The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
f
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
f
U.S. D e p artm e n t o f L a b o r
B ureau of L a b o r S ta tistics
J u ly 1980
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Ray Marshall, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
J a n e t L. N o rw o o d, Commissioner
T h e M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w is p u b lis h e d b y th e
B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s o f th e U .S . D e p a rtm e n t
o f L a b o r. C o m m u n ic a tio n s on e d ito ria l m a tte rs
s h o u ld be a d d re s s e d to th e E d ito r-in -C h ie f,
M o n th ly L a b o r R e vie w , B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s ,
W a s h in g to n , D .C . 2 0 2 1 2 .
P hon e: (2 0 2 ) 5 2 3 - 1 3 2 7 .
S u b s c rip tio n p ric e p e r y e a r —
$ 1 8 d o m e s tic ; $ 2 2 .5 0 fo re ig n .
S in g le c o p y $ 2.5 0.
S u b s c rip tio n p ric e s a n d d is trib u tio n p o lic ie s fo r th e
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w (IS S N 0 0 9 8 -0 8 1 8 ) a n d o th e r G o v e rn m e n t
p u b lic a tio n s a re s e t b y th e G o v e rn m e n t P rin tin g O ffic e ,
an a g e n c y o f th e U .S . C o n g re s s . S e n d c o rre s p o n d e n c e
on circ u la tio n a n d s u b s c rip tio n m a tte rs (in clu d in g
a d d re s s c h a n g e s ) to:
S u p e rin te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts ,
G o v e rn m e n t P rintin g O ffic e ,
W a s h in g to n , D .C . 2 0 4 0 2
M a k e c h e c k s p a y a b le to
S u p e rin te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts .
T h e S e c re ta ry o f L a b o r h a s d e te rm in e d th a t th e
p u b lic a tio n o f th is p e rio d ic a l is n e c e s s a ry in th e
tra n s a c tio n o f th e p u b lic b u s in e s s re q u ire d by
la w o f th is D e p a rtm e n t. U s e o f fu n d s fo r p rin tin g
th is p e rio d ic a l h a s b e e n a p p ro v e d b y th e D ire c to r
o f th e O ffic e o f M a n a g e m e n t a n d B u d g e t
th ro u g h O c to b e r 3 1 , 1982 . S e c o n d -c la s s
p o s ta g e p aid a t R iv e rd a le , M D .,
a n d a t a d d itio n a l m a ilin g o ffice s.
L ib ra ry o f C o n g re s s C a ta lo g
C a rd N u m b e r 1 5 - 2 6 4 8 5
Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
R e g io n I — B o s to n : Wendell D. Macdonald
1 6 0 3 J F K F e d e ra l B u ild in g , G o v e rn m e n t C e n te r,
B o sto n , M a ss . 0 2 2 0 3
P hon e: (6 1 7 ) 2 2 3 - 6 7 6 1
C o n n e c tic u t
M a in e
M a s s a c h u s e tts
N e w H a m p s h ire
R h o d e Islan d
V e rm o n t
R e g io n II — N e w Y o rk : Samuel M. Ehrenhalt
1 5 1 5 B ro a d w a y , S u ite 3 4 0 0 , N e w Y o rk , N .Y . 1 0 0 3 6
P hon e: (2 1 2 ) 9 4 4 - 3 1 2 1
N e w J e rs e y
N e w Y o rk
P u e rto R ico
V irg in Isla n d s
R e g io n III — P h ila d e lp h ia : Alvin /. Margulis
3 5 3 5 M a rk e t S tre e t
P .O . B o x 1 3 3 0 9 , P h ila d e lp h ia , Pa. 19101
P hon e: (2 1 5 ) 5 9 6 - 1 1 5 4
D e la w a re
D is tric t o f C o lu m b ia
M a ry la n d
P e n n s y lv a n ia
V irg in ia
W e s t V irg in ia
R e g io n IV — A tla n ta : Donald M. Cruse
1371 P e a c h tre e S tre e t, N.E., A tla n ta , G a. 3 0 3 6 7
P hon e: (404 ) 881 - 4 4 1 8
A la b a m a
F lo rid a
G e o rg ia
K e n tu c k y
M issis sip p i
N o rth C a ro lin a
S o u th C a ro lin a
Tennessee
R e g io n V
C h ic a g o : William E Rice
9 th F lo o r, F e d e ra l O ffic e B uild ing, 2 3 0 S. D e a rb o rn S tre e t,
C h ic a g o , III. 6 0 6 0 4
P hon e: (312 ) 3 5 3 - 1 8 8 0
Illino is
India na
M ich ig a n
M in n e s o ta
O h io
W isco n sin
R e g io n V I — D alla s: Bryan Richey
S e c o n d F lo o r, 5 5 5 G riffin S q u a re B uild ing, D a lla s , T e x. 7 5 2 0 2
P hon e: (214 ) 7 6 7 - 6 9 7 1
A rk a n s a s
L o u isia n a
N e w M e x ic o
O k la h o m a
Texas
R e g io n s V II a n d V III — K a n s a s C ity: Elliott A. Browar
911 W a ln u t S tre e t, K a n s a s C ity , M o. 6 4 1 0 6
P hon e: (8 1 6 ) 3 7 4 - 2 4 8 1
V II
Io w a
Kansas
M isso u ri
N e b ra s k a
V III
C o lo ra d o
M o n ta n a
N o rth D a k o ta
S o u th D a k o ta
U ta h
W y o m in g
July cover:
R a lp h F a s a n e lla ’s pa in ting
“ L a w re n c e 1912: T h e B re a d an d R o s e s S trik e ,”
re c a lls th e M a s s a c h u s e tts te x tile w o rk e rs ’ s trik e
d u rin g w h ich yo u n g w o m e n , m o s t o f th e m re c e n t im m ig ra n ts,
c a rrie d b a n n e rs d e m a n d in g : “ W e w a n t b re a d an d ro s e s to o .”
D is tric t 11 99, N a tio n a l U nion o f H o s p ita l an d H e a lth C a re W o rk e rs ,
A F L -C IO , ha s m a d e th e p h ra s e th e th e m e
o f its c u rre n t c u ltu ra l fe s tiv a l an d h a s p ro d u c e d a fu ll-c o lo r
p o s te r (2 1 " x 3 5 ” ) o f th e F a s a n e lla pa in ting ($6,
fro m D is tric t 11 99 C u ltu ra l C e n te r, Inc., 3 1 0 W e s t 43 S tre e t,
N e w Y o rk , N.Y. 1 0 036). T h e p a in tin g a ls o a p p e a rs as th e c o v e r
illu s tra tio n o f W illia m C a h n ’s b o o k, Lawrence 1919; The Bread
and Roses Strike, p u b lis h e d b y P ilg rim P ress.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
R e g io n s IX a n d X — S a n F ra n c is c o : D. Bruce Hanchett
4 5 0 G o ld e n G a te A v e n u e , B o x 3 6 0 1 7 ,
S a n F ra n c is c o , C a lif. 9 4 1 0 2
P hon e: (4 1 5 ) 5 5 6 - 4 6 7 8
IX
A m e ric a n S a m o a
A riz o n a
C a lifo rn ia
G uam
H a w a ii
N evada
T ru s t T e rrito ry o f th e P a c ific Isla n d s
X
A la s k a
Idah o
O re g o n
W a s h in g to n
fi\
M O N T H L Y LA B O R R E V IE W
REFERENCE DEPARTMENT
JU LY 1980
V O L U M E 103, N U M B E R 7
H e n ry L o w e n s te rn , E dito r-in -C h ie f
R o b e rt W. Fisher, E xe cu tive E ditor
R o b e rt W. B e dnarzik
3
AU6
8 1980
K A L A M A Z O O PUBLIC LIBRARY
W o rk s h a rin g in th e U.S.: its p re v a le n c e and d u ra tio n
P re s e rv in g jo b s by s h o rte n in g h o urs and sp re a d in g th e w o rk re m a in s re la tive ly u n co m m o n ;
th e a v e ra g e du ra tio n o f s h o rt-tim e w o rk a p p e a rs to ha ve le n g th e n e d in re c e n t y e a rs
Fred Best, Ja m e s M atte sich
13
S h o rt-tim e c o m p e n s a tio n s y s te m s in C a lifo rn ia and E u ro p e
P re lim in a ry a n a lysis o f the a v a ila b le d a ta s u g g e s ts th a t the C a lifo rn ia p ro g ra m ,
e n a c te d to p re v e n t la yo ffs a fte r th e p a ss a g e o f P ro p o sitio n 13, has w o rk e d w ell
N o rm an B o w e rs
23
P ro b in g th e is s u es o f u n e m p lo y m e n t d u ra tio n
D ata a m b ig u ity, m e a s u re m e n t p ro b le m s h a m p e r in te rp re ta tio n o f jo b le s s duration;
a n a lys is c o n firm s th a t m o st jo b le s s s p e lls a p p e a r to be short, e x c e p t during re ce ssio n s
John D uke
33
C o n s tru c tio n m a c h in e ry in d u s try p o s ts s lo w rise in p ro d u c tiv ity
G ro w th w a s s lo w e r th an 1 9 5 8 -7 8 m a n u fa c tu rin g a v e ra g e , w ith d e clin e s re c o rd e d
in fo u r y e a rs , d e sp ite c o n s id e ra b le c a p ita l e x p e n d itu re and new te c h n o lo g y
CONFERENCE PAPERS
S te p he n H. F uller
Irving B lue sto ne
B a rry A. M acy
37
39
41
H o w q u a lity -o f-w o rk life p ro je c ts w o rk fo r G e neral M o to rs
H o w q u a lity -o f-w o rk life p ro je c ts w o rk fo r the United A u to W o rke rs
The q u a lity -o f-w o rk life p ro je c t a t Bolivar: an a s se ssm e n t
REPORTS
A nne M cD o u g a ll Y oung
Jo an D. B orum
F ra ncis W. H o rva th
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
44
48
51
T re n d s in e du ca tio n al a tta in m e n t am o n g w o rk e rs in the 1 9 7 0 ’s
W a g e gains in 1979 o ffs e t by inflation
W o rkin g w ives re du ce ine q ua lity in d istrib utio n o f fa m ily e arnings
DEPARTMENTS
2
37
44
48
54
57
61
69
L a b o r m onth in review
C o n fe re n c e p ap e rs
S p ecial lab o r fo rc e re p o rts — su m m a rie s
R e se arch su m m a rie s
M a jo r a g re e m e n ts expiring n ext m onth
D e ve lo p m e n ts in industrial re lations
B ook re vie w s
C u rre n t lab o r sta tistics
* efe«ence «*».
AU6 111§80
K alam a zo o
Ö2
Public Library
/ 0 2 6
2
fij
Labor M onth
In Review
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS. What
employer-paid benefits do U.S.
workers receive on the job? The
Bureau of Labor Statistics has com
pleted a pilot survey that provides
some new answers. The survey
covered 21 million employees of
large and medium-sized firms in the
private economy in 1979. BLS con
ducted the survey for the Federal
Government’s Office of Personnel
Management which plans to use the
data to estimate the cost of pro
viding Federal workers similar
benefits. (The BLS survey collected
no cost data.) Some survey findings:
Paid holidays and vacations. Vir
tually all employees have paid
holidays and paid vacations. Usual
ly 9 to 11 holidays are provided each
year, regardless of employees’
length of service. The amount of
vacation, however, generally varies
by length of service. Typical vaca
tion plans call for 5 days with less
than 1 year of service; 10 days after
1 year; 15 days after 10 years; and
20 days after 15 years.
Sick leave plans. Formal sick leave
plans cover 80 percent of the
p ro fe s s io n a l-a d m in is tra tiv e
employees, 83 percent of the
technical-clerical employees, and 37
p e rc e n t o f th e p r o d u c tio n
employees. The latter, however, are
more frequently covered under acci
dent and sickness in su ran ce
Benefits differ significantly
among the various sick leave plans,
ranging from those providing 2 or 3
days of leave per year to others pro
viding 6 months or more of benefits.
Most plans provide full pay for at
least a portion of sick leave.
Accident and sickness insurance.
This insurance provides two-thirds
of the employees with income dur
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ing absence from work due to
disability, sometimes in coordina
tion with sick leave pay.
Just over half of the participants
receive benefits for up to 26 weeks,
and about one-fifth for up to 52
weeks. Professional-administrative
and technical-clerical employees are
m ore likely than p ro duction
employees to be covered longer.
More than 80 percent of covered
workers are in employer-paid plans.
Long-term disability insurance.
Benefits from such plans replace
some of the income workers lose
due to disability. G enerally,
payments begin after sickness and
accident insurance benefits are ex
h austed. N early h a lf of all
employees are participants in an
em ployer-sponsored long-term
disability plan. Potential benefits
for more than three out of four plan
participants equal more than half
their usual earnings.
Nearly 80 percent of covered
workers are in plans funded entirely
by their employers.
Health insurance. Health insurance
plans that are at least partially
employer financed cover 97 percent
of the workers in the survey. Nearly
all participants are insured for
hospital room and board, surgery,
X-rays, and physician’s hospital
visits. One-half have some form of
dental insurance, and almost onefifth have vision care insurance.
Expenditures up to the usual rate
for a semi-private room are covered
for 90 percent of the participants
with basic hospitalization plans.
Other plans provide up to a
specified amount for each day of
hospital care. However, the number
of insured hospital days is limited
for 72 percent of all workers with
hospital coverage, mostly to 365
days per hospital confinement.
Nine out of ten workers covered
by major medical plans are insured
to 80 percent of expenses (coin
surance). For nearly three-fourths
of covered workers, all benefits are
financed by their employers.
Pension plans. Eighty-seven percent
of the employees participate in pen
sion plans with either specified
re tire m e n t b e n e fits or w ith
unspecified benefits based on
employer contributions. The survey
did not cover other plans that could
provide retirement income, such as
profit sharing, stock purchase, and
savings plans.
More than two-fifths of all par
ticipants are covered by plans that
require the employee to reach age 63
to 65 before being eligible to retire
with immediate full benefits; the
majority of these are in plans with
no service requirements. Nearly
one-fifth of participants are in plans
specifying age 61 to 62 for normal
retirement, and another fifth are in
plans specifying age 60 or less.
Life insurance. Nearly all workers
are provided life insurance by their
employers. The amount of in
surance usually varies by earnings
and occupation. Sixty-three percent
of all insured workers receive life in
surance related to earnings. This in
cludes 39 percent who are insured
for a multiple of their annual earn
ings and 24 percent whose coverage
is graduated according to an earn
ings schedule. A flat amount is pro
vided to most of those whose in
surance is not based on earnings.
A publication giving detailed tab
ulations from the level of bene
fits survey is in preparation.
□
Worksharing in the U.S.:
its prevalence and duration
Preserving jobs by shortening hours and spreading
the work remains a relatively uncommon practice;
the average duration of short-time work
has apparently lengthened in recent years,
but is still well below that of unemployment
R obert W. Bednarzik
Reduction of working hours, with accompanying pay
cuts, during periods of economic downturn is a practice
as old as the industrial era.1Under a “worksharing”2ar
rangement, pay and weekly hours are reduced so that
all workers may be retained on the payroll. The advan
tages and disadvantages of worksharing are widely doc
umented, centering on its use as an antirecessionary
tool whereby the relative cost to employers of retaining
workers or laying them off must be weighed.3
Advocates of worksharing argue that the system not
only spreads the impact of a recession, but also fosters
a higher degree of job attachment, keeps employment
skills fresh, and allows workers to retain fringe benefits.4
And, worksharing has been viewed as a way to maxi
mize recent gains in employment of persons suffering
the effects of past discrimination.5 On the other hand,
critics charge that worksharing, especially if government
subsidized, discourages firms from adapting to techno
logical and organizational changes, thus impeding the
creation of new job opportunities. Furthermore, repre
sentatives of organized labor have expressed concern
that worksharing may interfere with seniority privileges
Robert W. Bednarzik is a labor economist in the Division of Employ
ment and Unemployment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
by cutting the wages of more highly paid senior work
ers.6
This article examines the incidence of worksharing in
the United States; the time it takes a worksharer to re
turn to a full-time schedule;7 and various factors facili
tating this change. The transition of worksharers to
“not in the labor force,” unemployed, and “other parttime” status is also examined. The data analyzed are
from the Current Population Survey (CPS): regular
annual average and gross flow statistics8and matched in
dividual observations from May through August 1976,
and between May 1976 and May 1977.9The probability
that an individual will leave worksharing is hypothe
sized to depend on his or her human capital (training
and experience), other income resources, and the value
he or she attaches to nonmarket activities. The impact
of these factors on the probabilities of remaining in
worksharer status, finding or returning to full-time
work, or making other labor market transitions is esti
mated using a multinomial logit analysis.10
A profile of the worksharer
In 1979, there were, on average, 1.6 million workers
— 1.8 percent of the total number of persons at work—
involuntarily on shortened schedules because of slack
3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Worksharing in the US.
workloads. Demographically, blacks and women were
disproportionately represented among this group, rela
tive to their percentage of the working population. (See
table 1.) Blacks, for example, made up 11 percent of the
total at work, but accounted for 17 percent of all
worksharers. Occupational attachment is another im
portant factor in the extent of worksharing. In 1979,
three-fourths of all short-time workers were concentrat
ed in occupations other than white-collar, with the larg
est proportions of worksharers holding jobs as oper
atives (25 percent) and craft workers (16 percent).
