,119
4,576
230

7,130
4,584
230

7,118
4,571
227

7,108
4,561
226

7,082
4,539
226

7,070
4,528
226

7,016
4,472
225

6,952
4,414
224

6,919
4,390
224

476
1,856
196
1,281
14
471

481
1,854
203
1,288
14
464

478
1,866
200
1,316
14
477

479
1,868
201
1,312
14
477

480
1,870
200
1,318
14
478

480
1,872
201
1,316
13
479

477
1,864
202
1,313
14
476

483
1,867
203
1,315
14
472

483
1,867
201
1,310
14
469

485
1,863
203
1,304
14
466

486
1,844
203
1,303
14
463

482
1,838
205
1,300
14
463

479
1,832
206
1,264
14
452

480
1,830
204
1,221
14
441

485
1,831
205
1,198
14
433

2,490
1,639

2,540
1,692

2,525
1,678

2,526
1,679

2,532
1,685

2,536
1,690

2,543
1,696

2,546
1,699

2,547
1,700

2,547
1,700

2,543
1,695

2,542
1,695

2,544
1,695

2,538
1,689

2,529
1,684

T r a n s p o r ta tio n a n d p u b lic
u tilitie s ...........................................

Local and interurban
passenger transit...................
Trucking and warehousing.....
Water transportation................
Transportation by air...............
Pipelines, except natural gas..

567
34
339

Communications and public
Communications.....................
Electric, gas, and sanitary

851

847

847

847

847

846

847

847

847

847

848

847

849

849

845

W h o le s a le tr a d e ..............................

7,024

7,014

7,068

7,067

7,064

7,066

7,053

7,038

7,022

7,017

7,010

6,988

6,971

6,941

6,933

R e ta il tr a d e ........................................

23,307

23,488

23,406

23,415

23,472

23,457

23,530

23,546

23,561

23,606

23,583

23,536

23,422

23,424

23,365

1,016
2,837
2,491

1,010
2,792
2,447

1,010
2,822
2,480

1,007
2,789
2,448

1,007
2,807
2,462

1,006
2,797
2,451

999
2,804
2,459

1,006
2,821
2,473

1,014
2,818
2,471

1,008
2,810
2,458

1,014
2,800
2,449

1,013
2,793
2,450

1,012
2,784
2,422

1,010
2,778
2,420

1,013
2,754
2,410

Building materials and garden
General merchandise stores....
Department stores..................
See footnotes at end of table.

86

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

12. Continued—Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[In th o u s a n d s ]__________________

Industry
Food stores...............................
Automotive dealers and
service stations.....................
New and used car dealers....
Apparel and accessory stores..
Furniture and home furnishings
stores.....................................
Eating and drinking places......
Miscellaneous retail
establishments.......................
Finance, insurance, and
real estate................................
Finance.....................................
Depository institutions............
Commercial banks................
Savings institutions...............
Nondepository institutions.....
Security and commodity
brokers...................................
Holding and other investment
offices....................................
Insurance...................................
Insurance carriers...................
Insurance agents, brokers,
and service...........................
Real estate................................
Services ....................................
Agricultural services..................
Hotels and other lodging places
Personal services......................
Business services.....................
Services to buildings...............
Personnel supply services.....
Help supply services.............
Computer and data
processing services...............
Auto repair services
and parking..............................
Miscellaneous repair services...
Motion pictures..........................
Amusement and recreation
services...................................

Annua average
2000
2001

2000
Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

2001
June
July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.p

Dec.p

3,521

3,542

3,532

3,538

3,548

3,550

3,562

3,553

3,544

3,536

3,531

3,538

3,542

3,539

3,530

2,412
1,114
1,193

2,429
1,130
1,219

2,425
1,123
1,214

2,424
1,124
1,221

2,424
1,124
1,227

2,420
1,124
1,228

2,421
1,122
1,226

2,428
1,126
1,231

2,431
1,128
1,227

2,435
1,131
1,219

2,441
1,133
1,224

2,435
1,133
1,224

2,429
1,134
1,208

2,435
1,137
1,203

2,431
1,141
1,197

1,134
8,114

1,140
8,215

1,148
8,149

1,147
8,157

1,146
8,171

1,147
8,158

1,140
8,213

1,136
8,216

1,136
8,241

1,137
8,310

1,137
8,280

1,138
8,242

1,136
8,187

1,136
8,198

1,143
8 203

3,080

3,142

3,106

3,132

3,142

3,151

3,165

3,155

3,150

3,151

3,156

3,153

3,144

3,130

3,094

7,560
3,710
2,029
1,430
253
681

7,623
3,759
2,036
1,423
256
701

7,582
3,735
2,025
1,420
253
677

7,594
3,738
2,024
1,418
253
678

7,609
3,748
2,025
1,417
254
683

7,618
3,755
2,028
1,418
254
686

7,626
3,761
2,032
1,421
255
691

7,644
3,770
2,037
1,426
255
697

7,631
3,767
2,041
1,428
256
699

7,618
3,755
2,039
1,426
255
703

7,623
3,758
2,037
1,423
255
709

7,633
3,758
2,039
1,423
256
706

7,634
3,761
2,041
1,427
257
712

7,638
3,772
2,045
1,426
259
717

7,627
3,769
2,044
1,427
260
727

748

763

774

777

781

781

780

776

766

755

755

755

750

751

741

251
2,346
1,589

259
2,355
1,596

259
2,339
1,582

259
2,346
1,588

259
2,351
1,592

260
2,353
1,593

258
2,356
1,596

260
2,358
1,598

261
2,356
1,598

258
2,357
1,599

257
2,357
1,598

258
2,362
1,601

258
2,361
1,602

259
2,356
1,597

257
2,352
1,594

757
1,504

759
1,510

757
1,508

758
1,510

759
1,510

760
1,510

760
1,509

760
1,516

758
1,508

758
1,506

759
1,508

761
1,513

759
1,512

759
1,511

758
1,506

40,460
832
1,914
1,251
9,858
994
3,887
3,487

41,023
801
1,912
1,275
9,627
1,001
3,531
3,142

40,901
813
1,946
1,265
9,893
1,002
3,816
3,404

40,984
818
1,952
1,261
9,888
1,007
3,779
3,372

41,020
821
1,957
1,261
9,851
1,007
3,731
3,339

41,073
828
1,960
1,265
9,822
1,007
3,694
3,293

40,993
824
1,944
1,267
9,729
1,009
3,600
3,202

41,078
834
1,935
1,277
9,702
1,013
3,590
3,198

41,085
833
1,920
1,279
9,666
1,008
3,556
3,161

41,046
834
1,922
1,281
9,592
998
3,517
3,127

41,129
837
1,912
1,284
9,588
997
3,521
3,113

41,134
838
1,913
1,284
9,581
997
3,488
3,106

40,995
841
1,862
1,281
9,467
995
3,378
3,005

40,889
840
1,852
1,271
9,356
996
3,282
2,913

40,942
845
1,843
1,287
9,343
992
3,247
2,889

2,095

2,193

2,164

2,176

2,186

2,195

2,199

2,200

2,205

2,202

2,194

2,200

2,201

2,189

2,189

1,248
366
594

1,302
362
592

1,278
365
597

1,291
365
600

1,291
365
600

1,298
364
605

1,300
364
601

1,309
363
587

1,303
361
602

1,312
360
595

1,307
362
589

1,306
363
586

1,298
362
582

1,305
360
584

1 304
359
579

1,728

1,771

1,759

1,769

1,772

1,775

1,764

1,787

1,768

1,772

1,777

1,766

1,781

1,762

1,772

Health services..........................
Offices and clinics of medical
doctors....................................
Nursing and personal care
facilities...................................
Hospitals...................................
Home health care services.....
Legal services............................
Educational services..................
Social services...........................
Child day care services...........
Residential care.......................
Museums and botanical and
zoological gardens..................
Membership organizations........
Engineering and management
services....................................
Engineering and architectural
services...................................
Management and public
relations.................................

10,197

10,497

10,184

10,211

10,236

10,259

10,280

10,296

10,329

10,354

10,384

10,408

10,431

10,458

10,483

1,924

1,979

1,948

1,953

1,958

1,962

1,967

1,973

1,981

1,983

1,990

1,992

1,993

2,000

2,002

1,795
3,990
643
1,010
2,325
2,903
712
806

1,822
4,095
650
1,026
2,420
305‘
749
843

1,803
4,025
642
1,015
2,357
2,977
729
823

1,806
4,035
646
1,017
2,363
2,985
732
827

1,808
4,045
645
1,020
2,375
2,997
734
829

1,811
4,055
648
1,022
2,384
3,009
739
831

1,816
4,062
646
1,021
2,388
3,023
743
835

1,814
4,071
645
1,027
2,431
3,039
745
842

1,821
4,086
648
1,027
2,426
3,056
756
845

1,823
4,098
647
1,026
2,432
3,048
760
847

1,825
4,114
653
1,028
2,452
3,076
765
848

1,830
4,124
655
1,030
2,446
3,085
756
851

1,834
4,135
655
1,030
2,436
3,096
757
854

1,837
4,149
657
1,030
2,439
3,100
755
855

1,842
4,158
659
1,032
2,462
3,106
757
853

106
2,475

110
2,498

108
2,487

109
2,487

110
2,487

110
2,489

109
2,489

110
2,496

111
2,501

111
2,493

111
2,503

112
2,509

112
2,505

110
2,505

110
2 505

3,419

3,525

3,490

3,496

3,504

3,510

3,517

3,512

3,529

3,540

3,544

3,533

3,538

3,543

3,539

1,017

1,060

1,040

1,046

1,050

1,052

1,053

1,057

1,059

1,064

1,067

1,067

1,069

1,065

1,064

1,090

1,123

1,116

1,119

1,123

1,125

1,124

1,121

1,124

1,119

1,123

1,122

1,124

1,127

1,124

Government.................................
Federal........................................
Federal, except Postal
Service...................................
State...........................................
Education..................................
Other State government.........
Local...........................................
Education..................................
Other local government...........

20,681
2,777

20,873
2,616

20,614
2,613

20,629
2,613

20,680
2,615

20,711
2,613

20,747
2,615

20,770
2,612

20,828
2,621

20,932
2,626

21,005
2,622

20,981
2,627

20,998
2,625

21,000
2,607

21,063
2,614

1,917
4,785
2,032
2,753
13,119
7,440
5,679 I

1,767
4,880
2,088
2,792
13,377
7,567
5,810

1,754
4,809
2,037
2,772
13,192
7,457
5,735

1,755
4,800
2,028
2,772
13,216
7,468
5,748

1,756
4,825
2,048
2,777
13,240
7,479
5,761

1,754
4,836
2,055
2,781
13,262
7,492
5,770

1,756
4,847
2,065
2,782
13,285
7,495
5,790

1,754
4,854
2,066
2,788
13,304
7,512
5,792 I

1,772
4,881
2,089
2,792
13,326
7,515
5,811 I

1,772
4,909
2,117
2,792
13,397
7,575
5,822

1,774
4,913
2,122
2,791
13,470
7,650
5,820 I

1,776
4,931
2,129
2,802
13,423
7,595
5,828 |

1,779
4,919
2,107
2,812
13,454
7,607
5,847

1,777
4,916
2,109
2,607
13,843
7,630
5,853

1,774
4,930
2,117
2,813
13,519
7,M 3
5,876

' Includes other industries not shown separately.
p = preliminary.
Note : See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

87

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

13. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry, monthly
data seasonally adjusted
Industry

2001

Annual average 2000
2000

2001

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug. Sept.

O c t.

N o v .p

D e c .p

P R IV A T E S E C T O R .........................................

3 4 .5

3 4 .2

3 4 .2

3 4 .4

3 4 .3

3 4 .3

3 4 .2

3 4 .2

3 4 .2

3 4 .2

3 4 .0

3 4.1

3 4 .0

3 4 .1

3 4 .1

G O O D S - P R O D U C I N G .........................................

4 1 .0

4 0 .3

4 0 .1

4 0 .5

4 0 .3

4 0 .5

4 0 .6

4 0 .5

4 0 .4

4 0 .5

4 0 .3

4 0 .2

4 0 .0

4 0 .0

4 0 .1

M I N I N G ......................................................................

4 3.1

4 3 .4

4 2 .5

4 3.1

4 3 .2

4 3 .8

4 4 .0

4 3 .9

4 3 .3

4 3 .3

4 3 .4

4 3 .5

4 3 .1

4 3 .2

4 3 .1

M A N U F A C T U R I N G .............................................

4 1 .6

4 0 .7

4 0 .6

4 1 .0

4 0 .9

4 1 .0

4 1 .0

4 0 .7

4 0 .7

4 0 .8

4 0 .7

4 0 .6

4 0 .5

4 0 .3

4 0 .6

Overtime hours.....................................

4 .6

3 .9

4.1

4 .2

3 .9

4.1

3 .9

3 .9

3 .9

4 .0

4.1

3 .9

3 .8

3 .7

3 .8

D u r a b le g o o d s .................................................. .

4 2 .1

4 1 .0

4 1 .0

4 1 .3

4 1.1

4 1 .3

4 1 .3

4 1 .0

4 0 .9

4 1 .2

4 1.1

4 0 .9

4 0 .7

4 0 .4

4 0 .9

Overtime hours....................................
Lumber and wood products.................
Furniture and fixtures............................
Stone, clay, and glass products..........
Primary metal industries......................
Blast furnaces and basic steel
products..............................................

Industrial machinery and equipment...
Electronic and other electrical
equipm ent............................................
Transportation equipment....................
Motor vehicles and equipment..........
Instruments and related products.......

N o n d u r a b l e g o o d s ..........................................

Overtime hours....................................
Food and kindred products..................
Textile mill products..............................
Apparel and other textile products......
Paper and allied products....................
Printing and publishing.........................
Chemicals and allied products.............
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products..................................
Leather and leather products.............
S E R V I C E - P R O D U C IN G ......................................

4 .7

3 .9

4.1

4.1

3 .9

4 .0

3 .9

3 .9

3 .9

4 .0

4.1

3 .8

3 .7

3 .6

3 .8

4 1 .0

4 0 .3

4 0 .2

3 9 .8

4 0 .1

4 0 .3

40.1

4 0 .6

4 0 .4

4 1 .1

4 0 .9

4 1 .1

4 0 .6

4 0 .5

4 0 .7

4 0 .0

3 6 .9

3 8 .8

3 9 .2

3 9.1

39.1

3 9 .3

3 8 .6

3 8 .4

3 9 .7

3 9 .7

3 8 .8

3 8 .3

3 8 .4

3 8 .9

43.1

4 3 .6

4 2 .3

4 3 .0

4 2 .8

4 3 .7

4 3 .2

4 3 .9

4 4 .0

4 4 .0

4 3 .9

4 4 .0

4 3 .9

4 3 .8

4 3 .6

4 4 .9

4 3 .6

4 3 .5

4 3 .8

4 3 .2

4 3 .4

4 4 .3

4 3 .5

4 3 .9

4 4 .1

4 3 .7

4 3 .7

4 3 .2

4 2 .6

4 3 .9

4 3 .8

4 6 .0

4 4 .5

4 4 .7

4 4 .7

4 4 .4

4 4 .4

4 5 .4

4 4 .6

4 5.1

4 4 .7

4 4 .6

4 5 .5

4 4 /0

4 3 .3

4 2 .6

4 1 .3

4 1 .3

4 1 .7

4 1 .7

4 1 .9

4 2 .0

4 1 .4

4 1 .2

4 1 .6

4 1 .5

4 1 .2

4 1 .0

4 0 .7

4 1 .3

4 2 .2

4 0 .7

4 1.1

4 1 .5

4 1 .0

4 1 .2

4 1 .3

4 0 .7

4 0 .4

4 0 .8

4 0 .2

4 0 .3

4 0 .4

3 9 .9

4 0 .1

4 1 .1

3 9 .4

4 0 .3

4 0 .3

4 0 .3

4 0.1

3 9 .8

39.1

3 9 .3

3 8 .9

39.1

3 9.1

3 9 .0

3 8 .8

3 9 .3

4 3 .4

4 1 .9

4 1 .5

4 2 .0

4 2 .0

4 2 .0

4 2 .4

4 2 .4

4 1 .9

4 2 .2

4 2 .8

4 1 .5

4 1 .3

4 1 .3

4 1 .8

4 4 .4

4 2 .7

4 1 .5

42.1

4 2 .0

4 2 .3

4 3 .3

4 3 .6

4 3 .0

4 3 .0

4 4 .6

4 2 .3

4 1 .9

4 2 .2

4 3 .1

4 1 .3

4 0 .6

4 0 .7

4 1 .0

4 1.1

4 1 .0

4 1 .0

4 1 .0

4 0 .8

4 0 .8

4 0 .4

4 1 .1

4 0 .7

4 0 .3

4 0 .5

3 9 .0

3 7 .9

38.1

3 8 .3

3 8 .2

3 8 .2

3 8 .2

3 7 .9

3 8 .4

3 8 .4

3 8 .2

3 7 .6

3 7 .5

3 7 .1

3 7 .8

4 0 .8

4 0 .3

40.1

4 0 .6

4 0 .4

4 0 .5

4 0 .5

4 0 .3

4 0 .4

4 0 .3

4 0 .1

4 0 .2

4 0 .2

4 0 .0

4 0 .2

4 .4

4 .0

4.1

4 .3

4 .0

4.1

3 .9

4 .0

3 .9

4 .0

4.1

4.1

4.1

3 .9

4 .0

4 1 .7

41.1

4 0 .9

4 1 .3

4 1 .1

4 1 .2

4 1 .3

4 1.1

4 1 .2

4 0 .9

4 1 .1

4 1 .0

4 1 .1

4 0 .8

4 0 .9

4 1 .2

4 0 .0

4 0 .5

4 0 .7

4 0 .4

4 0 .5

4 0 .3

4 0 .3

4 0 .4

3 9 .7

3 9 .8

3 9 .8

3 9 .7

3 9 .5

4 0 .0

3 7 .8

3 7 .3

3 7 .2

3 7 .6

3 7 .6

3 7 .5

3 8 .0

3 7 .8

3 7 .5

3 7 .7

3 6 .9

3 6 .9

3 6 .8

3 6 .9

3 7 .3

4 2 .5

4 1 .7

4 1 .7

4 1 .9

4 1 .7

4 1 .8

4 2 .0

4 1 .6

4 1 .7

4 1 .9

4 1 .2

4 1 .6

4 1 .5

4 1 .3

4 1 .5

3 8 .3

3 8.1

3 7 .0

3 8 .4

3 8 .4

3 8 .6

3 8 .2

3 8 .0

3 8 .0

3 8 .2

3 8 .0

3 8.1

3 8 .0

3 7 .8

3 7 .9

4 2 .5

4 2 .3

4 2 .1

4 2 .6

4 2 .3

4 2 .3

4 2 .6

4 2 .4

4 2 .2

4 2 .7

4 2 .1

4 2 .2

4 2 .3

4 2 .0

4 1 .9

4 1 .4

4 1 .7

4 0 .4

4 1 .0

4 0 .9

4 1 .0

4 0 .8

4 0 .6

4 0 .7

4 0 .6

4 0 .5

4 0 .8

4 0 .5

4 0 .7

4 1 .2

3 7 .5

3 6 .4

3 6 .8

3 6 .9

3 6 .4

36.1

3 6 .6

3 5 .9

3 6 .2

3 5 .7

3 6 .4

3 6 .3

3 6 .0

3 6 .6

3 7 .5

3 2 .6

3 2 .6

3 2 .7

3 7 .7

3 2 .8

3 2 .7

3 2 .7

3 2 .9

3 2 .8

3 2 .8

3 2 .7

3 2 .7

3 2 .8

3 2 .6

3 2 .6

3 2 .6

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D
P U B L IC U T I L I T I E S ........................................

3 8 .6

38.1

3 8 .7

3 8 .7

3 8 .5

3 8 .3

38.1

38.1

38.1

3 7 .8

3 7 .8

3 7 .6

3 7 .8

3 7 .7

W H O L E S A L E T R A D E ......................................

3 8 .5

3 8 .2

3 8 .3

3 8 .3

38.1

3 8 .3

3 8 .2

3 8 .2

3 8 .3

3 8 .2

3 8 .3

3 8 .3

3 8.1

3 8 .2

3 8 .3

R E T A IL T R A D E ...................................................

2 8 .9

2 8 .8

2 8 .7

2 9 .1

2 8 .9

2 8 .8

2 8 .8

2 8 .8

2 8 .7

2 8 .6

2 8 .6

2 8 .7

2 8 .7

2 8 .8

2 8 .9

p = preliminary.
NOTE: See "Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

Monthly Labor Review
88

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

February 2002

14. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry,
seasonally adjusted
Industry

Annual average

2000

2001

2000

2001

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

PRIVATE SECTOR (in cu rre n t dollars)..

$13.75

$14.33

$14.03

$14.03

$14.11

$14.17

$14.21

$14.24

$14.31

$14.34

$14.40

$14.45

$14.47

G o o d s -p ro d u c in g ....................................

15.40

15.93

15.65

15.67

15.74

15.79

15.78

15.86

15.90

15.93

16.01

16.04

16.05

16.05

16.15

Mining......................................................

17.24

17.65

17.43

17.49

17.52

17.55

17.53

17.54

17.73

17.74

17.69

17.67

17.73

17.85

17.80

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

17.88

18.33

18.17

18.28

18.30

18.33

18.15

18.22

18.28

18.26

18.35

18.36

18.38

Manufacturing........................................

14.38

14.84

14.58

14.54

14.63

14.66

14.72

14.78

14.81

14.86

14.93

14.96

14.97

15.05

Excluding overtime.............................

13.62

14.15

13.88

13.83

13.94

13.96

14.04

14.09

14.13

14.18

14.24

14.28

14.31

14.38

14.41

S e rvice -p ro d u cin g ...................................

13.24

13.85

13.53

13.54

13.62

13.68

13.73

13.76

13.84

13.87

13.93

13.98

14.01

14.08

1 1/13

Transportation and public utilities.......

16.22

16.89

16.50

16.51

16.64

16.68

16.74

16.76

16.91

16.88

16.95

17.02

17.09

17.23

17.23

Wholesale trade.....................................

15.20

15.80

15.55

15.53

15.60

15.68

15.74

15.70

15.86

15.84

15.81

15.95

15.91

16.04

Retail trade.............................................

9.46

9.82

9.65

9.64

9.69

9.72

9.74

9.79

9.83

9.84

9.87

9.87

9.91

9.98

9.99

Finance, insurance, and real estate....

15.07

15.84

15.35

15.44

15.55

15.61

15.64

15.74

15.86

15.91

15.99

16.01

16.05

16.07

16.16

Services...................................................

13.91

14.61

14.23

14.25

14.35

14.40

14.48

14.49

14.54

14.61

14.71

14.76

14.81

14.87

14.94

7.86

8.00

7.94

7.90

7.92

7.95

7.94

7.93

7.95

8.00

8.03

8.02

8.06

8.11

8.16

Nov.p Dec.p
$14.54

$14.59

18.58
15.10

PRIVATE SECTOR (in c o n s ta n t (1982)
d o lla rs )........................................................
p = preliminary.
NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

89

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry
Annual average 2000
2001
Industry
2000
2001
Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.
P R IV A T E S E C T O R .............................................

$ 1 3 .7 5

$ 1 4 .3 3

$ 1 4 .0 4

$ 1 4 .1 0

$ 1 4 .1 6

$ 1 4 .1 9

Nov.p Dec.p

$ 1 4 .2 7

$ 1 4 .2 2

$ 1 4 .2 2

$ 1 4 .2 7

$ 1 4 .2 8

$ 1 4 .5 1

$ 1 4 .5 0

$ 1 4 .5 6

$ 1 4 .6 4

M I N I N G ................................................................

1 7 .2 4

1 7 .6 5

1 7 .5 4

1 7 .6 7

17.6 1

1 7 .5 7

1 7 .6 0

1 7 .4 9

1 7 .5 9

1 7 .6 7

1 7 .5 3

1 7 .6 7

1 7 .7 0

1 7 .7 9

1 7 .9 0

C O N S T R U C T I O N ................................................

1 7 .8 8

1 8 .3 3

1 8 .2 3

1 8 .1 7

1 8 .1 6

1 8 .3 0

1 8 .0 7

1 8 .1 7

1 8.2 1

1 8 .3 2

1 8 .4 3

1 8 .5 0

1 8 .5 5

1 8.5 1

1 8 .6 5

M A N U F A C T U R I N G ............................................

1 4 .3 8

1 4 .8 4

1 4 .6 7

1 4 .5 9

1 4.61

1 4 .6 5

1 4 .7 4

1 4 .7 5

1 4 .7 9

1 4 .8 4

1 4 .8 9

15.0 1

1 4 .9 7

1 5 .0 7

1 5 .1 9

D u r a b le g o o d s ..................................................

1 4 .8 2

1 5 .2 8

1 5.11

1 4 .9 8

1 5 .0 3

1 5 .0 9

1 5 .1 4

1 5 .1 9

1 5 .2 4

1 5 .2 5

Lumber and wood products.................
Furniture and fixtures...........................
Stone, clay, and glass products..........
Primary metal industries......................
Blast furnaces and basic steel
products..............................................
Fabricated metal products...................

1 5 .3 7

1 5 .4 9

1 5 .4 5

1 5 .5 5

1 5 .6 8

1 1 .9 3

1 2 .2 5

1 2 .1 2

1 2 .1 3

1 2 .0 8

1 2 .0 8

1 2 .1 3

1 2 .1 6

1 2 .1 9

1 2 .3 2

1 2 .3 7

1 2 .4 5

1 2 .3 4

1 2 .4 1

1 2 .3 7

1 1 .7 3

12.2 1

1 1 .9 3

1 1 .9 2

1 2 .0 3

1 2 .0 4

1 2 .0 7

1 2 .0 9

1 2 .1 5

1 2 .2 4

1 2 .2 9

1 2 .3 5

1 2 .3 9

1 2 .4 0

1 2 .5 6

1 4 .5 3

1 5 .0 3

1 4 .7 2

1 4 .6 5

1 4 .6 8

1 4 .7 9

1 4 .9 6

1 5 .0 3

1 5 .1 3

1 5 .1 2

1 5 .1 7

1 5 .2 2

1 5 .2 0

1 5 .1 6

1 5 .2 3

1 6 .4 2

1 6 .9 6

1 6 .6 5

1 6 .6 6

1 6 .5 8

1 6 .6 3

1 6 .9 0

1 6 .8 2

1 6 .9 6

1 7.11

1 7 .0 6

1 7 .2 7

1 7 .1 2

1 7.3 1

1 7 .2 6

1 9 .8 2

2 0 .4 3

1 9 .8 8

2 0 .1 6

2 0 .0 5

2 0 .0 0

2 0 .3 7

2 0 .2 6

2 0 .3 9

2 0 .4 8

2 0 .6 3

2 0 .9 1

2 0 .5 5

2 0 .7 5

2 0 .6 1

1 3 .8 7

1 4 .2 6

1 4 .0 9

1 3 .9 9

1 4 .0 3

1 4 .0 8

14.1 1

1 4 .2 3

1 4 .2 5

1 4 .2 7

1 4 .3 4

1 4 .4 2

1 4 .3 3

1 4 .4 4

1 4 .6 3

1 5 .5 5

15.9 1

1 5.8 1

1 5 .7 3

1 5 .7 4

1 5 .7 7

1 5 .7 4

1 5 .7 9

1 5 .8 2

1 5 .9 0

1 5 .9 6

1 6 .0 5

1 6 .0 9

1 6 .1 5

1 6 .3 3

1 3 .8 0

1 4 .5 3

1 4 .1 7

1 4 .0 7

1 4 .1 6

1 4 .2 6

1 4 .3 9

1 4 .3 8

1 4.5 1

1 4 .5 9

1 4 .7 2

1 4 .8 4

1 4 .7 8

1 4 .8 7

1 5 .0 1

1 8 .4 5

19.01

1 9 .0 0

1 8 .5 7

1 8 .6 8

1 8 .7 6

1 8 .7 7

1 8 .8 3

1 8 .9 0

1 8 .8 0

1 9 .0 8

1 9.31

1 9 .3 7

1 9.5 1

1 9 .6 5

1 8 .7 9

1 9 .3 6

1 9.31

1 8 .7 7

18.9 1

1 9 .0 2

1 9 .1 3

1 9 .1 8

1 9 .2 5

1 9 .0 4

1 9 .3 9

1 9 .6 8

1 9 .8 2

1 9 .9 6

2 0 .1 9

1 4 .4 3

1 4 .8 7

1 4 .8 0

1 4 .6 4

1 4 .6 0

1 4 .7 3

1 4 .8 0

1 4 .7 5

1 4.8 1

1 4 .9 8

1 5 .0 0

1 5 .0 6

1 5 .0 0

1 5 .0 3

1 5 .1 6

1 1 .6 3

1 2 .1 9

1 1 .9 4

1 1 .9 8

1 1 .9 8

1 2 .0 5

1 2 .0 4

1 2 .1 0

1 2 .0 7

1 2 .1 2

1 2 .2 3

1 2 .3 7

1 2 .2 7

1 2 .4 6

1 2 .6 7

Industrial machinery and equipment...
Electronic and other electrical
equipment............................................
Transportation equipment....................
Motor vehicles and equipment..........
Instruments and related products.......
Miscellaneous manufacturing..............
N o n d u r a b l e g o o d s ..........................................

1 3 .6 9

1 4 .1 7

1 3 .9 7

1 2 .9 7

1 3 .9 7

1 3 .9 7

1 4 .1 2

1 4 .0 7

1 4.1 1

1 4 .2 3

1 4 .1 7

1 4.3 1

Food and kindred products..................
Tobacco products..................................
Textile mill products..............................
Apparel and other textile products......
Paper and allied products....................

1 4 .2 8

1 4 .3 7

1 2 .5 0

1 2 .8 8

1 2.71

1 2 .7 0

1 2 .6 5

1 2 .6 8

1 2 .7 9

1 2 .8 3

1 2 .8 6

1 2 .9 3

1 2 .8 7

1 2 .9 5

12.9 1

1 3 .1 1

1 3 .2 1

2 1 .5 7

2 2 .2 8

2 1 .7 6

2 1 .3 4

2 1 .4 9

2 2 .6 3

2 2 .5 9

2 3 .0 1

2 3 .1 7

2 3 .6 3

2 1 .9 0

2 1 .7 0

2 1 .7 1

2 2 .3 2

2 2 .2 1

1 1 .1 6

1 1 .3 5

1 1 .2 7

1 1 .3 2

1 1 .2 7

1 1.31

1 1 .3 0

1 1 .2 9

1 1 .3 2

1 1 .3 7

1 1 .3 9

1 1 .4 0

1 1 .3 4

1 1 .4 3

1 1 .5 2

9 .3 0

9 .4 7

9 .3 7

9 .3 9

9 .3 6

9 .4 6

9 .4 4

9 .3 9

9 .4 5

9 .4 0

9 .4 4

9 .5 6

9 .4 9

9 .5 8

9 .4 7

1 6 .2 5

1 6 .8 6

16.6 1

1 6 .5 3

1 6 .5 4

1 6 .5 6

1 6 .7 4

1 6 .7 2

1 6 .9 0

1 6 .9 9

1 6 .8 7

1 7 .1 2

1 7.11

1 7 .1 3

1 7 .1 7

1 4 .4 0

1 4 .8 2

1 4 .6 6

1 4 .5 9

1 4 .6 4

1 4 .6 9

1 4 .7 5

1 4 .8 3

1 4 .8 7

1 5.0 1

1 4 .9 6

1 4 .9 3

1 5 .0 4

1 8 .1 5

1 8 .5 9

1 8 .4 7

1 8 .3 4

1 8.4 1

1 8 .3 3

1 8 .6 4

1 8 .5 2

1 8 .5 5

1 8 .6 9

1 8 .5 4

1 8 .8 6

1 8 .7 0

1 8 .7 4

1 8 .8 1

2 2 .0 0

2 2 .0 9

2 2 .3 1

2 2 .1 0

2 2 .2 1

2 1 .8 3

2 2 .0 9

2 1 .8 3

2 1 .7 8

2 2 .0 2

2 2 .2 0

2 2 .2 7

2 2 .3 6

2 2 .3 8

2 1 .9 5

1 2 .8 5

1 3 .3 9

1 3 .2 0

1 3 .2 4

1 3.31

1 3 .1 9

1 3 .3 3

1 3 .3 0

1 3 .3 0

1 3 .3 8

1 3 .4 4

1 3.5 1

1 3 .4 8

1 3 .5 3

1 3 .6 7

1 0 .1 8

1 0.3 1

1 0 .3 7

10.5 1

1 0 .3 5

1 0 .4 6

1 0 .3 7

1 0 .2 6

1 0 .3 0

1 0 .2 5

1 0 .3 5

1 0 .2 5

1 0.2 1

1 0 .0 9

1 0 .2 5

P U B L IC U T I L I T I E S ..........................................

1 6 .2 2

1 6 .8 9

1 6 .5 3

1 6 .5 6

1 6 .6 8

1 6 .6 5

1 6 .7 8

1 6 .7 0

1 6 .8 3

1 6 .8 9

1 6 .9 7

1 7 .0 7

1 7 .0 9

1 7 .2 3

1 7 .2 6

W H O L E S A L E T R A D E .......................................

1 5 .2 0

1 5 .8 0

1 5 .5 8

1 5 .5 6

1 5 .6 2

1 5 .5 8

1 5 .8 6

1 5 .6 6

1 5 .7 7

1 5 .8 8

1 5 .7 5

1 6 .0 3

1 5 .8 5

1 5 .9 1

1 6 .1 6

R E T A IL T R A D E .....................................................

9 .4 6

9 .8 2

9 .6 5

9 .6 9

9 .7 2

9 .7 4

9 .7 8

9 .7 8

9 .7 7

9 .7 7

9 .7 9

9 .9 2

9 .9 3

9 .9 8

9 .9 9

A N D R E A L E S T A T E .......................................