These percentages were higher than each occupational
group’s share of the total employed. The incidence of
worksharing also varies by industry: construction and,
to a lesser extent, the trade and manufacturing sectors
account for disproportionate numbers of short-hours
workers, because many jobs in these industries are sea
sonal in nature, and thus lend themselves to periodic
cutbacks.
Worksharing and the business cycle
During the late 1950’s and the early 1960’s, the use
of worksharing decreased as a means of forestalling lay
offs in business cycle downturns. Thus, at the depth of
the 1973-75 recession, the proportion of total nonfarm
workers involuntarily on part-time schedules because of
slack workloads was smaller than during the 1957-58
recession, and about the same as in the 1960-61 down
turn. (See chart 1.)
T a b le 1. W o rk s h a re rs b y s e x , ra c e , o c c u p a tio n , an d
in d u s try in c o m p a ris o n to th e to ta l a t w o rk p o p u la tio n ,
19 79 an n u al a v e ra g e s
S elected characteristics
W orksharers
Total at w ork
Total: N um ber (in th o u s a n d s ).....................
P e rc e n t..................................................
1,602
100.0
91,287
100.0
Sex: M ale ........................................................
F e m a le .....................................................
52.6
47.4
58.6
41.4
Race: W h ite .....................................................
Black and other ................................
83.1
16.9
88.8
11.2
O ccupation:
W hite-collar ................................................
Professional and technical ................
M anagerial and adm inistration . . . .
S a le s ........................................................
C le ric a l.....................................................
Blue-collar ..................................................
C raft and kindred ................................
O peratives .............................................
N onfarm laborers ................................
Service ........................................................
Farm .............................................................
25.2
5.7
4.5
6.1
8.9
50.1
16.4
24.6
9.1
18.0
6.9
50.9
15.2
11.0
6.4
18.3
33.0
13.3
14.9
4.8
13.3
2.8
Indu stry:1
Mining ..........................................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................................
M a n u fa c tu rin g .............................................
Transportation and public utilities . . . .
Trade .............................................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate . .
Service ........................................................
0.9
14.9
27.4
6.8
24.9
3.2
21.8
1.0
6.1
25.5
7.1
21.0
6.3
33.0
1 W age and salary w orkers, excluding agricultural and private household workers.
4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contributing to this change was a decline in the pro
portion of collective bargaining agreements containing
clauses calling for reduction of hours during slack peri
ods. In the mid-1950’s, about 1 in 4 collective bar
gaining agreements contained provisions for reduced
hours in the event of an economic downturn, but by the
mid-1970’s, fewer than 1 in 5 major agreements includ
ed such clauses. This is consistent with the conclusion
of a recent study of trade unions in U.S. manufacturing
industries that “unions increase the use of layoffs by im
peding the use of quits and cuts in real wages, while
restraining firms’ ability to reduce average hours
worked and discharge employees.” 11
Although not as widespread as in some earlier down
turns, worksharing arrangements were clearly evident in
the 1973-75 recession. The number of persons em
ployed part time involuntarily because of slack work
loads peaked at 2.1 million in 1975, nearly twice the
level of its low point in 1973. Despite subsequent eco
nomic recovery, the number of worksharers has re
mained at or above 1.5 million. Moreover, the 1975 —79
recovery phase was the first such period during which
the proportion of short-time workers did not fall below
its prerecession low point. Either worksharers are re
maining on shortened schedules for longer periods or
employers are now using reduced hours to offset
nonrecessionary production cutbacks.
The data pertaining to all involuntary part-time
workers depicted in table 2 support the “increased du
ration” hypothesis, showing a slight increase, between
1968 and 1979, in the probability of an involuntary
part-timer remaining as such, on average, from one
month to the next.12 The increase was more prevalent
among women than among men. Also, the increased
likelihood of remaining involuntarily part time was ac
companied by a corresponding 10-year decline in the
percentage of involuntary part-timers finding or return
ing to full-time positions.
It should be noted that CPS data do not indicate if
an actual job change occurred, but only that there was
a change in labor force status between measurements.
Consequently, we are unable to determine, for example,
if a “worksharer to full-time” job transition was the re
sult of a job change or of the restoration of the individ
ual’s regular weekly schedule in the same job. However,
the primary concern of this article is the change in the
worksharer’s employment status, whether or not it in
volved a job change.
Changing employment status
A worksharer can, over a specific period, remain em
ployed part time involuntarily, or alter his or her status
by returning to or finding a full-time job, accepting oth
er part-time employment, becoming unemployed, or
dropping out of the labor force. For the purposes of
this analysis, becoming unemployed and dropping out
of the labor force were combined to form one transi
tion; thus, there are four possible transitions. Move
ments into worksharing from full-time, part-time, and
unemployed status will also be examined.
The tabulation in the next column presents the ma
trix of possible labor market transition, with each row
or column representing an exhaustive list of entry or
exit possibilities. For example, row 1 depicts the flow of
persons who were involuntarily working part time (I)
during the previous period (t-1) into continued work
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
sharing (I), full-time employment (F), other part-time
employment (P), or unemployment or “not in the labor
force” (U), in the current period (t).
Employment status in
previous period
I (t-1)
F (t-1)
P (t-1)
U (t-1)
Flow possibilities
Kt)
F(t)
P(t)
U(t)
II
FI
PI
UI
IF
FF
PF
UF
IP
FP
PP
UP
IU
FU
PU
UU
5
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Worksharing in the U.S.
Causes of change in employment status
E xh ib it 1. S u m m a ry o f v a ria b le s te s te d b y w o rk s h a rin g
lo g it m o d e l
This section explores the factors that may influence
the likelihood of a worksharer becoming employed full
time, becoming employed part time for reasons other
than slack work, or leaving the labor force. (See exhibit
1.) Because worksharing can be viewed as “partial un
employment,” some of the explanatory variables intro
duced are similar to those which influence the
probability of an unemployed individual becoming
employed.
Job search activity. Foremost among such influences is
job search activity. To determine if workers were actu
ally looking for another job, special supplemental ques
tions on the job search of all workers were included in
the May 1976 CPS. It was found that approximately 9
percent of worksharers surveyed had looked for work at
least once during the 4 weeks prior to the study, com
pared with 4 percent of all other employed persons in
May 1976. However, the search data indicate only the
T a b le 2. In v o lu n ta ry p a rt-tim e w o rk e rs in p re v io u s m o n th
b y la b o r fo r c e s ta tu s in a v e ra g e c u rre n t m o n th , b y se x,
1968 79
Total involuntary
part-tim e w orkers in
previous m onth
Previous-m onth involuntary part-tim e w ork ers
by labor fo rce status in current m onth
(in p ercent)
Year
Num ber
(in thou
sands)
Percent
Involun
tary parttim e
Full
tim e
Voluntary
Unem
partployed
tim e
Not in
th e labor
fo rce
Total:
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
1,924
1,956
2,330
2,611
2,590
2,391
2,797
3,673
3,433
3,477
3,325
3,320
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
25.3
26.8
27.8
296
29.2
26.1
29.7
33.8
33.1
32.0
30.7
31.0
44.0
42.3
42.5
40.1
38 6
41.3
39.3
36.2
36.2
36.8
37.3
37.5
13.7
13.8
13.0
13.3
14.4
15.2
13.7
13.3
14.0
14.8
15.9
15.8
5.9
6.1
7.5
8.1
7.6
7.7
8.3
8.1
8.6
8.3
7.3
7.7
11.2
11.1
9.1
9.0
10.2
9.8
9.2
7.6
8.2
8.3
8.8
8.0
Male:
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
..
.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
975
986
1,221
1,347
1,320
1,194
1,398
1,888
1,734
1,684
1,524
1,489
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
23.5
24.5
25.1
26.6
26.2
23.0
27.0
31.1
30.4
29.0
26.8
26.2
52.1
50.8
49.9
48.0
46.1
48.9
47.0
42.7
43.1
44.1
45.6
46.3
9.0
8.9
9.2
9.0
10.0
10.4
8.7
8.6
9.1
9.7
10.7
11.0
6.6
6.9
9.3
9.9
9.5
9.6
10.2
11.6
10.8
10.2
9.3
9.6
8.7
8.7
6.8
6.5
8.0
8.0
7.1
5.9
6.6
6.8
7.5
6.9
Female:
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
..
.
..
..
.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
949
970
1,109
1,264
1,269
1,197
1,400
1,785
1,700
1,793
1,800
1,831
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
27.0
29.2
30.9
32.9
32.2
29.1
32.3
36.5
35.7
34.7
33.9
35.0
35.5
33.5
34.4
31.6
30.9
33.7
31.5
29.2
29.2
298
30.2
30.2
18.3
18.6
17.4
17.6
19.1
20.1
18.7
18.2
18.8
19.4
20.4
19.7
5.3
5.2
5.7
6.2
5.4
5.8
6.3
6.6
6.3
6.4
5.6
6.1
13.8
13.5
11.8
11.6
12.5
11.5
11.2
9.4
9.8
9.6
9.9
9.0
6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Indep endent variables
D ependent variables
M odel variable
II
(Remain a w orksharer)
IF
(Return to a full-tim e job)
IP
(Becom e a part-tim e
w orke r fo r reasons
other than w ork
sharing)
IU
(Becom e unem ployed
or not in the labor
force)
Empirical m easure
Job search-related:
Searched
Personal characteristics
Looked
Race
Education
Unskilled:
Industry
Union m em bership
Value of nonm arket
activity
Age
Sex
Marital status
Em ploym ent status of
other household
m em bers
O ther factors:
U nm easured hetero
geneity
Rotation group
controls
Usual status
Rotation group dum m ies
fact of search. Unmeasured differences in search produc
tivity and effort should also result in differential proba
bilities of leaving worksharing.
Selected personal characteristics. Regarding other possi
ble predictors of the success or failure of regaining full
time work, a 1976 study found that involuntary parttime work in general occurred disproportionately
among the young, less educated, blacks, and the un
skilled.13 For example, the likelihood of being an invol
untary part-timer was higher the lower one’s education
al attainment.14 Furthermore, although blacks were as
likely as other worker groups to have their workweeks
reduced during an economic downturn, the restoration
of their weekly work schedules was the least responsive
to economic recovery.15 To control for the tendency of
worksharers to be found in blue-collar and service occu
pations, the model included a variable, termed “un
skilled”, to represent transport equipment operatives
(other than drivers), laborers, service workers, and retail
trade sales personnel.
Union membership status may also be important. Al
though unions’ preference for layoffs over worksharing
arrangements has increased, individual union members
on worksharing arrangements would apparently have a
greater likelihood of changing status than comparable
nonunion workers. This may reflect the fact that union
contracts frequently call for either layoff or restoration
of usual weekly hours after a specified period of
worksharing, depending on the economic position of the
firm.
Nonmarket alternatives. It is important to note that an
involuntary reduction in a person’s usual weekly hours
of work changes the attractiveness of his or her labor
market options. The individual’s initial decision to par
ticipate in the labor force on a full-time basis is based
upon many factors. According to Jacob Mincer, for ex
ample, the marginal costs of home work and leisure to
women are affected by age and by the presence, num
ber, and ages of children in the household.16 He also
suggests that the employment of other household mem
bers may influence a woman’s allocation of time among
home, market, and leisure.17 Because all of these factors
and others enter into the labor force participation deci
sion of persons working full time, those who subse
quently have their schedules shortened may reevaluate
their labor force participation according to the value
they place on their nonmarket time. It is hypothesized
that individual worksharers who value their nonmarket
time highly (as indicated by characteristics such as age,
sex, marital status, and employment status of other
household members) will have a greater probability of
leaving the labor force or switching to voluntary part
time than other workers.
Other factors. Even assuming that individuals have con
stant probabilities of changing employment status over
time, personal and professional differences among work
ers will influence the likelihood of specific individuals
leaving worksharing.18 Consequently, as the duration of
the short-hours spell increases, a greater proportion of
remaining worksharers consists of individuals whose
probabilities of leaving worksharing are low.19
One way to control for this problem of unmeasured
heterogeneity among individuals would be to include in
the model the actual number of weeks individual
worksharers have been on shortened work schedules.
This information is not available in the CPS, but certain
characteristics of worksharers which increase the proba
bility of securing full-time jobs may be used as proxy
variables. One characteristic which seems to indicate a
tendency to leave worksharing is usual full-time or parttime status. For example, a comparison of the demo
graphic, occupational, and industrial characteristics of
all involuntary part-time workers with those of both
voluntary part-time workers and full-time workers re
vealed that persons involuntarily on part-time schedules
who are usually in such status have a close resemblance
to voluntary part-timers and those who usually work
full time characteristically resemble full-time workers.20
The “usual status” variable was therefore included as a
control for unmeasured heterogeneity.
Flow into and out of worksharing
Although the primary concern of this study was to
analyze duration of worksharing and factors facilitating
movement from it, flows into worksharing were also ex
amined. This analysis provided insights into the reasons
for an individual’s entry into involuntary part-time sta
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tus, and helped to predict and explain his or her next
most likely labor market transition.
One-fourth of the worksharers in June 1976 were
holdovers from the previous month. The largest inflow
of newcomers to worksharing (54 percent) consisted of
full-time workers who had their workweeks reduced,
followed by persons previously unemployed or not in
the labor force (27 percent), and entrants from other
part-time status (19 percent).
In terms of demographic and labor market character
istics—age, marital status, race, sex, education, skill
level, union membership, and search status (looking or
not looking for another job)—newcomers to work
sharing were generally similar to leavers, or the outflow
from worksharing. (See table 3.) The one outstanding
exception was union membership status, with newcom
ers less likely than leavers to be union members.
In contrast, stayers— persons who were worksharers
in both May and June 1976— were different characteris
tically from leavers, particularly leavers returning to
full-time schedules. Foremost among these differences
was age; stayers were significantly older than leavers.
Substantial differences were also evident in terms of sex,
union membership status, and race; that is, stayers were
more likely than leavers to be older, female, black, and
nonunion members. Interestingly, the difference between
T a b le 3. M e a n v a lu e o f s e le c te d c h a ra c te ris tic s o f
s ta y e rs , n e w c o m e rs to , an d le a v e rs fro m w o rk s h a rin g ,
M a y - J u n e 1976
Variable
D escription
A g e ..................
S tayers
N ew
com ers
Leavers
Total
Full
tim e
t-s ta tis tic 1
years of age
42
36
36
37.5
10.969
1 if m arried,
spouse
present
0 otherwise
.69
.57
.58
.64
.714
R a c e ................
1 if black and
other
0 otherwise
.19
.17
.16
.12
1.136
S e x ...................
1 if fem ale
0 otherwise
.53
.43
.42
.36
2.385
Education
years of school
com pleted
11
11
11
10
.226
S k ille d .............
1 If unsk ille d 2
0 otherwise
.29
.30
.35
.29
.000
Union
1 if union
m em ber
0 otherwise
.22
.15
.25
.31
- 1 .2 9 8
1 if looking for
w ork
0 otherwise
.05
.07
.08
.07
-.3 5 1
152
412
408
239
Marital
status . . . .
...
.............
Looked ..........
Sam ple size . .
' Means test of difference betw een stayers and leavers to full-tim e jobs.
2 U nskilled includes the follow ing detailed occupational categories: sales w orkers in retail
trade, transport equipm ent w orke rs other than drivers, all laborers, and service workers.
7
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Worksharing in the U.S.
the numbers of stayers and leavers looking for another
job was not significant; job search activity, as indicated
by the job search variable, was not more typical of one
group than of the other.
How successful were persons leaving worksharing in
obtaining a full-time schedule? Nearly three-fifths of
those leaving worksharing between May and June 1976
went to full-time schedules. As noted earlier, inflow to
worksharing consisted predominantly of persons whose
full-time schedules were cut back. Thus, the majority of
the flows to and from worksharing were, as expected,
persons moving into and out of full-time schedules. De
partures to other part-time status, and to unemploy
ment each accounted for about one-fifth of the leavers
from worksharing.
Longitudinal data from the CPS
In addition to an analysis of change in employment
status in 2 consecutive months, the design of the CPS
also permits an examination of labor market flows over
a 4-consecutive-month period, and between the same
month in consecutive years. (See appendix for more de
tail.) Table 4 traces the labor market flow of persons on
worksharing in May 1976 over the 3 following months,
and between May 1976 and May 1977. Clearly, the per
centage of worksharers in May 1976 remaining as such
declined over the year: 27.4 percent still had work
sharing arrangements 1 month later, while only 14.6
percent had the same status 1 year later.
It is probable, of course, that in the intervening peri
ods, particularly the 12-month gap between May 1976
and 1977, persons classified as worksharers in both
months had moved into and out of other labor force
categories as well. Nevertheless, the data indicate that
the vast majority of worksharers remain in involuntary
part-time status for a relatively short time. For example,
fewer than one-sixth of the worksharers in May 1976
were still on such schedules 3 months later.21 Moreover,
the majority of leavers returned to full-time jobs. The
percentage who returned to full-time schedules tended
to increase over time, from 45 percent 1 month later to
56 percent 3 months later.22 But table 4 also reveals
that, as time is extended, the percentage of worksharers
leaving the labor force entirely becomes greater, perhaps
indicating “discouragement” about finding a full-time
job, or increased attractiveness of nonmarket activities.
Apparently, the termination of worksharing for some
individuals results from their simply abandoning the
idea of securing a full-time schedule in the near future.
Transition probabilities
Table 5 illustrates the probabilities of a change in em
ployment status among selected groups of worksharers
over a 1-month period. Although the results were gen
erally consistent with the demographic makeup of all
8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 4. W o rk s h a re rs 16 y e a rs an d o v e r in M a y 1976, by
la b o r fo r c e s ta tu s in Ju n e, Ju ly, an d A u g u s t 1976, an d in
M a y 1977
Status
Proportion
Labor force status in June
Total: N u m b e r .......................................................................
P e rce rt ........................................................................
W o rk s h a re rs ..........................................................................
Em ployed full t im e ................................................................
O ther part tim e 2 ..................................................................
U n e m p lo y e d ..........................................................................
Not in the labor f o r c e ..........................................................
'6 2 4
100.0
27.4
44.6
15.1
9.5
3.5
Labor force status in July
Total: N u m b e r ........................................................................
P e rc e n t........................................................................
W o rk s h a re rs ..........................................................................
Em ployed full t im e ................................................................
O ther part t i m e .....................................................................
Unem ployed ..........................................................................
N ot in the labor f o r c e ..........................................................
3 361
100.0
22.2
49.9
15.5
6.6
5.8
Labor force status in August
Total: N u m b e r ........................................................................
Percent ........................................................................
W o rk s h a re rs ..........................................................................
Em ployed full t im e ................................................................
O ther part t i m e .....................................................................
U n e m p lo y e d ..........................................................................
Not in the labor f o r c e ..........................................................
4 163
100.0
16.6
56.4
11.0
9.2
6.7
Labor force status in M ay 1977
Total: N u m b e r ........................................................................
P e rc e n t........................................................................
W o rk s h a re rs ..........................................................................
Em ployed full t i m e ................................................................
O the- part t i m e .....................................................................
U n e m p lo y e d ..........................................................................
Not in the labor f o r c e ..........................................................
5 198
100.0
14.6
54.0
13.6
5.1
12.6
'T h e unweighted num ber of w orksharers in M ay 1976 in the 6 M a y -J u n e m atchable rotation groups.
2 Includes voluntary part-tim e w orkers and involuntary part-tim e w orke rs fo r reasons other
than slack work.
3 The unweighted num ber of w orksharers in May 1976 in the 4 M a y -J u ly m atchable rotation groups.
“ The unweighted num ber of w orksharers in M ay 1976 in the 2 M a y -A u g u s t m atchable
rotation groups.
5 The unweighted num ber of w orksharers in May 1976 in the 3 M a y -J u n e 1976 — May
1977 m atchable rotation groups.
NOTE:
See appendix for discussion of lim itations of CPS m atched data.
involuntary part-timers, there were a few surprises.
Older workers and married workers were most likely
to remain worksharers, while newcomers to workshar
ing— persons reporting their usual status as full time—
were least likely to do so. The average duration of
worksharing was 6.7 weeks for older workers, compared
with 5.5 weeks for newcomers to worksharing.23The av
erage duration of worksharing for all persons on such
schedules was 6 weeks, roughly half the mean duration
of unemployment over the same period.
An individual’s usual full- or part-time status was a
strong predictor of his or her likelihood of finding or re
turning to a full-time job. Worksharers whose schedules
were usually part time were less than half as likely to
move into full-time status as were those who usually
worked full time.
Age and race also significantly influenced the “work
sharing to full-time” job transition. Younger workers
had a higher probability than older workers of making
such a move, and whites were nearly twice as likely to
secure full-time employment as were blacks. One possi-
initiate layoffs immediately.”24
Surprisingly, the fact that an individual looked for
another job while on a shortened workweek did not af
fect the probability of his or her leaving to take a full
time job. Because search activity increases the probabili
ty of an unemployed person obtaining employment25, it
was also expected to increase a worksharer’s chances of
securing a full-time position. Apparently, the key is the
intensity of the search effort, which could not be deter
mined from survey results. Perhaps search effort among
worksharers is not as intensive as among the unem
ployed. There is a similarity between involuntary parttime work due to slack workloads and temporary lay
offs. Workers often know in advance that the duration
of their reduced work schedule is likely to be relatively
short, and thus are not generally inclined to look dili
gently for another job. Other worker characteristics
which did not significantly affect transitions into and
from worksharing status were educational attainment,
and the presence of other employed family members.26
ble explanation of the difference noted between age
groups involves a contrast between the duration of any
worksharing spell, and the number of such spells in
curred. Among the unemployed, for example, younger
workers have more frequent spells of unemployment
than older workers, but the duration of each spell is
shorter. The partial evidence indicates that this could
also be the case for young worksharers.
Younger worksharers were much less likely than
those who were older to become unemployed or to
leave the labor force. Older or more senior workers may
prefer layoff over a shortened workweek because they
are more likely to be eligible for unemployment insur
ance benefits, and may be entitled to supplemental un
employment benefits as well. Thus, financially, the dif
ference between unemployment and worksharing may
not be as significant to older workers. Also, older work
ers may not feel as threatened by layoff and the pros
pects of a job loss as younger workers because their
seniority usually ensures their recall to work.
There was some marginal evidence that union
worksharers have a higher probability of returning to
full-time status than worksharers who were not union
members, perhaps because the latter are less likely to be
governed by a given set of procedures for reductions in
hours. Worksharers who were union members also were
somewhat less likely than others to be laid off or to
leave the labor force. This could be related to the fact
that union members are unlikely to suffer a cutback in
weekly hours unless the expected duration is short. “If
. . . it is known that manpower needs will be curtailed
for a lengthy period,” notes one observer, “the union
may prefer to bypass the reduced hours provisions and
T a b le 5.
Conclusion
Unlike policymakers in most Western European
nations, those in the United States have not to date giv
en much attention to arrangements affecting the supply
of labor, including worksharing.27 Because of present
Federal regulations and collective bargaining agree
ments, it is most often in the employer’s interest to re
sort to layoffs instead of a reduction in hours. In most
cases, for example, fringe benefit costs alone would be
larger under a worksharing system, because there are
few, if any, such costs associated with workers on
layoffs.
M o n th ly p ro b a b ilitie s o f c h a n g e in la b o r fo r c e s ta tu s , b y s e le c te d w o rk e r c h a ra c te ris tic s
Usual status
Probability:
Full
sam ple
Age1
Marital status
Black
and
other
Male
Fem ale
0.35
0.34
0.23
0.20
0.29
0.24
0.30
0.24
0.29
0.30
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.27
0.33
.47
.39
.39
.45
.62
.39
.48
.38
.49
.40
.39
.44
.46
.32
43
.45
.20
.20
.14
.14
.19
.10
.18
.14
.19
.13
.19
.16
.17
.16
.21
.17
.13
.15
.15
.12
.14
.13
.09
.14
.14
.13
.15
.13
.15
.13
.11
.19
.14
.09
53
years
0.27
0.18
0.32
0.19
Returning to full-tim e
em ploym ent . . .
.43
.60
.33
Becom ing a parttim e w orke r for
reasons other
than w ork
sh a rin g 2 .............
.17
.12
Becom ing unem
ployed or leaving
the labor force .
.13
.11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 Years reflect the standard deviation above and below the mean.
2 Includes all voluntary part-tim e w orkers and involuntary part-tim e w orkers because of m ate
rial shortages, "sta rte d or ended a job during the survey w e e k” , or "co u ld only find part-tim e
w o rk.”
NOTE: Transition probabilities are calculated from derivatives obtained in the logit analysis
which reveal the marginal effect of a change in the independent variable on the absolute proba-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Job search
W hite
24
years
1
Union status
Skill level
O ther
Parttim e
Sum of
probabilities . . .
E d u c atio n 1
Married,
spouse
present
Full
tim e
Remaining a
w orksharer . . . .
Sex
Race
1
1
8
years
1
14
Skilled Unskilled
years
1
1
1
Union
Nonunion
m em ber m em ber
1
1
Looked
1
Did not
look
1
bility of a given transition in labor force status, in the vicinity of sam ple means; Probability,,,
| X|, = 0 = (full sam ple probability,xk - d erivative,^ x m eank); Probability^ | xk= 1 = (Probabil
ity^! xk= 0 + d e riv a tiv e ,Xk); where ¡ in d e p e n d e n t variable and k = d e p e n d e n t variable, and the
sum of the probabilities,k = 1 . The probabilités shown are based on the logit estim ates present
ed in the appendix to this article.
Due to rounding, sum s o f individual item s m ay not equal totals.
9
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Worksharing in the US.
Another major roadblock to worksharing is the un
employment insurance system, which may actually lead
workers and their unions to accept layoffs as opposed
to reduced hours. Workers whose hours are cut receive
no compensation from the State (except in California),
unless their earnings fall below the level of benefits to
which they would be entitled in a layoff.
Worksharing arrangements as a means of saving jobs
will bear close watching in coming years. Of special in
terest is the recently enacted California “Work Sharing
Unemployment Insurance” program, which allows
transfer payments, in the form of unemployment insur
ance benefits, to persons whose wages and hours are re-
duced as a temporary alternative to layoffs.28 (See fol
lowing article.) Benefits are paid as a proportion of the
maximum benefit available to an individual for a given
week if the lost time is equal to or greater than some
established minimum worktime reduction. For example,
a worker eligible to receive a maximum of $100 in
weekly benefits could receive about one-fifth of that
amount, or $20, for every full day of lost work.29
The California program and a wide-scale pilot project
throughout Canada are being cautiously evaluated for
their impact on unemployment and patterns of labor
force participation, and for other economic and social
effects on firms and employees.30
□
FOOTNOTES
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The author thanks Wesley Mellow, an
economist in the Office of Research and Evaluation, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, for many helpful comments.
' R. A. Hart and P. J. Sloan, “Working Hours and Distribution of
Work,” OECD paper prepared for Conference on Collective
Bargaining and Government Policies (Washington, D.C., July 1978),
Appendix A.
2Worksharers are herein defined as employed persons whose work
weeks have been reduced below 35 hours due to slack workloads. As
such, they are a subset of the larger “part-time for economic reasons”
group, which also includes persons on reduced hours because of mate
rial shortages, repairs to plant or equipment, start or termination of
job during the survey week, and unavailability of full-time work.
Other methods of worksharing, such as increasing unpaid leave or
the number of annual holidays, or reducing the amount of overtime
worked, are excluded from the scope of this article.
1J. W. Fagan, “Work Sharing During a Depression,” I n d u s tr ia l R e
la tio n s, paper presented at a Conference on Industrial Relations (Sep
tember 1938); S. Martin Nemirow, “Work-Sharing: Past, Present and
Future,” unpublished paper (May 1976); Sar A. Levitan and Richard
S. Belous, S h o r te r H ou rs, S h o r te r W eeks: S p r e a d in g th e W o rk to R e
d u c e U n e m p lo y m e n t (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977);
Fred
Best,
“Short-Time Compensation
and Worksharing,”
unpublished paper for National Commission for Manpower Policy
(April 1978); and Robert Clark, A d ju s tin g H o u r s to In c re a se Jobs: A n
A n a ly sis o f th e O ption s, Special Report 15 (National Commission on
Manpower Policy, September 1977).
4 Sar A. Levitan and Richard S. Belous, “Work sharing initiatives
at home and abroad,” M o n th ly L a b o r R eview , September 1977, pp. 16
- 20 .
5Peter Henle, “Work-Sharing as an Alternative of Layoffs” (Con
gressional Research Service, July 1975); and, “Worktime: The Tradi
tional Workweek and its Alternatives,” chapter 3, E m p lo y m e n t a n d
T ra in in g R e p o r t o f th e P resid en t, 1979.
6 “A cure for unemployment?” B u sin e ss W eek, Oct. 29, 1979, pp.
163-64.
7 Heretofore, little was known about the length of time worker
groups involuntarily on worksharing must “share the work.” The cost
of any government-assisted short-time compensation program is di
rectly related to the length of time an individual worker could expect
to receive such compensation. The limited information previously
available on reduced worktime arrangements in Germany and Califor
nia reveals that duration in such status is relatively short — under 3
10
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
months in Germany, and less than 5 weeks in California. See Fred
Best and James Mattesich, “Short-time Compensation and Work
Sharing: A New Alternative to Layoffs, S p e c ia l R e p o r t (California
Employment Development Department, 1979), pp. 14-25.
8Gross change data, a byproduct of the CPS, show the labor force
status of persons not only for the current month, but also for the pre
vious month. The data thus permit the identification and measure
ment of the flow of persons who leave involuntary part-time work
from one month to the next. Gross changes, therefore, represent a
short-run “flow,” rather than a “stock,” of a particular labor force
group.
9 Matched CPS data were chosen over the National Longitudinal
Survey (NLS) and the Panel Study on Income Dynamics (PSID) pri
marily because of the greater sample size available from the CPS. The
sample size quickly becomes the limiting factor when a situation expe
rienced by only a small portion of individuals over a relatively short
period is considered. The focal point of this analysis is the May 1976
-M ay 1977 period because (1) the May 1976 CPS questionnaire con
tained a special supplement on job search by workers, and (2) the
percentage of the “at work” population on worksharing was fairly
steady during this period.
10For a description of the multinomial logit technique, see Joseph
R. Antos and Wesley Mellow, T h e Y o u th L a b o r M a r k e t: A D y n a m ic
O verview , Staff Paper 11 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 1979); and,
M. Nerlove and S. J. Press, “Univariate and Multivariate Log-Linear
and Logistic Models” (Santa Monica, Calif., The Rand Corporation,
1973).
" James L. Medoff, “Layoffs and Alternatives Under Trade Unions
in U.S. Manufacturing,” A m e ric a n E c o n o m ic R ev ie w , June 1979, pp.
380-95.
12 It should be noted that, because these data relate to all involun
tary part-time workers, the flows of other involuntary part-timers be
sides those on slack work may be partially responsible for this
finding.
" Robert W. Bednarzik, “Involuntary part-time work: a cyclical
analysis,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , September 1975, pp. 12-18.
14 Robert W. Bednarzik, “Involuntary Part-time Work and Educa
tional Attainment,” T h e J o u r n a l o f G e n e ra l E d u c a tio n , Summer 1976,
pp. 135-44.
15 Robert W. Bednarzik, “Involuntary part-time work: a cyclical
analysis,” p. 17.
16Jacob Mincer, “Labor Force Participation of Married Women: A
Study of Labor Supply,” A sp e c ts o f L a b o r E co n o m ic s: A C o n fe ren ce o f
the Universities (National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton
University Press, 1962), p. 68.
17Ib id .
18John M. Barron and Wesley Mellow, “Changes in Labor Force
Status Among the Unemployed,” J o u r n a l o f H u m a n R es o u r c es (forth
coming).
” Stephen W. Salant, “Search Theory and Duration Data: A Theo
ry of Sorts,” Q u a r te r ly J o u r n a l o f E co n o m ic s, February 1977, pp. 3 9 58.
20 Robert W. Bednarzik, “Persons Working Part-time for Economic
Reasons,” unpublished paper prepared for the National Commission
on Employment and Unemployment Statistics (March 1978).
21 The 3-months-later flow is based upon two rotation groups with
the assumption that one rotation group does not differ much from
any other. Although each rotation group is in itself a probability sam
ple, responses differ across groups. This is commonly known as rota
tion group bias and is discussed more fully in the appendix. Thus, the
standard error of the one-sixth figure is unknown. Generally, however,
the error would not alter the fact that a person’s stay on worksharing
declines fairly quickly over a 1-year period.
22 Although rotation group bias also affects these percentages, the
bias, in general, would not be likely to cause the direction and distri
bution of worksharers’ flows over time to defy economic logic.
23 The expected duration of worksharing for the typical individual
can be computed by 1/1-P., where P. is equal to the probability of
staying a worksharer, given variable i. One must assume that 1-P, the
mean escape rate, is constant for each individual over time.
24 L a y o ff, R e c a ll, a n d W o rk s h a r in g P ro ced u res, Bulletin 1425-13
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1972), p. 16.
25 Barron and Mellow, “Changes in Labor Force Status Among the
Unemployed.”
26 Because the employment status of other family members is in it
self a very limited proxy for other inc.ome sources, and the proportion
of multi-earner families varies considerably by age of secondary earn
er, the interpretation of the impact of such a variable is difficult.
Therefore, the “employment status of other family members” variable
was deleted from the final logit regression run.
27 Sar A. Levitan and Richard S. Belous, “Work sharing initiatives
at home and abroad.”
28 O u tlin e f o r S ta te w id e E v a lu a tio n o f th e C a lifo r n ia “S h a r e d W o rk
U n e m p lo y m e n t C o m p e n s a tio n ” P r o g r a m (Office of the Director, Em
ployment Development Department, State of California, September
1979).
24
Fred Best and James Mattesich, “Short-time Compensation and
Work Sharing: A New Alternative to Layoffs.”
30 O u tlin e f o r S ta te w id e E v a lu a tio n o f th e C a lifo r n ia “S h a r e d W o rk
U n e m p lo y m e n t C o m p e n sa tio n " P r o g r a m ; and Peter Sadlier-Brown,
W o rk S h a r in g in C a n a d a : P r o b le m s a n d P o ssib ilities, HRI Observations
Report No. 18 (Montreal, Canada, C. D. Howe Research Institute,
June 1978).