1 5 .0 7

1 5 .8 4

1 5 .3 2

1 5 .4 5

1 5 .6 3

1 5 .6 7

1 5.81

1 5 .7 4

1 5 .7 5

1 5 .8 5

1 5 .8 4

1 6 .0 5

1 5 .9 6

1 6 .0 4

1 6 .2 1

S E R V I C E S ...............................................................

1 3 .9 1

1 4.6 1

1 4 .3 3

1 4 .3 9 I

1 4 .4 7

1 4 .4 8

1 4 .5 8

1 4 .4 6

1 4 .3 9

1 4 .4 6

1 4 .4 6

1 4 .7 8

1 4 .8 0

1 4 .9 2

1 5 .0 9

Printing and publishing..........................
Chemicals and allied products............
Petroleum and coal products...............
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products..................................
Leather and leather products...............

1 4 .7 5

1 4 .7 4

1 4 .4 5

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D

F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E ,

I

p = preliminary.
NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

90

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

16. Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry
A n n u a l a v e ra g e

2001

2000

In d u s tr y
2001

2000

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

Aug.

S e p t.

O c t.

N o v .p

D e c .p

$477.99
482.63
269.74

$481.44
483.97
270.62

$482.46
486.03
270.89

$486.61
485.98
271.70

$484.90
487.01
269.39

$489.17
489.40
271.46

$493.74
490.43
275.22

$491.23
489.60
273.82

$497.69
492.75
275.88

$493.00
491.98
274.50

$495.04
495.81
276.10

$503.62
499.66
282.30

750.98

751.95

757.27

765.60

769.56

768.68

772.18

764.31

777.48

773.49

764.97

771.49

728.62

728.40

740.13

739.04

736.30

732.73

720.04

714.30

600.33
333.52

603.43
334.87

598.05
333.36

607.51
338.63

615.41
341.14

609.28
339.24

613.35
342.08

627.35
351.65

PRIVATE SECTOR

Constant (1982) dollars............

272.16

273.64

$480.17
479.83
272.51

MINING...........................................

743.04

766.01

747.20

$474.38
-

CONSTRUCTION...........................

$490.09
_

702.68

718.54

694.56

692.28

682.82

702.52

695.70

598.21
343.21

603.99
337.24

607.34
344.69

596.73
336.76

591.71
332.61

597.72
335.61

588.13
328.38

MANUFACTURING
Constant (1982) dollars.............
Durable goods...............................

623.92

626.48

613.22

620.20

607.11

624.31

626.36

617.63

633.24

639.74

631.91

636.00

652.29

489.13
469.20

496.13
474.90

630.09
486.01
476.01

615.68

Lumber and wood products......
Furniture and fixtures................
Stone, clay, and glass

477.92
464.88

473.54
461.95

483.20
467.15

483.99
457.45

497.34
462.22

498.57
468.99

502.66
481.03

509.64
491.60

517.92
489.06

504.71
478.25

503.85
479.88

502.33
501.14

626.24
737.26

655.31
739.46

624.13
735.93

613.84
731.37

610.69
716.26

631.53
718.42

638.79
730.08

665.83
731.67

670.26
744.54

669.82
742.57

676.58
743.82

686.42
766.79

674.88
737.87

668.56
747.79

664.03
768.07

911.72
590.86

909.14
588.94

890.62
596.01

901.15
581.98

882.20
580.84

884.00
585.73

920.72
567.22

899.54
589.12

919.59
589.95

919.55
582.22

920.10
595.11

959.77
598.43

900.09
590.40

908.85
594.93

902.72
617.39

656.21

657.54

662.44

655.94

648.49

651.30

628.03

644.23

640.71

640.77

640.00

648.42

648.43

649.23

669.53

567.18
800.73

572.48
796.52

585.22
807.50

567.02
772.51

566.40
775.22

568.97
789.80

554.02
765.82

559.38
804.04

570.24
799.47

558.80
765.16

577.02
814.72

584.70
809.09

584.39
807.73

580.85
818.52

603.40
841.02

834.28

826.67

826.47

778.96

786.66

808.35

791.98

840.08

839.30

780.64

858.98

844.27

840.37

852.29

890.38

Miscellaneous manufacturing...

595.96
453.57

606.70
462.00

621.72
460.88

603.17
454.04

605.90
454.04

605.40
461.52

594.96
450.30

602.48
458.59

602.77
463.49

605.19
458.14

606.00
468.41

618.97
467.59

609.00
462.58

610.22
464.76

624.59
483.99

Nondurable goods......................

558.55

571.05

569.98

565.79

560.20

561.59

559.15

564.21

568.63

569.20

571.05

582.42

576.91

589.99

589.56

Food and kindred products......

521.25
877.90
459.79

529.37
893.43
454.00

528.74
892.16
462.07

520.70
832.26
459.59

509.80
831.66
449.67

513.54
893.89
458.06

510.32
885.53
444.09

522.18
906.59
454.99

528.55
956.92
458.46

528.84
952.29
444.57

535.39
878.19
456.74

543.90
885.36
458.28

538.35
881.43
540.20

544.07
899.50
454.91

549.54
917.27
466.56

351.54
690.63

353.23
703.06

353.25
705.93

349.31
697.57

352.87
683.10

355.70
687.24

346.45
688.01

355.88
690.54

357.21
701.35

349.68
708.48

350.22
695.04

350.85
722.46

348.28
715.20

354.46
717.75

365.31
726.29

551.52
771.38
932.80

564.64
786.36
943.24

564.41
788.67
952.64

555.88
781.28
987.87

557.78
778.74
957.25

565.57
773.53
936.51

554.60
790.34
965.33

556.08
783.40
910.31

557.17
782.81
934.36

563.54
790.59
953.47

568.03
778.68
954.60

577.89
797.78
955.38

571.47
791.01
936.88

573.31
794.58
935.48

577.54
799.43
906.54

Leather and leather products...

531.99
381.75

544.97
375.28

543.84
382.65

544.16
384.67

543.05
373.64

538.15
375.51

529.20
369.17

539.98
370.39

543.97
378.01

535.20
360.80

544.32
379.85

556.61
377.20

548.64
369.60

553.38
373.33

574.14
385.40

TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES.....................

626.09

643.51

638.06

632.59

637.18

362.70

641.00

632.93

642.91

650.27

646.56

648.66

646.00

649.57

661.06

598.59

603.99

611.38

603.23

620.36

603.89

607.76

623.78

280.69

283.33

288.22

286.85

285.70

283.01

284.43

291.71

Primary metal industries..........
Blast furnaces and basic
Fabricated metal products.......
Industrial machinery and
equipment.............................
Electronic and other electrical
Transportation equipment........
Motor vehicles and
equipment............................
Instruments and related

Apparel and other textile

Chemicals and allied products.
Petroleum and coal products....
Rubber and miscellaneous

WHOLESALE TRADE...................

585.20

603.56

596.71

589.72

590.44

592.04

607.44

RETAIL TRADE.............................

273.39

282.82

278.89

273.26

276.05

276.62

281.66

FINANCE, INSURANCE,
AND REAL ESTATE...................

547.04

547.99

553.05

556.20

567.37

564.12

580.23

565.78

570.15

581.70

571.82

589.04

571.37

577.44

594.91

464.80

471.72

472.05

476.77

469.95

471.99

478.63

474.29

483.31

479.52

484.90

496.46

SERVICES.....................................

454.86

477.75

467.16

p = preliminary.
Note : See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. Dash indicates data not available.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

91

Current Labor Statistics:

17.

Labor Force Data

Diffusion indexes of employment change, seasonally adjusted

[In percent]

Timespan and year

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.

Nov Dec.

Private nonfarm payrolls, 356 indijstries
Over 1-month span:
1998.............................................
1999.............................................
2000............................................
2001...............................................

63.2
55.1
55.7
53.7

56.2
59.6
59.3
50.4

59.3
52.8
61.0
55.8

60.2
57.2
54.2
45.0

Over 3-month span:
1998................................................
1999...........................................
2000..................................................
2001...................................................

65.3
60.8
61.6
51.7

66.1
57.8
63.3
54.1

64.6
58.5
61.9
48.6

65.7
55.8
56.2
49.2

Over 6-month span:
1998.................................................
1999..............................................
2000.................................................
2001.............................................

70.4
59.8
63.5
52.0

67.4
59.8
60.6
50.6

65.0
58.2
62.6
48.6

62.5
60.3
63.7
45.3

Over 12-month span:
1998..................................................
1999............................................
2000................................................
2001...................................................

69.7
61.2
62.5
49.6

67.6
60.2
63.0
47.7

67.4
58.2
61.8
45.0

66.0
60.8

58.2

62.2
55.1

58.4
54.4
55.1
43.9

54.8
55.2
52.0
44.1

55.0
57.9
54.8
38.7

58.2
59.9
55.1
38.7

56.4
56.8
54.2
41.2

58.4

39.9

59.1
59.8
54.1
38.8

59.2
59.1
53.3
35.8

59.3
61.0
55.7
35.0

59.2
60.6
53.3
38.1

58.6
60.8
58.6
35.6

57.9
62.2
54.2
34.4

59.6
61.2
54.8
35.4

60.6
62.3
51.8
—

59.9
64.9
54.2
—

61.3
56.5

63.9
54.2

59.3
63.0
53.4
—

60.8
61.3
53.0
—

58.8
60.9
51.8
—

or .y
j / .y

00.0

/N/%«

43.1

—

oy.o

M a n u fa c tu rin g p a y ro lls , 139 in d u s trie s
Over 1-month span:
1998............................................
1999................................................
2000.................................................
2001...................................................

57.4
46.9
44.9
37.9

51.5
44.5
56.6
32.4

53.7
43.0
55.5
41.5

53.3
42.3
46.7
31.3

Over 3-month span:
1998................................................
1999.............................................
2000..................................................
2001............................................

59.6
41.2
50.0
28.3

59.6
39.0
54.0
29.4

55.9
38.2
52.9
24.6

50.4
41.8
42.3
26.5

Over 6-month span:
1998...............................................
1999.........................................
2000.............................................
2001.................................................

63.2
36.0
51.5
26.8

54.4
38.2
44.5
25.4

50.4
37.5
48.5
19.9

40.4
41.2
55.1
20.6

Over 12-month span:
1998...............................................
1999.........................................
2000.................................................
2001...................................................

54.8
38.6
46.3
19.1

52.2
34.6
45.2
16.5

51.8
32.4
41.2
14.7

46.7
36.0
37.9
16.2

50.4

oy.o
OO. 1

51.5
39.3
38.6

41.9
45.2
34.6
36.0

41.5
46.3
41.5
29.4

41.2
53.3
43.8
25.7

43.4
46.7
44.1
28.7

41.5
45.2

41.9
40.8
28.7
19.9

38.2
44.9
30.5
21.0

36.8
46.3
39.0
17.3

40.8
46.0
35.7
21.7

34.9
46.0
30.1
11.8

40.1
40.4
29.4
15.8

37.1
46.3
25.0

34.2
51.5
27.9

36.4
44.5
27.6
-

34.6
46.0
25.4
-

35.7
44.9
24.3
-

29.4

46.7
43.0
22.4

O r .0

20.2

41.5
34.6
14.0

40.4

37.5

OO.O

31.3
15.1

12.1

14.0

-

—

—

34.2
44.5
21.3

Dash indicates data not available.
NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment
increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged

*">ata *or
^ most recent months shown in each span are
preliminary. See the "Definitions" in this section. See "Notes on

employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance

the data" ,or a descriPtion of ,he most recent benchmark

between industries with inceasing and decreasing employment.

92

Monthly Labor Review

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

February 2002

revision.

18.

Establishment size and employment covered under III, private ownership, by major industry division, first quarter 2000
S iz e o f e s t a b lis h m e n ts
In d u s t r y , e s t a b lis h m e n ts , a n d
e m p lo y m e n t

T o ta l

F e w e r th a n

5 to 9

1 0 t o 19

2 0 to 4 9

5 0 to 99

1 0 0 to 2 4 9

2 5 0 to 4 99

5 0 0 to 9 9 9

5 w o rk e rs 1

w o rke rs

w o rk e rs

w o rk e rs

w o rk e rs

w o rk e rs

w o rk e rs

w o rk e rs

1 ,0 0 0 o r
m o re
w o rk e rs

T o t a l, a ll in d u s t r i e s 2

Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................

7,544,641
108,219,163

4,425,855
6,833,324

1,302,659
8,617,085

850,579
11,473,999

590,880
17,884,776

206,465
14,216,170

119,188
17,898,597

31,316
10,659,869

11,724
7,972,443

5,975
12,662,900

200,532
1,702,575

124,113
179,162

37,651
249,010

22,736
302,609

11,185
326,736

2,875
196,672

1,472
216,446

370
126,193

106
69,476

24
36,271

27,286
524,551

14,100
22,081

4,325
28,973

3,730
51,207

3,202
97,241

1,023
69,762

591
89,714

214
74,836

76
52,916

25
37,821

750,528
6,311,433

480,477
703,351

126,855
831,472

76,279
1,025,169

46,546
1,389,882

13,238
898,511

5,748
846,989

1,054
347,872

272
182,570

59
85,617

406,405
18,433,652

147,552
251,162

67,397
453,495

61,163
842,917

61,505
1,922,856

30,575
2,145,098

24,258
3,738,404

8,644
2,976,720

3,601
2,447,483

1,710
3,655,517

315,711
6,679,170

174,930
272,359

49,171
325,336

36,484
498,681

30,723
945,921

12,953
895,020

7,916
1,190,918

2,126
726,378

892
618,762

516
1,205,795

665,681
6,949,297

401,881
621,889

110,078
729,677

77,360
1,047,490

52,159
1,565,494

15,193
1,035,485

7,023
1,035,929

1,477
496,162

414
274,988

96
142,183

1,460,044
22,811,016

624,884
1,154,935

329,245
2,204,437

235,862
3,188,875

179,189
5,441,488

58,004
3,944,499

26,385
3,881,052

4,982
1,659,908

1,170
764,717

323
571,105

671,901
7,385,176

438,944
714,241

114,369
751,347

62,167
827,113

35,553
1,065,414

11,632
798,270

6,021
912,146

1,803
622,912

900
616,408

512
1,077,325

2,893,865
37,121,452

1,882,763
2,772,286

451,723
2,967,726

271,232
3,644,616

169,884
5,103,419

60,870
4,226,235

39,747
5,983,290

10,644
3,628,294

4,292
2,944,320

2,710
5,851,266

A g r i c u lt u r e , f o r e s t r y , a n d fis h in g

Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
M in in g

Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
C o n s t r u c t io n

Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
M a n u f a c t u r in g

Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d p u b lic u tilitie s

Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
W h o le s a l e tr a d e

Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
R e ta il tr a d e

Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
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 te

Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................
S e r v ic e s

Establishments, first quarter ..................
Employment, March ................................

1 Includes establishments that reported no workers In March 2000.

NOTE:
Data for 2000 are preliminary and subject to revision.
not add to totals due to rounding.

Detail may

2 Includes data for nonclassifiable establishments, not shown separately.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

93

Current Labor Statistics:

19.

Labor Force Data

Annual data: establishments, employment, and wages covered under Ul and UCFE by ownership
Year

A v e ra g e
e s t a b lis h m e n ts

A v era g e

T o ta l a n n u a l w a g e s

annual

(in t h o u s a n d s )

e m p lo y m e n t

A v e ra g e an n u al
w ages

A v e ra g e
w e e k ly

p e r e m p lo y e e

w age

T o ta l c o v e r e d (U l a n d U C F E )

1991 .......................................................
1 9 9 2 .......................................................
1 9 9 3 .......................................................
1 9 9 4 .......................................................
1 9 9 5 .......................................................
1 9 9 6 .......................................................
1 9 9 7 .......................................................
1 9 9 8 ......................................................
1999 ......................................................
2 0 0 0 ......................................................

6,382,523
6,532,608
6,679,934
6,826,677
7,040,677
7,189,168
7,369,473
7,634,018
7,820,860
7,899,243

106,884,831
107,413,728
109,422,571
112,611,287
115,487,841
117,963,132
121,044,432
124,183,549
127,042,282
129,925,813

$2,626,972,030
2,781,676,477
2,884,472,282
3,033,676,678
3,215,921,236
3,414,514,808
3,674,031,718
3,967,072,423
4,235,579,204
4,585,814,470

$24,578
25,897
26,361
26,939
27,846
28,946
30,353
31,945
33,340
35,296

$473
498
507
518
536
557
584
614
641
679

$24,335
25,622
26,055
26,633
27,567
28,658
30,058
31,676
33,094
35,049

$468
493
501
512
530
551
578
609
636
674

$24,178
25,547
25,934
26,496
27,441
28,582
30,064
31,762
33,244
35,305

$465
491
499
510
528
550
578
611
639
679

$27,132
27,789
28,643
29,518
30,497
31,397
32,521
33,605
34,681
36,296

$522
534
551
568
586
604
625
646
667
698

$24,595
25,434
26,095
26,717
27,552
28,320
29,134
30,251
31,234
32,382

$473
489
502
514
530
545
560
582
601
623

$32,609
35,066
36,940
38,038
38,523
40,414
42,732
43,688
44,287
46,231

$627
674
710
731
741
777
822
840
852
889

Ul c o v e re d

1991 .......................................................
1 9 9 2 .......................................................
1 9 9 3 .......................................................
1 9 9 4 .......................................................
1 9 9 5 .......................................................
1996 .......................................................
1 9 9 7 .......................................................
1 9 9 8 .......................................................
1999 .......................................................
2 0 0 0 ......................................................

6,336,151
6,485,473
6,632,221
6,778,300
6,990,594
7,137,644
7,317,363
7,586,767
7,771,198
7,849,064

103,755,832
104,288,324
106,351,431
109,588,189
112,539,795
115,081,246
118,233,942
121,400,660
124,255,714
127,055,641

$2,524,937,018
2,672,081,827
2,771,023,411
2,918,684,128
3,102,353,355
3,298,045,286
3,553,933,885
3,845,494,089
4,112,169,533
4,453,123,123

Private industry covered
1991 .......................................................
1 9 9 2 .......................................................
1 9 9 3 .......................................................
1 9 9 4 .......................................................
1995 ......................................................
1996 ......................................................
1 9 9 7 .......................................................
1998 ......................................................
1999 ......................................................
2 0 0 0 .......................................................

6,162,684
6,308,719
6,454,381
6,596,158
6,803,454
6,946,858
7,121,182
7,381,518
7,560,567
7,642,451

89,007,096
89,349,803
91,202,971
94,146,344
96,894,844
99,268,446
102,175,161
105,082,368
107,619,457
110,064,902

$2,152,021,705
2,282,598,431
2,365,301,493
2,494,458,555
2,658,927,216
2,837,334,217
3,071,807,287
3,337,621,699
3,577,738,557
3,885,818,913

State government covered
1991 .......................................................
1992 .......................................................
1 9 9 3 .......................................................
1 9 9 4 .......................................................
1 9 9 5 .......................................................
1996 ......................................................
1997 ......................................................
1998 ......................................................
1999 ......................................................
2 0 0 0 ......................................................

58,499
58,801
59,185
60,686
60,763
62,146
65,352
67,347
70,538
65,106

4,005,321
4,044,914
4,088,075
4,162,944
4,201,836
4,191,726
4,214,451
4,240,779
4,296,673
4,370,562

$108,672,127
112,405,340
117,095,062
122,879,977
128,143,491
131,605,800
137,057,432
142,512,445
149,011,194
158,632,362

Local government covered
1991 ......................................................
1 9 9 2 ......................................................
1993 ......................................................
1 9 9 4 .......................................................
1 9 9 5 ......................................................
1996 ......................................................
1 9 9 7 ......................................................
1 9 9 8 ......................................................
1999 ......................................................
2 0 0 0 ......................................................

114,936
117,923
118,626
121,425
126,342
128,640
130,829
137,902
140,093
141,507

10,742,558
10,892,697
11,059,500
11,278,080
11,442,238
11,621,074
11,844,330
12,077,513
12,339,584
12,620,177

$264,215,610
277,045,557
288,594,697
301,315,857
315,252,346
329,105,269
345,069,166
365,359,945
385,419,781
408,671,848

F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t c o v e r e d (U C F E )

1991 ......................................................
1992 ......................................................
1 9 9 3 ......................................................
1994 ......................................................
1 9 9 5 ......................................................
1996 .......................................................
1 9 9 7 ......................................................
1 9 9 8 .......................................................
1999 .......................................................
2 0 0 0 ......................................................

46,372
47,136
47,714
48,377
50,083
51,524
52,110
47,252
49,661
50,178

3,128,999
3,125,404
3,071,140
3,023,098
2,948,046
2,881,887
2,810,489
2,782,888
2,786,567
2,870,173

$102,035,012
109,594,650
113,448,871
114,992,550
113,567,881
116,469,523
120,097,833
121,578,334
123,409,672
132,691,347

NOTE: Data for 2000 are preliminary and subject to revision. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

94

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

20.

Annual data: establishments, employment, and wages covered under Ul and UCFE, by State
A v era g e

A v era g e a n n u al

T o ta l a n n u a l w a g e s

A v e r a g e w e e k ly

e s t a b lis h m e n ts

e m p lo y m e n t

(In t h o u s a n d s )

w age

S ta te

2000

2000

2000

2000

2000

2000

2000
change

change

change

change

1999-

1999-

1999-

19992000

Total United States ..........................................

7,899,243

78,383

129,925,813

2,883,531

$4,585,814,470

$350,235,266

$679

$38

A la b a m a ..............................................................
A la s k a ..................................................................
A riz o n a .................................................................
Arkansas .............................................................
C a lifo rn ia .............................................................

113,816
18,848
115,922
72,335
1,038,090

1,942
60
3,340
501
-21,749

1,877,787
275,766
2,221,413
1,130,822
14,887,118

6,735
6,833
70,875
17,681
493,044

54,525,432
9,686,168
72,431,416
29,748,658
613,261,503

1,957,806
533,535
6,786,654
1,506,781
72,373,274

558
675
627
506
792

18
21
40
18
69

Colorado .............................................................
C o nnecticut.........................................................
D e law are .............................................................
District of C o lum bia............................................
F lo rid a ..................................................................

148,477
107,903
24,711
28,380
445,738

6,276
1,812
544
1,445
10,141

2,186,703
1,676,740
408,933
635,811
7,063,073

81,451
24,375
6,793
20,107
218,424

81,272,401
76,199,312
14,998,631
33,709,739
215,772,868

9,291,399
5,672,870
860,702
2,379,904
17,723,960

715
874
705
1,020
587

57
53
29
41
31

G e o rg ia ...............................................................
Hawaii ..................................................................
Id a h o ....................................................................
Illin o is ...................................................................
In d ia n a .................................................................

227,630
34,022
45,411
322,342
152,947

9,218
1,559
1,140
2,739
-988

3,896,423
553,124
563,015
5,940,495
2,936,489

101,668
15,379
20,607
89,976
29,633

133,188,119
16,941,939
15,600,609
226,000,387
91,075,756

10,496,682
920,213
1,473,980
13,651,771
3,790,545

657
589
533
732
596

35
16
32
34
19

I o w a .....................................................................
Kansas .................................................................
K e n tu c k y .............................................................
Louisiana.............................................................
M a in e ...................................................................

97,118
80,523
107,838
117,427
44,865

2,506
1,082
2,501
760
956

1,442,785
1,313,069
1,762,549
1,869,453
590,818

11,803
14,272
31,082
21,551
17,005

40,294,107
38,547,821
50,812,110
52,115,533
16,344,365

1,725,399
2,140,627
2,707,022
1,822,492
916,386

537
565
554
536
532

19
26
20
13
15

M a ry la n d .............................................................
M assachusetts...................................................
M ichigan...............................................................
M in n e s o ta ...........................................................
M ississippi...........................................................

146,555
187,401
263,191
155,404
64,109

1,113
354
4,550
4,625
368

2,406,502
3,274,924
4,587,071
2,607,997
1,137,236

59,623
83,282
84,305
57,205
-1,948

87,530,844
145,163,150
169,793,373
92,369,487
28,654,664

6,588,302
16,375,342
8,817,850
6,952,226
868,342

699
852
712
681
485

36
76
24
37
16

M issouri................................................................
M o n ta n a ..............................................................
N e bra ska.............................................................
Nevada .................................................................
New Hampshire .................................................

162,765
38,370
52,456
48,961
46,020

1,988
1,606
622
1,029
590

2,676,614
379,122
884,025
1,017,912
606,061

31,191
7,883
17,415
41,985
14,836

84,007,364
9,199,101
24,454,268
32,853,672
21,049,033

4,733,265
564,255
1,374,587
2,392,199
2,046,606

604
467
532
621
668

28
20
20
21
50

New Jersey .........................................................
New Mexico ........................................................
New York ............................................................
North C a ro lin a ....................................................
North D a k o ta ......................................................

269,672
48,013
528,370
222,892
23,281

-16,049
719
4,064
7,928
224

3,878,717
717,395
8,475,567
3,861,729
309,221

86,340
16,491
183,025
57,360
3,261

169,464,775
19,726,620
380,908,938
120,011,633
7,630,932

13,834,368
1,315,800
31,139,715
7,926,195
364,043

840
529
864
598
475

51
24
53
31
18

Ohio .....................................................................
O klaho m a............................................................
O re g o n ................................................................
Pennsylvania.......................................................
Rhode Is la n d .......................................................

281,502
89,227
110,196
315,172
33,337

1,587
1,297
-150
13,155
631

5,514,414
1,451,870
1,607,997
5,560,251
467,542

63,287
29,061
31,995
100,777
10,706

179,272,488
39,171,359
52,686,533
189,040,902
15,250,403

8,134,650
2,444,586
4,032,231
10,540,425
1,011,138

625
519
630
654
627

21
23
36
25
28

South C a ro lin a ...................................................
South D a k o ta ......................................................
Tennessee ..........................................................
Texas ...................................................................
Utah .....................................................................

109,330
27,147
125,665
488,114
66,182

-2,033
439
367
6,744
2,320

1,821,033
364,095
2,667,270
9,287,230
1,044,343

28,888
8,310
40,226
270,589
26,719

51,303,078
9,030,576
81,507,681
324,566,175
30,522,121

2,678,327
574,769
4,068,336
27,938,668
2,135,151

542
477
588
672
562

20
20
21
39
26

Vermont ..............................................................
V irg in ia .................................................................
W ashington.........................................................
West V irg in ia .......................................................
W iscon sin............................................................
W y o m in g .............................................................

23,900
193,285
220,904
46,823
145,792
20,869

835
3,752
8,764
14
898
246

296,354
3,429,323
2,708,125
686,717
2,735,929
230,843

8,365
102,201
64,395
6,109
44,478
5,878

8,570,480
120,543,345
100,360,839
18,463,946
83,984,601
6,195,215

622,830
10,665,369
5,883,356
755,682
4,299,145
425,505

556
676
713
517
590
516

25
41
26
17
21
23

Puerto Rico .........................................................
Virgin Islands ......................................................

52,159
3,191

-10
-32

1,027,554
42,220

25,164
1,282

19,314,130
1,166,654

716,892
97,695

361
531

4
29

NOTE: Data for 2000 are preliminary and subject to revision. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

95

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

21.

Annual data: Employment and average annual pay for all workers
covered under Ul and UCFE in the 316 largest U.S. counties
E m p lo y m e n t

P e rc e n t
change,
1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 3

United States6 .................... 129,925,813

2.3

-

35,296

5.9

Jefferson, AL .....................
Madison, A L .......................
Mobile, A L ...........................
Montgomery, AL ...............
Tuscaloosa, A L ..................
Anchorage, AK ..................
Maricopa, A Z .....................
Pima, A Z .............................
Pulaski, A R ........................
Sebastian, A R ....................

384,552
154,344
169,477
132,028
76,436
129,828
1,545,451
328,582
243,137
75,188

.5
1.7
-.1
.2
.7
2.1
3.6
3.2
.4
1.0

269
187
292
285
252
157
47
68
275
234

34,015
35,827
28,611
28,893
29,067
36,619
35,099
29,204
30,796
27,025

3.8
4.9
2.4
3.2
2.5
2.6
7.8
3.5
3.8
4.9

Washington, A R .................
Alameda, CA .....................
Contra Costa, CA .............
Fresno, CA ........................
Kern, C A .............................
Los Angeles, C A ...............
Marin, C A ............................
Monterey, C A .....................
Orange, C A ........................
Placer, CA ..........................

80,009
696,859
337,177
323,438
238,788
4,101,907
112,007
164,623
1,396,170
107,066

3.2
3.1
3.2
2.1
2.3
1.8
2.4
2.5
3.7
8.8

69
83
70
158
139
178
123
115
43
3

26,406
45,062
42,326
26,197
28,536
39,671
42,669
29,986
39,208
33,476

3.8
9.7
3.7
5.0
5.6
5.0
8.6
5.2
4.7
5.5

Riverside, C A .....................
Sacramento, CA ...............
San Bernardino, C A ..........
San Diego, C A ...................
San Francisco, C A ............
San Joaquin, C A ...............
San Luis Obispo, C A ........
San Mateo, C A ..................
Santa Barbara, CA ...........
Santa Clara, C A .................

470,044
574,101
528,842
1,197,997
609,626
201,320
94,926
379,195
177,197
1,035,451

5.4
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.7
3.2
3.7
5.5
3.2
6.6

12
107
86
61
44
71
45
11
72
8

29,113
37,725
29,920
37,516
57,626
29,250
28,067
66,943
32,518
76,076

4.7
7.1
3.9
8.0
12.2
4.8
6.1
30.2
8.0
24.5

Santa Cruz, C A ..................
Solano, CA ........................
Sonoma, CA ......................
Stanislaus, C A ...................
Tulare, CA .........................
Ventura, C A .......................
Yolo, CA .............................
Adams, C O ........................
Arapahoe, C O ....................
Boulder, C O .......................

101,822
117,379
191,062
162,064
133,264
287,744
84,687
144,793
284,254
179,721

3.2
3.9
3.2
2.4
3.8
3.5
1.6
3.5
4.0
8.2

73
38
74
124
41
51
196
52
37
4

35,826
31,646
35,796
28,202
23,722
37,102
33,395
33,427
46,250
45,565

15.5
8.4
11.5
4.4
4.5
9.2
3.2
4.8
7.8
13.9

Denver, C O ........................
El Paso, C O .......................
Jefferson, CO ....................
Larimer, C O .......................
Fairfield, C T .......................
Hartford, C T .......................
New Haven, C T .................
New London, C T ................
New Castle, DE .................
Washington, DC ...............

469,163
237,761
210,529
119,151
428,235
501,880
367,661
123,056
284,540
635,811

3.2
3.4
2.6
5.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
.6
.3
3.3

75
57
108
18
216
224
225
259
282
62

44,340
33,036
36,194
32,394
61,105
43,626
38,331
36,727
40,660
53,018

11.6
7.7
5.2
7.9
8.4
6.2
5.3
3.7
5.0
4.2

Alachua, F L .......................
Brevard, F L ........................
Broward, F L .......................
Collier, F L ...........................
Duval, F L ............................
Escambia, F L .....................
Hillsborough, FL ................
Lee, FL ...............................
Leon, FL .............................
Manatee, FL ......................

117,619
181,273
644,526
103,355
434,284
125,606
588,773
162,425
141,887
( 6)

2.5
3.3
3.4
7.0
4.1
.9
2.5
4.5
2.1
<6 )

116
63
58
5
32
242
117
24
159
( 6)

26,150
32,107
33,232
29,941
32,737
26,698
31,694
28,138
29,245
<è )

3.9
7.2
6.5
6.9
4.5
4.4
4.8
6.3
4.0
(6)

Marion, FL ..........................
Miami-Dade, F L .................
Orange, FL ........................
Palm Beach, F L .................
Pinellas, F L ........................
Polk, FL ..............................
Sarasota, F L ......................
Seminole, FL .....................
Volusia, F L ..........................
Bibb, GA .............................

83,350
980,123
611,261
481,712
437,531
183,212
( 6)
139,595
141,793
89,011

1.7
2.3
3.2
4.1
4.4
2.6
( s)
4.6
1.5
-.9

188
140
76
33
28
109
( 6)
23
204
305

24,938
33,328
31,122
35,219
31,166
28,023
<è )
30,842
25,052
29,264

3.2
3.9
4.6
7.3
5.1
4.1
(6)
7.0
5.4
3.1

Chatham, G A .....................
Clayton, G A .......................
Cobb, G A ............................

123,110
116,606
302,080

1.5
-.4
1.6

205
297
197

29,568
36,734
38,714

1.6
6.6
5.2

C o u n ty 1
20002

See footnotes at end of table.

96

Monthly Labor Review


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

A v e ra g e an n u al p ay
R anked by
p e rc e n t
change,
1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 4

February 2002

20002

P e rc e n t
change,
1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 3

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

21. Continued—Annual data: Employment and average annual pay for
all workers covered under U! and UCFE in the 316 largest U.S.
counties
E m p lo y m e n t

C o u n ty 1
20002

A v e ra g e a n n u a l p ay

P erc en t
change,
1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 3

R anked by
p e rc e n t
change,
1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 4

20002

P erc en t
change,
1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 3

Dekalb, G A ........................
Fulton, GA .........................
Gwinnett, GA .....................
Muscogee, G A ...................
Richmond, G A ...................
Honolulu, H I .......................
Ada, ID ................................

311,673
756,094
282,618
98,516
106,391
406,865
177,684

-.3
2.9
4.5
.1
-.5
2.3
6.5

295
92
25
290
298
141
9

38,517
47,034
39,096
27,727
28,594
31,871
34,470

4.7
8.4
6.1
3.6
3.6
2.8
10.0

Champaign, I L ...................
Cook, IL ..............................
Du Page, I L ........................
K a n e .iL ..............................
Lake,IL ...............................
McHenry, I L .......................
McLean, I L ..........................
Madison, I L ........................
Peoria, I L ............................
Rock Island, I L ...................