APPENDIX
Limitations of the matched data
Any survey procedure has inherent within it both
sampling variability and response variability. The Cur
rent Population Survey (CPS) obtains its longitudinal
flavor from the 4-8-4 rotation group design; the sample
is divided equally into 8 rotating groups of households.
Each group is in the sample for 4 months, out for 8,
and then back in for 4. Consequently, 6 of the 8 groups
are common in 2 consecutive months. A further reduc
tion in the match data available results from the fact
that identical persons must be matched in order to
compute gross information. Since the basis for selection
of the CPS sample is household units rather than indi
viduals, common rotation groups reflect identical house
holds but not necessarily identical persons. In any
2-month period, for example, the six common rotation
groups will contain a number of persons who have
moved from households in the sample area (about 1.5
percent per month) and noninterview cases (4 to 5 per
cent per month)— persons who refuse to respond and
those absent from home during the interview week. The
exclusion of nonidenticals not only affects the size of
the sample available, but also may introduce a special
bias in matched estimates, because the nonidentical per
sons excluded may differ from those of identical per
sons.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
To evaluate the primary match used in this study, the
mean values of selected demographic characteristics for
the M ay-June 1976 match sample for all worksharers
and for all involuntary part-time workers in May 1976
are provided below:
Variable
Age (years)...................
Married, spouse present
Black and other ............
Female..........................
N. A. = Not Available
M a y-J u n e
M ay 1976
1976 match
sample o f
A ll
all workA ll work- involuntary
sharers
sharers part-timers
38
.63
.17
.46
N. A.
N. A.
.18
.43
35
.51
.18
.49
The tabulation shows that the demographic composi
tion of the matched sample was generally similar to the
larger populations of all worksharers and all involun
tary part-time workers. This lends some credence to the
representativeness of the M ay-June 1976 match utilized
in this study.
Response variability occurs in the form of misclassification of reported labor force status and in “rotation
group bias.” The “net errors” between the original and
reinterview results are comparatively small because of
offsetting differences, but gross differences may be sub
stantial. The second form of response variability, “rota11
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Worksharing in the U.S.
E x h ib it A -1. M u ltin o m ia l lo g it e s tim a te s o f th e d e te rm in a n ts o f c h a n g e s in la b o r fo rc e s ta tu s a m o n g w o rk s h a re rs b e tw e e n
M a y a n d J u n e 1 9 76
V ariable
Description
Usual status
1 i f usually
part-tim e
0 otherw ise
Age
years of age
M arital status
Race
Sex
Education
Skilled
Union
1 Unskilled
M ean
R elative proba
R elative proba
bility o f w orking
R elative proba
bility o f beco m
part-tim e for
bility o f return
ing unem ployed
reasons other
ing to or finding
or leaving the
than
full-tim e w ork
labor fo rce
w orksharing
0.36
-1 .1 2 2
( - 4 .2 9 )
-0 .2 7 0
-0 .1 1 6
(-0 .3 3 )
0.044
-0 .0 1 6
(-0 .0 5 )
0.083
38
-0 .0 2 6
( - 2 .9 2 )
-0 .0 0 3
-0 .0 2 8
(-2 .1 8 )
-0 .0 0 1
-0 .0 3 1
( - 2 .8 3 )
-0 .0 0 2
-0 .5 1 4
( - 1 .9 0 )
-0 .0 5 7
-0 .3 7 1
( - 1 .0 0 )
0.002
- 0 .7 0 4
( - 2 .2 2 )
-0 .0 5 3
-0 .8 4 5
( - 2 .5 1 )
-0 .2 3 2
0.201
(0.49)
0.058
-0 .4 5 0
( - 1 .8 6 )
-0 .1 0 2
1 if m arried,
spouse
present
0 otherwise
.63
1 if black and
other
0 otherwise
.17
1 if fem ale
0 otherwise
.46
years of school
com pleted
11
1 if unskilled '
0 otherwise
.26
1 if union
m em ber
0 otherwise
.25
Looked
D escription
Mean
.09
0.161
(0.34)
-0 .0 2 7
1
.17
0.125
(0.31)
0.053
-0 .1 8 8
( - 0 .3 4 )
-0 .0 2 1
-0 .1 7 9
( - 0 .3 6 )
-0 .0 3 1
0.176
(0.48)
0.083
2
.14
-0 .2 8 8
( - 0 .6 8 )
-0 .0 0 5
-0 .7 5 1
( - 1 .1 8 )
-0 .0 5 2
-0 .4 0 5
( - 0 .7 9 )
-0 .0 2 1
- 0 .2 7 6
(-0 .8 0 )
- 0 .0 0 6
0.060
(0.20)
0.046
5
.13
0.200
(0.45)
0.051
-0 .1 8 1
( - 0 .2 9 )
-0 .0 2 9
0.093
(0.18)
0.001
- 0 .0 6 3
( - 1 .4 5 )
- 0 .0 1 5
-0 .0 6 3
( - 1 .0 6 )
-0 .0 0 4
0.030
(0.55)
0.010
6
.19
-0 .0 5 4
( - 0 .1 4 )
0.002
- 0 .1 6 8
( - 0 .3 1 )
-0 .0 1 2
-0 .0 9 5
( - 0 .2 0 )
- 0 006
0.261
(0.90)
0.050
-0 .0 5 2
( - 0 .1 3 )
-0 .0 2 2
0.234
(0.68)
0.014
7
.19
-0 .3 0 2
( - 0 .7 7 )
0.004
-0 .3 5 5
( - 0 .6 7 )
- 0 .0 0 5
-0 .8 2 3
( - 1 .6 5 )
- 0 .0 8 5
0.331
(1.23)
0.139
-0 .7 1 0
( - 1 .5 3 )
- 0 .0 8 0
-0 .3 0 2
( - 0 .8 1 )
-0 .0 5 3
1 if currently
looking for
work
0 otherwise
0.688
(1.22)
0.051
0.447
(0.86)
0.037
Month in Current
Population
Survey as of
M ay 1976:
C onstant
3.118
1.562
0.954
includes the follow ing detailed occupational categories: sales w orkers in retail trade, transport equipm ent w orkers other than drivers, all laborers, and service workers.
tion group bias,” is related to the rotation group struc
ture of the CPS sample mentioned earlier. The response
of persons interviewed varies by month in sample. This
is due in part to sampling variability. However, the
two dominant explanations for this phenomenon are
that differential attrition changes the distribution and
composition of the sample, and that participation in
the survey itself conditions or alters subsequent re
sponses.
To control for the second problem, dummy variables
indicating which month the individual was in the sam
ple were included as explanatory variables. No attempt
was made to control for the problem of different
reinterview probabilities, although this problem should
be somewhat mitigated by the demographic similarities
12
V ariable
R elative proba
R elative proba
bility o f w orking
R elative proba
bility o f beco m
part-tim e for
bility o f return
ing unem ployed
reasons other
ing to or finding
or leaving the
than
full-tim e w ork
labor fo rce
w orksharing
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
between the matched sample and the total population
of worksharers.
Basis of estimates of transitional probabilities
Exhibit A-1 presents the maximum likelihood
estimates from the logit analysis, with associated
asymptotic t-statistics, and derivatives (at sample
means), which provided the basis for the transitional
probabilities shown in table 5. All independent vari
ables were constructed from the May 1976 CPS data;
dependent variables were defined on data from the June
1976 CPS. The sample size was 475, and the x 2statistic,
which tests the hypothesis that all parameters except
the constants were zero, was 95.8, with 42 degrees of
freedom.
Short-time compensation systems
in California and Europe
Preliminary analysis of the available data on
California's “Work Sharing Unemployment Insurance, ”
enacted to prevent layoffs after passage of
Proposition 13, suggests the program worked well;
more analysis is needed for a final judgment
F red Best an d James Mattesich
During times of high unemployment it is often suggested
that work time be reduced in order to spread avail
able jobs among a larger number of persons. Numerous
proposals have been advanced in this area, but only a
few hold promise as effective employment policies.1One
of these is “short-time compensation.” This proposal
provides partial unemployment insurance benefits for
work time lost by employees who have taken a reduc
tion in work hours to prevent layoffs or dismissals by
their employer.
As a rough illustration: if a firm were to reduce em
ployees’ workweeks and pay levels by 20 percent rather
than laying off 20 percent of its employees, those em
ployees working short time would receive 20 percent of
weekly unemployment insurance benefits. Thus, employ
ees on reduced workweeks would be partially reim
bursed for lost earnings and workers would not lose
their jobs.
This article explores this approach to combating job
lessness by reviewing the history of the “short-time”
compensation concept in the United States and examin
ing the operation of a recently initiated program in Cal
ifornia against a backdrop of comparable European
programs.
Background of the concept
Short-time compensation programs have been wide
spread and reportedly successful in several European
nations since the 1920’s but the U.S. unemployment in
surance system was not used for such purposes until
1978. Many U.S. unemployment insurance programs
have provisions for paying partial benefits for less than
a full week of unemployment,2but such benefits are lim
ited roughly to the differences between full weekly bene
fits and the income earned during the week in question.
Fred Best is a policy analyst in and James Mattesich is deputy direc
tor of the California Employment Development Department, Sacra
mento, Calif.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
For example, if an employee earns $250 for a 40-hour
workweek and is eligible to receive $100 in benefits for
a week of unemployment, he or she could not receive
benefits for working say a 32-hour week because earn
ings for more than 2 days of employment would total
more than $100. Thus partial benefits are not suitable
as a worksharing policy.
By contrast, under short-time compensation, unem
ployment insurance benefits would be paid as a propor
tion of the maximum benefits available to a worker for
a given week if the lost time equals or surpasses an
established minimum work time reduction. Thus, a
worker eligible to receive a maximum of $100 in weekly
benefits could receive about one-fifth that amount or
$20 for every full day of lost work.
Recent consideration of using short-time compensa
tion within the United States began as a response to the
aggravated unemployment problems of New York City
in 1975.3The so-called “Poses Plan” was suggested both
to reduce joblessness and to minimize loss of affirmative
action gains by preventing the layoff or dismissal of re
cently hired minority workers.4 In March 1976, a bill
was introduced to the New York State Assembly to al
low unemployment insurance benefits to be paid on a
daily rather than weekly basis5 but died in committee.
(About the same time, Canada implemented a limited
pilot study of the short-time compensation concept).6
Federal Government interest in short-time compensa
tion has progressed slowly. During 1978 and 1979, the
U.S. Department of Labor established a special task
force to monitor existing programs, make preliminary
assessments of the concept, and explore the possibility
of funding a pilot study.7 Most recently, members of
Congress have indicated an intention to introduce legis
lation to support development of the program.8
Independent of Federal and other initiatives, Califor
nia examined the concept,9 then established an
experimental statewide program during mid-197810in re
sponse to expected public employee unemployment re13
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Short-time Compensation Systems
suiting from passage of Proposition 13. The program
was rapidly implemented, and although the widespread
layoffs expected from Proposition 13 did not material
ize, the program has been continued. Although other
States have the discretion to establish similar programs,
as of early this year, the California program is the only
one of its type in the United States.
The California program
California’s “Work Sharing Unemployment Insur
ance” program began as an 18-month experiment and
was extended in July 1979 for an additional two years.
The basic design is similar to programs which have
existed in Europe for several decades. It is operated by
the California Employment Development Department,
which administers unemployment insurance, disability
insurance, and the California State Employment Service.
The legislation creating the program provides that an
employer facing a drop in business may choose, instead
of layoffs, to reduce the hours and wages of all or a
designated part of the work force and share the remain
ing work among the employees. The reduction must in
volve not less than 10 percent of the employer’s regular
permanent work force in the affected work unit or
units. In addition, the hours and wages of the affected
employees must be reduced by 10 percent or more be
cause the program would be only minimally effective
but administratively expensive, at a lower reduction in
hours. Each employee included in the program is eligi
ble to receive a weekly unemployment insurance benefit
proportional to the percentage reduction in wages and
hours.
The program was designed to operate within the
existing California unemployment insurance system.
Each participating employee must meet basic UI eligi
bility requirements. In California, these requirements
are relatively liberal. Before 1980, a worker must have
earned at least $750 in wages during the 12-month
“base period” prior to receiving benefits (increased to
$900 in 1980). That amount of earnings would provide,
however, only minimal regular unemployment insurance
weekly benefits of $31. Prior to 1980, the weekly ceiling
for unemployment insurance benefits was $104 ($120 in
1980) if the recipient earned $3,308 ($4,160 in 1980) or
more in the highest quarter of his or her base period.
Thus a worker who is eligible for maximum weekly
benefits would receive $21 ($24 in 1980) for each work
day lost.
The California legislation allows the payment of
worksharing benefits to each participating employee for
up to 20 weeks during a 52-week period beginning with
the first week benefits are paid. If the 20 weeks are
exhausted and workers are then laid off, those who lose
their jobs would be eligible for regular unemployment
insurance benefits with the duration reduced slightly to
14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
reflect the dollar costs of the worksharing benefits al
ready received.
The Work Sharing Unemployment Insurance pro
gram was also designed to interefere as little as possible
with existing labor-management relationships. Employ
ers’ participation in the shared work program is strictly
voluntary. However, if participating employees are cov
ered by a collective bargaining agreement, their union
must agree to the plan. Of course, where no agreement
exists, the employer is free to decide whether to partici
pate or not. Thus far, there have been no signs of em
ployee resistance to the program in participating firms.
Employers participating in the California program are
charged for benefits in the same manner they are
charged for regular unemployment insurance benefits.
However, participating employers, whose recent history
of unemployment insurance benefit charges exceed their
contributions (“negative reserve employers”), are re
quired to pay additional unemployment insurance taxes
ranging from .5 percent to .3 percent on the first $6,000
of all employee wages, in succeeding calendar years.
These tax increases are intended to discourage use of
the program by firms which normally make seasonal
layoffs.
To encourage employer participation and to keep
“bureaucratic red tape” to a minimum, administration
of the program has been kept simple. Employers are
only required to call or write for a two-page application
form, provide basic employee identifying information,
state that work-time reductions are economically neces
sary and submit information on the amount of wage
and hour reductions. If the application for Work Shar
ing Unemployment Insurance is approved, employers
provide their participating employees with a weekly
statement of reduced hours and wages which employees
then use to claim “shared work” benefits.
The program is intended to prevent layoffs. However,
California employers are not required to “document” or
prove that a reduction in hours cannot be avoided. Nor
are employers prevented from laying off some workers
before or after beginning the program. The question of
continuation of fringe benefits (health insurance, retire
ment, etc.) is not addressed in the California legislation
and therefore is left to each employer. No restrictions are
placed upon the employers’ operation of their businesses,
including discharges, transfers, and new hires. In addi
tion, the number of participants, as well as the original
wage and hour reduction assigned by the employer may
be easily changed by means of written notification to the
Employment Development Department.
Restrictions on workers who participate are also kept
to a minimum. Workers receive their shared work bene
fits directly from the State by mail. However, an initial
claim must be filed personally by each worker at a local
branch office of the Employment Development Depart-
ment. The benefits are not taxable under California law
but are taxable, to the same extent regular unemploy
ment insurance benefits are, under Federal law.12
One restriction on outside or extra work does exist:
workers who either “moonlight” or perform work in ex
cess of the “reduced” hours assigned by their employers
have such earnings deducted from their shared work
benefits.
Workers whose employers have stated that the shared
work plan will be used as a temporary measure (defined
as fewer than 10 weeks) are automatically exempted
from the normal work search requirements that regular
unemployment insurance recipients must meet. Employ
ers who state that their expected downturn will last
longer than 10 weeks but who believe that the down
turn is nevertheless “temporary” in nature may also
have their employees exempted from work search re
quirements simply by providing an explanation as to
why they believe the downturn will be temporary. If,
however, an employer, who is expecting a permanent
work force reduction, uses the shared work program as
a transitional mechanism which allows employees to
look for other employment while working reduced work
hours, those workers receiving benefits must meet the
work search requirements of the regular unemployment
insurance system. During the first 15 months of the
program’s existence, only one employer with five work
ers has used the program in this fashion.
The California program is not widely known. Be
tween July 1978 and the end of September 1979, 312
employers had approved worksharing compensation
plans, covering 7,603 employees. Some 3,165 of these
employees filed claims and received, on the average,
$23.63 per week for an average of 4.85 weeks. The aver
age number of total dollars paid to worksharing recipi
ents was $114.65 and the total amount paid in
worksharing benefits up to September 1979 was
$263,698.
Use of the program grew slowly at first, with only 67
firms receiving certification between July 1978 and Feb
ruary 1979. However, participation has accelerated with
the total number of certified firms increasing to 701 by
April 1980. It is commonly assumed that lack of early
use and subsequent increases in participation can be
largely attributed to gradual growth of awareness of the
program. Nonetheless, when one considers that there
are over 500,000 firms and 10 million workers in Cali
fornia, it is apparent that the program has thus far been
used by a very small number of employers.
The low level of participation and the quality of the
data currently available preclude any definitive assess
ments of the worksharing program at this time. Howev
er, existing information can provide some provisional
indications. Some 33 percent of certified California
firms were in manufacturing and 14.1 percent were in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
wholesale and retail trade and services. (See table 1.)
Over 75 percent of the 3,165 workers who filed claims
for shared work benefits were employed by firms in
manufacturing, in contrast to 28.5 percent of workers
making regular unemployment claims. (See table 2.)