90,527
2,687,504
582,104
193,452
310,654
87,243
84,371
94,659
102,860
80,252

2.9
1.3
1.6
3.0
3.0
1.9
.7
.5
.2
.8

93
217
198
87
88
170
253
270
286
246

29,158
42,904
42,587
32,184
42,619
32,000
34,226
28,932
31,352
33,538

4.1
5.9
3.6
.1
6.7
2.0
4.0
2.8
1.5
4.6

St. Clair, I L ..........................
Sangamon, IL ....................
Will, I L .................................
Winnebago, IL ...................
Allen, I N ..............................
Elkhart, I N ...........................
Hamilton, I N .......................
Lake,IN ..............................
Marion, I N ...........................
St. Joseph, I N ....................

89,992
144,408
142,294
143,761
189,403
122,481
77,431
199,418
605,976
129,574

2.2
4.5
3.5
.5
.2
.6
3.0
-.6
1.6
.5

146
26
53
271
287
260
89
299
199
272

26,857
34,730
32,315
31,478
32,280
30,353
37,937
31,564
36,465
29,649

2.5
1.6
2.1
1.9
3.1
2.4
7.9
4.0
3.2
3.5

Tippecanoe, I N ..................
Vanderburgh, I N ...............
Linn, IA ...............................
Polk, I A ...............................
Scott, I A ..............................
Johnson, K S ......................
Sedgwick, KS ....................
Shawnee, K S .....................
Wyandotte, K S ...................
Fayette, K Y ........................

77,379
109,918
121,966
263,705
86,879
287,637
249,819
100,237
79,585
171,938

1.1
.7
2.1
1.2
-.7
2.7
.0
2.4
1.6
1.7

231
254
160
226
302
103
291
125
200
189

31,084
29,564
34,109
33,662
29,101
37,254
32,692
29,373
34,553
30,686

4.0
3.2
4.9
2.5
4.0
6.7
2.9
3.2
2.7
3.7

Jefferson, K Y .....................
Caddo, L A ..........................
Calcasieu, LA ....................
East Baton Rouge, L A ......
Jefferson, LA .....................
Lafayette, LA .....................
Orleans, L A ........................
Cumberland, M E ...............
Anne Arundel, MD ............
Baltimore, M D ....................

438,853
119,404
84,060
246,800
214,949
113,933
263,385
166,757
193,861
358,087

1.3
.2
.2
2.9
-.6
2.2
1.9
3.7
5.3
1.2

218
288
289
94
300
147
171
46
13
227

33,405
28,786
28,179
29,199
28,048
29,932
31,681
30,752
35,454
34,071

4.1
3.2
.7
1.4
2.1
5.6
1.3
1.1
7.3
4.6

Frederick, M D ....................
Howard, M D .......................
Montgomery, M D ..............
Prince Georges, M D .........
Baltimore City, M D ............
Barnstable, M A ..................
Bristol, MA .........................
Essex, MA .........................
Hampden, M A ....................
Middlesex, M A ...................

77,415
128,741
447,885
303,380
386,497
88,527
221,519
305,311
204,300
846,989

5.1
3.2
5.2
3.3
.8
3.6
1.3
2.4
1.9
3.1

19
77
17
64
247
48
219
126
172
84

30,814
37,861
43,583
37,032
38,584
29,718
30,790
39,155
32,217
52,086

5.8
5.0
5.5
6.8
4.5
.0
4.6
8.9
4.8
11.8

Norfolk, M A ........................
Plymouth, M A ....................
Suffolk, MA ........................
Worcester, M A ...................
Genesee, M l ......................
Ingham, M l.........................
Kalamazoo, M l...................
Kent, Ml ..............................
Macomb, M l .......................
Oakland, Ml .......................

325,002
166,481
608,277
321,060
165,615
173,904
118,174
349,719
337,308
768,590

2.4
1.3
3.3
2.4
-1.2
1.7
-.3
2.2
.3
1.0

127
220
65
128
311
190
296
148
283
235

43,371
33,930
56,682
37,659
36,418
34,997
32,652
33,971
40,924
44,469

10.4
6.3
11.5
10.8
1.7
5.7
2.3
2.6
3.6
4.2

Ottawa, Ml ..........................
Saginaw, M l .......................
Washtenaw, M l ..................
Wayne, Ml ..........................
Anoka, M N ..........................
Dakota, M N ........................
Hennepin, M N ....................
Olmsted, M N ......................

118,812
95,531
195,836
867,244
108,984
153,432
874,606
82,632

1.9
-.7
.6
1.3
3.8
2.7
2.1
3.9

173
303
261
221
42
104
161
39

31,914
34,657
40,182
42,424
33,930
34,402
43,818
36,111

3.4
2.4
5.3
3.5
4.5
4.9
7.1
3.1

See footnotes at end of table.

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

97

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

21. Continued—Annual data: Employment and average annual pay for
all workers covered under Ul and UCFE in the 316 largest U.S.
counties
E m p lo y m e n t

C o u n ty 1
20002

98

20002

P erc en t
change,
1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 3

Ramsey, M N ......................
St. Louis, MN .....................

333,173
94,950

1.7
1.4

191
211

39,063
28,911

5.8
4.6

Stearns, M N .......................
Harrison, M S ......................
Hinds, M S ...........................
Boone, MO ........................
Clay, M O .............................
Greene, M O .......................
Jackson, M O ......................
St. Charles, M O .................
St. Louis, M O .....................
St. Louis City, M O .............

76,326
89,737
136,833
75,775
84,076
142,525
393,792
96,010
646,535
250,737

3.2
.4
-1.3
2.8
-.1
2.4
.4
3.4
.8
.4

78
276
312
98
293
129
277
59
248
278

27,582
25,443
30,570
27,366
32,228
26,974
36,059
29,538
38,145
38,605

4.2
4.8
4.6
3.1
6.5
3.2
6.2
3.8
5.6
4.1

Douglas, NE ......................
Lancaster, N E ....................
Clark, NV ............................
Washoe, NV ......................
Hillsborough, NH ..............
Rockingham, NH ..............
Atlantic, NJ ........................
Bergen, N J .........................
Burlington, N J ....................
Camden, N J .......................

330,999
146,267
697,580
189,119
193,312
129,521
140,139
449,031
180,181
199,911

2.4
1.7
5.3
3.2
2.5
4.1
-.2
.6
.9
-1.0

130
192
14
79
118
34
294
262
243
307

32,294
28,511
32,131
32,747
39,198
35,805
31,062
46,255
37,664
35,108

3.9
3.9
3.4
4.4
9.0
9.8
3.4
6.9
4.9
3.1

Essex, NJ ...........................
Gloucester, N J ...................
Hudson, N J ........................
Mercer, NJ ..........................
Middlesex, N J ....................
Monmouth, NJ ...................
Morris, NJ ...........................
Ocean, N J ...........................
Passaic, N J ........................
Somerset, N J .....................

364,395
86,734
238,580
209,727
392,932
233,217
275,593
129,024
178,441
173,343

1.7
.8
3.5
3.1
.7
2.5
2.8
2.4
1.2
3.9

193
249
54
85
255
119
99
131
228
40

44,685
32,048
47,514
44,576
46,464
39,835
60,503
30,368
37,581
54,840

3.6
2.8
10.4
5.0
5.8
5.8
19.0
4.3
1.5
5.2

Union, N J ............................
Bernalillo, NM ....................
Albany, N Y .........................
Bronx, NY ...........................
Broome, N Y .......................
Dutchess, N Y .....................
Erie, N Y ..............................
Kings, N Y ............................
Monroe, N Y .......................
Nassau, NY .......................

235,578
307,817
231,009
213,023
99,594
109,946
459,906
441,804
399,544
599,477

1.5
2.7
1.4
2.2
1.1
1.8
1.0
2.3
.9
1.8

206
105
212
149
232
179
236
142
244
180

45,595
30,183
35,787
32,846
29,603
36,063
31,482
30,561
35,440
40,001

5.6
4.1
6.0
2.7
3.4
2.2
3.0
3.1
1.8
4.4

New York, N Y ....................
Niagara, N Y .......................
Oneida, N Y ........................
Onondaga, N Y ...................
Orange, N Y ........................
Queens, N Y .......................
Richmond, NY ...................
Rockland, N Y .....................
Suffolk, N Y ..........................
Westchester, N Y ...............

2,383,948
78,351
110,870
252,481
119,607
480,695
88,268
106,360
578,530
405,524

3.3
.4
1.6
.7
1.6
1.3
2.0
1.4
2.3
2.4

66
279
201
256
202
222
166
213
143
132

71,115
31,063
27,474
32,497
29,340
34,980
32,140
37,588
37,844
47,043

8.1
3.5
4.0
3.4
4.6
4.4
4.2
5.3
6.5
8.2

Buncombe, NC ..................
Catawba, N C .....................
Cumberland, N C ................
Durham, N C .......................
Forsyth, NC .......................
Gaston, N C ........................
Guilford, N C .......................
Mecklenburg, N C ..............
New Hanover, N C .............
Wake, NC ...........................

106,108
101,347
109,927
167,190
181,682
77,271
279,867
512,693
87,193
383,827

.6
2.6
1.3
2.9
1.8
-3.5
.6
3.5
.6
3.3

263
110
223
95
181
314
264
55
265
67

27,651
28,205
26,098
49,370
33,960
28,298
32,209
40,677
28,552
35,357

3.8
4.0
3.9
12.6
6.1
3.9
2.5
5.7
4.2
7.3

Cass, N D ............................
Butler, O H ...........................
Cuyahoga, O H ...................
Franklin, OH ......................
Hamilton, OH .....................
Lake, OH ............................
Lorain, OH .........................
Lucas, O H ...........................
Mahoning, OH ...................
Montgomery, OH ..............

81,831
126,289
817,577
702,098
566,563
102,231
106,155
238,457
112,504
303,551

2.2
2.7
.9
2.3
.7
1.4
2.4
.6
-.6
.4

150
106
245
144
257
214
133
266
301
280

27,803
31,520
36,530
35,001
37,590
30,746
32,007
32,291
25,985
34,518

4.1
1.8
4.2
4.7
3.9
2.1
1.9
2.4
3.0
2.6

Stark, O H ............................
Summit, O H .......................

175,740
266,421

1.8
.5

182
273

28,498
32,679

2.1
4.1

See footnotes at end of table.

Monthly Labor Review


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

P erc en t
change,
1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 3

A v e ra g e a n n u a l p ay
R an ked by
p e rc e n t
change,
1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 4

February 2002

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

21. Continued—Annual data: Employment and average annual pay for
all workers covered under Ul and UCFE In the 316 largest U.S.
counties
E m p lo y m e n t

C o u n ty 1

20002

P e rc e n t
change,

1999-20003

A v e ra g e a n n u a l pay
R anked by
p e rc e n t
change,

20002

1999-20004

P erc en t
change,

1999-20003

Trumbull, OH .....................
Oklahoma, O K ...................
Tulsa, O K ............................
Clackamas, OR .................
Lane, OR ............................
Marion, OR ........................
Multnomah, OR .................
Washington, OR ...............

94,574
414,012
340,565
132,715
139,742
127,506
453,025
224,091

-1.1
2.8
2.4
1.9
1.1
2.0
2.0
4.3

309
100
134
174
233
167
168
29

32,734
29,189
31,173
32,469
27,867
28,115
36,788
44,395

.8
4.5
3.7
4.0
3.5
2.9
6.2
13.2

Allegheny, P A ....................
Berks, P A ............................
Bucks, P A ...........................
Chester, PA .......................
Cumberland, P A ...............
Dauphin, PA ......................
Delaware, P A .....................
Erie, PA ..............................
Lackawanna, P A ...............
Lancaster, P A ....................

711,401
168,431
244,368
216,913
124,070
172,575
212,554
131,635
98,426
218,529

1.2
2.1
2.5
2.6
-1.3
2.1
1.0
2.5
-.7
1.9

229
162
120
111
313
163
237
121
304
175

36,743
31,995
34,033
43,768
32,806
33,677
36,831
28,372
27,651
30,711

2.5
3.2
3.3
7.0
3.1
2.2
5.5
1.8
7.4
4.3

Lehigh, P A .........................
Luzerne, P A .......................
Montgomery, P A ...............
Northampton, P A ..............
Philadelphia, P A ...............
Westmoreland, P A ............
York, PA .............................
Providence, R l ...................
Charleston, S C ..................
Greenville, SC ...................

171,288
143,212
481,287
87,857
668,955
134,440
167,817
290,755
182,872
233,035

2.1
2.4
2.4
3.0
1.5
1.0
2.2
1.7
1.4
2.5

164
135
136
90
207
238
151
194
215
122

35,258
27,839
43,800
30,813
39,605
27,995
30,924
33,411
27,668
31,278

2.4
2.7
6.4
3.3
4.2
1.3
3.3
4.0
4.7
4.0

Horry, S C ............................
Lexington, S C ....................
Richland, S C ......................
Spartanburg, S C ...............
Minnehaha, S D ..................
Davidson, T N .....................
Hamilton, T N ......................
Knox, T N .............................
Rutherford, T N ...................
Shelby, T N .........................

99,134
81,324
207,461
119,717
105,822
434,823
188,112
202,718
77,068
500,289

1.7
1.9
.6
.5
3.2
1.5
1.8
3.4
2.6
1.0

195
176
267
274
80
208
183
60
112
239

22,881
27,505
29,636
30,595
28,216
34,876
30,581
30,089
31,127
34,358

5.4
3.5
4.1
3.4
3.7
5.4
4.1
4.1
3.6
2.5

Bell, T X ...............................
Bexar, T X ............................
Brazoria, T X .......................
Cameron, T X .....................
Collin, T X ............................
Dallas, T X ...........................
Denton, TX ........................
El Paso, T X ........................
Fort Bend, TX ....................
Galveston, T X ....................

87,858
648,757
75,415
109,044
167,768
1,566,821
119,606
251,466
87,697
86,822

2.2
2.2
2.8
5.3
5.8
4.1
3.6
1.5
2.3
-1.1

152
153
101
15
10
35
49
209
145
310

25,182
30,061
34,361
21,561
40,499
44,401
29,296
25,067
35,810
29,531

4.0
5.7
3.3
2.7
5.8
7.7
4.0
3.2
5.2
4.0

Harris, TX ...........................
Hidalgo, T X ........................
Jefferson, TX .....................
Lubbock, TX ......................
Mc Lennan, TX ..................
Montgomery, T X ...............
Nueces, T X ........................
Potter, TX ...........................
Smith, T X ............................
Tarrant, TX ........................

1,841,672
163,060
120,759
115,376
98,049
76,837
142,277
75,570
83,392
702,884

2.8
6.9
1.0
1.9
1.0
5.0
.8
.7
2.9
3.5

102
6
240
177
241
21
250
258
96
56

41,843
21,695
31,281
26,302
27,032
32,115
28,185
26,552
29,485
35,434

7.6
2.8
.8
6.4
2.1
9.6
4.7
2.8
3.5
5.0

Travis, TX ...........................
Williamson, T X ...................
Davis, U T ............................
Salt Lake, U T .....................
Utah, U T .............................
Weber, UT .........................
Chittenden, V T ...................
Arlington, V A ......................
Chesterfield, V A .................
Fairfax, V A .........................

538,098
76,582
84,638
531,434
142,352
86,412
95,283
158,007
107,846
538,044

5.1
9.5
3.2
2.6
4.5
.4
5.0
4.2
2.0
6.8

20
2
81
113
27
281
22
31
169
7

41,330
50,413
27,482
32,216
27,910
26,641
34,302
52,816
31,860
51,464

7.0
-4.5
6.3
5.1
5.1
2.5
4.2
7.0
3.4
10.1

Henrico, VA .......................
Loudoun, V A ......................
Prince William, V A ............
Alexandria, V A ...................
Chesapeake, V A ...............
Newport News, V A ...........
Norfolk, VA ........................

165,582
87,323
78,175
91,988
81,308
93,624
145,181

2.4
12.0
4.3
5.3
2.1
1.8
.3

137
1
30
16
165
184
284

36,123
54,178
28,964
42,007
26,052
30,250
32,169

5.8
3.6
5.4
5.8
4.1
5.3
4.9

See footnotes at end of table.

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

99

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

21. Continued—Annual data: Employment and average annual pay for
all workers covered under Ul and UCFE in the 316 largest U.S.
counties
E m p lo y m e n t
C o u n ty 1
20002

P e rc e n t
change,
1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 3

20002

P e rc e n t
change,
1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 3

Richmond, V A ....................
Roanoke City, V A .............
Virginia Beach, V A ............

167,023
75,909
165,536

1.5
3.0
3.6

210
91
50

38,641
29,497
25,397

5.1
4.6
4.3

Clark, WA ...........................
King, W A .............................
Pierce, W A .........................
Snohomish, W A .................
Spokane, W A .....................
Thurston, W A .....................
Yakima, W A .......................
Kanawha, W V ....................
Brown, Wl ...........................
Dane, W l.............................

113,933
1,168,342
237,055
210,054
188,025
84,466
94,173
112,963
142,442
274,354

1.6
3.2
2.2
-1.0
2.4
1.8
1.8
.8
2.2
2.6

203
82
154
308
138
185
186
251
155
114

32,151
47,245
30,161
35,055
29,771
31,722
23,245
30,149
31,520
32,817

6.0
2.6
5.3
3.4
8.0
6.8
3.8
3.1
2.9
5.5

Milwaukee, W l ...................
Outagamie, W l...................
Racine, W l ..........................
Waukesha, Wl ...................
Winnebago, W l ..................

528,947
94,319
79,153
222,780
90,213

.6
2.9
-.9
1.2
2.2

268
97
306
230
156

34,746
30,782
32,538
35,768
33,633

3.1
4.4
-.6
5.2
2.8

San Juan, PR ....................

328,105

4.1

36

21,239

3.2

1 Includes areas not officially designated as
counties.
See Notes on Current Labor
Statistics.

5 Totals for the United States do not include
data for Puerto Rico.

2 Data are preliminary.

6 Data are not available for release.

3 Percent changes were computed from
annual employment and pay data adjusted for
noneconomic county reclassifications.
See
Notes on Current Labor Statistics.
4 Rankings
for
percent
change
in
employment are based on the 314 counties that
are comparable over the year.

22.

A v e ra g e a n n u a l p ay
R anked by
p e rc e n t
change,
1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 4

Note: Data pertain to workers covered by
Unemployment
Insurance
(Ul)
and
Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees (UCFE) programs. The 315 U.S.
counties comprise 70.8 percent of the total
covered workers in the United States

Annual data: Employment status of the population

[Numbers in thousands]

Employment status

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Civilian noninstitutional population...........

192,805

194,838

196,814

198,584

200,591

203,133

205,220

207,753

209,699

311,864

Civilian labor force...................................

128,105

129,200

131,056

132,304

133,943

136,297

137,673

139,368

140,863

141,815

Labor force participation rate...............

66.4

66.3

66.6

66.6

66.8

67.1

67.1

67.1

67.2

66.9

Employed.............................................

118,492

120,259

123,060

124,900

126,708

129,558

131,463

133,488

135,208

135,073

Employment-population ratio..........

61.5

61.7

62.5

62.9

63.2

63.8

64.1

64.3

64.5

63.8

Agriculture......................................

3,247

3,115

3,409

3,440

3,443

3,399

3,378

3,281

3,305

3,144

2001p

Nonagricultural industries............

115,245

117,144

119,651

121,460

123,264

126,159

128,085

130,207

131,903

131,929

Unemployed.......................................

9,613

8,940

7,996

7,404

7,236

6,739

6,210

5,880

5,655

6,742

Unemployment rate..........................

7.5

6.9

6.1

5.6

5.4

4.9

4.5

4.2

4.0

4.8

Not in the labor force...............................

64,700

65,638

65,758

66,280

66,647

66,837

67,547

68,385

68,836

70,050

100
Monthly Labor Review

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

February 2002

23.

Annual data: Employment levels by industry

[In thousands]

Industry

1992

Total em ployment.............................................

108,601

Private sector.................................................
Goods-producing.......................................

89,956

Mining......................................................
Construction...........................................
M anufacturing.........................................

23,231
635
4,492
18,104

Service-producing.....................................
Transportation and public utilities........

85,370
5,718

Wholesale trade.....................................
Retail trade.............................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate....

5,997

Federal.................................................
Local.....................................................

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001p

110,713
91,872

114,163

117,191
97,885

119,608

122,690

100,189

128,916
108,709

131,759
111,079

111,339

23,352

25,414

610
4,668

23,908
601
4,986

103,133
24,962

125,865
106,042
590

25,507
539

25,709
543

18,321

6,415
18,552

6,698

18,075

6,020
18,805
100,451
6,611

103,409
6,834

6,800
22,295
7,389

1993

87,361
5,811
5,981

95,036

90,256
5,984
6,162
20,507

24,265
581
5,160
18,524

24,493

92,925
6,132
6,378

95,115
6,253
6,482
21,597

97,727

7,109
36,040
19,557

6,896

21,187
6,806

29,052

6,757
30,197

31,579

33,117

6,911
34,454

18,645

18,841

19,128

2,969
4,408
11,267

2,915

2,870

19,305
2,822

19,419
2,757

4,488
11,438

4,576
11,682

4,635
11,849

4,606
12,056

19,356
6,602

19,773

25,121

18,469

563
6,861
17,698

106,050

107,091

6,911

7,019
7,024

7,070
7,014

22,848

23,307
7,560

23,499
7,623

37,533

7,555
39,055

40,460

41,023

19,823

20,206

2,699
4,582

2,686
4,612

2,669

20,681
2,777

12,276

12,525

4,709
12,829

13,119

20,873
2,616
4,880
13,377

596
5,691

580
5,418
18,495

132,212

18,675

6,408
6,648
21,966

4,785

NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

24.

Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonfarm
payrolls, by industry____________________ ______________ ______ _______________________
1999
1998
1997
1994
1995
1996
1992
1993
Industry

2000

2001p

P r iv a te s e c to r :

Average weekly hours..................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)...........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..........................

363.61

34.5
10.83
373.64

34.7
11.12
385.86

34.5
11.43
394.34

34.4
11.82
406.61

34.6
12.28
424.89

34.6
12.78
442.19

34.5
13.24
456.78

34.5
13.75
474.38

34.2
14.33
490.09

43.9
14.54
638.31

44.3
14.60
646.78

44.8
14.88
666.62

44.7
15.30
683.91

45.3
15.62
707.59

45.4
16.15
733.21

43.9
16.91
742.35

43.2
17.05
736.56

43.1
17.24
743.04

43.4
17.65
760.01

38.0
14.15
537.70

38.5
14.38
553.63

38.9
14.73
573.00

38.9
15.09
587.00

39.0
15.47
603.33

39.0
16.04
625.56

38.9
16.61
646.13

39.1
17.19
672.13

39.3
17.88
702.68

39.2
18.33
718.54

41.0
11.46
469.86

41.4
11.74
486.04

42.0
12.07
506.94

41.6
12.37
514.59

41.6
12.77
531.23

42.0
13.17
553.14

41.7
13.49
562.53

41.7
13.90
579.63

41.6
14.38
598.21

40.7
14.84
603.99

38.3
13.43
514.37

39.3
13.55
532.52

39.7
13.78
547.07

39.4
14.13
556.72

39.6
14.45
572.22

39.7
14.92
592.32

39.5
15.31
604.75

38.7
15.69
607.20

38.6
16.22
626.09

38.1
16.89
643.51

38.2
11.39
435.10

38.2
11.74
448.47

38.4
12.06
463.10

38.3
12.43
476.07

38.3
12.87
492.92

38.4
13.45
516.48

38.3
14.07
538.88

38.3
14.58
558.80

38.5
15.20
585.20

38.2
15.80
603.56

28.8
7.12
205.06

28.8
7.29
209.95

28.9
7.49
216.46

28.8
7.69
221.47

28.8
7.99
230.11

28.9
8.33
240.74

29.0
8.74
253.46

29.0
9.09
263.61

28.9
9.46
273.39

28.8
9.82
282.62

35.8
10.82
387.36

35.8
11.35
406.33

35.8
11.83
423.51

35.9
12.32
442.29

35.9
12.80
459.52

36.1
13.34
481.57

36.4
14.07
512.15

36.2
14.62
529.24

36.3
15.07
547.04

36.3
15.84
574.99

32.5
10.54
342.55

32.5
10.78
350.35

32.5
11.04
358.80

32.4
11.39
369.04

32.4
11.79
382.00

32.6
12.28
400.33

32.6
12.84
418.58

32.6
13.37
435.86

32.7
13.91
454.86

32.7
14.61
477.75

34.4
10.57

M in in g :

Average weekly hours................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars).......................
C o n s t r u c t io n :

Average weekly hours................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)......................
M a n u f a c t u r in g :

Average weekly hours................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)........................

T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d p u b lic u tilitie s :

Average weekly hours................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)......................
W h o le s a l e t r a d e :

Average weekly hours................................................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)......................
R e ta il tr a d e :

Average weekly hours................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)........................

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 ta te :

Average weekly hours................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)......................
S e r v ic e s :

Average weekly hours...............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).......................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)......................


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

101

Current Labor Statistics:

25.

Labor Force Data

Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group

[June 1989 = 100]

2000

1999

2001

Percent change
3

Series
Dec.
C i v ilia n w o r k e r s 2 ....................................................

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

12

months months
ended
ended
Dec. 2001

144.6

146.5

148.0

149.5

150.6

152.5

153.8

155.6

156.8

0.8

4.1

146.3
145.3
148.6
146.1
140.6
144.8

148.4
146.7
150.5
148.6
142.7
146.0

149.9
148.3
151.9
150.1
144.1
147.1

151.5
150.0
153.7
151.8
145.6
148.5

152.5
151.3
154.6
152.8
146.5
150.0

154.4
153.2
156.6
155.3
148.2
152.0

156.0
154.3
158.6
156.8
149.3
153.3

157.7
156.7
159.6
158.8
151.1
155.0

158.9
157.5
161.2
160.0
152.0
156.9

.8
.5
1.0
.8
.6
1.2

4.2
4.1
4.3
4.7
3.8
4.6

Goods-producing.....................................................................
Manufacturing.........................................................................
Service-producing....................................................................
Services...................................................................................
Health services....................................................................
Hospitals..............................................................................
Educational services...........................................................

142.5
143.6
145.3
146.5
144.3
145.0
145.8

144.9
146.0
147.1
148.0
145.9
146.3
146.5

146.6
147.5
148.4
149.3
147.5
147.7
146.8

148.0
148.7
150.1
151.2
149.0
149.5
149.7

148.8
149.3
151.1
152.4
150.7
151.3
150.6

150.7
151.3
153.0
154.3
152.5
153.2
151.7

152.2
152.6
155.4
155.4
154.6
155.6
152.2

153.3
153.3
156.4
158.1
156.7
158.2
156.1

154.4
154.6
157.6
159.0
158.3
160.0
156.6

.8
.8
.8
.6
1.0
1.1
.3

3.8
3.5
4.3
4.3
5.0
5.8
4.0

Public administration3.............................................................
Nonmanufacturing....................................................................

144.4

145.7

146.1

146.9

148.3

150.6

151.9

153.8

155.2

.9

4.7

144.7

146.6

148.0

149.6

150.7

152.6

154.0

156.0

157.2

.8

4.3

144.6
144.5

146.8
146.5

148.5
148.2

149.9
149.8

150.9
150.9

153.0
153.0

154.5
154.4

155.9
156.0

157.2
160.9

.8
1.0

4.2
4.2

W hite-collar workers...............................................................
Excluding sales occupations............................................
Professional specialty and technical occupations...........
Executive, adminitrative, and managerial occupations..
Sales occupations................................................................
Administrative support occupations, including clerical...
Blue-collar workers................................................................
Precision production, craft, and repair occupations.......
Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors............
Transportation and material moving occupations...........
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers....

146.9
147.3
146.7
149.1
145.3
146.2
140.5
140.6
141.4
135.2
144.4

149.3
149.4
148.4
151.1
148.9
149.0
142.6
142.3
144.0
137.5
146.4

151.1
151.3
150.7
152.7
150.3
150.6
144.1
144.1
145.0
138.6
148.1

152.6
152.9
152.2
154.4
151.2
152.3
145.5
145.8
146.0
139.9
149.4

153.6
154.1
153.7
155.3
151.4
153.4
146.4
146.7
146.8
141.1
150.4

155.7
156.5
156.3
157.3
152.3
156.1
148.2
148.7
148.3
142.6
152.2

157.4
158.1
157.5
159.4
154.5
157.7
149.3
149.7
149.1
143.9
153.4

158.7
159.6
159.2
160.2
155.0
159.5
151.0
151.8
150.4
145.6
154.9

160.1
160.9
160.3
161.8
156.7
160.8
151.9
152.5
151.5
146.3
156.5

.8
.8
.7
1.0
1.1
.8
.6
.5
.7
.5
1.0

4.2
4.4
4.3
4.2
3.5
4.8
3.8
4.0
3.2
3.7
4.1

Service occupations...............................................................

142.6

143.9

145.4

146.6

148.1

150.0

151.3

152.6

154.8

1.4

4.5

Production and nonsupervisory occupations4..................

143.1

145.3

146.9

148.4

149.5

151.4

152.7

154.3

155.5

.8

4.0

Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing....................................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
White-collar occupations..................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Blue-collar occupations.....................................................
Construction..........................................................................
M anufacturing.......................................................................
White-collar occupations...................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Blue-collar occupations.....................................................
Durables.................................................................................
Nondurables..........................................................................

142.5
141.8
145.5
143.9
140.7
138.7
143.6
145.8
143.8
142.1
144.0
142.8

144.8
144.2
148.1
146.5
142.8
140.8
146.0
148.2
146.2
144.4
146.5
144.9

146.6
145.9
150.1
148.4
144.4
143.2
147.5
150.2
148.2
145.6
148.3
146.0

147.9
147.2
151.3
149.6
145.8
145.1
148.7
151.4
149.3
146.7
149.4
147.5

148.8
148.2
151.9
150.5
146.8
146.7
149.3
151.5
149.7
147.8
150.1
147.7

150.7
150.1
154.5
153.0
148.2
148.2
151.3
154.2
152.2
149.1
151.8
150.4

152.1
151.5
156.5
155.0
149.3
150.3
152.6
156.0
154.0
150.0
153.1
151.6

153.1
152.5
156.8
155.3
150.8
151.7
152.2
156.0
153.8
151.3
154.0
152.0

154.4
153.7
158.1
156.5
151.9
153.0
154.6
156.9
154.5
152.7
155.3
153.2

,8
.8
.8
.8
.7
.9
.8
.6
.6
.9
.8
.8

3.8
3.7
4.1
4.0
3.5
4.3
3.5
3.6
3.3
3.3
3.5
3.7

Service-producing....................................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
White-collar occupations..................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Blue-collar occupations.....................................................
Service occupations...........................................................
Transportation and public utilities......................................
Transportation.....................................................................
Public utilities......................................................................
Communications..............................................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services.............................
Wholesale and retail trade..................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Wholesale trade.................................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Retail trade..........................................................................
General merchandise stores..........................................
Food stores.......................................................................

145.3
145.9
147.0
148.3
139.8
142.4
142.3
139.5
146.1
146.0
146.1
143.5
144.3
148.5
147.4
140.7
138.3
138.1

147.4
147.7
149.3
150.3
141.8
143.6
143.9
140.4
148.6
148.4
148.9
145.6
146.4
150.0
149.6
143.2
139.7
140.1

149.1
149.4
151.0
152.1
143.1
145.1
145.7
141.8
150.9
150.9
151.0
147.3
148.1
151.8
151.1
144.8
141.0
142.5

150.6
151.1
152.6
153.9
144.5
146.3
147.4
142.8
153.5
153.9
152.9
148.3
149.6
152.1
152.7
146.2
142.2
143.4

151.7
152.2
153.7
155.1
145.3
147.9
148.3
143.9
154.1
154.7
153.4
149.4
150.6
154.4
154.9
146.6
144.4
144.5

153.8
154.6
155.8
157.5
147.7
149.6
150.5
145.4
157.3
158.3
156.0
151.0
152.6
155.1
156.9
148.7
147.3
146.1

155.3
156.0
157.4
159.1
148.7
150.8
152.4
146.9
159.8
161.1
158.1
152.6
153.9
157.8
158.5
149.7
149.4
148.2

156.9
157.8
159.0
160.9
150.9
152.2
153.5
148.2
160.7
162.8
158.1
153.7
155.4
158.6
160.0
150.9
149.7
149.7

158.2
159.0
160.3
162.2
151.0
154.2
155.5
151.1
161.5
163.4
159.1
155.5

.8
.8
.8
.8
.3
1.3
1.3
2.0
.5
.4
.6
1.2

4.3
4.5
4.3
4.6
4.2
4.3
4.9
5.0
4.8
5.6
3.7
4.1

159.5
160.6
153.2
150.9
151.7

.6
.4
1.5
.8
1.3

3.3
3.7
4.5
4.5
5.0

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers................................................................
Professional specialty and technical..................................
Executive, adminitrative, and managerial..........................
Administrative support, including clerical...........................
Blue-collar workers...................................................................
Service occupations.................................................................
Workers, by industry division:

P r iv a t e i n d u s t r y w o r k e r s ......................................................................

Excluding sales occupations..............................................
Workers, by occupational group:

See footnotes at end of table.

102

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

_

_

_

25. Continued—Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group
[June 1989 = 100]_______ ______ ________________________________________________________________

1999

2000

2001

Series
Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Percent change
3
12
months months
ended
ended
Dec. 2001

Finance, insurance, and real estate..................................

148.3

152.0

153.1

155.2

155.7

157.9

159.5

160.9

161,3

0.2

3.6

Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other credit agencies.
Insurance............................................................................
Services..................................................................................
Business services..............................................................
Health services...................................................................
Hospitals...........................................................................
Educational services.........................................................
Colleges and universities................................................

151.6
159.8
145.8
147.6
151.9
144.2
144.6
153.0
153.3

154.2
162.7
149.9
149.4
154.2
145.8
145.8
154.0
154.6

155.5
164.2
151.3
151.2
156.3
147.5
147.5
154.9
155.5

157.4
165.8
154.8
152.9
157.5
149.0
149.2
158.8
158.6

158.4
166.5
155.2
154.1
158.4
150.6
151.1
159.9
159.2

161.2
170.8
157.6
156.5
160.5
152.7
153.5
162.3
162.2

163.1
172.7
159.3
157.8
163.0
154.7
155.9
162.6
162.6

164.7
175.4
159.9
160.0
165.2
156.8
158.4
166.4
166.2

165.0
174.5
161.3
161.0
166.2
158.4
160.3
167.6
167.5

.2
-.6 .
.9
.6
.6
1.0
1.2
.7
.8

4.2
4.7
3.9
4.5
4.9
5.2
6.1
4.8
5.2

Nonmanufacturing................................................................