The relative size of firms participating in the program
has been small so far. Roughly 85 percent of participat
ing firms had fewer than 40 employees drawing benefits
and only four firms had over 200 employees. (See table 1.)
The typical reduction in workweek and wages used
by participating firms in California was 20 percent.
About two-thirds of those participating went from 5- to
4-day weeks. About 6 percent of participating employ
ers chose a 10-percent work-time reduction, while 28
percent chose reductions of 30 percent or more. (See ta
ble 1.) Only 5 of the 312 certified firms as of September
1979 involved workers with standard workweeks under
35 hours.
Many employers have chosen to apply the reductions
only to a portion of their work force. The 312 employ
ers using the program through September of last year
employed 14,273 workers, but only 7,603 employees
T a b le 1. C o m p a ris o n o f C a lifo rn ia firm s usin g W o rk
S h a rin g U n e m p lo y m e n t In s u ra n c e a n d re g u la r la y o ffs
u n d e r U n e m p lo y m e n t In s u ra n c e , 1 9 7 6 - 7 7
C haracteristics
Participants under
w orksharing b e n e fits 1
N um ber
P ercent
Layo ffs under Un
em ploym ent In s u ra n c e 2
N um ber
Percent
Total
312
100.0
435,417
100.0
Industrial s ecto r
A g ric u ltu re ...................................
Mining and e n e r g y ...................
C onstruction .............................
M anufacturing ...........................
T ra n s p o rta tio n ...........................
Retail and w holesale .............
Finance, real e s t a t e ................
Services .....................................
O ther ...........................................
8
1
8
104
24
44
3
38
82
2.6
.3
2.6
33.3
7.7
14.1
1.0
12.2
26.3
36,117
932
42,356
36,477
13,219
131,538
34,783
137,589
2,406
8.3
.2
9.7
8.4
3.0
30.2
8.0
31.6
.6
Size o f firm
Under 50 w orkers ...................
51-100 w o r k e r s .................................
101-200 w o r k e r s ..............................
201-500 w orke rs .....................
501-1,000 w o r k e r s ...................
O ver 1,000 w o r k e r s ................
244
39
16
10
3
0
78.2
12.5
5.1
3.2
1.0
472,972
14,727
5,763
5,646
1,238
905
94.0
3.1
1.2
1.2
Portion o f w o rk fo rc e affec ted
Under 20 p e r c e n t.....................
21-40 percent ...........................
41-60 percent ...........................
61-80 percent ...........................
81-100 perce nt ........................
28
37
59
58
130
9.0
11.9
18.9
18.6
41.7
U nionization
Unionized ...................................
Non-unionized ...........................
34
278
Ul re s e rv e acco unt status
Positive a c c o u n t........................
Negative a c c o u n t.....................
Non-rated ...................................
No longer in b u s in e s s .............
251
45
25
—
—
.3
.2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
_
—
10.9
89.1
—
—
—
—
78.2
14.0
7.8
—
243,399
76,085
109,704
6,265
55.9
17.5
25.2
1.4
1 California E m ploym ent D evelopm ent D epartm ent is the source (Sept. 3 0 ,1 9 7 9 ).
2 UI Claim ant Characteristics Study, July 1, 1976 and June 30, 1977. Em ploym ent Data
and Research Division, California E m ploym ent D evelopm ent D epartm ent, is the source (Jan
uary 1979).
15
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Short-time Compensation Systems
T a b le 2. C o m p a ris o n o f C a lifo rn ia w o rk e rs e x p e rie n c in g W o rk S h a rin g U n e m p lo y m e n t In s u ra n c e an d la y o ffs w ith re g u la r
U n e m p lo y m e n t In s u ra n c e , 1 9 7 6 -7 7
Participants under w o rk s h a rin g 1
Layo ffs under unem ploym ent in su ran ce2
CtiHT acte nstics
Num ber
Percent
Num ber
Percent
3,165
100.0
5,687
100.0
M e n .......................................................................................
W om en ...............................................................................
1,963
1,171
62.0
37.0
3,420
2,237
60.5
39.5
Under 20 years ................................................................
2 0 - 2 9 years .....................................................................
3 0 - 3 9 years .....................................................................
4 0 - 4 9 years .....................................................................
5 0 - 5 9 years .....................................................................
60 years and over ..........................................................
Unknown .............................................................................
158
1,076
1,044
412
348
95
32
5.0
34.0
33.0
13.0
11.0
3.0
1.0
792
1,586
1,284
842
710
367
76
14.0
28.0
22.7
14.9
12.6
6.5
1.3
Race
W h ite .....................................................................................
N on-w hite ............................................. .......................................
1,614
1,451
51.0
49.0
3,305
1,452
58.4
41.6
N orm al w eekly income
$ 0 - 9 9 .............................................................................................
$ 1 0 0 -1 9 9 ....................................................................................
$ 2 0 0 -2 9 9 ..........................................................................
$ 3 0 0 -3 9 9 ..........................................................................
$400 499 ..........................................................................
$500 and over ..................................................................
Unknown .............................................................................
31
1,646
1,076
317
32
31
32
1.0
52.0
34.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
803
2,430
1,209
546
445
14.1
42.8
21.3
9.6
7.8
248
4.4
Unionization
U n io n iz e d .............................................................................
Non-unionized ..................................................................
Unknown . ' ..........................................................................
816
2,349
25.8
74.2
933
4,281
443
16.5
75.7
7.8
W eekly benefits received
Jn d e r $25 ..........................................................................
$ 2 6 - 4 0 ................................................................................
$41 60 ................................................................................
$ 6 1 - 8 0 ................................................................................
$ 8 1 - 1 0 0 .............................................................................
O ver $ 1 0 0 ....................................................................................
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
767
1,191
1,405
832
1,462
13.6
20.1
24.8
14.7
26.8
Industrial sector
A g ric u ltu re ....................................................................................
Mining and energy ..................................................................
C o n s tru c tio n ..................................................................................
M anufacturing ..................................................................
T ransportation ..................................................................
Retail and w h o le s a le ........................................................
Finance, real estate ........................................................
Services .............................................................................
U n k n o w n .............................................................................
4
10
19
2,389
5
174
14
226
324
.1
.3
.6
75.5
.2
5.5
.4
7.1
10.0
362
22
570
1,611
272
1,363
226
1,203
28
6.4
.4
10.1
28.5
4.8
24.1
4.0
21.3
.5
Total
Sex
Age
1 California E m ploym ent Developm ent D epartm ent is the source (Sept. 3 0 ,1 9 7 9 ).
2 UI Claim ant C haracteristics Study, July 1 ,1 9 7 6 and June 30, 1977. E m ploym ent Data and
were included in the program. In this group, unionized
firms had 4,587 employees but only 1,294 were certified
to use the program. Also, it appears that significant
portions of work forces not included in the program
may be salaried and white-collar employees who are not
commonly laid off", or members of units working at full
staff.13
It is particularly noteworthy that California firms
which have thus far utilized worksharing unemployment
compensation appear to have healthier unemployment
insurance tax accounts than those using regular layoffs.
Over 78 percent of the firms participating in the pro
gram had account status in which tax contributions to
unemployment insurance have been greater than with
drawals in contrast to 63 percent of other firms. This
suggests that the program may not be unduly subsi
16
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Research Division, California E m ploym ent Developm ent D epartm ent, is the source (January
1979).
dizing seasonal employers, and that the program’s spe
cial surtax provides a disincentive to participation by
such firms.
Of the 7,603 workers approved to receive Work Shar
ing Unemployment Insurance benefits by September
1979, only 3,165 actually filed claims. Preliminary indi
cations are that many employers who believed that they
would have to lay off workers or cut workweeks ob
tained certification for benefits but ultimately found its
use unnecessary. In addition, it appears that a signifi
cant proportion of employees within firms using the
program have failed to submit their claims for benefits.
The incidence of union affiliation has so far been
higher among benefit claimants than among workers
claiming regular unemployment benefits. That is, 25.8
percent of the workers claiming shared work benefits up
to September 1979 were unionized as compared to 16.5
percent of regular benefit claimants. While this issue re
quires more detailed assessment, it would appear that
unionization has not deterred participation.
No clear picture emerges from breakdowns of shared
work benefit claimant data by age, race, and sex. The
proportion of younger workers is lower among work
sharing unemployment claimants than among regular
unemployment claimants, indicating that junior workers
are retained rather than laid off. Breakdowns by race
and sex are puzzling. If minorities and women are laid
off before other employees, their proportions should be
higher among those claiming regular unemployment
benefits than among those claiming worksharing bene
fits. Curiously, there is little difference by sex, and the
proportion of minority workers using worksharing bene
fits is higher than the proportion using regular unem
ployment benefits. These figures could indicate that the
new program is used more among firms with high pro
portions of minority and women workers, or that many
minorities and women are ineligible for unemployment
insurance, or that there are inaccuracies in the available
data.14More detailed analysis will be necessary to assess
the implications of Work Sharing Unemployment Insur
ance for affirmative action programs.
In addition to statistics, opionions were collected
from representatives of participating firms and unions
to get some indication of how the program had been re
ceived. Early in December 1979, representatives from 30
firms which actually used the program were interviewed
by phone. Of these firms, 25 strongly favored the pro
gram and 5 were neutral. Firm representatives favored
the program because it helped them retain valued em
ployees, was generally appreciated by workers, and was
easy and flexible to administer. Representatives from 20
of the 36 local unions participating in the program pri
or to December 1979 were also interviewed. Fourteen
favored the program, 3 were neutral or unaware of the
program, and 3 had not actually used the program. Ma
jor reasons for approval were that use of the program
was fairer than layoffs, and workers were generally bet
ter off financially because only a portion of earnings
were lost and most fringe benefits were maintained.
Four union representatives reported initial resistance to
the program from their members, but also noted that
opposition had lessened once workers became familiar
with the program.
These are all only preliminary indications as the data
currently available do not permit a definitive assessment
of the California program’s impact. However, informa
tion from other sources can augment what we now
know about such programs. The concluding section will
deal with comparable programs in Europe. In an appen
dix, we discuss the results of a hypothetical cost-benefit
analysis of short-time compensation.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Short-time compensation in Europe
Programs similar to California’s “Work Sharing Un
employment Insurance’’ have been in effect within the
Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, France, Italy,
Great Britain, Luxemburg, Denmark, The Netherlands,
Norway, Austria, and most recently on the North
American continent in Canada.15 Of these short-time
benefit programs, the German program most closely
parallels the framework of the California program (and
of those being discussed in the United States). We will
concentrate on it.
The German short-time allowance scheme was first
delineated in the Placement and Unemployment Insur
ance Act of July 1927.16The law has been revised sever
al times. The most recent amendments were in the
Employment Promotion Act of June 1969.
The program is administered by the Federal Labor
Institute, an independent organization composed of rep
resentatives of labor, business, and the government,
which administers unemployment insurance, unemploy
ment assistance, and other labor market measures.17
In West Germany, worker eligibility for short-time
benefits is determined by eligibility for unemployment
insurance. All these programs are financed by a 3-percent payroll tax divided equally between employers and
employees up to an earnings ceiling.18
The program is available to firms with at least one
paid employee. To become eligible, a firm must demon
strate that a reduction in hours of labor is unavoidable,
and that work time reductions with short-time benefits
will prevent dismissals.19 Furthermore, employers must
document that work-time reductions of 10 percent or
more have been made for one-third or more of their em
ployees for a period of four continuous weeks or more.20
Eligibility has traditionally been denied to firms and in
dustries showing signs of permanent decline.21
German law requires that decisions to reduce work
time or lay off workers must be agreed to by the em
ployer and the Worker Councils established within most
firms.22 If the Worker Council consents to the program,
it is binding upon the affected workers. Dissenting
workers can only resign to avoid a shorter workweek.23
The German program appears to allow firms consid
erable discretion in determining what portions of their
work forces go on short-time and how use of short-time
is adjusted over time. Employers also are allowed to
transfer workers within the firm, and some workers may
be discharged and others hired so long as most employ
ees retain their jobs.24
Once eligibility is determined, the Federal Labor In
stitute authorizes the payment of specified benefit
amounts to workers. The firm pays these benefits direct
ly to its employees, and is reimbursed by the govern
ment. As in the California program, the amount of
17
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Short-time Compensation Systems
short-time benefits given to claimants is determined by
the proportion of full-time unemployment that work
time reductions comprise. The program replaces be
tween 60 and 68 percent of earnings lost because of re
duced work time.25Short-time benefits have a ceiling but
are tax free.26 However, benefits are reduced by 50 per
cent of earnings received by recipients for work
performed in excess of the reduced work hours provided
by the primary employer.27
However, available data show that some 90 percent
of German recipients do not have their payments limit
ed by the maximum benefit ceiling; and among this
large subgroup of participants take-home incomes are
almost always maintained at 80 to 90 percent of regular
earnings,28 depending on the extent of work-time reduc
tion.
Firms participating in the program are required to as
sume the full costs of public health insurance and
retirement programs, which, outside the program, are
split evenly between employer and employee. However,
the government will, on occasion, reimburse firms for
up to 50 percent of the cost of health insurance and 75
percent of the cost of retirement programs.29 In some
cases, curtailment of full private fringe benefits which
are related to pay levels may occur, but such reductions
are typically minor.30
The normal maximum duration of benefits is 6
months, but it can be extended for up to as much as 2
years.31
While the extent and duration of work-time reductions
under the German program varies, a “rule of thumb”
generalization is that most beneficiaries had their
work time shortened by about 40 percent and that du
ration has been under 3 months for most participants.
Between 1972 and 1977, some 92 percent of bene
ficiaries suffered a loss of work time of under 50 percent
of standard hours, and 57 percent experienced a loss of
less than 25 percent. Between June 1977 and June 1978,
56 percent of participating workers received benefits for
under 3 months and only 6 percent received benefits for
periods lasting longer than 1 year.32
Utilization of short-time compensation varies marked
ly with the business cycle, particularly during the early
stages of an economic downturn when firms are not
sure whether dismissals and long-term layoffs are neces
sary. This pattern is empirically dramatized by the rap
id upsurge of utilization of short-time compensation at
the beginning of the 1975 recession, followed by a de
cline in use despite the fact that unemployment levels
did not fall appreciably. (See table 3.)33
Ninety-five percent of German workers receiving
short-time payments are in manufacturing, mining, and
construction. Within these sectors, payment of shorttime benefits for shorter working hours is most widely
used in all stages of the fabrication of metal products,
18
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 3. A n n u a l a v e ra g e s o f u n e m p lo y m e n t an d w o rk e rs
u n d e r s h o rt-tim e c o m p e n s a tio n , W e s t G e rm a n y , 1 9 6 8 -7 8
Year
R egistered
short-tim e
w orkers
R egistered
unem ploym ent
(num ber)
1968 ........................
1969 ........................
1970 ........................
1971 ........................
1972 ........................
1973 ........................
1974 ........................
1975 ........................
1976 ........................
1977 ........................
1 9 7 8 ' .....................
10
1
10
86
76
44
292
773
277
231
250
323
179
149
185
246
273
582
1,074
1,060
1,030
1,000
U nem ploym ent
rate
1.3
.7
.6
.7
.9
1.0
2.2
4.7
4.6
4.5
1 1978 figures are prelim inary.
NOTE: U nem ploym ent figures are based on the num ber of registrations at governm ent
E m ploym ent Service O ffices. It is estim ated that about 75 percent of the unem ployed w ork
ers in W est G erm any register. U nem ploym ent rates are com puted on the basis of registered
unem ploym ent figures.
SO UR CE: Annual Report for 1976, Bundesantap Fur Arbeit, Republic of W est Germ any,
pages 8 and 65; and Arbeits-und Sozialstatistik, Federal M inistry of Labor and Social Affairs,
R epublic of W est G erm any, M arch 1978. Data for 1977 and 1978 cited from Gunther
Schm id, “ Selective E m ploym ent Policy in W est Germ any: Som e Evidence of Its Develop
m ent and Im pact,” Discussion Paper Series, International Institute of M anagem ent, Berlin,
July 1978, page 14.
ranging from the mining of iron and coal to the produc
tion of steel, machinery, automobiles, and ships. Electri
cal products, textiles and construction industries follow
in that order.
In contrast to the California program, between onethird and one-half of all workers receiving short-time
benefits were employed in large firms with more than
500 workers. Nonetheless, employers with more than
500 employees represented only 5.5 percent of the total
number of firms using the program in 1978.
The widespread use of the program in Germany has
led observers to conclude that the program has signifi
cantly attenuated unemployment. One study has esti
mated that use of the program reduced full-time unem
ployment by approximately 175,000 in 1975, and some
52,000 in 1977. (See table 4.)34 Thus, some observers
claim that without the program, full-time unemploy
ment would have been about 16 percent higher in 1975,
and about 5 percent higher in 1977.
Despite general agreement that short-time compensa
tion effectively prevents layoffs, the available data leave
a number of unanswered questions concerning its job
saving effects. It has been noted that the aggregate
work-time reductions have been significantly greater
than the estimated reductions of full-time unemploy
ment. (See table 4.) Most analysts suggest that this dif
ference comes primarily from a “silent reserve” (Stille
Reserve) of employees on reduced work time who do
not or cannot claim short-time benefits,35 but the phe
nomenon is yet to be fully explained.
Questions and prospects
Despite generally laudatory reports from European
representatives of labor, business, and government
about short-time programs,36 a number of reservations
have been expressed about the applicability of the con
cept to the United States. For example, different levels
of labor market competition would make the program
far less attractive to U.S. firms. Furthermore, European
legal restraints on layoffs, particularly those in Germa
ny, are likely to make short-time compensation far more
acceptable in Europe. Moreover, large portions of Euro
pean fringe benefits are administered by the govern
ment, thus reducing fixed costs of labor which are likely
to deter U.S. firms from participation. Finally, the max
imum benefit ceiling for the German program is consid
erably higher than most American ceilings.37 This dif
ference is assumed to reduce opposition from senior
employees in Germany to a much greater degree than
would be likely in the United States.
While there are still many unanswered questions,
available information suggests that short-time compen
sation can do little to help persons who are out of work
because they have just entered or re-entered the labor
force. Nor is it likely to help those who have already
been laid off or voluntarily left their jobs. However,
short-time compensation does have potential to prevent
full-time job loss among the 3 to 5 million American
workers subject to layoffs who comprise about half
of the unemployed population.38
Despite the potentials of short-time compensation,
there are many reservations about its widespread appli
cation in the United States. Some union representatives
have expressed fear that use of short-time compensation
would disrupt hard-won seniority provisions and
established union procedures. It has been suggested that
layoffs according to seniority are fair and that use of
shorter workweeks as an alternative to layoffs would
lead to wage losses among higher-paid senior workers.
In addition, there is concern that use of the program
would stimulate conflicts among workers, leading to a
reduction of union solidarity and bargaining power and
presenting numerous administrative complications
which would effectively prevent certain types of workers
from receiving benefits, encourage firms to instigate
greater aggregate work-time reductions than would be
the case under layoffs, and reduce political pressures for
full employment.39 Yet a 1978 survey of the American
labor force indicates that the worksharing unemploy
ment insurance concept is supported by an over
whelming majority of workers.40
Some members of the business community have also
expressed concern that the program would ultimately be
imposed on firms, encourage unions to push for shorter
workweeks, and subsidize marginal firms at the expense
of healthy ones. While these reservations are not unani
mously expressed by all sectors and levels of labor and
business,41 they do represent important issues which
must be dealt with prior to widespread acceptance of
short-time compensation as a major social policy.
The future of short-time compensation within the
United States will be determined ultimately by discus
sions among advocates and opponents, research and
policy evaluation,42 and perhaps further experimentation
and trial runs.
□
1 For a compendium of viewpoints on worksharing and its alterna
tive forms, see W o rk T im e a n d E m p lo y m e n t, Special Report No. 28,
National Commission for Employment Policy, Washington, D.C., Oc
tober 1978. For a description and assessment of seventeen varied
worksharing proposals, see Fred Best, W o rk S h a rin g : P o lic y O p tio n s
a n d A ssessm en ts, Forthcoming Monograph, Upjohn Institute for Em
ployment Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1980.
2Daniel Hamermesh, “Unemployment Insurance, Short-Time Com
pensation and the Workweek,” W o rk T im e a n d E m p lo y m e n t, pp. 235
-238.
1Edith F. Lynton, “Alternatives to Layoffs,” Conference Report for
the New York City Commission on Human Rights, New York, April
1975.
4
Elinor Holmes Norton has urged consideration of the concept
("Testimony of Emile Heller,” L e is u r e S h a rin g , Hearings of the Senate
Select Committee on Investment Priorities and Objectives, California
State Senate, Sacramento, California, Nov. 1, 1977, pp. 153-163, and
submitted statement); and Alfred Blumrosen and Ruth Blumrosen,
“The Duty to Plan for Fair Employment Revisited: Work Sharing in
Hard Times,” R u tg e r s L a w R ev ie w , Summer 1975, pp. 10821106.
5This bill was last submitted to the New York State Legislature on
Mar. 30, 1976 under the Number 11819 by Assembly Member Sey
mour Posner.
6 “Work Sharing in Canada,” Department of Employment and Im
migration, Ottawa, Canada, April 1978; and Peter Sadlier-Brown,
W o rk S h a rin g in C a n a d a : P r o b le m s a n d P o ssib ilities, C.D. Howe Re
search Institute, Montreal, Canada, HRI Observations Report No.
18, June 1978.
The reports prepared as a result on this committee’s activities are
summarized in S h o r t- T im e C o m p e n sa tio n , U I O c c a s io n a l p a p e r, Office
of Research, Legislation and Program Policies, Unemployment Insur-
T a b le 4. E s tim a te d im p a c t o f s h o rt-tim e c o m p e n s a tio n on
w o rk tim e an d u n e m p lo y m e n t, W e s t G e rm a n y , 1 9 7 3 -7 7
[N um bers in thousands]
Year
1973 ...................
1974 ...................
1975 ...................
1976 ...................
1977 ...................
1 9 7 8 1 ................
R egistered shorttim e em plo yees
44
293
773
277
231
250
R eduction o f full tim e
R eduction o f full tim e
equivalent unem ploy
equivalent w ork tim e
m ent due to short
(em ployees)
tim e (em ployees)
16
106
272
90
77
84
11
70
175
60
52
56
' 1978 figures are prelim inary.
SO UR CE: Mitteitungen aus der Arbeitsmarket-und Berufsforschung (“ The Developm ent
o f the Labor M arket in the Federal Republic of G erm any in 1977"), No. 1 ,1 9 7 7 , page 8. (In
terpretation of data provided by Beatrice Reubens, Conservation of Human Resources, C o
lum bia University, New York.) D ata for 1977 and 1978 cited from G unther Schmid,
“ Selective E m ploym ent Policy in W est Germ any: Som e Evidence of Its Developm ent and
Im pact,” International Institute of M anagem ent, Berlin, Discussion Paper Series, July 1978,
page 14.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
19
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Short-time Compensation Systems
ance Service, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Depart
ment of Labor, Washington, D.C., Forthcoming in 1980.
8Legislation has been drafted for submission by Patricia Schroeder,
U.S. House of Representatives.
9 “Statement of Gene Livingston, Chief Deputy Director of the Cal
ifornia Employment Development Department,” L e is u r e S h a rin g ,
Hearings of the California State Senate Select Committee on Invest
ment Priorities and Objectives, Sacramento, California, Nov. 1, 1977,
pp. 66-81.
10Senate Bill No. 210, introduced by William Greene, California
State Senate, Sacramento, California, May 7, 1979.
" For example, if a recipient was eligible for a total of $3,120 in UI
benefits (which is the maximum 1980 weekly benefit of $120 for 26
weeks), and received a total of $480 or $24 a week in worksharing
benefits for 20 weeks, he or she would have $2,640 ($120 a week for
22 weeks) worth of regular UI if laid off after using the shared work
program.
12 If individual annual incomes are over $10,000 or joint spouse an
nual incomes are over $25,000, unemployment insurance benefits are
taxable under Federal law.
13 In remarks to the National Commission on Unemployment Com
pensation in New York, New York on Aug. 24, 1979, John L.
Zalusky, an economist with the AFL-CIO Department of Research,
argued that the worksharing program may be used selectively so that
lower-skilled and junior employees are laid off with the program be
ing used to retain higher skilled or senior workers, thus defeating
much of the affirmative action goals of the program.
14 U I C la im a n t C h a r a c te r istic s S tu d y , July 1, 1976, and June 30,
1977, Employment Data and Research Division Estimates Group,
California Employment Development Department, Sacramento, Cali
fornia, January 1979, p. 9.
15 Peter Henle, W o rk S h a r in g a s an A lte r n a tiv e to L a y o ffs, Congres
sional Research Service, Library of Congress, July 19, 1976; and
Richard Belous and Sar Levitan, S h o r te r H ou rs, S h o r te r W eeks,
Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977.
16 P la c e m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t I n su ra n c e A ct, July 16, 1927, pp.
116-19.
17 Paul Fisher, “Notes on Work Sharing in the Federal Republic of
Germany in 1978,” unpublished paper prepared for the Office of Re
search and Development, Employment and Training Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor (Contract No. 20-24-78-48), July 1978, pp.
3 -4 .
18Paul Fisher, op. cit., pp. 4 -5 .
15Paul Fisher, op. cit., pp. 4 -5 .
20 Ib id ., p. 4: and Fred Best, “Short-Time Compensation and Work
Sharing,” National-Commission for Employment Policy, Washington,
D.C., April 1978, p. 8.
21 Paul Fisher, op. cit., p. 5.
22 Bruce Millen, “Job and Income Protection Measures for Worker
in Sweden, Germany and England,” Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Policy, Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, July
13, 1978, p. 10.
23 Paul Fisher, op. cit., p. 7.
24I b id .,
25I b id .,
p. 6.
p. 4; a n d A x e l M itte ls ta d t , “ U n e m p lo y m e n t B en efits a n d
R e la te d P a y m e n ts in S ev e n M a jo r C o u n t r ie s ,” R e e x a m in in g E u ro p ea n
M a n p o w e r P olicies, S p ec ia l R e p o r t N o . 10, A u g u s t 1 9 7 6 , p p . 1 7 9 - 8 2 .
26 P a u l F ish e r , op. cit., p. 8.
27 I b id ., p. 4.
28 Ibid., p. 17.
29 Ibid., pp . 5 a n d 8.
30 I b id .,
31 Ib id .,
p. 4; a n d Sar L e v ita n a n d R ic h a r d B e lo u s, op. cit., p. 6 2 .
32 I b id .,
pp . 1 5 - 1 6 .
p. 6.
33 G u n th e r S c h m id , “ S e le c tiv e E m p lo y m e n t P o lic y in W e st G e r m a
n y : S o m e E v id e n c e o f I ts D e v e lo p m e n t a n d I m p a c t ,” D is c u s s io n P a
per S eries, I n te r n a tio n a l I n s t itu t e
G e r m a n y , J u ly 1 9 7 8 , p. 14.
of
M a n a g e m e n t,
B erlin ,
W e st
34 G u n th e r S c h m id , op. cit., p. 14.
35 Ibid., p. 16.
36 “ S h o r t-T im e C o m p e n s a t io n ,” W h a t's N e w I n L a b o r a n d S o c ia l
P o licy, F e d e r a l R e p u b lic o f W e st G e r m a n y , E m b a s s y to th e U n it e d
S ta te s, A p r i l - M a y 1 9 7 6 , p. 7; a n d K u r t W . R o th s c h ild , “ W o r k in g
T im e a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t ,” p a p er p rep a red fo r th e N a t io n a l C o m m is
s io n fo r E m p lo y m e n t P o lic y , U n iv e r s it y o f L in z , A u s tr ia , p r e se n ted
J u ly 1 9 7 8 , pp . 5 - 1 0 .
37 In G e r m a n y , m a x im u m U I a n d w o r k sh a r in g b e n e fits a re d e te r
m in e d a n n u a lly , to b e 163 p e r ce n t o f a v e ra g e g r o ss e a r n in g s fo r a ll in
su r ed w o r k e r s , w h ile th e h ig h e s t U I c e ilin g in th e U .S . is a r ela tiv e ly
lo w 6 7 p e r ce n t o f th e a v e ra g e in c o m e o f c o v e r e d w o r k e rs (P a u l F is h
er, op. cit., p. 17).
38 1 9 7 9 E m p lo y m e n t a n d T r a in in g R e p o r t o f th e P re sid e n t, p. 2 7 4 ,
T a b le A - 2 7 .
39 Z a lu s k y , op. c it.; H o w a r d Y o u n g , “ C o m m e n t o n th e N e e d fo r
W o rk T im e R e d u c t io n ,” W o rk T im e a n d 'E m p lo y m e n t, op. c it.; “ A
C u r e fo r U n e m p lo y m e n t ,” B u sin e ss W eek , O c t. 2 9 , 1 9 7 9 , p p . 1 6 3 - 6 4 ;
S a d lie r -B r o w n , op. cit., p p . 1 6 - 1 7 ; a n d F r e d B e s t, G a r y L e fk o w itz ,
M a u r ee n M c C a r th y , G a il R o s e n b e r g a n d B a rry S tern , ‘ E x p lo r a to r y
S u rv e y o n S h o r t-T im e C o m p e n s a tio n ,” p a p er p rep a red fo r O ffice o f
R e se a r c h a n d D e v e lo p m e n t, E m p lo y m e n t a n d T r a in in g A d m in is tr a
tio n , U .S . D e p a r tm e n t o f L a b o r , J u n e 2 3 , 1 9 7 8 .
40 F r e d B est, E x c h a n g in g E a rn in g s f o r L e isu re: F in d in g s o f a n E x
p lo r a to r y N a tio n a l S u r v e y on W o rk T im e P referen ces, R e se a r ch a n d
D e v e lo p m e n t M o n o g r a p h N o . 7 9 , O ffice o f R e se a r c h a n d D e v e lo p
m e n t, E m p lo y m e n t a n d T r a in in g A d m in is tr a tio n , U .S . D e p a r tm e n t o f
L a b o r , W a s h in g t o n , D .C ., 1 9 8 0 , pp . 1 1 1 - 1 8 .
41 B est, L e f k o w itz et a l., op. c it.; “ A C u re fo r U n e m p lo y m e n t ,” op.
cit., p p . 1 6 3 - 6 4 .
42 F o r e x a m p le , th e C a lifo r n ia “ W o rk S h a rin g U n e m p lo y m e n t In su r
a n c e ” is n o w u n d e r a n in t e n s iv e 2 -y e a r e v a lu a tio n s p o n s o r e d b y th e
C a lifo r n ia E m p lo y m e n t D e v e lo p m e n t D e p a r tm e n t a n d th e U .S . D e
p a r tm en t o f L a b o r. T h e fin al a n a ly s is w ill b e is su e d b e fo r e th a t d a te.
S u ch r esea rch , o n g o in g d ia lo g u e , a n d p o s s ib le e x p e r im e n ta l p r o g r a m s
in o th e r S ta te s s h o u ld s h e d lig h t o n th e a p p lic a b ility o f s h o r t-tim e
c o m p e n s a tio n in th e U n it e d S ta te s.
APPENDIX: Economic Costs and Benefits
The economic costs and benefits of short-time com
pensation must be determined by empirical evaluation
of working programs. However, data on the costs of la
bor and social programs can be used to illustrate likely
economic impacts of using short-time compensation in
stead of layoffs. This can be accomplished by a hypo
thetical example developed to contrast laying off 20
percent of low seniority and low income employees with
a 20 percent (1 day) work-time reduction with shorttime benefits within a fictitious firm employing 100
20
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
wage earning workers. These workers, are postulated to
have average 1980 U.S. pay levels and benefits under
the income tax and unemployment insurance benefit
conditions existing in California. Further, the income
and fringe benefits are distributed within this fictitious
group of workers roughly to reflect prevailing U.S. con
ditions. Thus, the highest paid 20 percent receives a
gross weekly wage of $380, the average worker gross
weekly earnings of $265, and the lowest 20 percent a
gross weekly income of $155. The lowest paid 20 per-
4
cent are assumed to have low seniority and be subject
to layoffs when they occur. The estimated economic im
pacts of short-time compensation and layoffs under
these conditions are shown in appendix table 1.
The use of short-time compensation as opposed to
layoffs will produce economic gains for junior workers
at the expense of those with seniority, minimize losses
to all parties due to reduced income taxes and shorttime benefits, and improve the aggregate economic well
being of the total work group with a 4-day workweek.
For example, high seniority workers (top fifth earning
level) would take home net weekly paycheck of $268.48
or about 91 percent of the $294.94 they would receive
under full-time work conditions. Low-seniority employ
ees (lowest earning levels) would take home $128.16 un
der short-time compensation, in comparison to the $74
in unemployment insurance benefits they would receive
if totally laid off. The average worker would maintain
about 92 percent of his or her regular take home earn
ings under short-time.
Under short-time compensation, all workers would
maintain some degree of job attachment, as well as all
or most of the fringe benefits which accompany employ
ment. When the value of these benefits is added to net
pay, the average employee under short-time compensa
tion would maintain 94.2 percent of total full-time
“take home” compensation as opposed to 92.5 percent
under layoffs. Additionally, all workers experiencing re
duced workweeks would have an additional day off and
higher effective per hour pay rates due to the partial in
come subsidy. Finally, because approximately one-fifth
of unemployment insurance applications are judged in
eligible due to inadequate base earnings,1 low seniority
workers without eligibility would maintain at least par
tial wages as opposed to complete loss of income result
ing from total layoff.
Although firms will spend more per hour of labor on
fixed fringe benefit commitments, overall labor costs are
likely to be lower under the program because reductions
in work time for all employees will tend to reduce aver
age weekly wages. The average sum of wage and benefit
costs per hour in this example is $9.81 under the pro
gram as opposed to $10.22 under regular layoffs and
$9.26 under standard full-time conditions. Lower turn
over costs resulting from avoidance of recall, new hir
ing, and training would likely lead to further savings by
firms. These savings are likely to be at least partly
counterbalanced by a slight increase of unemployment
compensation taxes on the firm as a result of higher
partial unemployment insurance payment given to se
nior workers with large base earnings. Of course, hourly
labor costs can be expected to be higher under both
short-time compensation and layoffs than they would be
under full-time conditions, suggesting that firms would
not wish to utilize the program unless confronted with
economic problems.