144.5

146.7

148.4

150.0

151.1

153.1

154.7

156.3

157.6

.8

4.3

W hite-collar workers..........................................................
Excluding sales occupations........................................
Blue-collar occupations.....................................................
Service occupations..........................................................

146.9
148.1
138.7
142.3

149.2
150.2
140.6
143.5

151.0
152.0
142.3
145.1

152.6
153.8
143.9
146.3

153.7
155.1
144.8
147.8

155.8
157.5
146.9
149.5

157.5
159.1
148.1
150.7

159.0
160.9
150.2
152.1

160.5
162.3
150.6
154.1

.9
.9
.3
1.3

4.4
4.6
4.0
4.3

S ta te a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s ..............................................

144.6

145.5

145.9

147.8

148.9

150.3

151.2

154.3

155.2

.6

4.2

144.0
143.2
146.1
145.0
142.5

144.9
144.1
147.0
145.9
143.7

145.3
144.5
147.2
146.5
144.2

147.3
146.6
149.2
148.3
145.9

148.3
147.4
150.7
149.4
147.2

149.5
148.4
152.4
150.7
148.6

150.4
149.2
153.7
151.6
149.0

153.7

154.4
153.2
157.6
155.6
153.2

.5
.3
.8
.9
1.1

4.1
3.9
4.6
4.1
4.1

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers.................................................................
Professional specialty and technical...................................
Executive, administrative, and managerial.........................
Administrative support, including clerical...........................

152.8
156.4
154.2
151.5

Workers, by industry division:
Services....................................................................................

144.5

145.2

145.5

148.0

148.9

149.9

150.6

154.4

154.9

1.0

4.0

Services excluding schools5................................................
Health services...................................................................
Hospitals...........................................................................
Educational services..........................................................
Schools.............................................................................
Elementary and secondary.........................................
Colleges and universities............................................

143.8

145.2

145.8

147.6

148.8

150.1

151.9

154.5

156.1

.3

4.9

145.8
146.3
144.4
144.7
144.1
146.5

147.3
147.9
145.0
145.3
144.5
147.4

147.9
148.4
145.2
145.5
144.7
147.6

150.0
150.7
147.9
148.2
147.3
150.5

151.6
152.0
148.7
149.0
148.1
151.7

152.1
152.2
149.6
149.9
148.5
153.7

154.4
154.7
150.1
150.5
149.0
154.3

157.1
157.4
154.1
154.4
152.8
153.8

158.5
159.1
154.5
154.8
153.1
159.6

1.0
1.0
1.1
.3
.3
.4

4.6
6.7
4.2
3.9
3.4
5.2

Public administration3.............................................................

144.4

145.7

146.1

146.9

148.3

150.6

151.9

151.9

155.2

.9

4.7

1 Cost (cents per hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index consists of
wages, salaries, and employer cost of employee benefits.
2 Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and
State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.


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

3 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
4 This series has the same industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly
Earnings index, which was discontinued in January 1989.
5 Includes, for example, libiary, social, and health services.

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

103

Current Labor Statistics:

26.

Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group

[June 1989 = 100]

1999

2000

2001

Series
Dec.
Civilian w o r k e r s 1........................................

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Percent change
3
12
months months
ended
ended
Dec. 2001

142.5

144.0

145.4

147.0

147.9

149.5

150.8

152.3

153.4

0.7

3.7

144.6
144.0
147.2
143.5
137.9
141.7

146.2
144.9
148.6
145.5
139.2
143.0

147.6
146.4
149.9
146.9
140.6
144.0

149.2
148.3
151.6
148.5
142.0
145.7

150.2
149.6
152.4
149.6
142.9
147.1

151.7
151.1
154.0
151.6
144.7
148.6

153.1
152.155.8
152,7
146.0
149.7

154.5
154.2
156.7
154.6
147.6
151.2

155.6
155.1
158.1
155.7
148.5
153.0

.7
.6
.9
.7
.6
1.2

36
3.7
3.7
4 1
3.9
4.0

139.7
141.5
143.5
145.5
142.5
141.6
144.7

141.3
142.9
145.0
146.6
143.8
142.6
145.3

143.0
144.4
146.3
147.9
145.3
143.8
145.6

144.3
145.7
148.0
149.9
146.7
145.6
148.9

145.3
146.5
148.9
151.0
148.3
147.3
149.6

147.0
148.5
150.5
152.6
149.8
148.8
150.5

147,6
150.0
151.7
153.6
151.8
151.2
151.0

149.5
150.7
153.4
156.2
153.7
15.5
154.6

150.5
151.7
154.5
157.1
155.5
155.5
155.1

.7
.7
.7
.6
1.2
1.3
.3

3.6
35
3.6
4.0
4.9
5.6
3.7

141.5
142.6

142.5
144.2

142.9
145.5

144.6
147.2

146.1
148.1

147.6
149.7

148.7
149.7

150.3
152.6

151.6
153.8

.9
.8

3.8
3.8

142.2
142.0

143.9
143.5

145.4
145.1

146.8
146.5

147.7
147.6

149.4
149.5

150.9
150.8

152.1
152.2

153.3
153.3

.8
.7

3.8
3.9

White-collar workers..............................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Professional specialty and technical occupations...........
Executive, adminitrative, and managerial occupations..
Sales occupations..............................................
Administrative support occupations, including clerical...
Blue-collar workers...................................................
Precision production, craft, and repair occupations.......
Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors............
Transportation and material moving occupations...........
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers....

144.8
145.2
144.1
147.6
143.3
143.8
137.7
137.5
139.5
132.7
140.4

146.6
146.7
145.1
149.2
146.7
146.0
139.1
138.9
140.7
134.1
141.8

148.3
148.5
147.3
150.7
147.9
147.5
140.5
140.6
141.6
135.2
143.6

149.7
149.9
148.6
152.3
149.0
149.1
141.9
142.0
142.9
136.5
145.0

150.6
151.1
150.2
153.0
148.7
150.1
142.8
142.8
143.7
137.6
146.2

152.3
153.0
152.1
154.7
149.2
152.3
144.6
144.6
145.6
139.5
148.0

153.8
154.4
153.2
156.5
151.5
153.6
145.9
145.7
146.9
140.7
149.8

154.8
155.7
154.8
157.2
151.2
155.3
147.5
147.7
148.1
142.1
151.0

156.1
156.9
155.9
158.6
152.6
156.5
148.3
148,4
149.0
142.8
152.4

.8
.8
.7
.9
.9
.8
.5
.5
.6
.5
.9

3.7
3.8
38
3.7
2.6
4.3
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.8
4.2

Service occupations................................................

139.6

141.0

142.5

143.5

144.9

146.4

147.5

148.7

150.6

1.3

3.9

140.4

142.1

143.7

145.0

146.0

147.7

149.0

150.3

151.5

.8

3.8

139.7
138.9
143.0
141.3
137.6
133.6
141.5
144.0
142.0
139.7
141.8
140.9

141.3
140.5
145.0
143.2
139.0
136.0
142.9
145.8
143.7
140.8
143.0
142.7

143.0
142.1
146.8
144.9
140.5
138.0
144.4
147.7
145.6
142.0
144.7
143.9

144.3
143.4
147.9
146.0
142.0
139.4
145.7
148.7
146.6
143.4
146.1
145.0

145.2
144.6
148.7
147.2
143.1
140.7
146.5
149.2
147.5
144.6
147.3
145.4

147.0
146.3
150.5
148.9
144.7
142.1
148.5
151.1
149.9
146.4
149.0
147.5

148.6
147.8
152.3
150.5
146.1
143.9
150.0
152.7
150.5
147.8
150.5
149.0

149.5
148.7
152.6
150.8
147.4
145.1
150.7
152.8
150.5
149.1
151.5
149.3

150.5
149.7
153.6
151.7
148.4
146.3
151.7
153.3
151.0
150.3
152.6
150.2

.7
.7
.7
.6
.7
.8
.7
.3
.3
.8
.7
.6

3.7
3.5
3.3
3 1
3.7
4.0
3.5
2.7
24
3.9
3.6
3.3

143.3
143.8
145.0
146.4
137.8
139.6
137.9
134.9
141.8
142.2
141.3
142.0
143.3
146.5
146.4
139.6
136.7
134.9

145.0
145.3
146.9
147.8
139.1
141.1
138.5
134.9
143.2
143.4
143.0
143.8
145.2
147.4
147.9
142.1
137.8
136.7

146.5
146.9
148.5
149.6
140.3
142.5
140.0
136.2
144.9
145.0
144.7
145.5
146.8
149.4
149.7
143.5
138.5
139.5

147.9
148.3
150.0
151.2
141.6
143.5
141.3
137.4
146.4
146.7
145.9
146.4
148.2
149.6
151.3
144.8
139.7
140.2

148.9
149.4
150.9
152.3
142.2
144.8
142.3
138.6
147.1
147.4
146.6
147.4
149.0
151.6
153.2
145.2
142.2
141.6

150.5
151.3
152.5
154.3
144.3
146.1
143.7
139.8
148.7
149.2
148.1
148.4
150.7
151.6
154.9
146.9
143.8
143.3

151.9
152.6
154.0
155.6
145.3
147.2
145.7
141.6
151.0
151.8
149.9
150.1
151.9
154.5
156.5
147.8
145.5
144.5

153.2
154.2
155.2
157.2
147.5
148.4
146.7
142.6
152.0
153.3
150.4
150.6
153.1
154.1
157.4
148.8
145.7
145.7

154.5
155.5
156.5
158.6
148.1
150.2
149.2
145.7
153.6
155.2
151.7
152.1

.8
.8
.8
.9
.4
1.2
1.7
2.2
1.1
1.2
.9
1.0

3.8
4.1
3.7
4 1
4.1
3.7
4.8
5.1
4.4
5.3
3.5
32

154.8
157.9
150.7
146.5
146.7

.5
.3
1.3
.5
.7

2.1
3.1
2.8
3.0
3.6

Workers, by occupational group:
W hite-collar workers......................................
Professional specialty and technical.................................
Executive, adminitrative, and managerial.......................
Administrative support, including clerical..........................
Blue-collar workers.................................................
Service occupations..................................................
Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing...........................................
M anufacturing............................................
Service-producing..................................................
Services...............................................
Health services............................................
Hospitals...................................................
Educational services............................................
Public administration2................................
Nonmanufacturing.........................................
P r iv a t e in d u s t r y w o r k e r s ..................................

Excluding sales occupations......................................
Workers, by occupational group:

Production and nonsupervisory occupations3...........
Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing........................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
White-collar occupations................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Blue-collar occupations........................................
Construction.........................................
M anufacturing.....................................................
W hite-collar occupations........................................
Excluding sales occupations................................
Blue-collar occupations.....................................
Durables.................................................
Nondurables.....................................................
Service-producing.........................................
Excluding sales occupations......................................
White-collar occupations..................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Blue-collar occupations..................................................
Service occupations................................................
Transportation and public utilities.....................................
Transportation.............................................
Public utilities......................................
Communications................................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services.............................
Wholesale and retail trade..................................
Excluding sales occupations......................................
Wholesale trade.................................................
Excluding sales occupations......................................
Retail trade.................................................
General merchandise stores......................................
Food stores...............................................
See footnotes at end of table.

104

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

26. Continued— Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
[June 1989 = 100]__________________________________________________________________________________

1999

2000

2001

Series
Dec.
Finance, insurance, and real estate..................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other credit agencies.
Insurance............................................................................
Services..................................................................................
Business services..............................................................
Health services...................................................................
Hospitals............................................................................
Colleges and universities................................................

145.2
148.0
159.6
141.5
146.0
149.8
142.2
140.9
148.2
147.9

Nonmanufacturing................................................................
White-collar workers..........................................................
Excluding sales occupations........................................
Blue-collar occupations.....................................................
Service occupations..........................................................
S t a t e a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s .............................................

Mar.
148.7
150.2
162.0
145.5
147.4

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Percent change
3
12
months months
ended
ended
Dec. 2001

152.0
143.5
141.8
148.9
148.9

149.5
151.5
163.3
146.6
149.1
154.1
145.3
143.3
149.6
149.4

151.7
153.3
165.0
150.7
150.6
155.3
146.6
144.9
153.4
152.5

151.7
154.1
165.7
150.8
151.8
156.0
148.1
146.8
154.3
152.9

153.9
156.6
169.4
152.4
153.8
158.2
149.8
148.5
155.4
154.1

154.6
157.6
170.8
153.3
155.0
160.8
151.8
151.0
156 1
155.0

155.8
159.1
173.2
153.6
157.1
162.8
153.6
153.3
159 6
158.4

156.0
159.1
171.7
155.0
158.2
163.7
155.4
155.4
160 5
159.6

0.1
.0
- .9
.9
.7
.6
1.2
1.4
6
.8

2.8
3.2
3.6
2.8
4.2
4.9
4.9
5.9
4 1
4.4

142.1
144.7
145.9
135.8
139.5

143.9
146.5
147.4
137.4
140.9

145.5
148.2
149.1
138.9
142.4

146.9
149.6
150.7
140.3
143.4

147.9
150.6
151.9
140.9
144.7

149.5
152.3
153.9
142.8
146.0

150.9
153.8
155.3
143.9
147.1

152.2
155.0
156.9
145.8
148.2

153.5
156.4
158.3
146.4
150.1

.9
.9
.9
.4
1.3

3.8
3.9
4.2
3.9
3.7

143.5

144.3

144.7

147.2

148.3

150.2

151.2

154.3

155.2

.5

3.6

143.4
143.6
144.3
141.7
140.7

144.1

144.5
144.7
145.1
143.0
142.1

147.1
147.4
147.3
145.0
143.9

148.0
148.2
148.8
146.2
145.1

149.0
149.1
150.1
147.0
146.0

149.8
149.8
151.5
147.6
146.5

152.7
153.0
153.9
149.8
149.1

153.3
153.4
155.1
150.9
150.8

.4
.3
.8
.7
1.1

3.6
3.5
4.2
3.2
3.9

Workers, by occupational group:
W hite-collar workers.................................................................
Professional specialty and technical...................................
Executive, administrative, and managerial.........................
Administrative support, including clerical...........................
Blue-collar workers..................................................................
Workers, by industry division:
Services....................................................................................

144.3
144.9
142.4
141.5

144.0

144.6

144.9

147.9

148.7

149.5

150.2

153.7

154.2

.3

3.7

Health services...................................................................
Hospitals...........................................................................
Educational services..........................................................
Schools.............................................................................
Elementary and secondary.........................................
Colleges and universities............................................

143.2
144.2
144.1
144.0
144.2
144.1
144.4

144.3
145.3
145.3
144.5
144.7
144.5
144.9

144.8
145.7
145.6
144.8
144.9
144.6
145.6

146.7
147.7
147.7
148.0
148.1
147.9
148.3

147.9
149.3
149.2
148.7
148.9
148.5
149.5

149.1
149.9
149.5
149.5
149.7
149.0
151.4

150.7
151.9
151.8
150.0
150.2
149.5
151.8

153.2
154.2
154.2
153.6
153.8
152.8
156.5

154.9
155.8
155.7
154.0
154.1
153.1
156.7

1.1
1.0
1.0
.3
.2
.2
.1

4.7
4.4
4.4
3.6
3.5
3.1
4.8

Public administration2.............................................................

141.5

142.5

142.9

144.6

146.1

147.6

148.7

150.3

151.6

.9

3.8

Services excluding schools4................................................

' Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and

3 This series has the same industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly

State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.

Earnings index, which was discontinued in January 1989.

2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.

27.

4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.

Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry workers by occupation and industry group

[June 1989 = 100]_____________________________________________________

1999

2000

2001

Series
Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Percent change
3
12
months
months
ended
ended
Dec.

150.2

153.8

155.7

157.5

158.6

161.5

163.2

165.2

166.7

0.9

5.1

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

152.5
146.2

156.3
150.0

158.5
151.6

160.4
153.1

161.5
154.1

165.2
155.7

167.4
156.7

169.5
158.3

171.2
159.2

1.0
.6

6.0
3.3

Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing......................................................................
Service-producing.....................................................................
Manufacturing...........................................................................
Nonmanufacturing....................................................................

148.2
150.7
147.8
150.7

152.3
154.0
152.3
154.0

154.2
156.0
153.9
156.1

155.7
157.9
154.9
158.1

156.2
159.4
154.8
159.7

158.5
162.6
157.1
162.9

159.6
164.6
157.9
164.9

160.8
167.1
158.5
167.4

162.6
168.4
160.4
168.6

1.1
.8
1.2
.8

4.1
5.6
3.6
5.7

P r iv a t e in d u s t r y w o r k e r s .......................................................................

Workers, by occupational group:


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

105

Current Labor Statistics:

28. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers by bargaining status, region, and area size
[June 1989 = 100]______________________________

1999

2000

2001

Series
Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Percent change
3
12
months months
ended
ended
Dec. 2001

C O M P E N S A T IO N
W o r k e r s , b y b a r g a in in g s t a t u s 1

Union................................................................................................

141.2
140.8
141.4
141.0
140.8

143.0
143.3
142.5
144.5
141.7

144.4
144.8
143.9
145.4
143.4

146.1
146.8
145.2
147.1
145.0

146.9
147.3
146.4
147.4
146 2

147.9
147.9
147.6
147.9
147 3

149.5
149.3
149.5
148.8
149 4

151.0
150.6
151.2
149.9
151 1

153.1
151.6
154.2
151.4
153 5

2.0
1.0
16

145.2
143.1
145.7
144.4
145.1

147.4
145.4
148.0
146.5
147.4

149.1
147.2
149.6
148.2
149.1

150.6
148.4
151.2
149.2
150 7

151.6
149.3
152.3
149.9
151.8

153.8
151.6
154.4
152.4
153.9

155.3
153.1
155.9
153.7
155.4

156.7
154.0
157.5
154.4
157.0

157.8
155.3
158.6
155.5
158.2

.7
.8
.7
.7
.8

4.1
4.0
4.1
3.7
4.2

144.3
143.0
146.3
144.7

146.3
145.0
148.9
147.0

147.6
146.7
150.7
148 8

149.3
147.6
152 2
150.8

150.3
148.6
153 3
151.8

151.6
151.1
154 8

153.7
152.3
156 0

155.2
153.5
157 4

156.3
154.6
158 6

.7
.7
8

4.0
4.0
35

154.3

156.0

157.6

159.4

1.1

5.0

144.7
143.6

146.9
146 0

148.6
147.7

150.1
148.8

151.0
150.3

153.1
152.1

154.6
153.7

156.0
154.8

157.4
155.6

.9
.5

4.2
3.5

Union................................................................................................
Goods-produclng........................................................................
Service-producing......................................................................
Manufacturing.............................................................................

136.5
136.1
137.2
137.5
135.9

137.2
137.2
137.6
138.8
136.4

138.5
138.4
138.9
139.7
137.8

140.0
140.2
140.1
141.4
139.2

141.2
141.3
141.5
142.6
140 4

142.1
142.4
142.2
143.9
141 1

143.7
144.2
143.7
145.5
142 7

145.1
145.3
145.4
146.7
144 3

147.4
146.3
148.9
148.0
147 1

1.6
.7
2.4
.9
19

4.4
3.5
5.2
3.8
48

Nonunion..........................................................................................
Goods-produclng........................................................................
Service-producing......................................................................
Manufacturing.............................................................................

143.3
141.1
143.9
142.9
143.0

145.1
142.9
145.8
144.4
145.0

146.7
144.7
147.3
146.1
146.6

148.1
145.8
148.7
147.2
148 0

149.0
146.8
149.6
148.0
148 9

150.8
148.8
151.4
150.1
150.7

152.2
150.3
152.7
151.6
152.0

153.4
151.1
154.1
152.2
153.3

154.4
152.1
155.1
153.1
154.4

.7
.7
.6
.6
.7

3.6
3.6
3.7
3.4
3.7

140.9
141.5
143.6
142.6

142.3
143.0
145.3
144.7

143.7
144.6
147.1
146.3

145.3
145.3
148 6
148 2

146.0
146.3
149.6
149.2

147.3
148.3
150 9
151.3

149.2
149.3
152 3
152.9

150.6
150.2
153 6

151.7
151.2
154 7

.7
.7
7

154.3

156.0

1.1

3.9
3.3
34
4.6

142.5
140.2

144.1
142.2

145.7
143.7

147.1
144.7

148.0
146.0

149.8
147.4

151.2
148.8

152.4
149.7

153.7
150.5

.9
.5

3.9
3.1

Qoods-producing........................................................................
Service-producing......................................................................
Manufacturing.............................................................................

Nonunion..........................................................................................
Goods-produclng........................................................................
Service-producing......................................................................
Manufacturing.............................................................................

1.4
.8

4.2
3.1
5.3
2.7

W o r k e r s , b y r e g io n 1

Northeast........................................................................................
South...............................................................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)...............................................
W est................................................................................................
W o r k e r s , b y a r e a s iz e 1

Metropolitan areas........................................................................

W A G E S A N D S A L A R IE S
W o r k e r s , b y b a r g a in in g s ta t u s 1

W o r k e r s , b y r e g io n 1

Northeast........................................................................................
South...............................................................................................

W o r k e r s , b y a r e a s iz e 1

Metropolitan areas........................................................................
Other areas....................................................................................

1 The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and Industry groups. For a detailed description of the Index calculation, see the Monthly Labor Review
Technical Note, "Estimation procedures for the Employment Cost Index," May 1982.

106

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

29. Percent of full-time employees participating in employer-provided benefit plans, and in selected features within plans,
medium and large private establishments, selected years, 1980-97
Ite m
Scope of survey (in 000's)...........................................
Number of employees (in 000’s):
With medical care......................................................
With life insurance......................................................
With defined benefit plan..........................................

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

21,352

21,043

21,013

21,303

31,059

32,428

31,163

28,728

33,374

38,409

20,711
20,498
17,936

20,412
20,201
17,676

20,383
20,172
17,231

20,238
20,451
16,190

27,953
28,574
19,567

29,834
30,482
20,430

25,865
29,293
18,386

23,519
26,175
16,015

25,546
29,078
17,417

29,340
33,495
19,202

9

9

25
76
25
-

26
73
26
99
9.8

29
72
26
85
3.2
96
9.4
24
3.3

26
71
26
84
3.3

30
67
28
80
3.3

29
68
26
83
3.0

~

”

80
3.3

81
3.7

9.2

10.2

9.4

9.1

22
3.1

21
3.3

21
3.1

22
3.3

9.3
20
3.5

69

68

67

65

58

56

T im e - o f f p la n s

Participants with:
Paid lunch tim e...........................................................
Average minutes per day.........................................
Paid rest time...............................................................
Average minutes per day.........................................
Paid funeral leave.......................................................
Average days per occurrence.................................
Paid holidays...............................................................
Average days per year.............................................

99
10.1

Paid personal leave.....................................................
Average days per year.............................................

20
-

Paid vacations............................................................

100

99

99

10
27
72
26
88
3.2
99
10.0
25
3.7
mn

Paid sick leave 1..........................................................
Unpaid maternity leave..............................................

62

67

67

70

10
75
-

99
10.0
24
3.8

23
3.6

98

-

Unpaid family le a ve ...................................................

84

93

In s u r a n c e p la n s

Participants in medical care plans...............................
Percent of participants with coverage for:
Home health care......................................................
Extended care facilities............................................
Physical exam...........................................................
Percent of participants with employee
contribution required for:
Self coverage............................................................
Average monthly contribution................................
Family coverage.......................................................
Average montniy contrioution................................
Participants in life insurance plans..............................
Percent of participants with:
Accidental death and dismemberment
insurance..................................................................
Survivor income benefits...........................................
Retiree protection available......................................
Participants in long-term disability
insurance plans..........................................................
Participants in sickness and accident
insurance plans............................................................
Participants in short-term disability plans 1.................

97

97

97

95

90

92

83

82

77

76

58

62

46
62
8

66
70
18

76
79
28

75

81

86

78

85
78

28

30

42

56

43
$12.80
63
$41.40

44
$19.29
64
$60.07

47
$25.31
66
$72.10

51
$26.60
69
$96.97

61
$31.55
76
$107.42

67
$33.92
78
$118.33

69
$39.14
80
$130.07

26
46

27
51

-

-

36
$11.93
58
$35.93

96

96

96

96

92

94

94

91

87

87

69
-

72
64

74
64

72
10
59

78
8
49

71
7
42

71
6
44

76
5
41

77
7
37

74
6
33

40

43

47

48

42

45

40

41

42

43

54

51

51

49

46

43

45

44

_

_

_

53

55

84

84

82

76

63

63

59

56

52

50

55
98

58
97

64
98
35
57
62

59
98
26
55
62

62
97
22
64
63

55
98
7
56
54

52
95
6
61
48

52
96
4
58
51

52
95
10
56
49

_

_

_

R e tir e m e n t p la n s

Participants in defined benefit pension plans............
Percent of participants with:
Normal retirement prior to age 65...........................
Early retirement available.........................................
Ad hoc pension increase in last 5 years.................
Terminal earnings formula.......................................
Benefit coordinated with Social Security.................
Participants in defined contribution plans...................
Participants in plans with tax-deferred savings
arrangements..............................................................

-

-

53
45

52
45

63
97
47
54
56

_

-

_

60

45

48

48

49

55

57

-

-

-

33

36

41

44

43

54

55

5
12
___J

9
23
_l

10
36
_

12
52

12

13
32
7

O th e r b e n e fits

Employees eligible for:
Flexible benefits plans................................................
Reimbursement accounts2.........................................
Premium conversion plans.........................................

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

5

38
5

accident insurance) were changed for the 1995 survey. Paid sick leave now includes only
plans that specify either a maximum number of days per year or unlimited days. Shortterms disability now includes all insured, self-insured, and State-mandated plans available
on a per-disability basis, as well as the unfunded per-disability plans previously reported as
sick leave. Sickness and accident insurance, reported in years prior to this survey, included

specifically allow medical plan participants to pay required plan premiums with pretax
dollars. Also, reimbursement accounts that were part of flexible benefit plans were
tabulated separately.

only insured, self-insured, and State-mandated plans providing per-disability bene-

Note : Dash indicates data not available.


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

2 Prior to 1995, reimbursement accounts included premium conversion plans, which

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

107

Current Labor Statistics:

30. Percent of full-time employees participating in employer-provided benefit plans, and in selected features
within plans, small private establishments and State and local governments, 1987, 1990, 1992,1994, and 1996
Small private establishments

Item

1990

1992

1994

State and local governments

1996

1987

1990

1992

1994

Scope of survey (in 000's)...........................................

32,466

34,360

35,910

39,816

10,321

12,972

12,466

12,907

Number of employees (in 000’s):
With medical care......................................................
With life insurance.....................................................
With defined benefit plan..........................................

22,402
20,778
6,493

24,396
21,990
7,559

23,536
21,955
5,480

25,599
24,635
5,883

9,599
8,773
9,599

12,064
11,415
11,675

11,219
11,095
10,845

11,192
11,194
11,708

Participants with:
Paid lunch tim e............................................................
Average minutes per day.........................................
Paid rest time...............................................................
Average minutes per day.........................................
Paid funeral leave.......................................................
Average days per occurrence.................................
Paid holidays................................................................

8
37
48
27
47
2.9
84

9
37
49
26
50
3.0
82

50
3.1
82

_
51
3.0
80

17
34
58
29
56
3.7
81

11
36
56
29
63
3.7
74

10
34
53
29

_
_
_
-

3.7
75

3.7
73

Average days per year1............................................
Paid personal leave....................................................
Average days per year.............................................
Paid vacations..............................................................

9.5
11
2.8
88

9.2
12
2.6
88

7.5
13
2.6
88

7.6
14
3.0
86

10.9
38
2.7
72

13.6
39
2.9
67

14.2
38
2.9
67

11.5
38
3.0
66

Paid sick leave2..........................................................

47

53

50

50

97

95

95

94

Unpaid leave................................................................
Unpaid paternity leave................................................
Unpaid family leave.....................................................

17
8
-

18
7
-

_
47

48

57
30
-

51
33
-

59
44
-

93

69

71

66

64

93

93

90

87

79
83
26

80
84
28

-

-

76
78
36

82
79
36

87
84
47

84
81
55

42
$25.13
67

47
$36.51
73

52
$40.97
76

52
$42.63
75

35
$15.74
71

38
$25.53
65

43
$28.97
72

47
$30.20
71

$109.34

$150.54

$159.63

$181.53

$71.89

$117.59

$139.23

$149.70

64

64

61

62

85

88

89

87

78
1
19

76
1
25

79
2
20

77
1

67
1

67

74

64

13

55

45

46

46

22

31

27

28

30

T im e - o f f p la n s

_

In s u r a n c e p la n s

Participants in medical care plans...............................
Percent of participants with coverage for:
Home health care......................................................
Physical exam...........................................................
Percent of participants with employee
contribution required for:
Self coverage............................................................
Average monthly contribution................................
Average monthly contribution................................
Percent of participants with:
Accidental death and dismemberment
insurance..................................................................
Retiree protection available.......................................
Participants in long-term disability

19

23

20

6

26

26

Participants in sickness and accident
29

Participants in short-term disability plans 2.................
R e tir e m e n t p la n s

Participants in defined benefit pension plans............
Percent of participants with:
Normal retirement prior to age 65...........................
Early retirement available.........................................
Ad hoc pension increase in last 5 years..................
Terminal earnings formula......................................
Benefit coordinated with Social Security.................
Participants in defined contribution plans...................
Participants in plans with tax-deferred savings
arrangements.............................................................

20

22

15

15

93

90

87

91

54
95
7
58
49

50
95
4
54
46

-

47
92

-

-

-

-

53
44

92
90
33
100
18

89
88
16
100
8

92
89
10
100
10

92
87
13
99
49

31

33

34

38

9

9

9

9

17

24

23

28

28

45

45

24

O th e r b e n e fits

Employees eligible for:
Flexible benefits plans................................................
Reimbursement accounts3........................................
Premium conversion plans ......................................

1

2

3

4

5

5

5

5

8

14

19

12

5

31

50

64

1 Methods used to calculate the average number of paid holidays were revised

7
Sickness and accident insurance, reported in years prior to this survey,

in 1994 to count partial days more precisely. Average holidays for 1994 are

included only insured, self-insured, and State-mandated plans providing per-

not comparable with those reported in 1990 and 1992.

disability benefits at less than full pay.

2 The definitions for paid sick leave and short-term disability (previously

3 Prior to 1996, reimbursement accounts included premium conversion plans,
which specifically allow medical plan participants to pay required plan

sickness and accident insurance) were changed for the 1996 survey. Paid sick
leave now includes only plans that specify either a maximum number of days
per year or unlimited days. Short-term disability now includes all insured, selfinsured, and State-mandated plans available on a per-disability basis, as well
as the unfunded per-disability plans previously reported as sick leave.

108

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

premiums with pretax dollars. Also, reimbursement accounts that were part of
flexible benefit plans were tabulated separately.
Note : Dash indicates data not available.

31. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more
2000
2001
Measure
1999
2001
Dec. Jan.p Feb.p Mar.p Apr.p Mayp Junep Julyp Aug.p Sept.p Oct.p Nov.p Dec.p
Number of stoppages:
Beginning in period..............................

17

39

0

1

1

3

4

7

3

2

3

2

1

0

-

In effect during period.........................

21

40

3

2

1

4

5

8

5

3

4

3

4

1

-

Workers involved:
Beginning in period (in thousands)....

73

394

8.7

2.0

1.2

7.8

19.4

22.1

4.7

2.2

5.8

3.0

24.9

.0

-

In effect during period (in thousands).

80

397

10.3

4.7

1.2

9.0

20.7

23.4

9.0

3.3

6.9

4.1

29.0

1.6

-

1,996

20,419

58.9

37.1

3.6

33.4

230.5

201.6

73.2

62.1

71.5

55.7

316.4

11.2

.01

.06

(2)

_ft ___ <1___ Q

.01

.01

Days idle:
Percent of estimated working time1....

<2) ___ CL_____ft.

(2) ___ (1 ____i l

-

1 Agricultural and government employees are included in the total employed and total working time; private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An explanation of
the measurement of idleness as a percentage of the total time worked is found in " Total economy' measures of strike idleness," Monthly Labor Review, October 1968, pp. 54-56.
2 Less than 0.005.
p m preliminary.
NOTE: Dash indicates data not availahle.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

109

Current Labor Statistics:

Price Data

32. Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city average,
by expenditure category and commodity or service group
[1 9 8 2 -8 4 = 100, unless otherw ise indicated]

Series

________________________________________________

Annual average 2000
2000 2001 Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

2001
June July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

C O N S U M E R P R IC E IN D E X
FOR ALL URBAN CONSUM ERS

All Items.....................................................................

Cereals and bakery products.............................
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs............................
Dairy and related products1................................
Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage
materials...........................................................
Other foods at home............................................
Sugar and sweets..............................................

172.2
515.8

177.1
539.4

174.0
521.1

175.1
524.5

175.8
526.7

176.2
528.0

176.9
529.9

177.7
532.2

178.0
533.3

177.5
531.6

177.5
531.8

178.3
534.0

177.7
532.2

177.4
531.3

531.3

168.4
167.8
167.9
188.3
154.5

173.6
173.1
173.4
193.8
161.3

170.5
170.0
170.2
190.7
156.6

171.4
170.9
171.3
191.1

172.2
171.7
172.0
191.9
160.1

172.4
171.9
172.2
192.5
160.7

172.9
172.5
172.8
193.2
160.8

173.4
173.0
173.3
194.2
161.7

174.0
173.5
173.9
194.9

158.0

171.8
171.3
171.8
191.9
159.5

162.3

174.4
173.9
174.2
195.9
162.4

174.6
174.1
174.3
195.1
162.4

175.3
174.9
175.2
195.2
163.5

175.2
174.6
174.7
194.9
162.7

175.2
174.6
174.7
194.9
162.7

160.7
204.6

167.1
212.2

161.5
215.1

163.6
212.6

163.6
211.5

163.2
211.5

163.4
213.3

164.7
213.1

166.9
211.8

168.3
210.7

168.9
208.8

169.4
212.1

170.8
213.5

171.2
212.9

171.2
212.9

137.8
155.6
154.0
147.4

139.2

136.7

139.4

139.5
158.6
155.7
153.1
175.1

138.9
157.6
154.0
151.5
174.4

138.1
159.6
155.8
154.7
176.4

140.0
161.0
156.1
158 5
177.6

139.5

160.2
156.6
158 5
176.2

139.9
160.9
156.4
159 5

139.5

159.5
155.7
156.7
175.7

138.9
160.4
156.1
157.8
176.8

139.2

157.8
155.7
153.0
173.8

139.9
157.9
155.8
152.6
174.0

138.6

156.3
153.5
150.2
172.7

160.3
154.9
155 fi

160.3
154.9
155 fi

177.0

177.6

177.6

108.9

109.0

108.7

108.4

108.5

108.8

107.7

109.6

109.5

108.9

108.9

110.6

110.6

Other foods........................................................

172.2

159.5
155.7
155.7
176.0

Other miscellaneous foods1,2.........................

107.5

108.9

177.4

Food away from home1..........................................

169.0

173.9

170.8

171.4

171.8

172.3

172.7

174.1

174.7

175.1

109.0
174.7

113.4
179.3

111.1
176.5

111.3
177.2

111.4
177.7

111.6
177.8

111.8
178.1

173.1
112.4
178.5

173.6

Other food away from home1,2...........................
Alcoholic beverages...............................................
Housing.....................................................................

112.6
179.1

113.8
179.7

114.3
180.0

115.3
180.4

175.6
115.4
180.8

175.8
115.4
181.2

175.8
115.4
181.2

169.6
193.4

176.4
200.6

174.1
196.4

174.7
197.6

175.4
198.9

175.4
199.2

175.9
199.6

177.3
200.7

177.6
201.4

178.0
202.4

177.4
202.0

176.7
202.4

176.9
202.9

176.9
202.9

190.2

183.9

192.1

171.9
195.1
187.6
108.8
201.8

188.9
119.1
105.4

189.6
124.2
203.6

121.8
204.2

191.0
120.0
204.9

191.6
123.7
205.7

192.3
124.0
206.3

193.1
125.2
207.3

193.9
116.8
208.1

195.5

118.6
206.3

188.2
114.1
202.4

194.7

117.5
198.7

114.5
209.0

111.6
210.1

195.5
111.6
210.1

103.7
137.9

104.7
145.3
130.6
144.9
135.6
128.6

105.0
153.8
139.8
149.1
145.7
128.8

105.1
152.3
138.0
144.6
144.0
129.1

105.4
150.8
136.3
138.1
142.6
129.1

105.5
149.7
135.1
134.4
141.6
129.1

106.8
151.3
136.8
131.9
143.8
128.9

107.0
155.7

122.8
129.7
128.0
128.2

106.2
150.2
135.4
129.3
142.4
129.1

141.6
129.6
149.4
129.2

106.6
154.8
140.5
123.8
148.6
129.2

106.6
152.7
138.0
122.1
146.0
129.1

106.7
150.6
135.7
125.3
143.1
129.4

106.9
144.6
129.1
121.5
135.9
129.0

106.9
143.5
127.8
118.3
134.7
129.1

106.9
143.5
127.8
118 3
134.7
129.1

Apparel.....................................................................
Men's and boys' apparel.....................................
Women's and girls' apparel................................

129.6
129.7
121.5

127.3
125.7
119.3

127.8
128.0
119.7

125.4
125.5
115.5

128.4
126.6
121.0

132.2
127.5
127.8

131.9
128.2
127.0

129.8
129.1
122.3

126.3
125.8
117.5

122.6
122.5
111.6

122.6
121.4
112.1

126.8
123.7
120.3

129.5
127.5
122.1

128.0
127.4
119.4

128.0
127.4
119.4

Infants' and toddlers’ apparel1.............................
Footwear..............................................................
Transportation...........................................................
Private transportation............................................

130.6
123.8

129.2

128.2
123.8
154.4
150.3

127.4

129.3

1316.0

131.4

130.6

126.3

129.3

125.2
153.9
149.7

124.9
156.1
152.1

124.4
159.2
155.3

121.9
153.3
148.8

122.9
155.5
151.2

123.7

132.4
123.7

158.3
154.0

121.3
154.4
149.9

131.5
124.9

132.4

122.6
154.9
150.7

127.3
122.1

124.5

121.4
154.4
150.3

152.3
148.1

150.2
146.1

150.2
146.1

101.1
141.7

100.8

100.5
140.3

100.2
140.2

100.6
141.0

101.3
142.6

101.3

141.2

158.9
142.0
141.3
104.4
182.7
216.3

158.3
125.6
124.9
105.1
183.4
216.1

158.0
121.9
121.2
104.9
184.0
213.7

157.3
131.4
130.7
105.2
185.1
212.7

157.8
116.3
115.6
105.5
186.0
209.1

157.4
104.5
103.8
105.8
186.4
205.1

205.1

272.5
248.1
278.3
246.5

274.4
249.1
280.5
247.7

275.0
249.6
281.0
247.9

275.9
250.2
282.0
248.4
344.8

276.7
250.6
283.0
248.8
347.1

276.7
250.6
283.0
248.8
347.1

Shelter....................................................................
Rent of primary residence..................................
Lodging away from home....................................
Owners’ equivalent rent of primary residence3...
Tenants’ and household insurance1'2.................
Fuels and utilities................................................
Fuels..................................................................
Gas (piped) and electricity..............................

153.3
149.1

123.0
154.3
150.0

New and used motor vehicles2...........................
New vehicles.....................................................

100.8

101.3

142.8

142.1

102.1
143.6

Used cars and trucks1.......................................
Motor fuel.............................................................
Gasoline (all types)............................................
Motor vehicle parts and equipment....................
Motor vehicle maintenance and repair................
Public transportation..............................................

155.8
129.3
128.6
101.5
177.3
209.6

158.7
124.7
124.0
104.8
183.5
210.6

160.2
127.8
127.0
103.1
179.9
209.5

Medical care..............................................................
Medical care commodities.....................................
Medical care services............................................
Professional services...........................................
Hospital and related services..............................

260.8
238.1
266.0
237.7
317.3

272.8
247.6
278.8
246.5
338.3

264.8
241.1
270.4

Recreation2..............................................................

103.3

Video and audio1'2................................................

102.3

102.2

101.9

101.8

101.4

143.7
160.4
126.6
125.8
103.6
180.6
210.2

143.3
160.4
127.5
126.8
104.0
181.5
212.1

142.8

142.7

159.9
124.1
123.3
104.7
181.7
210.0

159.7
133.6
132.8
104.2
181.9
208.3

142.3
159.1
146.8
146.0
104.4

240.3
325.3

267.1
242.3
273.0
242.6
328.5

268.9
243.8
274.9
244.1

270.8
245.7
276.8
245.6

331.0

270.0
244.9
275.9
244.8
332.8

333.6

271.4
246.6
277.3
245.8
335.1

336.6

273.1
248.5
278.9
246.8
337.9

341.2

342.6

104.9

103.7

104.1

104.3

104.3

105.0

105.0

104.8

105.0

105.1

105.2

105.3

105.5

105.5

101.0

101.5

100.7

101.2

101.6

101.6

101.7

101.6

101.3

101.7

101.7

101.3

101.3

101.4

101.4

Education and communication2...............................

102.5

105.2

103.6

103.9

104.0

104.3

104.1

104.0

104.4

104.8

105.8

106.6

107.1

107.0

107.0

Education2............................................................
Educational books and supplies.......................

112.5
279.9

118.5
295.9

115.5
285.4

115.8
289.2

116.0
290.4

116.1
290.8

116.1
290.8

116.4
290.7

116.9
293.9

117.2
295.1

119.5
298.0

121.7
305.4

122.2
307.2

122.3
304.7

122.3
304.7

Tuition, other school fees, and child care.........

324.0
93.6

341.1
93.3

332.7
93.0

333.3
93.3

333.7
93.2

334.0
93.7

334.1
93.3

335.0
92.9

336.2
93.1

337.2
93.6

343.9
93.5

350.0
93.1

351.5
93.6

352.0
93.3

352.0
93.3

92.8

92.3

92.2

92.4

92.2

91.8

92.1

92.5

92.4

92.2

92.2

99.3

98.4

98.8

98.7

99.0

98.7

99.0

99.6

99.6

92.0
99.2

92.5

98.5

92.7
99.4

92.3

Telephone services1,2....................................
Information and information processing

99.9

99.6

99.6

other than teleohone services1,4.................
Personal computers and peripheral

25.9

21.3

23.8

23.2

22.9

22.5

22.1

21.7

21.4

21.3

20.7

20.3

20.2

20.0

20.0

41.1

29.5
282.6
425.2

36.5

35.0

33.9

32.4

31.7

30.4

27.8

26.7

26.4

275.9
404.3

277.2
408.5

277.7
407.7

277.7
424.2

281.3
418.7

29.8
281.2
421.0

29.3

274.0
396.6

285.8
441.2

283.3
424.6

287.8
444.0

285.6
429.9

25.8
289.2
446.7

289.2
446.7

Communication1’2.................................................
Information and information processing1'2.......

equipment1,2............................................
Other goods and services........................................
Tobacco and smoking products............................

271.1
394.9

182.5
209.3

142.6
157.4
104.5
103.8
105.8
186.4

25.8

Personal c a re .......................................................

165.6

170.5

167.8

168.2

168.6

169.1

169.6

169.5

170.0

170.7

171.2

171.9

172.3

172.6

172.6

Personal care products1.....................................

153.7

155.1

155.5

155.3

155.3

155.7

155.8

153.2

154.6

155.1

154.7

155.5

155.4

155.4

155.4

Personal care services1......................................

178.1

184.3

181.3

181.6

181.9

182.2

183.4

184.1

184.1

184.8

185.2

185.5

185.9

186.8

186.8

See footnotes at end of table.

110

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

32.

Continued—Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group

[1 9 8 2 -8 4 = 100, unless otherw ise indicated]____________

Series

Annua average
2000

Miscellaneous personal services..................
Commodity and service group:
Commodities...............................................
Food and beverages.........................................

2001

2000
Dec.

2001
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

252.2

263.1

255.7

257.C

258.6

259.6

260.2

261 .C

261.8

263.2

265.5

266.4

267.3

268.C

150.7
173.6
137.2
147.1
127.3

150.C
170.5
137.8
147.2
127.8

150.C
171.4

152.1
173.4

140.8

139.4
151.3
126.2

150.4
174.0
136.5
146.3
122.6

149.8
174.4

138.C
147.9
132.2

151.9
172.4
139.7
151.0
131.9

152.9
172.9

137.4
146.4
125.4

150.6
171.6
138.1
147.7
128.4

150.7
172.2

Commodities less food and beverages............
Nondurables less food and beverages...........
Apparel.....................................................

149.2
168.'
137.7
147.4
129.6

135.4
144.8
122.6

151.5
174.6
138.0
149.6
126.8

150.5
175.3
136.1
146.0
129.5

149.5 7.5175.2
132.3
138.4
142.6
147.1
128.C
123.7

Nondurables less food, beverages,
and apparel.................................................
Durables.......................................................

162.5
125.'

163.4

163.1
125.9

163.2

163.7
125.9

167.0
125.4

172.0
124.9

124.5

164.5
124.2

123.6

167.5
123.4

160.4
123.6

156.2
124.2

151.6

125.9

161.9
125.5

170.4

124.6

Services.................................................

195.3

203.5

198.0

200.2

201.0

201.8

201.9

202.5

204.0

204.5

205.2

204.9

204.7

205.1

205.3

Rent of shelter3.......................
Transporatation services..................................
Other services................................................
Special indexes:

201.3
196.1
229.9

208.9
201.9
238.0

203.1
198.3
233.0

204.5
199.1
234.1

205.7
200.3
234.8

207.2
200.2
235.4

207.4
200.1
236.2

207.8
200.4
236.4

209.0
202.0
236.7

209.7
202.6
237.7

210.8
202.7
239.4

210.3
202.8
240.6

210.8
203.4
241.4

211.3
204.2
241.9

211.7
204.5
241.9

All items less food.....................................
All items less shelter.....................................
All items less medical care..........................
Commodities less food.......................

173.0
165.7
167.3
139.2

175.9
168.6
170.1
139.0
148.3
163.9
159.1

177.1
169.2
171.2
139.6

178.2
169.7
172.3
137.2

148.3
165.2
160.3

146.9
163.0
159.7

148.1
161.5
160.8

177.8
169.3
172.0
136.4
145.1
157.7
159.1

177.0
168.2
171.3
134.1

155.1
172.0
163.6

179.0
170.9
173.0
139.7
151.5
168.0
162.3

178.2
169.9
172.4
137.8

149.8
162.7
160.3

179.0
171.0
172.9
141.0
153.1
170.6
162.7

178.2
170.0
172.3
138.2

149.6
164.3
160..0

177.8
170.1
171.8
141.2
152.8
167.4
162.0

178.6
170.9
172.6
142.4

149.1
162.9
158.2

174.7
167.5
169.0
139.3
149.0
163.6
159.1

176.6
169.1
170.8
139.7

Nondurables less food.................................
Nondurables less food and apparel.................
Nondurables..............................................

177.8
169.7
171.9
138.9
149.1
164.1
160.6

140.9
153.4
156.8

Services less rent of shelter3............................
Services less medical care services................
Energy................................................

202.9

212.3
196.6
129.3
183.5
186.1
145.3
125.2
209.6

206.9

210.0

210.5

210.6

213.3

213.7

214.0

213.9

213.0

213.3

212.3

191.5
128.1
180.2
182.8
145.1
129.3
204.4

193.6
132.5
181.0
183.5
144.8
128.6
205.7

194.3
132.0
181.8
184.4
145.9
129.1

195.7
140.1
182.9
185.5
145.7
145.6
208.4

197.2
140.5
183.3
185.9
144.9
141.1
209.4

197.8
132.4
183.6
186.2
144.4

197.8
122.1

131.0
211.2

185.1
187.6
145.6
116.9
211.7

198.2
116.0
185.4
188.1
146.0
105.8
212.3

198.3
111.4
185.2
187.8
144.7

125.6
210.1

198.4
129.4
184.1
186.6
143.8
122.0
211.2

198.1
132.5
184.5
187.1
145.2

206.8

195.1
129.5
182.6
185.3
146.2
125.4
207.7

210.6
195.2
133.1
182.9
185.6
146.6
133.8
208.0

211.4

188.9
124.6
178.6
181.3
144.9
129.5
202.1

97.6
212.6

163.2
486.2

173.5
516.8

170.7
508.5

171.7
511.6

172.4
513.4

172.6
514.2

173.5
516.7

174.4
519.4

174.6
520.0

173.8
517.8

173.8
517.6

174.8
520.6

174.0
518.3

173.7
517.3

515.0

163.8
163.4

173.0
172.5
172.4

171.2
170.8
170.8
191.7
159.2

171.6
171.1
171.1
191.7

171.9
171.4

172.3
171.9

173.4

171.8
192.9
160.6

173.0
173.0

193.9
161.4

194.5
162.1

173.8
173.4
173.3
195.6
162.0

174.0
173.5
173.4
194.8
162.3

174.8
174.3
174.3
195.1
163.2

174.5
174.1
173.7
194.7

160.0

171.3
192.2
160.7

172.8
172.4
172.4

156.3

170.8
170.3
170.3
190.9
157.9

162.6

195.1
161.8

All items less energy.........................................
All items less food and energy.......................
Commodities less food and energy..............
Energy commodities...................................
Services less energy.....................................
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN
WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS
All items.....................................................
All items (1967 = 100)................................
Food and beverages.......................................
Food....................................................
Food at home....................................................
Cereals and bakery products...........................
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs....................
Dairy and related products1..........................
Fruits and vegetables................................
Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage
materials................................................
Other foods at home........................................
Sugar and sweets..................................
Fats and oils..............................................
Other foods...............................................
Other miscellaneous foods1,2.............
Food away from home1...........
Other food away from home1,2.....................
Alcoholic beverages.............................
Housing...................................................
Shelter.............................................
Rent of primary residence..............................
Lodging away from home2..........................
Owners’ equivalent rent of primary residence3
Tenants’ and household insurance1,2..............
Fuels and utilities.............................................
Fuels................................................

163.0
184.7

169.8
169.3
169.1
190.4

153.5
129.8

162.1

268.5

175.2
134.6

124.3

172.9
174.6
174.1
173.7

147.6

193.6
161.2

159.4
201.8

167.1
210.8

161.5
213.3

163.8
210.9

163.5
210.1

163.1
209.8

163.5
211.7

164.7
211.5

166.9
210.5

168.3
209.5

168.9
208.0

169.4
211.0

170.8
212.2

171.2
211.5

170.6
212.8

133.2
152.8
152.2
147.9
168.8

138.4
159.1
155.6
155.4
176.3

135.8
155.8
153.3
149.9
173.0

138.7
157.3
155.4
152.8
174.0

139.3
157.3
155.6
152.4
174.1

138.8
158.2
155.6
153.0
175.4

138.2
157.1
153.7
151.4
174.6

137.2
159.1
155.8
154.3
176.5

137.8
159.1
155.5
156.4
176.0

138.0
160.0
156.0
157.4
177.2

139.3
160.5
156.1
158.0
177.9

138.4
159.8
156.2
158.1
176.5

139.2
160.4
156.2
159.1
177.3

138.7
159.7
154.7
155.1
177.8

137.7
160.5
155.9
156.5
178.3

104.6

109.1

108.6

108.5

108.5

108.5

108.4

108.7

108.0

109.9

109.7

109.2

109.5

110.8

109.0

165.0
105.1
168.8

173.8
113.6
178.8

170.8
111.4
175.8

171.4

172.3
111.8
177.2

172.7

173.1

112.0
177.6

112.5
178.0

173.5
112.8
178.4

174.0
114.0
179.2

174.7
114.4
179.7

175.0
115.6
180.1

175.6
115.7
180.5

175.8

111.5
176.5

171.8
111.6
177.0

115.8
180.8

176.0
115.8
36.0

160.0
181.6

172.1
194.5

168.1
189.6

170.2
190.6

170.5
191.5

171.0
192.6

171.0
192.9

171.7
193.5

173.0
194.4

173.3
195.0

173.5
195.9

173.2
196.0

172.5
196.6

172.8
197.2

172.9
197.7

177.1

191.5
118.4
187.6

187.0

187.7
113.8
184.1

188.3

189.6
121.2
185.7

191.0

191.7

194.0

194.9

195.7

119.9
186.3

123.2
187.0

123.7
187.5

192.4
124.4
188.5

193.3

118.5
184.5

189.0
123.8
185.2

190.4

108.7
183.5

116.8
189.2

114.8
190.0

111.8
190.9

108.8
191.7

104.9
144.6
129.3
144.1
134.8
125.6
126.6
128.0
117.5

105.2
153.2
138.6
150.1
144.8
125.7
124.1
125.8
113.2

105.3
151.5
136.6
145.0
143/0
125.9
127.0
126.9
118.4

105.6
149.9
134.8
138.0
141.5
125.9
130.6
127.6
125.2

105.8
148.8
133.6
133.9
140.4
126.0
130.5
128.3
124.7

106.9
150.8
135.7
131.5
142.9
125.7
128.5
129.2
120.2

107.2
155.2
140.5
129.2
148.5
125.9
125.2
126.3
115.6

106.7
154.4
139.5
123.1
147.8
125.8
121.9

106.8
150.1
134.7
125.3
142.2
126.0
125.6
123.7
118.3

107.0
144.0
127.9
121.4
135.0
125.5
128.3
127.3
120.2

107.1
142.8
126.7
118.5
133.7
125.6
127.2
127.3
118.0

10.3
141.5
125.2
112.7
132.5
125.4

122.9
110.2

106.8
152.2
137.0
121.5
145.2
125.7
121.6
121.6
110.1

122.2
175.7
101.6
128.7
113.0
91.7
120.4
124.7

Household furnishings and operations............
Apparel............................................
Men's and boys' apparel.................................
Women's and girls' apparel.............................

130.1
131.2
121.3

106.4
149.5
134.2
129.2
141.5
125.8
126.1
125.8
117.3

Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel1.......................
Footwear......................................................
Transportation.........................................
Private transportation.........................................

130.3
126.2
143.4
140.7

130.9
123.1
153.6
150.8

130.0
124.0
153.9
151.2

129.0
121.5
154.0
151.2

131.0
122.4
154.5
151.7

133.3
125.2
153.3
150.5

133.2
125.2
155.8
153.2

132.0
124.5
159.2
156.6

128.6
122.1
157.9
155.1

126.2
121.4
153.4
150.4

128.3
122.0
152.5
149.5

131.1
123.0
155.1
152.3

133.5
124.9
151.4
148.6

134.3
124.2
149.2
146.4

130.3
121.0
147.4

New and used motor vehicles2.......................

100.4

101.9

102.8

102.9

102.8

102.51

102.4

102.0

101.7|

101.4

101.0

100.7

101.1

101.7

102.0

Fuel oil and other fuels.................................
Gas (piped) and electricity...........................

123.0
122.7
113.5

144.5

See footnotes at end of table.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

111

Current Labor Statistics:

Price Data

32. Continued—Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
[1 9 8 2 -8 4 = 100, unless otherw ise indicated]____________________________________________

Annual average

2000

2001

Series
2000

2001

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

New vehicles...................................................

143.9

143.2

144.6

144.8

144.5

143.8

143.8

143.4

142.7

142.3

141.4

141.3

142.1

143.8

144.7

Used cars and trucks1.....................................
Motor fuel..........................................................

157.1

159.8

161.6

161.7

161.7

161.1

160.9

160.2

160.0

159.3

159.0

158.2

158.7

158.3

158.1

129.5

124.9

127.7

124.9

122.0

132.4

116.2

104.4

96.3

126.9

124.1
123.4

142.1

124.2

127.8
127.1

147.4

128.8
100.9
178.8
203.4

126.9
126.2

134.0

Gasoline (all types).........................................

146.7

141.1

124.2

104.0
185.1
204.9

102.3
181.5
203.7

103.0
182.1
204.3

103.4
183.1
205.8

104.0
183.3
204.2

133.3
103.5
183.4
202.7

103.6
184.1

103.6
184.4

131.7
104.4

209.5

185.6
207.7

186.7
207.0

115.5
104.7
187.5
203.7

103.8
105.0
187.8
200.4

104.9
187.9

203.5

104.3
185.0
209.5

121.3
104.1

200.1

271.8
242.7

263.8

266.3

268.1

269.1

270.4

240.2
275.7

271.8
246.7

270.1

277.0

278.0
248.7

280.2

281.7

247.0
328.3

276.5
247.8
329.1

273.9
244.6
280.7

275.6
245.6

278.5
248.7

239.1
274.7

273.4
244.1

274.9

237.8
272.8
244.9

271.5
243.2

272.0

236.5

269.9
241.0

250.5
340.5

282.6
250.9
342.7

283.0
251.0

Motor vehicle parts and equipment.................
Motor vehicle maintenance and repair............
Public transportation............................................

95.7

Medical care............................................................
Medical care commodities..................................

259.9

Medical care services..........................................
Professional services.......................................
Hospital and related services...........................

265.9
239.6
313.2

333.8

242.3
320.9

323.9

246.4
326.6

332.0

278.5
249.0
333.5

337.0

250.1
338.3

Recreation2............................................................

102.4

103.6

102.6

103.0

103.1

103.0

103.7

103.7

103.5

103.7

103.9

103.8

103.8

104.0

103.8

Video and audio1,2.............................................

100.7

100.9

100.3

100.8

101.2

101.0

101.2

101.1

100.7

101.1

101.0

100.6

100.6

100.7

100.5

233.6

241.7
248.0
330.6

243.6

249.9

245.2

343.6

102.7

105.3

103.7

104.0

104.1

104.4

104.2

104.1

104.5

104.9

105.8

106.5

107.1

106.9

106.9

Education2...........................................................
Educational books and supplies.....................

112.8
283.3

118.7
299.9

115.7
289.2

116.0
292.9

116.2
294.1

116.3
294.7

116.4
294.7

116.7
294.5

117.2
298.2

117.6
299.3

119.6
302.2

121.7
309.8

122.3
311.7

122.3
308.9

122.1
297.3

Tuition, other school fees, and child care......

318.2

334.7

Communication1’2..............................................

94.6

94.5

326.5
94.1

327.0
94.4

327.4
94.4

327.9
94.8

328.2
94.4

329.1
94.0

330.3
94.3

331.3
94.8

337.3
94.7

342.9
94.3

344.4
94.9

344.9
94.5

345.2
94.6

Education and communication2...........................

Information and information processing1,2....

94.1

93.8

93.6

93.8

93.7

94.1

93.8

93.4

93.6

94.0

94.0

93.6

94.2

93.8

93.9

Telephone services1,2..................................
Information and information processing

98.7

99.4

98.6

99.0

98.9

99.5

99.2

98.8

99.2

99.7

99.8

99.4

100.1

99.7

99.9

other than teleohone services1,4...............
Personal computers and peripheral

26.8

22.1

24.6

24.0

23.8

23.3

22.8

22.4

22.2

22.0

21.5

21.2

21.0

20.8

20.6

equipment1,2.........................................
Other goods and services......................................
Tobacco and smoking products.........................

40.5

29.1

35.9

34.3

33.4

31.8

31.1

29.9

29.4

28.7

27.4

26.6

26.1

25.5

25.0

276.5
395.2

289.5
426.1

279.2
396.9

281.5
404.6

283.2
409.2

283.5
408.5

288.2
424.8

286.8
419.8

287.9
421.6

293.8
441.9

290.0
425.6

295.5
444.7

292.4
430.9

297.3
448.3

293.3
432.9

Personal care1....................................................

165.5

170.3

167.7

168.1

168.5

169.0

169.4

169.3

169.9

170.6

170.9

171.4

171.9

172.3

172.3

Personal care products1..................................

154.2

155.7

155.8

155.7

155.7

155.9

156.0

153.8

155.4

155.9

155.5

156.1

156.1

156.1

156.0

Personal care services1...................................
Miscellaneous personal services....................
Commodity and service group:

178.6

184.9

181.7

182.1

182.4

182.8

183.9

185.4

185.9

186.1

186.5

187.4

187.1

262.8

255.3

257.0

258.4

258,3

260.0

184.7
260.7

184.8

251.9

261.6

263.2

264.9

265.6

266.8

267.5

268.0

149.8
167.7
139.0
149.1
128.3

151.4
173.0
138.7
149.0
126.1

150.6
169.8
139.1
148.6

151.2
173.4
138.0
148.2
121.9

150.5
173.8
136.9
146.5
121.6

152.5
174.0

126.6

150.8
170.8
138.8
148.1
124.1

and apparel...................................................
Durables............................................................

165.3
125.8

166.3
125.3

165.5
126.6

Services..................................................................

191.6

199.6

Rent of shelter3..................................................
Transporatation services...................................
Other services....................................................
Special indexes:

180.5
192.9
225.9

187.3
199.1
233.7

169.1

173.6

All items less medical care................................
Commodities less food......................................
Nondurables less food.......................................

163.8
164.7
140.4
150.7

167.8
169.1
140.2
150.8

Nondurables less food and apparel..................
Nondurables.......................................................

165.4
158.9

Services less rent of shelter3............................
Services less medical care services.................
Energy.................................................................

Commodities.........................................................
Food and beverages...........................................
Commodities less food and beverages.............
Nondurables less food and beverages............
Apparel...........................................................
Nondurables less food, beverages,

All items less food..............................................
All items less shelter..........................................

All items less energy..........................................
All items less food and energy........................
Commodities less food and energy..............
Energy commodities....................................
Services less energy.....................................

151.4

151.4

152.8

153.9

171.2

171.6

139.5
149.4

139.3
149.3

172.3
142.6
156.2

127.0

130.6

171.9
141.2
153.1
130.5

128.5

153.0
172.8
141.1
153.6
125.2

166.0
126.6

166.5
126.6

170.5
126.0

176.3
125.5

174.1
125.2

167.3
124.8

164.8
124.3

171.4

126.2

194.5

196.6

197.2

197.8

198.0

198.7

200.1

200.6

182.6
195.2

184.4
197.2

185.5
197.2
231.2

185.8
197.2

228.9

183.6
196.0
229.9

231.9

186.3
197.6
232.2

187.2
198.9
232.6

187.8
199.5
233.6

170.9
165.5
166.4

171.9
166.5
167.4

172.8

173.8

174.7
170.0
144.1
157.6

174.9
169.0
170.2
142.6

173.9
167.8
169.4

140.3
149.9

168.0
169.1
142.7
154.7

169.1

140.6
150.3

155.3

139.6
150.1

166.7
161.4

165.8
159.7

166.3
159.9

166.8

167.0
168.2
140.8
151.1
164.9

160.8

160.9

170.5
163.0

175.9
164.8

173.9
163.8

167.7
161.2

160.5

180.1
185.4
124.8
175.1
177.1

188.5

183.7

186.6

187.8

189.6

189.9

190.1

188.3
127.6
176.8

190.3
131.8
177.4

187.0
191.4
128.6
178.8

187.0

193.1
128.7
179.8

186.9
190.8
131.3
178.2

191.6
132.9
179.2

192.3
140.6
179.2

181.7

178.7

180.9

181.3

181.2

146.1
125.3
206.0

145.8
128.9
201.1

180.1
146.2
129.1

194.2
131.3
179.8
181.7

145.4
129.7
198.7

179.3
145.5
128.5
202.2

193.6
140.3
179.5
181.4

146.8
125.1
204.0

147.3
134.2
204.4

146.4
146.6
204.8

145.6
141.5
205.7

145.4
125.0
206.3

1 Not seasonally adjusted.

230.6
172.5
167.0
168.0
141.0
151.1

203.1

164.4

151.2

150.1

148.4

174.8
137.4
147.4

174.5
135.9
144.2

174.6
133.4
139.4

128.3

127.2

123.0

124.1

162.7
124.3

158.2
124.8

153.1
124.9

201.2

201.1

201.0

201.4

201.7

188.7
199.8
235.1

188.7
200.1
235.9

189.3
200.9
236.8

189.9
202.3
237.2

190.4
202.6
237.3

173.7
167.5

174.9

173.8

173.4

168.8

167.6

166.9

172.5
165.7

169.3
138.5
148.5

170.3
141.3
153.8
171.5

169.5
139.0
149.4

169.1
137.6
146.4

163.5

163.5
161.5

159.5
159.7

189.9

189.0

189.3

189.2

194.7
128.6
180.1

194.6
132.6
180.7

194.4
121.2

195.0
110.0
181.5

181.9
144.6
122.1

182.6

181.3
183.2

194.8
114.8
181.8
183.8

183.5

146.0
132.1

146.3
116.7

207.3

207.6

208.3

146.9
105.5
209.0

145.6
97.5
109.4

165.4

139.8
152.0
125.6

4 Indexes on a December 1988 = 100 base.

2 Indexes on a December 1997 = 100 base.

Dash indicates data not available.

3 Indexes on a December 1982 = 100 base.

NOTE: lndex applied t0 a month as a whole' not t0 any specific date'

112

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

168.3
135.1
141.8
154.7
157.3

33.

Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items

[1 9 8 2 -8 4 = 100, unless otherw ise indicated]_______________________
P ric in g
A rea

A ll U rban C o n s u m e rs
2000

s ched -

N ov.

u le 1
U.S. city average............................................................
Region and area size2
Northeast urban..................................................

M

174.1

U rban W a g e E a rn e rs

2001

Dec.
174.0

Aug.

Sept.

177.5

178.3

O ct.
177.7

2000
N ov.
177.4

Dec
176.7

Nov.
170.9

2001

D ec

Aug.

S e pt.

N ov.

O ct.

Dec.

170.7

173.8

174.8

174.0

181.9
182.4

181.8

181.8

181.0

182.0

181.9

181.2

173.7

172.9

M
M

181.5

181.3

185.1

185.1

185.0

185.0

184.2

178.4

178.3

181.7

Size A—More than 1,500,000..........................................

M

182.4

182.3

186.5

186.5

186.3

186.1

185.4

178.3

178.2

182.2

Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,0003..........................
Midwest urban4....................................
Size A—More than 1,500,000..........................................

M

108.9

108.8

110.5

110.4

110.6

110.9

10.3

108.6

108.6

109.8

109.9

110.2

110.5

109.9

M

170.3

10.2

173.0

174.6

172.6

172.5

171.9

166.8

166.5

168.9

170.8

168.4

168.2

167.6

M

171.7

171.6

174.8

176.1

174.5

174.2

173.8

167.2

167.0

169.8

171.3

169.4

169.1

168.7

M

108.9

108.7

110.3

111.6

110.0

110.0

109.6

109.1

108.8

110.1

111.8

109.7

109.8

108.2

164.9

166.8

168.8

166.9

166.3

165.5

163.7

163.5

164.9

167.1

164.9

164.1

163.3
168.1

Size B/C—50,000 to 1.500.0003......................................
Size D—Nonmetropolitan (less than 50,000)..................
South urban..........................................................................

M

165.0

M

168.6

168.4

171.5

172.2

171.7

171.0

170.3

166.9

166.7

169.4

170.3

169.8

169.0

Size A—More than 1,500,000..........................................

M

168.4

172.3

173.2

173.1

172.2

171.7

166.2

166.2

166.2

170.9

170.7

169.6

169.0

Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,0003....................
Size D—Nonmetropolitan (less than 50,000)..................

M

168.5
108.2

108.1

109.8

110.2

109.7

109.4

108.9

108.1

108.0

109.3

110.0

109.4

109.0

108.5

M

167.3

167.1

170.1

169.7

169.9

168.9

167.7

168.6

168.4

170.7

170.8

170.8

169.9

168.3

M

177.2

177.1

181.9

182.5

182.5

182.3

181.6

172.8

172.8

176.9

177.6

177.8

177.6

176.8

M

178.8

179.0

184.1

184.7

184.6

184.3

183.5

172.7

172.9

177.4

178.1

178.0

177.7

176.9

West urban........................................................................
Size A—More than 1,500,000..........................................