Presumed benefits to workers and firms resulting
from use of short-time compensation may be gained
A p p e n d ix ta b le 1. H y p o th e tic a l 1 c o m p a ris o n o f c o s ts an d b e n e fits o f s h o rt-tim e c o m p e n s a tio n an d la y o ffs to th e firm ,
w o rk e rs , an d g o v e rn m e n t
[Typical firm = 1 0 0 production w orkers over one w eek]
Standard em ploym ent conditions: 100 w ork ers on 40-hour w ork w eeks
C ost and incom e factors
Im pact on workers:
Incom e and benefits
Total gross w age, unem ploym ent insurance an benefits .
Total net w age, unem ploym ent insurance, and benefits ,
Total net wage and unem ploym ent insurance ...................
W ages
G ross w a g e s 2 ...........................................
Net wages (after ta x e s )3 ...........................................
Total fringe b e n e fits4 ........................................................
Unem ploym ent insurance5 ...................................
Im pact on firms:
Total labor c o s ts ........................................................
Total gross wages .............................................
Total fringe b e n e fits4 ...........................................
Payroll taxes:
U nem ploym ent insurance (year’s average ra te )6 . .
Social se c u rity 3 ........................................................
Turnover c o s ts 7 ........................................................
Im pact on U nem ploym ent Insurance:
U nem ploym ent Insurance system
Benefit p a ym e n ts5 ..........................................................
Tax reven ues6 ...........................................
O the r G overnm ent program s
Program e xpe nditures7 .....................................................
Social security tax re ve n u e s3 ..........................................
Incom e tax re ve n u e s3 ........................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Highest paid 20
perc en t o f w orkers
A verag e w orker
Low est paid 20
perc en t o f w ork ers
Total cost for
100 w orkers
C o st per
w eek
C ost per
hour
C ost p er
w eek
C ost per
hour
C ost per
w eek
C ost per
hour
$349.80
302.36
217.56
$8.75
7.56
5.44
$501.60
416.54
294.94
$12.54
10.41
7.37
$204.60
187.40
137.80
$5.12
4.69
3.45
$35,112.00
30 220 80
21,708.40
265.00
217.56
84.80
6.03
5.44
2.12
380.00
294.94
121.60
9.50
7.37
3.04
155.00
137.80
49.60
3.88
3.45
1.24
26,600.00
21,708.40
8,511.00
368.96
265.00
84.80
9.22
6.63
2.12
527.81
380.00
121.60
13.20
9.50
3.04
217.08
155.00
49.60
5.43
3.88
1.24
37,035.40
26,600 00
8,511.00
2.92
16.24
.07
.41
2.92
23.29
.07
.58
2.98
9.50
.07
.24
293.20
1,630.20
2.92
2.92
2.92
16.24
47.44
23.29
85.06
9.50
17.20
1,630.20
4,891.60
21
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Short-time Compensation Systems
A p p e n d ix ta b le 1. H y p o th e tic a l1 c o m p a ris o n o f c o s ts an d b e n e fits o f s h o rt-tim e c o m p e n s a tio n an d la y o ffs to th e firm ,
w o rk e rs , an d g o v e r n m e n t— C o n tin u e d
[Typical firm = 1 0 0 production w orkers over one w eek]
_________
_____________________________________________________________ _________________________________________
»
Com parison o f alternative m etho ds o f reducing w orktim e by 20 percent
Layoffs of 20 p ercent of w ork fo rce
R educed w orkw eek: 100 w o rkers on 32-hour w eeks
R etained w orkers
C ost and incom e factors
C ost
per
w ee k
Im pact on workers:
Incom e and benefits
Total gross wage, unem ploym ent insurance, and benefits
Total net w age, unem ploym ent insurance, and benefits .
Total net wage and unem ploym ent In s u ra n c e ...................
W ages
Gross w a g e s 2 .............................................................................
Net w ages (after ta x e s )3 ........................................................
Total fringe ben e fits4 ..........................................................................
U nem ploym ent insurance5 ................................................................
Im pact on firms:
Total labor c o s t s ..................................................................................
Total gross w a g e s ................................................................................
Total fringe b e n e fits4 ........................................................................
Payroll taxes:
U nem ploym ent insurance (year's average ra te )6 ...........
Social se c u rity 3 ..........................................................................
Turnover c o s ts 7 ...................................................................................
Im pact on U nem ploym ent Insurance:
U nem ploym ent Insurance system
Benefit p a ym e n ts5 .....................................................................
Tax reven ues6 .............................................................................
O ther G overnm ent program s
Program expe nditures7 .............................................................
Social security tax reven ues3 ................................................
Income tax re ve n u e s3 .............................................................
H ighest paid
20 percent
o f w orkers
A verage
w orker
Cost
per
hour
C ost
per
w eek
C ost
per
hour
265.00
217.56
94.80
6.63
5.44
2.12
380.00
294.94
121.60
Total
cost
9.50
7.37
3.04
74.00
368.96
265.00
84.80
9.22
6.63
2.12
527.81
380.00
121.60
13.20
9.50
3.04
2.92
16.24
.07
.41
2.92
23.29
.07
.58
2.92 +
2.92
16.24
47.44
23.29
85.06
through increased costs to the Nation. For instance, if
the duration of unemployment is presumed to be
equivalent, the level of average benefits is likely to be
higher than unemployment insurance payments because
benefits for senior workers with higher earnings will be
greater than those collected by low-paid junior workers.
Such extra costs are likely to be partially recouped over
the long run by increased unemployment insurance tax
es for firms participating in the program. Use of shorttime compensation will also reduce general tax revenues
received by the government. Because workers, particu
larly those with higher incomes, will pay proportionally
less income taxes with reduced earnings, total revenues
from income taxes will be lower. Specifically, the weekly
22
C ost
per
w eek
Total
cost
fo r 100
w ork ers
H ighest paid
20 percent
o f w orkers
A verage
w orker
C ost
per
w ee k
C ost
per
hour
C ost
per
w ee k
C ost
per
hour
Low est paid
20 percent
of w orkers
C ost
per
w ee k
C ost
per
hour
Total
cost
fo r 100
w ork ers
$349.80 $8.75 $501.60 $12.54 $74.00 $1,480.00 $32,500.00 $318.20 $9.94 $449.60 $14.05 $188.40 $5.88 $31,852.00
302.36 7.56 416.54 10.41 74.00 1,480.00 27,952.40 285.33 8.92 390.04 12.19 177.76 5.56 28.476.60
8.19 128.16 4.01 19.964.60
7.37 74.00 1,480.00 20,432.40 200.53 6.27 260.48
217.56 5.44 294.94
'T h e assum ptions underlying the table are: (1) 40-hour w orkw eek with no overtim e, (2) all
em ployees eligible for unem ploym ent Insurance, (3) low est paid 20 percent of w orkers are also
low est seniority and subject to layoffs, (4) distribution and levels of wages and benefits approxi
m ate late 1979 conditions for nonsalaried U.W. production w orkers, and (5) taxes and unem
ploym ent insurance benefits based on California conditions.
2 G ross average w eekly wage approxim ated from August 1979 average U.S. m anufacturing
w o rke rs’ w eekly incom e (Monthly Labor Review, O ctober 1979, page 98), and typical distribu
tion of earnings within a w ork group of 100 em ployees into highest 20 percent and low est 20
percent approxim ated from national incom e distribution patterns fo r m ale wage earners In m an
ufacturing industries (Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series P. 60, No. 118,
M arch 1979, pp. 2 2 8 -2 9 ).
3 Dollar am ount of taxes deducted from gross w eekly earnings to determ ine net earnings
based on Federal and C alifornia incom e tax w ithholding rates fo r a w orke r with three exem p
tions (California E m ploym ent Developm ent D epartm ent, January 1979), and 1979 Social Secu
rity tax rates requiring paym ent of 6.13 percent of the first $22,900 of individual annual earnings
by both em ployer and em ployee.
4 Dollar cost of fringe benefits such as m edical care, private retirem ent pensions and paid
tim e off com puted as 32 percent of gross earnings based on available data (Handbook o f La
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Laid off:
low est paid
20 p ercent
o f w orkers
6.63
5.60
2.65
304.00
244.48
121.60
24.00
9.50
7.64
3.80
124.00
113.36
49.60
14.80
3.88
3.54
1.55
21,280.00
17.904.60
8.511.00
2.060.00
84.80
9.77
6.63
2.65
447.19
304.00
121.60
13.97
9.50
3.80
184.15
124.00
49.60
5.75
3.88
1.55
31,390.60
21,280.00
8,511.00
233.60
1,440.20
1
2.93
13.00
.09
.41
2.96
15.64
.09
.58
2.95
7.60
.09
.24
293.80
1,304.80
24,980.00
18,992.40
7,520.00
212.00
32,693.80
23,500.00
7,520.00
312.73
1,480.00
179.11
84.80
21.40
212.00
t
t
74.00
1,480.00
1,480.00
233.60
21.40
2.93
24.00
2.95
14.80
2.95
2,060.00
293.80
1
t
!
1,440.20
4,547.60
13.00
32.87
18.64
59.52
7.60
10.64
1,304.80
3,375.40
bor Statistics 1977, page 237) and Employment Benefits (U.S. C ham ber of Com m erce, 1975).
5 Full w eekly unem ploym ent insurance benefits and 20 percent benefits based on California
benefit determ ination form ula In effect in January 1980. Full unem ploym ent insurance benefits
w ould be $74 a w eek for a fully unem ployed w orke r earning $165 a week, $107 for a w orker
earning $265 a week, and $120 fo r a w orke r earning $380 a w eek or more. The California un
em ploym ent insurance benefit ceiling is $120 a week.
6 U nem ploym ent insurance tax paym ents com puted from estim ated typical em ployer unem
ploym ent Insurance tax based on average 1977 California tax rate of 2.46 percent (Actuarial
Report o f the California Unemployment Fund, 1977, pp. 2 8 -2 9 ) adjusted upward 4 percent to
account fo r em ployee turnover (Employment and Training Report o f the President, 1979, p.
332) and prorated over one-year period to represent average unem ploym ent tax expenditures
by em ployer on first $6,000 of em ployee earnings for varied levels of continuously earned an
nual incom e.
7 Because of the unavailability of acceptable data showing dollar am ounts of em ployer turn
over costs resulting from hiring and training, end public program expenditures associated with
varied levels and types of w ork losses, it w as necessary to note expected im pacts in term s of
(!) fo r increased expenditures, ( — ) fo r no change in expenditures, and ( i) fo r reduced expen
ditures.
State, Federal and social security taxes collected from
the average program participant in our hypothetical ex
ample would be $59.88, as opposed to $46.80 for the
same worker experiencing layoffs. To some degree, these
losses will be slightly offset by lower expenditures on
public programs such as food stamps, social security
and medicare for work groups using short-time compen
sation as opposed to layoffs.2
--------- A P P E N D I X
F O O T N O T E S ----------
' A c tu a r ia l R e p o r t o f th e C a lifo r n ia U n e m p lo y m e n t
and Robertson, Inc., San Francisco, 1977.
F und,
Milliman
2 Fred Best, “Short-time Compensation and Work Sharing”, p. 18.
Probing the issues
of unemployment duration
Data ambiguity and measurement problems have
created controversy in interpreting unemployment
duration; after a careful review o f the issues, most jobless
spells appear short but persistent unemployment is
important; recession extends duration for all
N
o r m a n
B
o w e r s
If most persons experiencing unemployment remain job
less for only a short period, is the labor market so ac
tive that the unemployed easily find their usual kind of
work? And, as a corollary, that chronic and persistent
joblessness is unimportant? Or do such data merely re
flect the frequent movement away for unstable and mar
ginal jobs that are considered unsuitable?
Whatever one’s belief concerning the efficacy of dif
ferent theories of unemployment and the labor market,
accurate measures of various dimensions of the inci
dence and duration of unemployment are important.
The purpose of this article is to discuss some method
ological, measurement, and interpretative issues sur
rounding existing statistics on unemployment duration.
The primary data source for this analysis is the Current
Population Survey ( c p s ).
Consistent with past research, a large number of
spells of unemployment were found to be typically of
short duration, although obvious cyclical patterns also
were found. The implications for understanding how the
labor market functions depend critically upon both the
outcome of a spell of joblessness and the extent of mul
tiple periods of unemployment per worker over time.
Based on this analysis, unemployment appears to be
concentrated among a relatively small group of workers
who are unemployed for a rather extensive length of
Norman Bowers is an economist in the Office of Current Employment
Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
time. In addition, there appears to be a pronounced cy
clical pattern to the concentration of unemployment, as
long-term joblessness rises extensively in recessions.
However, the data alone do not verify or refute any of
the existing theories of labor market behavior.
Some methodological issues
For many analysts and policymakers the length of a
spell of unemployment— whether 4 or 40 weeks— is
viewed as an index of economic welfare. Thus, the
plight of the long-term unemployed and the impact of
economic downturns on duration are often discussed.
However, the seemingly simple question—how long
does an unemployed person remain unemployed?—is
not easily answered on the basis of regularly published
data from the CPS (or most other labor force surveys,
for that matter). To understand this, a brief overview of
the CPS is necessary.
The CPS is a monthly survey of a rotating group of
approximately 65,000 households (strictly speaking,
addresses). Each month, Census Bureau enumerators
visit the households in the sample and ask a series of
structured questions about the labor force status of
each member 16 years of age and over during the pre
ceding or reference week. Persons without a job but
looking for work are asked how long they have been
looking for work. Thus, what the CPS measures is the
length of a spell that is still in progress, which is con
ceptually distinct from the length of a completed spell of
23
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Unemployment Duration
unemployment. Published data measure a cross-section
of the unemployed prior to the completion of their
spells. The difference between an in-progress and a com
pleted spell of unemployment is analogous to the dif
ference between the average life span (the average of a
completed life) and the mean age of the population (the
average of lives currently in progress). In addition,
some unemployment spells are not measured in the sur
vey— those that occur between survey dates.
Before discussing the implications of this distinction,
it might be fruitful to examine the distribution of unem
ployment by duration of spells in progress during 1968
-79. Table 1 shows that, on average, about 6 million
people were unemployed in 1979, and approximately 1.2
million were unemployed for more than 15 weeks. The
average duration of these “in-progress” spells was 10.8
weeks. In general, average duration varies directly with
the unemployment rate, as can be seen by simply con
trasting 1969 with the recession year of 1975. As should
be clear from the previous discussion, however, table 1
cannot be used as an estimate of, say, the number of
completed long-term (15 weeks or more) spells of unem
ployment in a year. This is so for two reasons: first,
many of the jobless remain among the long-term unem
ployed from month to month and are counted repeated
ly; second, some of the unemployed reporting less than,
say, 5 weeks will eventually experience more than 15
weeks of unemployment. At the same time, spells of un
employment that occur entirely between survey dates
are missed.1
This suggests that there are two different measure
ment problems in using the data on spells in progress to
estimate the length of completed spells. These phenome
na will be labeled “interruption” and “length” bias, fol
lowing Salant and others.2 As noted earlier, the spells
“captured” by the CPS are only part-way to their com
pletion at the time of the survey—that is, they are
“interrupted” spells. Thus, the average duration of
spells in progress may underestimate the length of a
T a b le 1 D is trib u tio n o f th e u n e m p lo y e d b y d u ra tio n o f
in -p ro g re s s s p e lls o f u n e m p lo y m e n t, 1 9 6 8 - 7 9
[In thousands]
Year
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
24
...
...
...
...
...
.. .
.. .
.. .
...
...
...
...
Total
unem ployed
2,817
2,831
4,088
4,993
4,840
4,304
5,076
7,830
7,288
6,855
6,047
5,963
A verage
U nem
duration
ploym ent
(in
M ore
rate
than 26 w ee ks)
N um ber o f w ee ks unem ployed
Less
than 5
5 -1 0
1 1 -1 4
1 5 -2 6
1,594
1,629
2,137
2,234
2,223
2,196
2,567
2,894
2,790
2,856
2,793
2,869
613
627
958
1,143
1,089
966
1,153
1,738
1,534
1,507
1,377
1,396
197
200
331
435
369
330
418
714
625
582
499
496
256
242
427
665
597
475
563
1,290
1,003
896
746
684
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
156
133
235
517
562
337
373
1,193
1,336
1,012
633
518
8.5
8.0
8.8
11.4
12.1
10.0
9.7
14.1
15.8
14.3
11.9
10.8
3.6
3.5
4.9
5.9
5.6
4.9
5.6
8.5
7.7
7.0
6.0
5.8
completed spell. However, there is also a bias in the op
posite direction. Longer spells have a better chance of
being measured in the survey and so tend to make the
measured average duration greater than the average du
ration of a completed spell—length bias.
Which of these effects will predominate depends on
what is called the “escape rate” or the probability that
a person’s unemployment will end in “N” weeks pro
vided that it has not ended before that time. Salant has
shown that the relationship between the expected length
of interrupted and completed spells can be deduced
from a knowledge of “escape rates.”3 This technique is
applied to CPS data in the next section; however, a brief
discussion of escape probabilities derived from CPS data
is necessary.