M

109.2

108.9

111.2

111.7

112.1

112.0

111.6

109.1

108.7

110.8

111.4

111.8

111.8

111.2

M
M
M
M

158.2
108.7
168.6

158.1
108.5
168.5

161.9
110.2
171.2

162.5
110.8
172.0

162.0
110.3
171.5

161.7
110.2
170.8

161.1
109.7
169.8

156.8
108.6
168.1

156.8
108.4
167.9

160.1
109.8
170.0

160.9
110.6
171.1

160.3
110.0
170.4

160.0
109.9
169.7

159.4
109.3
168.5

Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL—IN—W l.....................................
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA.......................

M
M

176.0
173.5

175.8
173.5

178.1
178.4

179.7
178.8

178.1
178.3

177.4
178.1

177.9
177.1

170.4
166.6

170.3
166.7

172.0
171.1

173.7
171.5

171.9
171.0

171.2
170.7

171.7
169.7

188.1
-

188.0

187.8
-

187.8

180.0

183.5

183.6

182.8

186.2

183.3
_

183.3

192.7

187.3
_

180.1

192.7

191.9

Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,0003.....................................
Size classes:
A6.................................
B/C3.................................................
D.............................................................................
Selected local areas6

New York, NY-Northern NJ-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA..

M

184.6

184.2

Boston-Brockton-Nashua, M A-NH-ME-CT......................
Cleveland-Akron, OH...............................................

1

187.4

-

1

169.4

-

-

174.6

-

172.3

_

161.6

_

_

166.5

_

Dallas-Ft Worth, TX.............................................................

1

166.8

-

-

172.8

-

171.5

-

166.6

-

-

172.6

_

164.0
171.1

Washinqton-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV7..........

1

108.5

-

-

111.7

-

110.9

-

108.4

-

-

110.7

2

-

171.9

176.9

-

176.7

174.8

174.2

169.6

2

-

171.7

175.1

-

174.8

173.5

-

169.7

Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, Ml..................................................

-

111.6
_

-

Atlanta, GA..................................................................

166.2

169.4

_

169.1

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX.......................................

2

-

156.2

158.6

-

159.4

-

157.1

-

154.9

157.0

_

157.8

Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, FL....................................................

2

-

169.5

173.5

-

174.2

-

173.1

-

167.2

170.9

_

171.7

_

_

192.0

_
_
_
_
_

_
,_
-

172,0
167.9
155.2
170.5

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD.....

2

-

177.5

182.8

-

182.9

-

179.9

_

177.0

182.2

San Franci sco-Oakland-San Jose, CA..............................

2

-

184.1

191.0

-

191.7

_

190.6

_

180.2

186.7

_

187.5

_

186.5

Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA.........................................

2

-

181.5

186.8

-

187.9

-

186.1

-

177.0

181.5

-

183.1

-

181.1

1 Foods, fuels, and several other items priced every month in all areas; most other goods
and services priced as indicated:
M—Every month.
1— January, March, May, July, September, and November.
2—
February, April, June, August, October, and December.

182.3

179.2

MO-KS; Milwaukee-Racine, Wl; Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI; Pittsburgh, PA; Port-land-Salem,
OR-WA; St Louis, MO-IL; San Diego, CA; Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL.
7 Indexes on a November 1996 = 100 base.
Dash indicates data not available.

2 Regions defined as the four Census regions.
3 Indexes on a December 1996 = 100 base.
4 The "North Central" region has been renamed the "Midwest" region by the Census Bureau.
It is composed of the same geographic entities.
5 Indexes on a December 1986 = 100 base.
6 In addition, the following metropolitan areas are published semiannually and appear in
tables 34 and 39 of the January and July issues of the C P I Detailed Report: Anchorage, AK;
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN; Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO; Honolulu, HI; Kansas City,


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

NOTE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts of the national CPI program. Each local index has
a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substantially more sampling and other
measurement error. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the national index,
although their long-term trends are similar. Therefore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics strongly
urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI for use in their escalator clauses.
Index applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date.

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

113

Current Labor Statistics:

34.

Price Data

Annual data: Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, all items and major groups

[1982-84 = 100]
1992

Series
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers:
All items:
Index...............................................................................
Percent change.............................................................
Food and beverages:
Index................................................................................
Percent change.............................................................
Housing:
Percent change.............................................................
Apparel:
Index................................................................................
Percent change.............................................................
Transportation:
Index...............................................................................
Percent change.............................................................
Medical care:
Index...............................................................................
Percent change.............................................................
Other goods and services:
Index...............................................................................
Percent change.............................................................
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners
and Clerical Workers:
All items:
Index...............................................................................
Percent change.............................................................

114

Monthly Labor Review


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

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

140.3
3.0

144.5
3.0

148.2
2.6

152.4
2.8

156.9
3.0

160.5
2.3

163.0
1.6

166.6
2.2

172.2
3.4

177.1
2.8

138.7
1.4

141.6
2.1

144.9
2.3

148.9
2.8

153.7
3.2

157.7
2.6

161.1
2.2

164.6
2.2

168.4
2.3

173.6
3.1

137.5
2.9

141.2
2.7

144.8
2.5

148.5
2.6

152.8
2.9

156.8
2.6

160.4
2.3

163.9
2.2

169.6
3.5

176.4
4.0

131.9
2.5

133.7
1.4

133.4
- .2

132.0
-1 .0

131.7
- .2

132.9
.9

133.0
.1

131.3
-1 .3

129.6
-1 .3

127.3
-1 .8

126.5
2.2

130.4
3.1

134.3
3.0

139.1
3.6

143.0
2.8

144.3
0.9

141.6
-1 .9

144.4
2.0

153.3
6.2

154.3
0.7

190.1
7.4

201.4
5.9

211.0
4.8

220.5
4.5

228.2
3.5

234.6
2.8

242.1
3.2

250.6
3.5

260.8
4.1

272.8
4.6

183.3
6.8

192.9
5.2

198.5
2.9

206.9
4.2

215.4
4.1

224.8
4.4

237.7
5.7

258.3
8.7

271.1
5.0

282.6
4.2

138.2
2.9

142.1
2.8

145.6
2.5

149.8
2.9

154.1
2.9

157.6
2.3

159.7
1.3

163.2
2.2

168.9
3.5

173.5
2.7

February 2002

35.

Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

[1982 = 100]

Grouping

Annual average
2000

2001

2000

2001

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Finished consumer goods.........................
Finished consumer foods........................

138.0
138.2
137.2

140.7
141.5
141.3

139.7
140.1
137.9

141.2
141.9
138.4

141.5
142.5
139.5

141.0
141.9
140.9

141.7
142.7
141.6

142.5
143.8
141.8

142.1
143.3
141.9

140.7
141.5
141.2

141.1
142.0
142.6

141.7
142.9
142.9

139.6
139.9
141.8

139.7
138.4
140.5

137.2
136.8
140.4

Finshed consumer goods
excluding foods......................................
Nondurable goods less food................
Durable goods........................................
Capital equipment....................................

138.4
138.7
133.9
138.8

141.4
142.8
133.9
139.7

140.8
141.5
135.3
139.9

143.3
144.9
135.2
140.2

143.6
145.9
134.2
139.7

142.1
143.8
134.1
139.7

142.9
144.9
134.2
140.0

144.5
147.3
133.8
139.7

143.7
146.5
133.2
139.6

141.4
143.1
133.2
139.8

141.6
143.5
133.0
139.5

142.7
145.1
133.2
139.4

139.0
139.2
134.4
139.8

137.3
136.8
134.5
139.9

135.1
134.0
133.9
139.7

s u p p lie s , a n d c o m p o n e n t s ..........................

129.2

128.7

130.6

131.5

131.3

130.8

130.6

131.2

131.4

130.3

129.8

130.1

127.6

126.7

125.4

Materials and components
for manufacturing.......................................
Materials for food manufacturing.............
Materials for nondurable manufacturing..
Materials for durable manufacturing........
Components for manufacturing................

128.1
119.2
132.6
129.0
126.2

127.4
124.3
131.8
125.2
126.3

128.1
119.8
133.5
128.0
126.1

128.6
120.4
135.0
127.2
126.4

128.8
120.3
136.1
127.0
126.2

128.9
122.3
135.8
126.7
126.4

128.7
122.3
135.2
126.0
126.6

128.6
124.6
134.2
126.9
126.4

128.3
125.7
133.4
126.5
126.4

127.5
126.1
131.9
125.3
126.2

126.9
128.1
130.1
124.6
126.2

126.6
127.5
129.9
124.2
125.9

125.9
126.1
128.7
123.4
125.9

125.2
123.9
127.4
122.8
125.9

124.7
122.5
126.2
122.5
126.0

150.7
102.0
151.6
136.9

150.6
104.5
153.1
138.6

149.9
108.3
153.0
138.1

149.6
111.4
153.0
138.9

150.0
109.9
153.0
138.5

150.2
106.9
152.8
138.7

150.4
105.9
153.2
139.0

151.6
108.1
153.9
139.0

151.7
110.2
154.1
138.8

151.0
106.8
153.6
138.8

151.0
106.0
153.2
138.7

150.8
108.4
153.0
138.6

150.4
97.4
152.4
138.3

150.3
94.7
152.2
138.3

149.0
89.3
152.2
138.1

120.6
100.2
130.4

121.3
106.2
127.3

136.2
103.9
153.5

155.0
105.3
183.5

133.2
104.5
148.2

131.5
108.9
142.2

132.9
109.1
144.5

130.9
110.3
140.4

122.8
109.7
127.4

116.1
109.6
116.3

113.4
108.9
112.4

108.0
108.5
103.8

97.7
104.7
89.4

104.8
98.3
105.5

94.8
96.4
90.2

goods, excluding foods................
energy goods................................
goods less energy........................
consumer goods less energy......
goods less food and energy........

138.1
94.1
144.9
147.4
148.0

140.4
96.8
147.5
150.8
150.0

140.1
97.9
145.9
148.5
149.1

141.9
101.9
146.7
149.4
150.0

142.0
103.6
146.6
149.5
149.4

140.9
99.7
147.1
150.2
149.5

141.6
101.2
147.5
150.6
149.8

142.6
104.1
147.7
151.6
150.0

142.0
102.7
147.6
150.9
149.9

140.5
97.0
147.5
150.7
149.9

140.5
97.8
147.7
151.1
149.7

141.3
100.1
147.9
151.4
149.8

138.8
90.1
147.9
151.3
150.4

137.7
85.5
147.7
151.0
150.6

136.1
80.7
147.6
150.9
150.4

Finished consumer goods less food
and energy..................................................

154.0

156.9

155.3

156.5

155.9

156.1

156.4

156.9

156.7

156.8

156.6

156.8

157.5

157.8

157.6

Consumer nondurable goods less food
and energy...............................................

169.8

175.1

171.0

173.2

173.2

173.5

174.0

175.4

175.5

175.5

175.3

175.6

175.8

176.4

176.4

and feeds....................................................
Intermediate foods and feeds.....................
Intermediate energy goods.........................
Intermediate goods less energy.................

130.1
111.7
101.7
135.0

130.5
115.9
104.1
135.1

131.5
113.5
107.9
135.3

132.4
115.1
110.9
135.8

132.3
113.6
109.5
135.8

131.7
114.1
106.4
136.0

131.6
114.0
105.5
136.0

132.1
114.9
107.6
136.1

132.3
116.3
109.7
135.9

131.0
117.1
106.3
135.3

130.4
119.4
105.6
134.9

130.7
118.7
107.9
134.7

128.2
117.3
97.1
134.2

127.3
115.5
94.3
133.7

126.0
114.3
89.0
133.4

Intermediate materials less foods
and energy..................................................

136.6

136.4

136.8

137.1

137.3

137.4

137.4

137.5

137.2

136.5

136.0

135.8

135.3

134.9

134.6

Crude energy materials...............................
Crude materials less energy.......................
Crude nonfood materials less energy........

122.1
111.7
145.2

122.8
112.2
130.6

154.7
112.4
137.5

193.4
113.7
138.7

148.3
112.4
136.1

141.0
115.2
134.6

145.2
114.3
130.8

139.8
115.3
130.9

123.1
114.8
130.6

109.0
114.3
129.4

104.2
113.6
128.4

93.1
113.3
128.5

75.2
109.8
125.8

96.5
104.8
124.5

76.7
103.4
124.2

F in is h e d g o o d s .....................................................

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

In te r m e d ia te m a te r ia ls ,

Materials and components
for construction..........................................
Processed fuels and lubricants..................
Containers.....................................................
Supplies........................................................
C r u d e m a te r ia ls f o r f u r t h e r
p r o c e s s in g ...........................................................

Foodstuffs and feedstuffs............................
Crude nonfood materials.............................
S p e c ia l g r o u p in g s :

Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished

Intermediate materials less foods


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

115

Current Labor Statistics:

36.

Price Data

Producer Price Indexes for the net output of major industry groups

[D ecem ber 1984 = 100, unless otherw ise in dicated]

Annual average

Industry

SIC

2000
-

2001

2000

2001

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

127.5
71.4
92.2
144.9

115.5

103.4

100.4

92.6

78.8

93.2

93.2

71.0
87.7
129.6

70.4
90.9
112.9

69.6
89.9
109.4

70.6
92.5
98.3

70.4
92.7
79.7

68.1
95.5
98.8

68.1
95.5
98.8

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

T o ta l m in in g In d u s tr ie s ............................................

113.5

114.9

139.6

170.8

138.2

130.7

132.2

10
12
13
14

Metal mining.....................................................
Coal mining (12/85 = 100)..............................
Oil and gas extraction (12/85 = 100)..............
Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic
minerals, except fuels....................................

73.8
84.8
126.8

70.6
91.3
128.4

73.5
84.8
162.0

73.5
83.6
204.4

72.4
90.8
159.4

73.1
90.3
149.3

70.0
90.6
151.5

137.0

131.0

138.2

139.3

140.1

140.8

140.8

140.7

141.8

141.6

141.2

141.4

141.9

141.8

141.8

20
21
22
23

T o ta l m a n u fa c tu r in g in d u s trie s ............................

133.5
128.5
345.8
116.7

134.5
132.8
386.1
116.9

134.4
129.6
351.8
117.5

134.7
130.1
372.4
117.4

134.7
130.4
372.4
117.9

134.6
131.7
372.3
117.0

135.4
132.5
372.1
117.0

136.3
133.2
391.2
117.1

136.0
133.8
391.7
117.2

134.6
133.9
391.1
116.9

134.8
134.7
391.0
116.6

135.6
134.7
391.1
116.5

133.6
133.9
391.1
116.2

132.8
132.4
398.3
116.2

132.8
132.4
398.3
116.2

125.7

125.8

125.9

125.7

125.7

125.7

125.9

125.8

125.7

125.9

126.1

125.9

125.9

125.9

125.9

158.1
143.3
145.8

156.1
145.1
146.2

154.2
143.8
147.0

153.2
144.2
147.4

153.8
144.3
147.0

154.5
144.8
147.0

154.7
144.7
147.0

160.5
144.9
146.9

161.3
145.2
146.8

158.2
145.3
146.4

157.5
145.2
145.4

156.9
145.3
145.5

154.3
145.8
145.1

153.8
145.8
144.4

153.8
145.8
144.4

185.1
159.0
114.4
124.8
138.9
134.1
119.2

186.8

187.2

187.6

188.4

188.8

188.4

188.6

188.9

188.8

189.2

189.6

189.6

160.4
112.5
126.0
139.1
134.4
118.5

161.6
112.0
126.1
140.6
135.0
118.0

161.9
107.3
126.8
140.9
135.4
117.4

161.4
114.1
127.4
142.8
135.6
116.8

160.4
120.9
126.6
142.9
136.0
116.9

160.0
116.9
126.4
142.6
135.7
116.5

158.8
103.8
126.5
141.9
135.9
116.1

156.3
106.8
126.0
142.1
135.9
115.8

156.4
115.4
125.2
141.3
136.4
115.2

156.0
93.8
125.6
141.0
136.7
114.7

155.4
87.2
125.3
140.2
137.1
114.3

155.4
87.2
125.3
140.2
137.1
114.3

24
25
26

Food and kindred products.............................
Tobacco manufactures....................................
Textile mill products.........................................
Apparel and other finished products
made from fabrics and similar materials......
Lumber and wood products,
except furniture..............................................
Furniture and fixtures.......................................
Paper and allied products................................

27

Printing, publishing, and allied industries.......

182.9

188.6

28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum refining and related products........
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.
Leather and leather products..........................
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products.....
Primary metal industries..................................
Fabricated metal products,
except machinery and transportation
equipment.............................

156.7
112.8
124.6
137.9
134.6
119.8

158.4
105.3
125.9
141.2
136.0
116.1

130.3

131.0

130.5

130.6

130.7

130.8

131.2

131.1

131.1

131.1

131.1

131.1

131.0

131.0

131.0

35

Machinery, except electrical...........................

117.5

117.9

117.7

117.7

117.8

117.8

118.0

118.0

118.1

118.1

118.0

117.8

117.7

117.8

117.8

36

Electrical and electronic machinery,
equipment, and supplies...............................
Transportation..................................................
Measuring and controlling instruments;
photographic, medical, and optical
goods; watches and clocks...........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
industries (12/85 = 100).................................

108.3
136.8

107.0
137.8

107.7
138.4

107.7
138.7

107.6
137.6

107.5
137.9

107.5
138.1

107.4
137.4

107.3
137.1

106.9
137.3

106.4
137.2

106.4
137.2

106.5
138.5

106.6
138.5

106.6
138.5

37
38

39

126.2

127.2

126.4

126.9

127.1

126.9

126.9

127.3

127.4

127.2

127.4

127.5

127.1

127.6

127.6

130.9

132.3

131.3

131.7

131.9

132.3

132.2

132.5

132.5

132.7

132.3

132.6

132.6

132.1

132.1

119.4
135.2
122.6
147.7
102.3

123.1
143.4
130.5
157.3
110.2

121.5
135.2
126.1
154.2
102.7

121.9
141.3
125.8
154.7
109.1

122.5
141.3
127.8
154.0
109.1

122.6
141.3
126.8
155.4
108.9

122.7
141.3
125.9
155.4
108.9

123.0
141.3
125.6
156.4
109.0

123.2
141.3
130.3
156.6
109.0

123.3
145.4
131.8
157.6
110.9

123.4
145.4
132.0
159.1
111.2

123.6
145.4
140.9
158.6
111.3

123.8
145.4
134.0
159.8
111.5

124.0
145.4
131.2
158.5
111.3

124.0
145.4
131.2
158.5
111.3

S e r v ic e in d u s trie s ;

42
43
44
45
46

116

Motor freight transportation
and warehousing (06/93 = 100).....................
U.S. Postal Service (06/89 = 100)....................
Water transportation (12/92 = 100)..................
Transportation by air (12/92 = 100).................
Pipelines, except natural gas (12/92 = 100)....

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

37.

Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

[1982 = 100]
Index

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001p

Finished goods
Total......................................................................................
Foods..................................................................................
Energy.................................................................................
Other....................................................................................

123.2
123.3
77.8
134.2

124.7
125.7
78.0
135.8

125.5
126.8
77.0
137.1

127.9
129.0
78.1
140.0

131.3
133.6
83.2
142.0

131.8
134.5
83.4
142.4

130.7
134.3
75.1
143.7

133.0
135.1
78.8
146.1

138.0
137.2
94.1
148.0

140.7
141.3
96.8
150.0

114.7
113.9
84.3
122.0

116.2
115.6
84.6
123.8

118.5
118.5
83.0
127.1

124.9
119.5
84.1
135.2

125.7
125.3
89.8
134.0

125.6
123.2
89.0
134.2

123.0
123.2
80.8
133.5

123.2
120.8
84.3
133.1

129.2
119.2
101.7
136.6

129.7
142.3
104.1
136.4

100.4
105.1
78.8
94.2

102.4
108.4
76.7
94.1

101.8
106.5
72.1
97.0

102.7
105.8
69.4
105.8

113.8
121.5
85.0
105.7

111.1
112.2
87.3
103.5

96.8
103.9
68.6
84.5

98.2
98.7
78.5
91.1

120.6
100.2
122.1
118.0

121.3
106.2
122.8
101.8

Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components
Total.......................................................................................
Foods..................................................................................
Energy.................................................................................
Other...................................................................................

Crude materials for further processing
Total.......................................................................................
Foods..................................................................................
Energy.................................................................................
Other....................................................................................


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

117

Current Labor Statistics:

38.

Price Data

U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification

[1995= 100]
SITC

2000

Industry

Rev. 3

2001

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

0 Food and live animals....................................................
Meat and meat preparations.............................................
01
04
Cereals and cereal preparations.......................................
05
Vegetables, fruit, and nuts, prepared fresh or dry...........

88.7
105.9
75.8
88.9

89.8
105.4
78.8
86.9

88.6
107.1
76.4
86.2

89.1
107.1
77.2
87.8

88.6
109.8
74.7
89.5

87.9
110.8
74.7
87.4

87.8
110.7
73.5
88.4

88.5
110.4
73.2
91.2

89.2
111.0
74.8
91.8

89.8
112.5
76.2
90.4

89.2
112.5
74.4
91.5

87.7
103.5
75.3
89.6

88.1
102.4
76.8
91.2

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels........................
21
Hides, skins, and furskins, raw..........................................
22
Oilseeds and oleaginous fruits..........................................
24
Cork and wood....................................................................
Pulp and waste paper........................................................
25
26
Textile fibers and their waste............................................
27
Crude fertilizers and crude minerals................................
28
Metalliferous ores and metal scrap..................................

82.6
103.3
85.0
85.9
85.9
73.2
90.6
74.7

82.0
105.6
83.9
85.2
85.8
70.4
90.9
74.1

80.9
106.5
78.1
84.3
83.6
70.6
90.9
74.7

79.7
107.5
79.0
83.5
82.3
67.6
89.9
72.5

78.4
119.2
75.0
81.6
80.6
64.8
89.4
73.0

77.5
123.2
76.0
80.9
75.2
64.1
89.2
72.2

77.0
111.0
79.9
80.6
73.6
63.0
89.4
71.7

76.8
104.3
85.7
81.1
71.4
62.6
90.4
69.2

75.7
90.3
87.2
80.7
69.9
61.8
90.5
68.0

74.4
94.5
82.7
78.3
70.6
60.8
91.1
67.1

72.3
88.3
75.0
77.9
71.0
58.5
91.1
64.9

71.7
88.9
74.5
77.3
70.9
56.8
91.4
63.8

72.2
92.2
75.6
76.7
70.4
58.1
92.2
63.8

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants, and related products............
32
Coal, coke, and briquettes................................................
33
Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials...

157.4
93.0
183.6

157.5
93.1
181.1

159.5
93.1
185.2

152.4
93.6
172.4

156.0
100.2
178.4

159.0
100.4
184.4

153.6
100.7
177.0

144.0
100.7
162.8

145.1
101.7
165.4

153.7
102.5
180.0

138.8
102.6
153.3

131.3
102.6
140.4

122.3
102.5
129.1

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats, and waxes..................

58.7

61.0

60.8

60.6

61.6

65.0

67.1

69.1

77.9

77.9

74.1

75.0

80.5

92.9
99.6
103.2
91.5
96.5
98.5

93.4
99.4
103.4
92.7
96.7
98.5

92.8
99.7
103.0
91.2
96.8
98.6

91.6
99.6
102.9
89.9
96.1
98.3

91.0
99.7
102.9
89.1
96.5
98.5

89.8
100.4
102.3
86.5
97.1
98.0

89.0
101.0
102.2
85.3
96.0
98.0

88.8
101.3
102.3
84.0
96.3
98.4

88.7
101.1
102.2
84.6
95.1
98.0

88.5
101.0
102.1
84.1
95.0
98.1

87.8
101.0
102.0
70.5
94.8
97.5

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s.........................
54
Medicinal and pharmaceutical products...........................
55
Essential oils; polishing and cleaning preparations.........
57
Plastics in primary fo rm s ...................................................
58
Plastics in nonprimary forms.............................................
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s...........................
59

93.0
100.1
103.2
90.0
98.3
99.9

93.1
99.7
103.4
90.5
96.6
98.4

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by materials....

100.4

101.0

100.6

100.4

100.1

99.9

99.7

99.3

98.5

98.4

97.5

96.8

96.6

103.8

104.4

104.3

104.7

104.0

104.0

104.1

104.8

105.3

105.3

105.3

105.2

105.6

89.1
105.6
104.9

88.6
106.2
109.1

88.4
106.2
108.1

87.8
106.0
106.5

87.7
106.5
103.1

87.6
106.6
101.6

87.0
107.0
99.5

85.0
107.0
98.5

85.0
107.2
94.5

85.4
107.3
91.6

85.1
107.3
88.3

84.9
107.6
83.1

84.1
107.9
83.3

62
64
66
68

Rubber manufactures, n.e.s..............................................
Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper, pulp,
and paperboard................................................................
Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s.........................
Nonferrous metals..............................................................

7 Machinery and transport equipment.............................

97.4

97.5

97.6

97.9

97.8

97.8

97.6

97.5

97.4

97.3

97.0

97.0

96.9

71
72
74

Power generating machinery and equipment.................
Machinery specialized for particular industries...............
General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s.,

113.7
106.6

115.2
106.8

115.2
107.1

14.7
106.8

115.0
106.7

115.0
106.7

115.0
106.6

115.1
105.9

115.5
105.8

115.7
105.9

115.8
106.9

117.0
106.9

116.9
106.9

75
76

Computer equipment and office machines......................
Telecommunications and sound recording and

108.5
67.6

108.6
67.1

108.8
67.1

109.2
66.8

109.5
66.7

109.5
66.2

109.6
65.5

110.1
65.3

110.1
64.8

110.1
64.7

110.0
64.6

110.1
64.3

109.8
63.4

77
78

Road vehicles.....................................................................

96.3
85.4
104.0

96.5
85.2
104.1

96.4
85.2
104.1

96.4
85.2
104.1

96.5
84.8
104.1

96.5
84.8
104.1

96.6
84.5
104.1

96.5
84.0
104.1

95.4
84.0
104.1

95.2
83.8
104.1

94.7
82.2
104.2

94.7
82.2
104.1

94.4
82.3
104.1

106.6

107.0

107.0

107.0

106.8

106.9

107.1

106.9

106.9

107.1

107.1

107.1

107.0

87 Professional, scientific, and controlling

instruments and apparatus..........................................

118

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

39.

U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification

[1995 = 100]
S IT C

Industry

R ev. 3

2000
Dec.

0 F o o d a n d liv e a n im a ls ....................................................................

2001
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

92.4

92.8

91.3

93.0

90.8

89.8

88.5

87.7

87.5

87.7

87.4

87.5

86.5

97.3

95.5

96.1

100.4

102.6

104.4

104.3

107.4

107.0

111.5

112.8

116.0

109.7

109.1
104.5

107.4
106.1

105.6
101.7

102.2
109.5

100.1
102.3

99.7
100.5

98.8
97.1

95.6
97.8

95.3
97.7

94.8
97.9

92.9
98.5

90.0
101.3

90.2
98.6

50.8

50.5

51.1

51.1

52.1

50.8

49.8

47.2

45.8

46.5

44.9

44.9

45.6

113.2

113.2

113.3

113.0

113.2

114.8

114.4

114.4

114.9

114.9

115.5

115.5

116.1

Beverages...........................................................................

110.6

110.5

110.8

110.4

110.7

112.5

112.2

112.2

112.2

112.2

112.4

112.4

113.1

2 C r u d e m a te r ia ls , in e d ib le , e x c e p t f u e ls ................................

88.5

87.5

88.9

86.1

86.6

89.5

93.7

87.9

87.3

88.0

86.2

83.6

82.0

Cork and wood....................................................................
Pulp and waste paper........................................................
Metalliferous ores and metal scrap..................................
Crude animal and vegetable materials, n.e.s..................

101.7
83.4
98.8
97.1

95.6
84.3
100.8
102.0

97.6
82.9
100.9
115.3

97.5
80.4
98.1
97.7

102.9
76.8
98.1
91.8

114.1
72.5
97.0
100.7

132.7
68.3
95.4
98.6

117.6
65.5
95.9
85.7

119.0
62.2
94.6
86.0

121.9
60.6
94.3
88.9

114.3
60.3
93.1
99.1

106.9
61.2
91.4
98.9

99.7
60.9
92.9
101.5

3 M in e r a l fu e ls , lu b r ic a n ts , a n d r e la te d p r o d u c ts ................
33
Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials...
34
Gas, natural and manufactured........................................

180.2
163.9
331.8

177.1
152.0
401.0

169.9
153.9
316 9

154.1
144.7
244 5

153.1
143.5
244 4

158.2
150.6
233 6

153.5
149.4
POO n

143.3
141.3

145.3
144.1

145.6
145.3
159.8

122.6
122.1
134.4

112.1
107.5

106.5
101.7

5 C h e m ic a ls a n d r e la te d p ro d u c ts , n .e .s .................................
52
Inorganic chemicals............................................................
53
Dying, tanning, and coloring materials.............................
54
Medicinal and pharmaceutical products...........................
55
Essential oils; polishing and cleaning preparations.........
57
Plastics In primary forms...................................................
58
Plastics in nonprimary forms.............................................
59
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s...........................

95.0
94.2
86.9
95.7
86.9
95.8
78.6
100.6

95 8
98.5
88.8
95.1
87.1
95.5
80.3
101.8

96 3
98.9
89.6
94.9
88.2
95.5
84.5
101.6

96 6
97.9
89.1
94.6
88.6
95.8
84.4
101.9

96 3
95.0
88.4
94.0
88.1
95.8
83.2
101.4

92.4
87.9
93.8
87.7
95.7
83.1
100.5

91.5
86.1
93.8
87.4
96.8
82.1
100.3

90.8
86.5
96.0
87.1
96.8
80.7
99.6

89.5
86.6
94.3
87.1
95.2
80.7
99.5

89.7
84.5
94.1
88.5
94.4
79.6
99.4

90.8
85.2
94.6
88.7
94.5
81.4
99.6

90.4
84.9
94.4
88.6
94.5
81.0
99.1

89.4
85.2
94.1
89.3
94.5
80.9
98.3

01
03

Meat and meat preparations............................................
Fish and crustaceans, mollusks, and other
aquatic invertebrates......................................................
Vegetables, fruit, and nuts, prepared fresh or dry..........
Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, and manufactures
thereof...............................................................................

1 B e v e r a g e s a n d t o b a c c o .................................................................

05
07

11

24
25
28
29

6 M a n u fa c tu r e d g o o d s c la s s ifie d c h ie fly b y m a te r ia ls .....

97.3

98.2

98.7

97.3

96.3

95.5

95.3

94.1

92.4

92.2

91.2

89.9

89.5

Rubber manufactures, n.e.s..............................................
Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper, pulp,
and paperboard................................................................
Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s.........................
Nonferrous metals..............................................................
Manufactures of metals, n.e.s...........................................

91.8

91.8

91.9

91.8

91.6

91.5

91.2

91.0

90.9

90.9

90.7

90.1

90.1

92.2
100.2
114.4
95.0

92.1
100.7
121.0
95.3

92.6
100.5
124.0
95.0

92.8
100.5
116.4
94.9

93.7
100.3
110.9
95.7

92.8
100.3
107.0
95.7

91.9
100.0
106.1
95.6

91.0
100.0
101.7
94.9

89.4
99.8
92.9
94.9

88.8
99.9
91.6
95.0

88.3
98.2
87.6
95.3

87.3
97.9
82.4
95.2

86.0
98.0
82.5
94.5

7 M a c h in e r y a n d tr a n s p o r t e q u ip m e n t.......................................

89.0

88.9

88.8

88.8

88.4

88.2

88.1

87.9

87.8

87.7

87.7

87.6

87.5

95.3

95.9

96.6

96.3

96.0

95.8

95.7

95.1

95.2

95.7

95.8

95.6

95.4

62
64
66
68
69

72
74

95.4
58.7

95.9
58.3

95.9
57.8

95.6
57.5

95.1
56.5

94.7
56.4

94.6
56.2

94.4
55.3

92.4
55.1

94.4
54.1

95.1
53.5

94.5
53.5

94.2
53.3

77
78

Machinery specialized for particular industries................
General Industrial machines and parts, n.e.s.,
and machine parts............................................................
Computer equipment and office machines......................
Telecommunications and sound recording and
reproducing apparatus and equipment...........................
Electrical machinery and equipment.................................
Road vehicles.....................................................................

83.6
82.2
102.9

83.0
82.1
102.9

82.8
81.8
102.8

82.8
82.5
102.8

82.1
82.1
102.6

82.0
82.0
102.4

82.0
81.7
102.6

82.1
81.8
102.4

81.9
81.6
102.4

81.7
81.5
102.7

81.4
81.6
103.0

81.3
81.5
102.9

81.2
81.4
103.0

85

Footwear..................................................................

100.6

101.0

101.2

101.5

101.1

101.0

100.8

100.9

101.2

101.1

100.6

100.7

100.9

88

Photographic apparatus, equipment, and supplies,
and optical goods, n.e.s.............................................

90.7

91.2

91.3

91.4

90.6

90.6

90.3

89.7

89.7

90.0

90.4

90.3

90.2

75
76


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

119

Current Labor Statistics:

40.

Price Data

U.S. export price indexes by end-use category

[1995 = 100]_________________________________________
2000

C ategory

Dec.

2001
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

M ay

Aug.

Sept.

95.3

95.1

95.2

94.5

94.1

93.9

86.8
86.5
90.9

87.9
87.5
93.1

88.7
88.8
88.5

88.7
88.5
91.2

87.4
87.3
90.2

86.2
86.1
89.3

87.0
87.0
88.8

93.1

92.3

90.8

90.0

90.5

88.8

87.7

86.8

81.0

78.8

78.1

77.1

76.8

74.4

73.0

74.1

144.8

147.7

143.2

135.0

136.0

143.8

129.6

122.6

115.6

89.8
87.4

89.2
86.8

88.0
86.3

87.6
87.0

86.4
87.2

85.7
86.8

85.5
85.7

85.2
85.3

84.6
85.6

84.1
85.0

96.5
100.5
91.5

96.7
100.1
915.0

96.6
100.5
91.3

96.6
100.9
91.1

96.4
100.9
90.9

96.3
100.9
90.7

96.1
100.8
90.4

96.1
100.8
90.4

95.7
100.7
90.0

95.8
100.7
89.9

95.5
100.6
89.6

104.6

104.5

104.6

104.7

104.7

104.7

104.7

104.7

104.7

104.8

104.7

104.7

102.1
102.0
101.3

102.0
101.5
101.5

101.9
101.3
101.5

101.8
101.2
101.3

101.7
101.2
101.2

101.7
101.3
101.2

101.7
101.0
101.4

101.8
101.0
101.5

102.1
101.5
101.7

102.0
101.3
101.8

102.1
101.4

102.1
101.4

101.8

101.8

84.9
97.7

85.1
97.5

84.7
97.4

84.7
97.1

84.8
96.9

85.5
96.4

86.4
96.1

86.1
96.3

84.6
95.7

83.4
95.3

84.3
94.9

A L L COMMODITIES..........................................................

96.3

96.5

96.5

96.2

96.1

95.9

Foods, feeds, and beverages.......................................
Agricultural foods, feeds, and beverages.................
Nonagricultural (fish, beverages) food products.....

87.4
86.7

88.2

86.6
85.7
97.0

87.3
86.4
97.6

86.6
85.9
95.3

86.2
85.9
91.0

Industrial supplies and materials...................................

95.0

95.0

94.9

93.9

93.8

Agricultural industrial supplies and materials...........

82.9

82.4

82.6

80.7

80.7

Fuels and lubricants.....................................................
Nonagricultural supplies and materials,
excluding fuel and building materials......................
Selected building materials.........................................

146.2

145.2

147.1

139.8

90.1
89.0

90.4
88.8

90.1
88.2

Capital goods...................................................................
Electric and electrical generating equipment...........
Nonelectrical machinery.............................................

96.3
99.7
91.5

96.4
100.0
91.5

Automotive vehicles, parts, and engines.....................

104.4

Consumer goods, excluding automotive......................
Nondurables, m anufactured.......................................
Durables, manufactured.............................................

102.0
102.0
101.1

Agricultural commodities.................................................
Nonagricultural commodities..........................................

85.7
97.5

86.1
97.7

Monthly Labor Review
120

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

96.3

87.3
98.6

February 2002

June
95.6

July

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

41.
[1995

U.S. import price indexes by end-use category
=

100]
2000

Category

2001

Dec.

Jan.

A L L COMMODITIES..........................................................

100.0

100.0

99.3

97.8

97.2

97.5

97.1

95.6

95.4

95.5

93.2

91.9

91.9

Foods, feeds, and beverages.......................................
Agricultural foods, feeds, and beverages................
Nonagrlcultural (fish, beverages) food products.....

91.0
84.2
109.1

90.8
84.3
107.9

89.8
83.4
106.7

90.6
85.6
103.9

88.9
83.8
102.4

88.7
83.5
102.1

87.6
82.2
101.4

86.5
81.9
98.6

86.6
82.1
98.4

87.1
82.9
98.1

86.6
82.8
96.6

87.1
84.3
94.3

86.5
83.3
94.8

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Industrial supplies and materials..................................

124.5

124.4

122.3

116.1

115.4

116.7

115.6

110.5

110.1

110.1

101.9

97.3

94.7

Fuels and lubricants....................................................
Petroleum and petroleum products.......................

178.7

169.3
156.1

153.3
145.9

152.3
144.2

157.4
151.0

153.1
149.5

142.8
141.4

144.8
144.0

145.1
144.9

122.7
122.7

112.4
108.7

106.2

165.6

176.7
155.7

Paper and paper base stocks....................................
Materials associated with nondurable
supplies and materials...............................................
Selected building materials.........................................
Unfinished metals associated with durable goods..
Nonmetals associated with durable goods..............

91.0

91 0

91.2

90.8

91.1

89.0

87.1

85.3

82.8

81.7

81.0

80.3

78.9

93.3
99.1
103.7
87.2

94.1
95.3
107.2
87.8

94.3
96.0
108.7
88.7

94.4
96.2
103.8
88.8

93.9
98.3
101.1
88.5

93.1
104.8
98.2
88.2

92.1
116.3
97.6
88.0

90.5
107.9
95.3
87.5

90.0
107.7
91.2
87.6

89.9
108.6
90.9
87.8

90.0
104.6
88.8
87.4

88.8
100.7
85.8
86.5

99.4
96.9
85.7
86.3

Capital goods...................................................................
Electric and electrical generating equipment...........
Nonelectrical machinery..............................................

80.0
93.1
76.1

79.9
93.1
76.0

79.7
92.9
75.8

68,7
95.2
75.6

79.2
94.7
75.0

68,1
94.9
74.8

79.0
94.9
74.7

78.7
94.7
74.3

78.6
94.4
74.1

78.3
94.6
73.8

78.2
94.7
73.7

78.1
94.4
73.6

77.9
94.0
73.4

Automotive vehicles, parts, and engines.....................

102.7

102.7

102.6

102.6

102.5

102.3

102.3

102.2

102.1

102.4

102.6

102.5

102.6

Consumer goods, excluding automotive......................
Nondurables, m anufactured........................................
Durables, manufactured..............................................
Nonmanufactured consumer goods..........................

96.4
99.6
92.8
98.8

96.6
92.9
92.9
99.5

96.6
99.8
92.8
101.5

96.6
100.1
92.8
99.1

96.4
100.0
92.5
98.0

96.4
100.0
92.3
99.4

96.2
99.8
92.1
99.0

96.1
99.9
91.9
97.4

96.1
100.0
92.0
97.2

96.0
99.6
92.1
97.7

95.8
99.6
91.8
95.7

95.7
99.6
91.7
95.5

95.6
99.6
91.3
96.3

42.
[

101.9

U.S. international price Indexes for selected categories of services

19 95 = 100]
1999

Category
Sept.

2000
Dec.

Mar.

June

2001
Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Air freight (inbound)............................................................
Air freight (outbound)..........................................................

87.9
92.7

90.7
91.7

88.9
91.7

88.4
92.8

88.5
92.6

87.4
92.6

86.5
92.6

84.0
90.5

83.7
90.1

Air passenger fares (U.S. carriers)...................................
Air passenger fares (foreign carriers)..............................
Ocean liner freight (inbound)............................................

114.2
108.6
148.0

106.8
102.2
139.4

107.3
102.6
136.3

113.3
107.9
143.0

115.5
109.1
142.8

111.9
103.2
142.8

114.2
106.4
145.1

119.2
109.7
142.3

120.6
116.4
138.0


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

121

Current Labor Statistics:

43.

Productivity data

Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted

[1992 = 100]

Item

1998

11J99

IV

1

111.9

112.7
123.1
106.6

II

2000
III

2001

IV

1

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

115.3
127.3
107.7
110.4
114.8
112.0

115.3
129.3
108.4
112.2
114.2
112.9

117.5
132.1
110.0
113.5
115.1
113.5

117.8
134.3
110.8
114.0
113.8
113.9

118.7
137.4
112.5
115.8
112.0
114.4

118.6
139.1
112.8
117.3
111.7
115.2

119.3
140.9
113.4
118.1
111.5
115.7

119.5
142.1
114.1
118.9
111.7
116.2

120.5
142.9
114.9
118.6
111.0
115.8

113.8
126.6
107.1
110.2
116.5
112.5

113.8
128.7
107.9
112.1
115.9
113.5

116.7
131.2
109.2
112.5
116.7
114.0

117.2
133.6
110.2
114.0
115.3
114.5

117.8
136.5
111.8
115.8
113.4
114.9

117.8
138.1
112.0
117.2
113.1
115.7

118.4
139.7
112.4
118.0
112.9
116.1

118.7
141.0
113.2
118.7
112.9
116.1

119.8
141.8
114.0
118.4
112.9

116.4
123.2
104.2
105.6
105.8
105.1
131.3
111.8
107.8

117.2
125.0
104.8
106.5
106.6
106.2
135.1
113.6
108.9

118.8
127.6
106.1
107.1
107.4
106.5
139.3
114.8
109.8

119.6
129.7
107.0
108.1
108.5
107.1
135.8
114.4
110.5

119.8
132.7
108.7
110.0
110.8
107.8
120.5
111.0
110.9

119.9
134.5
109.1
111.4
112.2
109.3
111.1
109.8
111.4

120.9
136.5
109.9
112.5
112.9
111.2
107.4
110.2
112.0

121.2
138.1
110.9
114.0
114.0
114.2
99.6
110.4
112.8

132.7
124.5
105.4
93.8

135.2
126.3
105.9
93.4

137.2
128.6
107.0
93.8

138.3
131.9
108.8
95.4

2‘ 138.3
135.9
111.3
97.6

138.3
137.9
111.8
99.7

138.1
140.0
112.6
101.3

139.0
141.2
113.4
101.5

Business
Output per hour of all persons..............
Compensation per hour.................
Real compensation per hour.............
Unit labor costs..........................
Unit nonlabor payments................
Implicit price deflator........................

105.8
108.8
114.3
10.8

111.3

Nonfarm business
Output per hour of all persons...............
Compensation per hour....................
Real compensation per hour.......................
Unit labor costs.......................
Unit nonlabor payments.....................
Implicit price deflator...........................

111.5
121.1
105.3
108.6
115.4
111.1

112.2

113.3
117.9
102.4

114.5
119.1
103.1

105.8
111.1

Nonfinancial corporations
Output per hour of all employees.............
Compensation per hour.................
Real compensation per hour........
Total unit costs..........................
Unit labor costs........................
Unit nonlabor costs.................
Unit profits..................................
Unit nonlabor payments.................
Implicit price deflator.......................

103.9
104.1
103.3

105.0

112.1
106.7

112.7

125.9
119.1
103.4
94.6

127.6

-

-

_

Manufacturing
Output per hour of all persons.................
Compensation per hour...............
Real compensation per hour............
Unit labor costs.....................

122

Monthly Labor Review


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

103.7
93.9

February 2002

104.2
94.4

94.9

140.2
142.1
114.2
101.3

44.

Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years

[1996 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]
Item

1960

1970

1980

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Private business
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons........................................
Output per unit of capital services.................................
Multifactor productivity.....................................................
Output...................................................................................
Inputs:
Labor input.........................................................................
Capital services.................................................................
Combined units of labor and capital input....................
Capital per hour of all persons..........................................

45.6
110.4
65.2
27.5

63.0
111.1
80.0
42.0

75.8
101.5
88.3
59.4

90.2
99.3
95.3
83.6

91.3
96.1
94.4
82.6

94.8
97.7
96.6
85.7

95.4
98.5
97.1
88.5

96.6
100.3
98.1
92.8

97.3
99.7
98.4
95.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

102.0
100.5
101.1
105.2

104.8
100.1
102.6
110.6

104.8
100.1
102.6
110.6

54.0
24.9
42.3
41.3

61.0
37.8
52.4
56.7

71.9
58.6
67.3
74.7

89.4
84.2
87.7
90.8

88.3
86.0
87.5
95.0

89.3
87.7
88.8
97.0

91.8
89.8
91.1
96.8

95.6
92.6
94.6
96.3

98.0
96.0
97.3
97.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

103.7
104.7
104.0
101.5

106.4
110.4
107.7
104.7

106.4
110.4
107.7
104.7

48.7
120.1
69.1
27.2

64.9
118.3
82.6
41.9

77.3
105.7
90.5
59.6

90.3
100.0
95.6
83.5

91.4
96.6
94.7
82.5

94.8
97.9
96.6
85.5

95.3
98.8
97.1
88.4

96.5
100.3
98.1
92.6

97.5
99.9
98.6
95.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.7
100.2
100.9
105.1

104.5
99.8
102.4
110.6

104.5
99.8
102.4
110.6

50.1
22.6
39.3
40.5

59.3
35.5
50.7
54.8

70.7
56.4
65.9
73.1

89.2
83.5
87.3
90.3

88.0
85.4
87.1
94.7

89.0
87.3
88.4
96.8

91.8
89.5
91.0
96.5

95.4
92.3
94.4
96.3

97.8
95.9
97.2
97.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

103.8
104.9
104.2
101.5

106.6
110.8
108.0
104.7

106.6
110.8
108.0
104.7

41.8
124.3
72.7
38.5

54.2
116.5
84.4
56.5

70.1
100.9
86.6
75.3

92.8
101.6
99.3
97.3

95.0
97.5
98.3
95.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.9
101.1
100.4
103.3

105.0
104.0
102.6
108.7

109.0
105.0
105.0
113.4

112.8
104.5
106.1
116.9

117.1
105.6
109.8
123.5

124.3
106.5
113.2
130.7

124.3
106.5
113.2
130.7

92.0
30.9
51.3
38.2
28.2
52.9

104.2
48.5
85.4

107.5
74.7
92.5
75.0
73.7
87.0

104.8
95.8
99.9
92.5
92.5
98.0

100.4
97.9
100.1
93.6
92.1
97.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.4
102.2
103.7
105.7
103.0
102.9

103.6
104.5
107.3
111.3
105.1
106.0

104.0
108.0
109.5
112.8
110.0
107.9

103.7
111.9
107.0
120.4
108.9
110.2

105.5
116.9
103.9
120.4
114.2
112.5

105.2
122.8
109.2
127.2
116.8
115.5

105.2
122.8
109.2
127.2
116.8
115.5

Private nonfarm business
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons........................................
Output per unit of capital services.................................
Multifactor productivity.....................................................
O utput....................................................................................
Inputs:
Labor input.........................................................................
Capital services.................................................................
Combined units of labor and capital input....................
Capital per hour of all persons..........................................

Manufacturing (1992 = 100)
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons.........................................
Output per unit of capital services.................................
Multifactor productivity.....................................................
O utput.................................................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons..........................................................
Capital services.................................................................
Energy..................................................................
Nonenergy materials.........................................................
Purchased business services.........................................
Combined units of all factor inputs.................................


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

44.8
48.8
67.0

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

123

Current Labor Statistics:

45.

Injury and Illness Data

Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years

[1992 = 100]

Item

I960

1970

1980

1990

1991

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Business
Output per hour of all persons......
Compensation per hour................
Real compensation per hour........
Unit labor costs...............................
Unit nonlabor payments................
Implicit price deflator.....................

48.8
13.7
60.0
28.0
25.2
27.0

67.0
23.5
78.9
35.1
31.6
33.9

80.4
54.2
89.4
67.4
61.5
65.2

96.5
95.3
93.9
94.8

51.9
14.3
62.8
27.5
24.6
26.5

68.9
23.7
79.5
34.4
31.3
33.3

82.0
54.6
90.0
66.5
60.5
64.3

95.3
90.5
96.3
95.0
93.6
94.5

55.4
15.6
68.3
26.8
28.1
23.3
50.2
30.2
28.8

70.4
25.3
84.7
34.8
35.9
31.9
44.4
35.1
35.6

81.1
56.4
93.1
68.4
69.6
65.1
68.8
66.0
68.4

95.4
90.8
96.7
95.9
95.2
98.0
94.3
97.1
95.8

41.8
14.9
65.2
35.6
26.8
30.2 I

54.2
23.7
79.5
43.8
29.3
34.91

70.1
55.6
91.7
79.3
80.2
79.81

92.8
90.8
96.6
97.8
99.7
99.0

95.2
90.7

96.3
95.0
97.5
98.7
97.0
98.1

100.5
102.5
99.9
101.9
102.5
102.2

101.9
104.5
99.7
102.6
106.4
104.0

102.6
106.7
99.3
104.1
109.4
106.0

105.4
110.1
99.7
104.5
113.3
107.7

107.8
113.5
100.6
105.3
117.1
109.7

110.8
119.6
104.6
108.0
115.1
110.6

113.8
125.1
107.1
109.9
115.1
111.8

116.9
132.8
110.1
113.6
113.9
113.7

96.4
95.0
97.5
98.5
97.1

100.5
102.2
99.6
101.7
103.0
102.2

101.8
104.3
99.5
102.5
106.9
104.1

102.8
106.6
99.2
103.7
110.4
106.1

105.4
109.8
99.4
104.2
113.5
107.6

107.5
113.1
100.2
105.2
118.0
109.8

110.4
119.0
104.0
107.7
116.3
110.8

113.2
124.2
106.4
109.7
116.8
112.3

116.2
132.0
109.4
113.6
115.4
114.2

93.0
99.7
98.3

100.7
102.0
99.5
101.0
101.3
100.2
113.2
103.5
102.1

103.1
104.2
99.4
101.1
101.0
101.3
131.7
109.0
103.7

104.2
106.2
98.8
102.0
101.9
102.2
139.0
111.6
105.1

107.5
109.0
98.7
101.2
101.4
100.6
152.2
113.8
105.5

108.4
110.3
97.8
101.5
101.8
100.9
156.9
115.2
106.2

112.3
115.9
101.3
102.6
103.2
101.2
148.9
113.4
106.6

116.2
121.1
103.7
103.7
104.2
102.5
147.6
114.0
107.4

119.9
128.3
106.4
106.7
107.0
105.6
131.0
112.1
108.7

95.0
95.6
98.1
100.6
99.0
99.6

101.9
102.7
100.2
100.8
100.9
100.9

105.0
105.6
100.8
100.7
102.8
102.0

109.0
107.9
100.4
99.0
106.9
103.9

112.8
109.3
99.0
96.9
109.9
104.9

117.1
111.4
98.8
95.1
109.6
104.0

124.3
117.3
102.6
94.4
104.4
100.5

129.6
122.0
104.5
94.1
105.5
101.1

46.3
130.1
107.8
94.1

Nonfarm business
Output per hour of all persons.............
Compensation per hour.........................
Real compensation per hour................
Unit labor costs........................................
Unit nonlabor paym ents.........................
Implicit price deflator...............................

98.0

Nonfinancial corporations
Output per hour of all employees................
Compensation per hour................................
Real compensation per hour........................
Total unit costs................................................
Unit labor costs.............................................
Unit nonlabor costs......................................
Unit profits........................................................
Unit nonlabor paym ents.................................
Implicit price deflator.....................................

97.7
95.3
97.8
98.8
97.5
102.1

Manufacturing
Output per hour of all persons..........
Compensation per hour......................
Real compensation per hour.............
Unit labor costs....................................
Unit nonlabor payments.....................
Implicit price deflator...........................
Dash indicates data not available.

124

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

-

46.

Annual indexes of output per hour for selected 3-digit SIC industries

[1987 = 100]

Industry

SIC

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Mining
102

102.7

100.5

115.2

118.1

126.0

117.2

116.5

118.9

118.3

105.5

104
122
131
142

122.3
118.7
97.0
102.2

127.4
122.4
97.9
99.8

141.6
133.0
102.1
105.0

159.8
141.2
105.9
103.6

160.8
148.1
112.4
108.7

144.2
155.9
119.4
105.4

138.3
168.0
123.9
107.2

158.5
176.6
125.2
112.6

187.6
188.0
127.4
110.2

200.0
192.2

Meat products...............................................................
Dairy products...............................................................
Preserved fruits and vegetables................................
Grain mill products.......................................................
Bakery products............................................................

201
202
203
204
205

97.1
107.3
95.6
105.4
92.7

99.6
108.3
99.2
104.9
90.6

104.6
111.4
100.5
107.8
93.8

104.3
109.6
106.8
109.2
94.4

101.2
111.8
107.6
108.4
96.4

102.3
116.4
109.1
115.4
97.3

97.4
116.0
109.2
108.0
95.6

102.5
119.3
110.7
118.2
99.1

102.3
119.3
117.8
126.2
100.8

102.2
114.1
120.0
130.4
107.5

Sugar and confectionery products............................
Fats and oils.................................................................
Beverages.....................................................................
Miscellaneous food and kindred products...............
Cigarettes..................................................................... .

206
207
208
209
211

103.2
118.1
117.0
99.2
113.2

102.0
120.1
120.0
101.7
107.6

99.8
114.1
127.1
101.5
111.6

104.5
112.6
126.4
105.2
106.5

106.2
111.8
130.1
100.9
126.6

108.3
120.3
133.5
102.9
142.9

113.8
110.1
135.0
109.1
147.2

116.7
120.2
135.5
104.1
147.2

123.0
137.3
136.4
112.7
152.2

130.0
156.1
132.4
116.3
135.8

Broadwoven fabric mills, cotton.................................
Broadwoven fabric mills, manmade..........................
Narrow fabric mills........................................................
Knitting mills.................................................................
Textile finishing, except w ool.....................................

221
222
224
225
226

103.1
111.3
96.5
107.5
83.4

111.2
116.2
99.6
114.0
79.9

110.3
126.2
112.9
119.3
78.6

117.8
131.7
111.4
127.9
79.3

122.1
142.5
120.1
134.1
81.2

134.0
145.3
118.9
138.3
78.5

137.3
147.6
126.3
150.3
79.2

131.2
162.2
110.8
138.0
94.3

136.2
168.6
117.7
135.9
99.1

138.7
171.9
122.4
144.8
101.0

Carpets and rugs.........................................................
Yarn and thread mills..................................................
Miscellaneous textile goods.......................................
Men's and boys' furnishings.......................................
W omen's and misses’ outerwear..............................

227
228
229
232
233

93.2
110.2
109.2
102.1
104.1

89.2
111.4
104.6
108.4
104.3

96.1
119.6
106.5
109.1
109.4

97.1
126.6
110.4
108.4
121.8

93.3
130.7
118.5
111.7
127.4

95.8
137.4
123.7
123.4
135.5

100.2
147.4
123.1
134.7
141.6

100.3
150.4
118.7
162.1
149.9

102.3
153.0
120.1
174.7
151.9

97.8
169.5
127.0
187.0
174.5

Women's and children's undergarments..................
Hats, caps, and millinery.............................................
Miscellaneous apparel and accessories.................
Miscellaneous fabricated textile products................
Sawmills and planing mills.........................................

234
235
238
239
242

102.1
89.2
90.6
99.9
99.8

113.7
91.1
91.8
100.7
102.6

117.4
93.6
91.3
107.5
108.1

124.5
87.2
94.0
108.5
101.9

138.0
77.7
105.5
107.8
103.3

161.3
84.3
116.8
109.2
110.2

174.5
82.2
120.1
105.6
115.6

208.9
87.1
101.4
119.2
116.9

216.4
99.5
107.7
117.2
118.7

293.0
108.7
105.8
129.2
125.4

Millwork, plywood, and structural members............
Wood buildings and mobile homes...........................
Miscellaneous wood products...................................
Household furniture.....................................................

243
244
245
249
251

98.0
111.2
103.1
107.7
104.5

98.0
113.1
103.0
110.5
107.1

99.9
109.4
103.1
114.2
110.5

97.0
100.1
103.8
115.3
110.6

94.5
100.9
98.3
111.8
112.5

92.7
106.1
97.0
115.4
116.9

92.4
106.7
96.7
114.4
121.6

89.1
106.2
100.3
123.4
121.3

91.3
106.6
99.2
131.2
125.8

90.7
105.0
96.8
141.3
128.7

Public building and related furniture.........................
Partitions and fixtures.................................................
Miscellaneous furniture and fixtures.........................
Pulp mills.......................................................................

252
253
254
259
261

95.0
119.8
95.6
103.5
116.7

94.1
120.2
93.0
102.1
128.3

102.5
140.6
102.7
99.5
137.3

103.2
161.0
107.4
103.6
122.5

100.5
157.4
98.9
104.7
128.9

101.1
173.3
101.2
110.0
131.9

106.4
181.5
97.5
113.2
132.6

118.3
214.9
121.1
110.7
82.3

113.1
207.6
125.6
121.9
86.6

109.8
210.9
127.0
122.7
88.4

Paperboard containers and boxes............................
Miscellaneous converted paper products................
Newspapers..................................................................

262
263
265
267
271

102.3
100.6
101.3
101.4
90.6

99.2
101.4
103.4
105.3
85.8

103.3
104.4
105.2
105.5
81.5

102.4
108.4
107.9
107.9
79.4

110.2
114.9
108.4
110.6
79.9

118.6
119.5
105.1
113.3
79.0

111.6
118.0
106.3
113.6
77.4

112.0
126.7
109.7
119.5
79.0

114.9
127.8
113.5
122.9
83.6

122.7
131.0
113.5
127.3
86.3

Periodicals....................................................................
Books............................................................................
Miscellaneous publishing...........................................
Commercial printing....................................................
Manifold business form s............................................

272
273
274
275
276

93.9
96.6
92.2
102.5
93.0

89.5
100.8
95.9
102.0
89.1

92.9
97.7
105.8
108.0
94.5

89.5
103.5
104.5
106.9
91.1

81.9
103.0
97.5
106.5
82.0

87.8
101.6
94.8
107.2
76.9

89.1
99.3
93.6
108.3
75.2

100.1
102.6
114.5
108.8
77.9

115.0
101.0
119.5
109.9
76.7

115.1
105.4
128.3
115.2
73.6

Greeting cards.............................................................
Blankbooks and bookbinding....................................
Printing trade services................................................
Industrial inorganic chemicals...................................
Plastics materials and synthetics..............................

277
278
279
281
282

100.6
99.4
99.3
106.8
100.9

92.7
96.1
100.6
109.7
100.0

96.7
103.6
112.0
109.7
107.5

91.4
98.7
115.3
105.6
112.0

89.0
105.4
111.0
102.3
125.3

92.5
108.7
116.7
109.3
128.3

90.8
114.5
126.2
110.1
125.3

92.2
114.2
123.3
116.8
135.4

104.2
116.4
126.7
145.8
142.2

103.9
123.3
120.5
170.7
145.7

Drugs.............................................................................
Soaps, cleaners, and toilet goods............................
Paints and allied products.........................................
Industrial organic chemicals.....................................
Agricultural chemicals................................................
See footnotes at end of table.

283
284
285
286
287

103.8
103.8
106.3
101.4
104.7

104.5
105.3
104.3
95.8
99.5

99.5
104.4
102.9
94.6
99.5

99.7
108.7
108.8
92.2
103.8

104.6
111.2
116.7
99.9
105.0

108.7
118.6
118.0
98.6
108.5

112.5
120.9
125.6
99.0
110.0

112.4
126.4
126.4
111.2
119.8

104.3
122.7
126.8
105.7
117.5

104.8
116.8
125.6
111.3
106.9

Gold and silver ores....................................................
Bituminous coal and lignite mining............................
Crude petroleum and natural gas.............................
Crushed and broken stone.........................................

132.3
104.8

Manufacturing


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

125

Current Labor Statistics: Productivity Data

46. Continued— Annual indexes of output per hour for selected 3-digit Sic industries
[1987= 100]__________________

Industry

SIC

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Miscellaneous chemical products...........................
Petroleum refining......................................................

289
291

97.3
109.2

96.1
106.6

107.1
120.1

110.1
142.0

120.3
149.2

120.6
155.7

128.1
169.5

295
299
301

98.0
94.8
103.0

94.1
90.6
102.4

108.0
104.2
116.5

105.7
123.8
104.9
96.3
124.1

107.8
132.3

Asphalt paving and roofing materials......................
Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products..........
Tires and inner tubes................................................

101.8
111.3
100.4
101.5
107.8

111.2
87.4
131.1

113.1
87.1
138.8

123.1
96.5
149.1

124.7
98.5
144.2

115.7
90.7
145.5

Hose and belting and gaskets and packing............
Fabricated rubber products, n.e.c............................
Miscellaneous plastics products, n.e.c....................
Footwear, except rubber...........................................
Flat glass.....................................................................

305
306
308
314
321

96.1
109.0
105.7
101.1
84.5

92.4
109.9
108.3
94.4
83.6

97.8
115.2
114.4
104.2
92.7

99.7
123.1
116.7
105.2
97.7

102.7
119.1
120.8
113.0
97.6

104.6
121.5
121.0
117.1
99.6

107.4
121.0
124.7
126.1
101.5

113.5
125.3
129.9
121.4
107.6

112.7
132.3
133.8
110.9
114.0

114.0
140.8
141.2
131.6
127.7

Glass and glassware, pressed or blown.................
Products of purchased glass.....................................
Cement, hydraulic.......................................................
Structural clay products............................................
Pottery and related products.....................................

322
323
324
325
326

104.8
92.6
112.4
109.6
98.6

102.3
97.7
108.3
109.8
95.8

108.9
101.5
115.1
111.4
99.5

108.7
106.2
119.9
106.8
100.3

112.9
105.9
125.6
114.0
108.4

115.7
106.1
124.3
112.6
109.3

121.4
122.0
128.7
119.6
119.3

128.3
125.1
133.1
111.9
123.2

135.2
122.0
134.1
114.8
127.1

143.6
134.0
139.6
124.0
120.8

Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products.................
Miscellaneous nonmetallic mineral products..........
Blast furnace and basic steel products....................
Iron and steel foundries..............................................
Primary nonferrous metals........................................

327
329
331
332
333

102.3
95.4
109.7
106.1
102.3

101.2
94.0
107.8
104.5
110.7

102.5
104.3
117.0
107.2
101.9

104.6
104.5
133.6
112.1
107.9

101.5
106.3
142.4
113.0
105.3

104.5
107.8
142.6
112.7
111.0

107.3
110.4
147.5
116.2
110.8

107.6
114.6
155.0
120.8
112.0

112.8
114.7
151.0
121.1
125.8

114.4
114.6
148.9
126.2
131.2

Nonferrous rolling and drawing.................................
Nonferrous foundries (castings)...............................
Miscellaneous primary metal products.....................
Metal cans and shipping containers.........................
Cutlery, handtools, and hardware.............................

335
336
339
341
342

92.7
104.0
113.7
117.6
97.3

91.0
103.6
109.1
122.9
96.8

96.0
103.6
114.5
127.8
100.1

98.3
108.5
111.3
132.3
104.0

101.2
112.1
134.5
140.9
109.2

99.2
117.8
152.2
144.2
111.3

104.0
122.3
149.6
155.2
118.2

111.3
127.0
136.2
160.3
114.6

115.2
131.5
140.0
163.8
115.7

122.7
130.8
150.4
160.3
123.9

Plumbing and heating, except electric.....................
Fabricated structural metal products........................
Metal forgings and stampings...................................
Metal services, n.e.c...................................................
Ordnance and accessories, n.e.c.............................

343
344
346
347
348

102.6
98.8
95.6
104.7
82.1

102.0
100.0
92.9
99.4
81.5

98.4
103.9
103.7
111.6
88.6

102.0
104.8
108.7
120.6
84.6

109.1
107.7
108.5
123.0
83.6

109.2
105.8
109.3
127.7
87.6

118.6
106.5
113.6
128.4
87.5

127.3
111.9
120.2
124.4
93.7

130.3
112.7
125.9
127.3
96.6

126.9
112.7
130.3
127.9
92.2

Miscellaneous fabricated metal products................
Engines and turbines..................................................
Farm and garden machinery....................................
Construction and related machinery.........................
Metalworking machinery............................................

349
351
352
353
354

97.5
106.5
116.5
107.0
101.1

97.4
105.8
112.9
99.1
96.4

101.1
103.3
113.9
102.0
104.3

102.0
109.2
118.6
108.2
107.4

103.2
122.3
125.0
117.7
109.9

106.6
122.7
134.7
122.1
114.8

108.3
136.6
137.2
123.3
114.9

107.7
136.9
141.2
132.5
119.2

111.5
145.9
148.5
137.5
119.8

110.3
151.2
125.5
137.2
123.5

Special industry machinery.......................................
General industrial machinery....................................
Computer and office equipment...............................
Refrigeration and service machinery........................
Industrial machinery, n.e.c.........................................

355
356
357
358
359

107.5
101.5
138.1
103.6
107.3

108.3
101.6
149.6
100.7
109.0

106.0
101.6
195.7
104.9
117.0

113.6
104.8
258.6
108.6
118.5

121.2
106.7
328.6
110.7
127.4

132.3
109.0
469.4
112.7
138.8

134.0
109.4
681.3
114.7
141.4

131.7
110.0
960.2
115.0
129.3

125.1
111.2
1350.6
121.4
127.5

139.3
111.4
1840.2
123.2
134.3

Electric distribution equipment..................................
Electrical Industrial apparatus
Household appliances................................................
Electric lighting and wiring equipment......................
Communications equipment......................................

361
362
363
364
366

106.3
107.7
105.8
99.9
123.8

106.5
107.1
106.5
97.5
129.1

119.6
117.1
115.0
105.7
154.9

122.2
132.9
123.4
107.8
163.0

131.8
134.9
131.4
113.4
186.4

143.0
150.8
127.3
113.7
200.6

143.9
154.3
127.4
116.9
229.5

142.8
164.2
142.9
121.8
275.3

147.5
162.3
150.3
129.2
276.0

146.6
162.9
150.2
132.4
327.1

Electronic components and accessories.................
Miscellaneous electrical equipment & supplies.......
Motor vehicles and equipment..................................
Aircraft and parts........................................................
Ship and boat building and repairing........................

367
369
371
372
373

133.4
90.6
102.4
98.9
103.7

154.7
98.6
96.6
108.2
96.3

189.3
101.3
104.2
112.3
102.7

217.9
108.2
106.2
115.2
106.2

274.1
110.5
108.8
109.6
103.8

401.5
114.1
106.7
107.9
98.0

514.9
123.1
107.2
113.0
99.2

613.4
128.3
116.3
114.7
105.3

768.0
135.3
125.2
140.1
102.0

107.0
140.7
136.5
139.6
112.6

Railroad equipment.....................................................
Motorcycles, bicycles, and parts...............................
Guided missiles, space vehicles, parts....................
Search and navigation equipment...........................
Measuring and controlling devices...........................

374
375
376
381
382

141.1
93.8
116.5
112.7
106.4

146.9
99.8
110.5
118.9
113.1

147.9
108.4
110.5
122.1
119.9

151.0
130.9
122.1
129.1
124.0

152.5
125.1
118.9
132.1
133.8

150.0
120.3
121.0
149.5
146.4

148.3
125.5
129.4
142.2
150.5

184.2
120.4
136.5
149.5
142.4

189.1
127.7
142.4
149.1
143.5

205.1
121.4
158.2
139.7
152.9

Medical instruments and supplies.............................
Ophthalmic goods.......................................................
Photographic equipment & supplies.........................
Jewelry, silverware, and plated w are........................
Musical instruments....................................................

384
385
386
391
393

116.9
121.2
107.8
99.3
97.1

118.7
125.1
110.2
95.8
96.9

123.5
144.5
116.4
96.7
96.0

127.3
157.8
126.9
96.7
95.6

126.7
160.6
132.7
99.5
88.7

131.5
167.2
129.5
100.2
86.9

139.8
188.2
128.7
102.6
78.8

147.4
196.3
121.5
114.2
82.9

158.6
199.1
124.8
113.1
81.4

160.2
229.5
147.2
133.9
86.4

See footnotes at end of table.

126

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

46. Continued—Annual indexes of output per hour for selected 3-digit SIC industries
[1987

=

100]

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

109.7
116.8

104.9
111.3

114.2
111.6

109.7
129.9

113.6
135.2

119.9
144.1

125.7
127.5

131.6
132.5

124.0
129.3

106.7
109.2

110.8
109.5

115.8
107.7

129.0
106.1

143.7
108.1

142.2
112.8

118.0
109.4

131.2
108.5

150.2
111.2

118.5

127.8

139.6

145.4

150.3

156.2

167.0

169.8

173.3

182.3

111.1

116.9

123.4

126.6

129.5

125.4

130.9

132.4

129.9

131.6

431

104.0

103.7

104.5

107.1

106.6

106.5

104.7

108.3

109.7

110.3

4512,13,22 (pts.)

92.9

92.5

96.9

100.2

105.7

108.6

111.1

111.6

110.7

108.3

481
483
484
491,3 (pt.)
492,3 (pt.)

113.3
104.9
92.6
110.1
105.8

119.8
106.1
87.6
113.4
109.6

127.7
108.3
88.5
115.2
111.1

135.5
106.7
85.3
120.6
121.8

142.2
110.1
83.4
126.8
125.6

148.1
109.6
84.5
135.0
137.1

159.5
105.8
81.9
146.5
145.9

160.9
101.1
84.7
150.5
158.6

170.3
100.7
83.5
160.1
144.4

189.1
101.8
81.5
162.7
145.0

Lumber and other building materials dealers.........
Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores............................
Hardware stores...........................................................
Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores....
Department stores.......................................................

521
523
525
526
531

104.3
106.8
115.3
84.7
96.8

102.3
100.4
108.7
89.3
102.0

106.4
107.6
115.2
101.2
105.4

111.4
114.2
113.9
107.1
110.4

118.9
127.8
121.2
117.0
113.4

117.8
130.9
115.5
117.4
115.9

121.6
133.5
119.5
136.4
123.5

121.8
134.8
119.0
127.5
128.8

134.2
163.5
137.8
133.7
135.5

142.3
163.2
149.3
151.2
147.4

Variety stores................................................................
Miscellaneous general merchandise stores............
Grocery stores.............................................................
Meat and fish (seafood) markets...............................

533
539
541
542
546

154.4
118.6
96.6
98.9
91.2

158.8
124.8
96.3
90.8
96.7

173.7
140.4
96.5
99.2
96.5

191.5
164.2
96.0
97.7
86.5

197.4
164.8
95.4
95.7
85.3

211.3
167.3
93.9
94.4
83.0

238.4
167.6
92.1
86.4
75.9

257.7
170.3
91.7
90.8
67.6

268.7
185.7
92.2
95.7
68.1

319.5
195.2
95.4
99.3
83.8

New and used car dealers.........................................
Auto and home supply stores....................................
Gasoline service stations............................................
Men's and boy's wear stores.....................................
Women's clothing stores............................................

551
553
554
561
562

106.7
103.6
103.0
115.6
106.6

104.9
100.2
104.8
121.9
111.2

107.4
101.6
110.2
122.3
123.6

108.6
100.8
115.9
119.5
130.0

109.7
105.3
121.1
121.8
130.4

108.1
109.1
127.2
121.4
139.9

109.1
108.2
126.1
129.8
154.2

108.8
108.1
126.1
136.3
157.3

108.7
113.0
133.9
145.2
176.1

111.9
116.0
140.6
154.6
190.5

Family clothing stores.................................................
Shoe stores...................................................................
Furniture and homefurnishings stores.....................
Household appliance stores.......................................
Radio, television, computer, and music stores.......

565
566
571
572
573

107.8
107.9
104.6
104.3
121.1

111.5
107.8
105.4
106.7
129.8

118.6
115.5
113.9
115.5
139.9

121.5
117.3
113.3
118.0
154.5

127.7
130.7
114.7
121.5
179.1

141.8
139.2
117.4
138.4
199.3

146.9
151.9
123.6
140.7
208.1

150.2
148.4
124.2
153.5
218.4

153.1
145.0
127.2
181.4
260.3

156.5
151.1
134.1
183.9
314.6

Eating and drinking places.........................................
Drug and proprietary stores.......................................
Liquor stores.................................................................
Used merchandise stores...........................................
Miscellaneous shopping goods stores.....................

581
591
592
593
594

104.5
106.3
105.9
103.0
107.2

103.8
108.0
106.9
102.3
109.0

103.4
107.6
109.6
115.7
107.5

103.8
109.5
101.8
116.8
111.5

102.1
109.9
100.1
119.5
117.1

102.0
111.1
104.7
120.6
123.1

100.6
113.9
113.8
132.7
125.3

101.6
119.7
109.9
140.3
129.1

102.0
125.6
116.5
163.6
138.8

104.3
129.8
114.6
181.9
145.2

Nonstore retailers.......................................................

596
598
599

111.1
84.5
114.5

112.5
85.3
104.0

126.5
84.2
112.5

132.2
91.8
118.1

149.0
99.0
125.8

152.4
111.4
127.0

173.3
112.4
140.2

186.5
109.0
147.8

208.0
105.8
157.3

222.2
115.1
161.0

Laundry, cleaning, and garment services...............
Photographic studios, portrait....................................
Beauty shops................................................................

602
701
721
722
723

107.7
96.2
102.3
98.2
97.5

110.1
99.3
99.9
92.1
95.8

111.0
108.0
99.3
95.8
100.9

118.5
106.5
99.9
101.8
97.0

121.7
109.9
105.0
108.3
101.1

126.4
110.5
106.6
116.2
104.8

129.7
110.0
109.8
110.7
107.6

133.0
108.2
109.0
114.1
108.5

132.6
111.6
116.2
121.6
110.5

135.2
113.5
121.8
105.1
113.3

Funeral services and crematories............................
Automotive repair shops............................................
Motion picture theaters...............................................

724
726
753
783

100.7
91.2
107.9
118.1

94.9
89.9
100.1
118.2

113.2
103.8
105.1
114.8

121.9
98.7
105.7
113.8

118.8
104.3
114.3
110.4

115.7
100.2
121.6
105.0

128.8
97.6
116.1
104.1

150.4
101.9
117.2
103.4

157.4
104.2
124.9
106.1

138.0
99.7
127.6
110.5

Industry

SIC

1990

Toys and sporting goods............................................
Pens, pencils, office, and art supplies......................

394
395

108.1
118.2

Costume jewelry and notions.....................................
Miscellaneous manufactures.....................................

396
399

105.3
106.5

Railroad transportation................................................

4011

Trucking, except lo c a l1 ..............................................

4213

U.S. postal se rvice 2 ...................................................
Air transportation 1 ......................................................

1991

Transportation

Utitlities
Telephone communications.......................................
Radio and television broadcasting............................
Cable and other pay TV services..............................
Electric utilities.............................................................
Gas utilities....................................................................

Trade

Finance and services
Commercial banks.......................................................

1

Refers to output per employee

n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified

* Refers to ouput per full-tim e equivalent employee year on fiscal basis.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

127

Current Labor Statistics:

Injury and Illness Data

47. Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data
seasonally adjusted
Annual average

Country

1999

2000

1999
I

II

2000
III

IV

1

II

III

IV

United States.........

4.2

4.0

4.3

4.3

4.2

4.1

4.0

4.0

4.1

4.0

Canada..................
Australia................

6.8
7.2
4.7
11.2

5.8
6.6
4.8
9.7

7.1
7.5
4.7
11.4

7.1
7.4
4.8
11.3

6.8
7.1
4.8
11.2

6.2
7.0
4.7
10.8

6.0
6.8
4.8
10.2

5.8
6.7
4.7
9.7

5.8
6.3
4.7
9.6

5.7
6.5
4.8
9.2

8.7
11.5
7.1
6.1

8.3
10.7
5.9

8.8
11.8
7.1
6.2

8.8
11.7
7.0
6.1

8.8
11.5
7.1
5.9

8.7
11.2
7.1
5.9

84
11.3
6.7
5.8

8.3

fi ?

10.8
6.0
5.5

10.6
5.6
5.4

Japan1...................
France1..................
Germ anv1.............
Italv1,2....................
Sweden1................
United Kingdom1

-

1 Preliminary for 2000 for Japan, France, Germany (unified), Italy,
and Sweden and for 1999 onward for the United Kingdom.

dicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts than the annual
figures. See "Notes on the data" for information on breaks in

2 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter.

series.

For further qualifications

Comparative
NOTE:
calculated

Quarterly

figures for

by applying

France and

Germany are

annual adjustment factors to

128

Monthly Labor Review

Civilian

Labor

February 2002

and

Force

historical data,

Statistics,

Ten

Dash indicates data not available.

see

Coun­

tries, 1959-2000 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar. 16,2001).

current

published data, and therefore should be viewed as less precise in­


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

10.1
5.2
-

48. Annual data: Employment status of the working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts, 10 countries
[Numbers in thousands]

Employment status and country

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

126,346

128,105

129,200

131,056

132,304

133,943

136,297

137,673

139,368

140,863

14,128
8,490

14,168
8,562

14,299
8,619

14,387
8,776

14,500
9,001

14,650
9,127

14,936
9,221

15,216
9,347

15,513
9,470

15,745
9,682

Civilian labor force
United States1...................................................................
Canada..............................................................................
Australia.............................................................................
Japan..................................................................................

64,280

65,040

65,470

65,780

65,990

66,450

67,200

67,240

67,090

66,990

France................................................................................
Germany2...........................................................................

24,470
39,130

24,570
39,040

24,640
39,140

24,780
39,210

24,830
39,100

25,090
39,180

25,210
39,480

25,540
39,520

25,860
39,630

-

Netherlands.......................................................................
Sweden..............................................................................
United Kingdom.................................................................

22,940
6,780
4,591
28,610

22,910
6,940
4,520
28,410

22,570
7,050
4,443
28,310

22,450
7,200
4,418
28,280

22,460
7,230
4,460
28,480

22,570
7,440
4,459
28,620

22,680
7,510
4,418
28,760

22,960
7,670
4,402
28,870

23,130
7,750
4,430
29,090

-

-

-

Participation rate9
1InitoH .^tatoc1
Canada..............................................................................
Australia.............................................................................
Japan..................................................................................
France................................................................................
rtormanu^
Italy.....................................................................................
Netherlands.......................................................................
Sweden..............................................................................
United Kinqdom................................................................

66.2
66.7
64.1
63.2
55.9
58.9
47.7
56.8
67.0
63.7

66.4
65.9
63.9
63.4
55.8
58.3
47.5
57.7
65.7
63.1

66.3
65.5
63.6
63.3
55.6
58.0
47.9
58.2
64.5
62.8

66.6
64.9
64.6
62.9
55.3
57.3
47.1
58.9
64.1
62.7

66.6
65.2
63.9
63.1
55.5
57.6
47.3
59.0
63.7
62.5

66.8
64.7
64.6
63.0
55.5
57.4
47.1
60.3
64.0
62.7

67.1
65.0
64.3
63.2
55.3
57.7
47.2
60.6
63.3
62.8

67.1
65.4
64.4
62.8
55.7
57.7
47.6
61.4
62.8
62.7

67.1
65.8
64.2
62.4
56.0
57.9
47.8
61.5
63.2
62.9

67.2
65.9
64.7
62.0
-

Employed
United States1...................................................................
Canada..............................................................................
Australia.............................................................................
Japan..................................................................................
i^ormom/^
Italy.....................................................................................
Sweden..............................................................................
United Kingdom................................................................

117,718

118,492

120,259

123,060

124,900

126,708

129,558

131,463

133,488

135,208

12,747
7,676
62,920

12,672
7,637
63,620

12,770
7,680
63,810

13,027
7,921
63,860

13,271
8,235
63,890

13,380
8,344
64,200

13,705
8,429
64,900

14,068
8,597
64,450

14,456
8,785
63,920

14,827
9,043
63,790

22,120
36,920
21,360
6,380
4,447
26,090

22,020
36,420
21,230
6,540
4,265
25,530

21,740
36,030
20,270
6,590
4,028
25,340

21,730
35,890
19,940
6,680
3,992
25,550

21,910
35,900
19,820
6,730
4,056
26,000

21,960
35,680
19,920
6,970
4,019
26,280

22,090
35,570
19,990
7,110
3,973
26,740

22,520
35,830
20,210
7,360
4,034
27,050

22,970
36,170
20,460
7,490
4,117
27,330

_
-

-

_
-

Em ploym ent-population ratio4
United States1...................................................................
Canada..............................................................................
Australia............................................................................
Japan..................................................................................
Germany2...........................................................................
Italy.....................................................................................
Sweden.............................................................................
United Kinqdom................................................................

61.7

61.5

61.7

62.5

62.9

63.2

63.8

64.1

64.3

64.5

60.2
57.9
61.8
50.6
55.5

58.9
57.0
62.0
50.0
54.4

58.5
56.6
61.7
49.0
53.4

59.0
57.7
61.3
48.7
52.8

59.4
59.1
60.9
48.8
52.6

59.1
59.1
60.9
48.5
52.2

59.7
58.8
61.0
48.5
52.0

60.4
59.2
60.2
49.1
52.3

61.3
59.6
59.4
49.8
52.8

62.1
60.4
59.0
—

44.5
53.4
64.9
58.0

44.0
54.4
62.0
56.7

43.0
54.4
58.5
56.2

42.0
54.8
57.6
56.5

41.5
54.9
58.3
57.2

41.6
56.5
57.7
57.6

41.6
57.4
56.9
58.3

41.9
58.9
57.6
58.7

42.3
59.4
58.7
59.1

-

_
-

Unemployed
United States1...................................................................
Canada..............................................................................
Japan.................................................................................
Germany2.........................................................................
Italy.....................................................................................

United Kingdom................................................................

8,628

9,613

8,940

7,996

7,404

7,236

6,739

6,210

5,880

5,655

1,381
814
1,360

1,496
925
1,420

1,530
939
1,660

1,359
856
1,920

1,229
766
2,100

1,271
783
2,250

1,230
791
2,300

1,148
750
2,790

1,058
685
3,170

918
638
3,200

2,350
2,210

2,550
2,620

2,900
3,110

3,060
3,320

2,920
3,200

3,130
3,500

3,130
3,910

3,020
3,690

2,890
3,460

-

1,580
400
144
2,520

1,680
390
255
2,880

2,300
460
415
2,970

2,510
520
426
2,730

2,640
510
404
2,480

2,650
470
440
2,340

2,690
400
445
2,020

2,750
310
368
1,820

2,670
260
313
1,760

_
-

_
-

Unemploym ent rate
United States1...................................................................
Canada..............................................................................

Germany2..........................................................................
Italy....................................................................................

United Kinadom...............................................................

6.8

7.5

6.9

6.1

5.6

5.4

4.9

4.5

4.2

4.0

9.8
9.6
2.1
9.6
5.6

10.6
10.8
2.2
10.4
6.7

10.7
10.9
2.5
11.8
7.9

9.4
9.7
2.9
12.3
8.5

8.5
8.5
3.2
11.8
8.2

8.7
8.6
3.4
12.5
8.9

8.2
8.6
3.4
12.4
9.9

7.5
8.0
4.1
11.8
9.3

6.8
7.2
4.7
11.2
8.7

5.8
6.6
4.8
9.7

6.9
5.9
3.1
8.8

7.3
5.6
5.6
10.1

10.2
11.2
7.2
6.5
9.6
9.3
10.5 !______ ü

11.8
7.1
9.1
8.7

11.7
6.3
9.9
8.2

11.9
12.0
5.3
4.0
8.4
10.1
7.0 I______ 6,3

11.5
3.4
7.1
6.1

10.7

1 Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years. For
additional information, see the box note under "Employment and Unemployment
Data" in the notes to this section.

_

5.9

3 Labor force as a percent of the working-age population,

2 Data from 1991 onward refer to unified Germany. See Comparative Civilian Labor
Force Statistics, Ten Countries, 1959-2000, Mar. 16, 2001, on the Internet at

4 Employment as a percent of the working-age population.
NOTE: See Notes on the data for information on breaks in series for the United
States, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
Dash indicates data are not available,

h tt p ://s t a ts .b ls .g o v /fls d a ta .h tm .

p = preliminary.


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

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

129

Current Labor Statistics:

50.

Injury and Illness Data

Continued—Occupational injury and illness rates by industry,1 United States
industry and type of case

Nondurable goods:
Total c ases..................................................................
Lost workday cases...............................................
Lost workdays.............................................

Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers3

1988 1989 1 1990

1991

1992 19934 19944 1995 4 19964 1997 4 1998 4 1999 4

11.4
5.4
101.7

11.6
5.5
107.8

11.7
5.6
116.9

11.5
5.5
119.7

11.3
5.3

10.7
5.0

10.5
5.1

9.9
4.9

9.2
4.6

8.8
4.4

8.2
4.3

7.8
4.2

18.5
9.2
169.7

18.5
9.3
174.7

20.0
9.9
202.6

19.5
9.9
207.2

18.8
9.5
211.9

17.6
8.9

17.1
9.2

16.3
8.7

15.0
8.0

14.5
8.0

13.6
7.5

12.7
7.3

Tobacco products:
Total cases........................................................
Lost workday cases......................................
Lost workdays...............................................

9.3
2.9
53.0

8.7
3.4
64.2

7.7
3.2
62.3

6.4
2.8
52.0

6.0
2.4
42.9

5.8
2.3

5.3
2.4

5.6
2.6

6.7
2.8

5.9
2.7

6.4
3.4

5.5
2.2

Textile mill products:
Total cases.....................................................
Lost workday cases......................................................
Lost workdays........................................................

9.6
4.0
78.8

10.3
4.2
81.4

9.6
4.0
85.1

10.1
4.4
88.3

9.9
4.2
87.1

9.7
4.1

8.7
4.0

8.2
4.1

7.8
3.6

6.7
3.1

7.4
3.4

6.4
3.2

Apparel and other textile products:
Total cases.................................................................
Lost workday cases...................................................
Lost workdays...............................................

8.1
3.5
68.2

8.6
3.8
80.5

8.8
3.9
92.1

9.2
4.2
99.9

9.5
4.0
104.6

9.0
3.8

8.9
3.9
_

8.2
3.6
_

7.4
3.3
_

7.0
3.1

6.2
2.6

5.8
2.8

Paper and allied products:
Total cases.................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................
Lost workdays.............................................................

13.1
5.9
124.3

12.7
5.8
132.9

12.1
5.5
124.8

11.2
5.0
122.7

11.0
5.0
125.9

9.9
4.6

9.6
4.5

8.5
4.2
_

7.9
3.8
_

7.3
3.7
_

7.1
3.7

7.0
3.7

6.6
3.2
59.8

6.9
3.3
63.8

6.9
3.3
69.8

6.7
3.2
74.5

7.3
3.2
74.8

6.9
3.1

6.7
3.0
_

6.4
3.0
_

6.0
2.8
_

5.7
2.7

5.4
2.8

5.0
2.6

Chemicals and allied products:
Total cases............................................................
Lost workday cases..............................................................
Lost workdays......................................................

7.0
3.3
59.0

7.0
3.2
63.4

6.5
3.1
61.6

6.4
3.1
62.4

6.0
2.8
64.2

5.9
2.7

5.7
2.8
_

5.5
2.7

4.8
2.4
-

4.8
2.3

4.2
2.1

4.4
2.3

Petroleum and coal products:
Total cases.....................................................................
Lost workday cases..............................................................
Lost workdays...................................................................

7.0
3.2
68.4

6.6
3.3
68.1

6.6
3.1
77.3

6.2
2.9
68.2

5.9
2.8
71.2

5.2
2.5
-

4.7
2.3

4.8
2.4
_

4.6
2.5
_

4.3
2.2
_

3.9
1.8

4.1
1.8

Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products:
Total cases.................................................................................
Lost workday cases..............................................................
Lost workdays..................................................................

16.3
8.1
142.9

16.2
8.0
147.2

16.2
7.8
151.3

15.1
7.2
150.9

14.5
6.8
153.3

13.9
6.5
-

14.0
6.7
-

12.9
6.5
_

12.3
6.3
_

11.9
5.8
_

11.2
5.8

10.1
5.5

Leather and leather products:
Total cases..........................................................................
Lost workday cases...............................................................
Lost workdays....................................................

11.4
5.6
128.2

13.6
6.5
130.4

12.1
5.9
152.3

12.5
5.9
140.8

12.1
5.4
128.5

12.1
5.5
-

12.0
5.3

11.4
4.8
-

10.7
4.5
-

10.6
4.3
_

9.8
4.5

10.3
5.0

Transportation and public u tilities
Total cases..................................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................
Lost workdays........................................................

8.9
5.1
118.6

9.2
5.3
121.5

9.6
5.5
134.1

9.3
5.4
140.0

9.1
5.1
144.0

9.5
5.4

9.3
5.5

9.1
5.2
-

8.7
5.1
_

8.2
4.8
-

7.3
4.3

7.3
4.4

7.8
3.5
60.9

8.0
3.6
63.5

7.9
3.5
65.6

7.6
3.4
72.0

8.4
3.5
80.1

8.1
3.4

7.9
3.4
_

7.5
3.2
_

6.8
2.9
_

6.7
3.0

6.5
2.8

6.1
2.7

Wholesale trade:
Total c ases........................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................................
Lost workdays................................................................

7.6
3.8
69.2

7.7
4.0
71.9

7.4
3.7
71.5

7.2
3.7
79.2

7.6
3.6
82.4

7.8
3.7
-

7.7
3.8
-

7.5
3.6
_

6.6
3.4
_

6.5
3.2
_

6.5
3.3

6.3
3.3

Retail trade:
Total cases.........................................................................
Lost workday cases.......................................................
Lost workdays.........................................................

7.9
3.4
57.6

8.1
3.4
60.0

8.1
3.4
63.2

7.7
3.3
69.1

8.7
3.4
79.2

8.2
3.3

7.9
3.3
-

7.5
3.0
-

6.9
2.8
-

6.8
2.9
-

6.5
2.7
-

6.1
2.5

Finance, insurance, and real estate
Total cases...................................................................................
Lost workday cases.....................................................
Lost workdays...................................................

2.0
.9
17.2

2.0
.9
17.6

2.4
1.1
27.3

2.4
1.1
24.1

2.9
1.2
32.9

2.9
1.2
-

2.7
1.1
-

2.6
1.0
-

2.4
.9

2.2
.9

.7
.5

1.8
.8

Services
Total c ases.............................................................................
Lost workday cases...............................................................
Lost workdays.......................................................................

5.4
2.6
47.7

5.5
2.7
51.2

6.0
2.8
56.4

6.2
2.8
60.0

7.1
3.0
68.6

6.7
2.8

6.5
2.8

5.2
2.4

4.9
2.2

-

6.0
2.6
-

5.6
2.5

-

6.4
2.8
-

Food and kindred products:
Total cases...................................................................
Lost workday cases.............................................................
Lost workdays....................................................

Printing and publishing:
Total cases..................................................................

Lost workday cases....................................................
Lost workdays.........................................................

Wholesale and retail trade
Total cases..........................................................................
Lost workday cases............................................
Lost workdays...................................................................

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 Data for 1989 and subsequent years are based on the Standard Industrial Class­
ification Manual, 1987 Edition. For this reason, they are not strictly comparable with data
for the years 1985-88, which were based on the Standard Industrial Classification
Manual, 1972 Edition, 1977 Supplement.

N = number of Injuries and illnesses or lost workdays;
EH = total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year; and
200,000 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per week, 50
weeks per year).

2 Beginning with the 1992 survey, the annual survey measures only nonfatal injuries and
illnesses, while past surveys covered both fatal and nonfatal Incidents. To better address
fatalities, a basic element of workplace safety, BLS implemented the Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries.

4 Beginning with the 1993 survey, lost workday estimates will not be generated. As of
1992, BLS began generating percent distributions and the median number of days away
from work by industry and for groups of workers sustaining similar work disabilities.

3 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays per
100 full-time workers and were calculated as (N/EH) X 200,000, where:

130

Monthly Labor Review


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

February 2002

5 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976.
Dash indicates data not available.

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

51. Fatal occupational injuries by event or exposure, 1994-2000
F a ta litie s
2000

1 9 9 4 -9 8

19992

A v e ra g e

N um ber

E ve n t o r e x p o s u re 1

P e rc e n t

N um ber

6,280

6,054

5,915

100

2,640
1,374
662
113
240
136
272
368
280
387
215
304
382
104

2,571
1,363
694
136
243
153
279
356
304
399
213
280
370
84
71

43
23
12
2
4

78

2,618
1,496
714
129
270
161
334
390
322
352
206
228
377
102
56

1,168
923
748
68
107
215

909
651
509
62
80
218

929
677
533
66
78
220

16
11
9
1
1
4

984
564
364
60
281
148
124

1,030
585
358
55
302
163
129

1,005
570
357
61
294
157
123

17
10
6
1
5
3
2

686
609
101
146
89
53

721
634
96
153
92
70

734
659
110
150
85
56

12
11
2
3
2
1

583
322
136
45
118
66
96
77

533
280
125
51
108
55
92
75

480
256
128
29
100
48
93
74

8
4
2
2
1
2
1

F ir e s a n d e x p l o s i o n s ...........................................................................

199

216

177

3

O t h e r e v e n t s o r e x p o s u r e s 3............................................................................

21

27

19

-

Total..............................................................................................
T ra n s p o rta tio n in c id e n ts .....................................................................
Highway incident...................................................................................
Collision between vehicles, mobile equipment.............................
Moving in same direction..............................................................
Moving in opposite directions, oncoming...................................
Moving in intersection...................................................................
Vehicle struck stationary object or equipment..............................
Noncollision incident.........................................................................
Jackknifed or overturned— no collision.......................................
Nonhighway (farm, industrial premises) incident.............................
Overturned.........................................................................................
Worker struck by a vehicle..................................................................
Water vehicle incident..........................................................................
Railway..................................................................................................
A s s a u lts a nd v io le n t a c ts ....................................................................
Shooting.............................................................................................
Stabbing.............................................................................................
Other, including bombing................................................................
Self-inflicted injuries..............................................................................
C o n t a c t w ith o b je c ts a n d e q u ip m e n t .........................................................

Struck by object....................................................................................
Struck by falling object.....................................................................
Struck by flying object......................................................................
Caught in or compressed by equipment or objects........................
Caught in running equipment or machinery..................................

F a lls .................................................................................................................................

Fall from ladder..................................................................................

Fall on same level................................................................................

Contact with overhead power lines................................................
Contact with temperature extremes...................................................
Exposure to caustic, noxious, or allergenic substances................
Oxygen deficiency...............................................................................

1 Based on the 1992 bls Occupational Injury and Illness

3

3
5
6
5
7
4
5
6
1
1

Includes the category "Bodily reaction and exertion."

Classification Structures.
2

The bls news release issued August 17, 2000, reported a

total of 6,023 fatal work injuries for calendar year 1999. Since
then, an additional 31 job-related fatalities were identified,
bringing the total job-related fatality count for 1999 to 6,054.

NOTE:

Totals

for

major categories

may include sub­

categories not shown separately. Percentages may not add to
totals because of rounding.

Dash indicates less than 0.5

percent.

Monthly Labor Review

February 2002

131

D e c is io n s , D e c is io n s , D e c isio n s,
G ear u p ! Turn to u g h d e c is io n s

in to in fo rm e d d e c is io n s w iitii •

b n th fy Labor R e v ie w

Monthly Labor Review is the principal journal of current data and analysis from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Economists, statisticians, and other experts from the Bureau
join with professionals in the private sector to provide you with a trustworthy source of solid
economic research on these crucial topics:
•
•
•

Employment and unemployment
Consumer prices
Producer prices

Employer costs

•
•

Productivity
Compensation

Workplace injuries and illnesses
International data and developments

Labor-management relations
Labor market projections

Also, whether it’s a number or a trend that you need, the Current Labor Statistics department
provides the statistical series you can use.

Subscribe to Monthly Labor Review today, and turn your tough decisions into informed decisions!
United States Government
IN F O R M A T IO N
Credit card orders are welcome!

Order Processing Code:

*5542

Fax your orders (202) 512-2250
Phone your orders (202) 512-1800

□

YES ,

please s e n d ________ su b scrip tio n s to:
M o n th ly Labo r R eview (M LR ) at $45 each ($56.25 foreign) per year.

The total cost of my order is $ ____________ .

Check method of payment:

Price includes regular shipping & handling and is subject to change.
Name or title

(Please type or p rin t)

Company name

Room, floor, suite

Street address

/

Citv

/
State

Zip code +4

□

Check payable to: S u p e rinte n d e n t of D ocum ents

□

GPO D eposit A cco u n t

□

VISA

□ M asterC ard

\

[

|

\

\

\

| ~H

I

□ D iscover

Daytime phone including area code
Purchase order number (optional)

Mail to:

S u p e rin te n d e n t of D o cu m e n ts, P.O. Box 371954,
Pittsburgh, PA 1 5 2 5 0 -7 9 5 4

Important: Please include this completed order form with your
remittance.

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

Authorizing signature

Thank you for your order!

1CV01

O b ta in in g in fo rm a tio n fro m th e B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s
O ffice or topic
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Information services

In ternet address
http://www.bls.gov/
http://www.bls.gov/opub/

E-mail
blsdata_staff@bls.gov

Employment and unemployment
Employment, hours, and earnings:
National
State and local
Labor force statistics:
National
Local
Ul-covered employment, wages
Occupational employment
Mass layoffs
Longitudinal data

http://www.bls.gov/ces/
http://www.bls.gov/sae/

cesinfo@bls.gov
data_sa@bls.gov

http://www.bls.gov/cpshome.htm
http://www.bls.gov/lau/
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
http://www.bls.gov/oes/
http://www.bls.gov/lau/
http://www.bls.gov/nls/

cpsinfo@bls.gov
lausinfo@bls.gov
cewinfo@bls.gov
oesinfo@bls.gov
mlsinfo@bls.gov
nls info@bls.gov

Prices and living conditions
Consumer price indexes
Producer price indexes)
Import and export price indexes
Consumer expenditures

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/
http://www.bls.gov/ppi/
http://www.bls.gov/mxp/
http://www.bls.gov/cex/

cpi_info@bls.gov
ppi-info@bls.gov
mxpinfo@bls.gov
cexinfo@bls.gov

Compensation and working conditions
National Compensation Survey:
Employee benefits
Employment cost trends
Occupational compensation
Occupational illnesses, injuries
Fatal occupational injuries
Collective bargaining

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/
http://www.bls.gov/ebs/
http://www.bls.gov/ect/
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/
http://www.bls.gov/iif/
http://www.bls.gov/iif/
http://www.bls.gov/cba/

ocltinfo@bls.gov
ocltinfo@bls.gov
ocltinfo@bls.gov
ocltinfo@bls.gov
oshstaff@bls.gov
cfoistaff@bls.gov
cbainfo@bls.gov

Productivity
Labor
Industry
Multifactor

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/
http://www.bls.gov/lpc/
http://www.bls.gov/mfp/

dprweb@bls.gov
dipsweb@bls.gov
dprweb@bls.gov

Projections
Employment
Occupation

http://www.bls.gov/emp/
http://www.bls.gov/oco/

oohinfo@bls.gov
oohinfo@bls.gov

International
http://www.bls.gov/fls/

flshelp@bls.gov

Regional centers
Atlanta
Boston
Chicago
Dallas
Kansas City
New York
Philadelphia
San Francisco


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

http://www.bls.gov/ro4/
http ://www.bls.gov/ro 1/
http://www.bls.gov/ro5/
http://www.bls.gov/ro6/
http://www.bls.gov/ro7/
http://www.bls.gov/ro2/
http://www.bls.gov/ro3/
http://www.bls.gov/ro9/
Other Federal statistical agencies
http ://www. fedstats.go v/

BLSinfoAtlanta@bls.gov
BLSinfoBoston@bls.gov
BLSinfoChicago@bls.gov
BLSinfoDallas@bls.gov
BLSinfoKansasCity@bls.gov
BLSinfoNY@bls.gov
BLSinfoPhiladelphia@bls.gov
BLSinfoSF@bls.gov

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Postal Square Building, Rm. 2850
2 Massachusetts Ave., NE
Washington, DC 20212-0001

Periodicals ■
Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
USPS 987-800

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
Address Service Requested

MLR
F E Ü K t 442F ISSDUE007R
1
FED RESERVE BANK OF ST L O U I S
CAROL THAXTON L I B R A R Y U N I T
PO BOX 4 4 2
SAINT LOUIS
MO
63166
« 7

Schedule of release dates for BLS statistical series
Series

Release
date

Period
covered

Release
date

Period
covered

Release
date

Period
covered

Employment situation

February 1

January

March 8

February

April 5

March

Productivity and costs

February 6

4th quarter

March 7

4th quarter

U.S. Import and Export
Price Indexes

February 14 January

March 14

February

April 11

March

38-42

Producer Price Indexes

February 15 January

March 15

February

April 12

March

2; 35-37

Consumer Price indexes

February 20 January

March 21

February

April 16

March

2; 32-34

Real earnings

February 20 January

March 21

February

April 16

March

14, 16

April 25

1st quarter

Employment Cost Indexes


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

MLR table
number
1; 4-24
2; 43-46

1-3; 25-28