Past research using CPS data has shown that, in the
aggregate, the likelihood of escaping unemployment de
clines with length of time unemployed. In other words,
the probability of remaining unemployed increases with
the length of unemployment already experienced.4 It
must be emphasized that this relationship is based on
aggregate data and does not necessarily mean that indi
viduals have declining propensities to escape unemploy
ment. For example, individuals or homogenous groups
of the unemployed could have constant but different es
cape rates over time, but as the duration of unemploy
ment increases the unemployed will be disproportion
ately composed of those with low escape rates. On the
other hand, there may, in fact, be a causal relationship
between duration and escape, such that the longer a
person is unemployed the less chance she or he has of
reemployment.5
Methods to estimate the expected duration of a com
pleted spell of unemployment, using supplementary data
from the CPS, are described in the next section.
Gross change data
Any longitudinal survey opens up the possibility of
examining the movement of individuals from one labor
force status to another—for example, from unemployed
to employed. As noted previously, the CPS is a monthly
survey of a rotating group of households. The CPS com
prises eight independent panels or rotation groups.
Each household is interviewed in each of 4 consecutive
months, dropped from the sample for 8 months, and
reinterviewed for 4 final months. Therefore, potentially
three-fourths of the sample are common from month to
month.6
Because of this overlap, it is possible to match a per
son’s labor force status for the current and previous
months and measure the number of people who remain
employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force, or
who move between each of these states. Although a va
riety of detailed information is available from the gross
change data, here it is only necessary to concentrate on
the nine possible labor force flows among the employed
(E), unemployed (U), and not in the labor force (N), as
represented in the following tabulation:
Labor force
status in
previous month
E (1-1)
U u-u
N <.-n
Labor force status in current month
E(t)
U(t)
N(t)
EE
UE
NE
EU
UU
NU
EN
UN
NN
The meaning of the flows is as follows: EE represents
the number of workers who were employed for the 2
successive months, EU is the number who were
employed the previous month (t-1) who became unem
ployed in the next month (t), and so forth. The proba
bility of making a labor force status transition is simply
the number of people who made any given change di
vided by the number in the original state. For example,
the probability that an unemployed worker will remain
unemployed is UU/ Ut
Each probability is called a
transition rate. Before estimating duration from the ac
tual statistics, it is important to note some of the limita
tions of the data (for references, see footnote 6).
The accuracy of the gross change data has been
questioned in part because they normally do not agree
with the labor force status counts from the full CPS. For
example, the change in unemployment in any 2 months
can be calculated two ways: first, by subtracting the
gross flows out of unemployment (UE + UN) from the
flows into unemployment (EU + NU); or, second, by
subtracting the number unemployed in the current
month from the number unemployed in the previous
month. The results are usually different in magnitude
and, sometimes, in direction because the samples and
estimating methods used differ significantly.
It is generally acknowledged that there are three
types of errors in the gross change data.7First, and least
important, is sampling variability; that is, the problem
of estimating labor force status from less than a com
plete census. This is a problem of all sample surveys,
but is likely to be more important for the gross change
data because individuals must be surveyed 2 consecutive
months. Therefore, movers, nonrespondents, and the
first and fifth rotation groups are excluded from the
gross change data, which are actually based on only
about two-thirds of the full sample. This reduction in
the sample may serve to bias the results, as some evi
dence exists that persons excluded have a more margin
al labor force attachment than those who are matched.8
The second source of error is the result of misclassification of labor force status. Some evidence of the
severity of misclassification is available from the CPS
reinterview program.9 Each month a sample from the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CPS is selected for reinterview as a quality check. The
reinterviews take place 1 week after the initial survey
and use the regular CPS questionnaire. The results of the
reinterview program suggest that, because of offsetting
errors, net changes in labor force status are only moder
ately affected by misclassification. Despite this cancella
tion of errors in the published data, a substantial
amount of apparently spurious volatility is present in
gross changes. It should also be noted, however, that
the CPS reinterview uses more experienced enumerators
which may introduce measured changes between the
original and reinterview surveys that would not exist
between the original and subsequent surveys. Thus, the
reinterview program may not give an exact measure of
spurious movement in the gross change data. Whatever
the cause of the misclassification, the effect on the gross
change data is to magnify the flows between labor force
categories.10 It should be emphasized that the vast ma
jority of people are classified correctly: the point, how
ever, is that errors that cancel each other in the full CPS
are cumulative in the gross change data. The extent of,
or direction of, bias to estimates of the duration of a
completed spell of unemployment is uncertain, though
some researchers have argued that, in the absence of the
errors, duration measures would be much higher be
cause the correct measure of changes in labor force sta
tus would be lower.11
The third source of error, which is seemingly inherent
in any panel surveys, is “rotation group bias”: respon
dents are conditioned by the process of reinterview.12
That is, responses to the survey questions change sim
ply as a result of length of time in the survey. In
addition, the probability of being reinterviewed in, say,
2 consecutive months is different among various labor
force and demographic groups. The probability of
reinterview can be affected by a variety of reasons, such
as changing place of residence and refusing to be
reinterviewed. The evidence we have on rotation group
bias suggests that the movement between unemploy
ment and not in the labor force is most affected by
these problems.13
Despite these problems, the gross change data do
provide a wealth of useful information on the U.S. labor
force: in particular, the data can be used to estimate the
duration of completed spells of unemployment.14
Estimating duration of unemployment. Estimating the
expected duration of unemployment, E(D), from the
gross change data is straightforward. Recall that a per
son unemployed in one month can, in the subsequent
month, remain unemployed (UU), become employed
(UE), or drop out of the labor force (UN). The
expected duration of unemployment is dependent upon
the probability of escaping or leaving unemployment,
which is the sum of the probability of withdrawing
25
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Unemployment Duration
from the labor force or becoming employed. Formally,
expected duration is
E(D) = —
ESC
where ESC is the probability of escape from unemploy
ment from month-to-month. To impute expected dura
tion from a given escape probability it is necessary to
assume that individuals have a constant escape rate
while unemployed. That is, an individual’s escape prob
ability is independent of duration of joblessness.15 This
assumption is critical because otherwise the expected
duration of a completed spell is also dependent upon
the current length of unemployment experienced, and
the calculations become very complicated.
Table 2 contains information on the probability of
leaving or continuing unemployment for selected years.
Taking 1969 as an example, if on average 100 people
were unemployed in month t —1, then 35 of those people
were employed, 29 withdrew from the labor force, and
36 remained unemployed in the following month. The
T a b le 2. P ro b a b ility o f le a v in g o r c o n tin u in g
u n e m p lo y m e n t, b y d u ra tio n o f u n e m p lo y m e n t, an nual
a v e ra g e s , s e le c te d y e a rs , 1 9 6 9 -7 9
Probability of
m oving from
unem ploym ent
Year and current duration
Employm ent
N ot in
continuing unem
ploym ent
fo rce
Expected duration
o f a co m p leted
spell o f unem ploym ent (in w eeks)
Persistent
All
w orkers job se ekers
1969
Total .....................
Less than 5 w eeks .............
5 to 10 w e e k s ........................
11 to 14 w e e k s .....................
15 to 26 w e e k s .....................
M ore than 26 w eeks ...........
.3516
.4019
.3069
.3143
.2390
.2158
.2910
.2999
.2916
.2571
.2550
.2950
.3570
.2982
.4015
.4286
.5060
.4892
6.7
8.7
Total .....................
Less than 5 w eeks .............
5 to 10 w e e k s ........................
11 to 14 w e e k s .....................
15 to 26 w e e k s .....................
More than 26 w eeks ..........
.2770
.3368
.2667
.2488
.2043
.1591
.2409
.2788
.2409
.2019
.1659
.2004
.4821
.3844
.4924
.5493
.6298
.6405
8.3
11.8
Total .....................
Less than 5 w eeks .............
5 to 10 w e e k s ........................
11 to 14 w e e k s .....................
15 to 26 w e e k s .....................
M ore than 26 w eeks ..........
2338
.3083
.2381
.2139
.1734
.1234
.2028
.2531
.1987
.1761
.1437
.1669
.5634
.4386
.5632
.6100
.6829
.7101
9.8
14.7
Total .....................
Less than 5 w eeks .............
5 to 10 w e e k s ........................
11 to 14 w e e k s .....................
15 to 26 w e e K s .....................
M ore than 26 w eeks ..........
.2855
.3418
.2694
.2336
.2227
.1831
.2319
.2604
.2246
.2008
.1743
.2091
.4826
.3978
.5060
.5656
.6030
.6078
8.3
11.6
Total .....................
Less than 5 w eeks .............
5 to 10 w e e k s ........................
11 to 14 w e e k s .....................
15 to 26 w e e k s .....................
M ore than 26 w eeks ..........
.2906
.3450
.2835
.2422
.2169
.1514
.2283
.2560
.2132
1942
.1837
.2072
4813
.3990
.5033
.5636
.5994
.6414
8.3
11.4
1971
1975
1978
1979
26
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
fourth column of table 2 shows the estimate of the
expected duration of a spell of unemployment. These es
timates are presented as “weeks of unemployment.”
This was done by multiplying expected duration,
E(D), from the above equation, which is based on
monthly probabilities of labor force movement, by 4.3—
the average number of weeks in a month (thus,
E(D) = 1/ESC X 4.3). The final column in table 2
shows the expected duration of unemployment for a
“persistent jobseeker.” This is a measure of unemploy
ment duration conditional upon not withdrawing from
the labor force (UN); rather, the “persistent jobseeker”
searches until he or she finds a job (UE). The implica
tions of these data will be discussed in detail later, but
for now it should be noted that the expected duration
of the persistent jobseeker is the probability of moving
from unemployed to employed plus the probability of
remaining unemployed divided by the probability of
moving from unemployed to employed, all multiplied
by 4.3 weeks.
There are a number of interesting features in table 2.
First, in each year the probability of remaining unem
ployed increases as current duration increases. This may
result from the “sorting” effect, or there may be a caus
al relation between an individual’s likelihood of exiting
unemployment the longer he or she is out of work.
Again, to estimate the expected duration it is necessary
to assume that the sorting effect is true. Second, there is
a strong cyclical pattern to the data. The jobless in the
recession year of 1975 had a much higher chance of re
maining unemployed and a much lower chance of going
from unemployed to employed.
The formula for expected duration results in esti
mates for completed durations ranging from a low of
6.7 weeks in 1969 to 9.8 weeks in 1975 (column 4 in ta
ble 2). This compares to the average duration of an in
progress spell of 8 weeks in 1969, and 14.1 weeks in
1975 (table 1). This result indicates that the length bias
dominates the interruption bias in the published statis
tics.16
The data on the transition probabilities also permit
the estimation of the number of completed spells of un
employment within any given period, both overall and
within each transition field. There are at least two
sources of bias to this estimate. First, it is important to
note that the estimate will be a lower bound of the ac
tual number of spells because several short spells may
occur between the survey dates and, therefore, will be
missed. Second, as a result of errors in the gross change
data, it is likely that the true transition probabilities are
lower than the measured probabilities: thus, the true
number of unemployment spells will be lower than the
estimates presented here. These two problems have op
posite effects on the estimates. However, it would be ex
ceedingly difficult to measure the actual magnitude of
the bias introduced because of these problems.
Both tables 1 and 2 are necessary to estimate the
number of spells of unemployment in a year. Table 1
shows, for example, that in an average month in 1969,
1.6 million people had been unemployed for less than 5
weeks. From table 2, it is possible to calculate the prob
ability that a person unemployed less than 5 weeks will
exit unemployment by the next survey month. The
number of completed spells in any given transition field
is calculated as follows:
Spells = Number of in-progress spells X
Probability of escape X 12
Table 3 contains the results of this exercise. Thus, in
1969, there were an estimated 22 million spells of unem
ployment, and 14 million of these spells were less than
5 weeks. In 1975, on the other hand, there were 42 mil
lion spells; compared to 1969, there were proportionate
ly more long-term spells in 1975, which is exactly what
one would expect in a cyclical downturn.
Of course, the estimates in table 3 pertain to spells of
unemployment. The estimated 37 million spells in 1979,
for example, include a number of individuals who expe
rienced more than one spell of joblessness over the year.
This is particularly true of those completed spells of rel
ative short duration. However, because of their length,
the 2.2 million spells of 27 weeks or longer may corre
spond roughly to the number of people who were out of
work that long in one spell (but not those who experi
enced a total of more than 26 weeks of unemployment
over the course of the year).
In summary, the measurement of the length of a
completed spell of unemployment is conceptually sim
ple; but, the empirical difficulties are important enough
that the estimates should be taken as rough guides only.
The fact that these estimates are generally comparable
to those obtained in research utilizing different methods
increases the confidence in the estimates. Given these
caveats, the comparison of tables 1 and 3 suggests some
interesting interpretations of the structure of unemploy
ment. On average, the estimated duration of a complet
ed spell is just about 75 percent of the duration of the
(measured) in-progress spell. And, while there are im
portant cyclical patterns, a large number of spells are
typically of very short duration.
Interpreting duration data
As noted at the outset of this article, the meaning of
the apparently short durations estimated in table 3 is
fraught with difficulties. For example, one economist
has asserted that the data support the notion of “an ac
tive labor market in which almost everyone who is out
of work can find his usual type of job in a relatively
short time.” 17 Another perspective contends that the
data indicate that, while many workers pass through
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 3. E s tim a te d c o m p le te d s p e lls o f u n e m p lo y m e n t,
b y d u ra tio n o f u n e m p lo y m e n t, 1 9 6 8 - 7 9
[In thousands]
N um b er o f w ee ks unem ployed
Year
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Total
spells
21,587
21,841
27,323
31,002
31,023
29,661
32,854
41,012
39,613
39,878
37,480
37,126
Less
than
5
5 -1 0
1 1 -1 4
1 5 -2 6
M ore
than
26
12,372
13,718
16,445
16,503
16,755
17,018
19,330
19,496
18,926
19,874
20,183
20,691
4,474
4,503
5,933
6,962
6,729
6,267
7,092
9,110
8,527
9,091
8,163
8,321
1,272
1,371
1,711
2,353
2,024
1,895
2,017
3,341
2,760
2,774
2,601
2,597
1,519
1,434
2,075
2,945
2,981
2,520
2,677
4,909
4,193
3,998
3,554
3,288
964
815
1,159
2,230
2,534
1,961
1,738
4,156
5,207
4,141
2,979
2,229
E xpected
duration
o f a com p leted spell
(in w ee ks)
68
6.7
7.7
8.3
8.0
7.5
8.0
9.8
9.5
8.9
8.3
8.3
the state of unemployment, chronic and persistent job
lessness is unimportant.18 Another group of theorists,
ranging from those who argue that the labor market is
divided into segments between which mobility is
constrained to those who utilize labor turnover models,
has argued that duration statistics are simply inade
quate as any measure of economic welfare: rather, short
spells of measured unemployment could be the result of
frequent movement from jobs that are unstable, menial,
or otherwise unpreferred.19 Finally, it must be empha
sized that the gross change statistics do not provide a
complete picture of the labor market. In particular, a
large proportion of job changes occur without any in
tervening period of unemployment. Thus, sole reliance
on the gross change data may lead one to exaggerate
the overall importance of labor force flows.
The effects of labor force withdrawal. As the preceding
discussion indicates, one important issue in interpreting
duration statistics concerns the outcome of a spell of
unemployment. Measured short durations may not im
ply much about the ease of finding one’s “usual line of
work” if individuals escape unemployment by with
drawing from the labor force or, perhaps, by adjusting
to poor labor market conditions and taking a tempo
rary job while waiting for job prospects to improve.20
As an example of the magnitude of labor force exit, it
has recently been estimated that 45 to 50 percent of all
unemployment spells end by withdrawal from the labor
force.21
Some additional information about the impact of la
bor force withdrawal on duration is contained in the
last column of table 2. Here, the expected duration of
unemployment for those who do not withdraw from the
labor force has been calculated. The expected duration
of the persistent jobseeker is substantially higher than
the conventional calculation which includes the effect of
labor force withdrawal: in 1969, 8.7 versus 6.7 weeks; in
1975, 14.7 versus 9.8 weeks; and, in 1979, 10.8 versus
27
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Unemployment Duration
8.3 weeks. It is crucial to note that this calculation is
simply illustrative and is not based on the actual experi
ence of people who do not leave unemployment until
they find a job. The calculation assumes that those per
sons who end their unemployment by dropping out of
the labor force would have had the same likelihood of
finding a job if they had continued to search as those
who actually did continue to search. Moreover, it is
precisely those groups that are most marginally at
tached to the labor force— for example, school age
youth— who tend to experience frequent spells of short
term joblessness. Nevertheless, the data do underscore
the necessity to exercise caution in the interpretation of
unemployment duration statistics.
Some perspective on the meaning of labor force exit
can be gained by looking at the patterns of labor force
transitions. Table 4 contains this information for select
ed years. The flows have been calculated as probabili
ties.
The probabilities of moving from employment or
unemployment to not in the labor force can provide
some (limited) information on the interpretation of la
bor force withdrawal. That is, if withdrawal is truly vol
untary— given real life ambiguities— then, even if exits
are large in magnitude, they might, nevertheless, be of
little concern for understanding the labor market.
The question of interest: to what extent do people
drop out of the labor force because they choose not to
work rather than because they become discouraged
about the prospects of finding a job? This is a very diffi
cult question to answer precisely on the basis of existing
data. However, George Perry has suggested that if all
labor force leaving is truly voluntary, then one might
expect that the employed and unemployed would be
equally as likely to drop out of the labor force.22 Here,
the rate of withdrawal from employment might be
thought to represent a “normal” rate of withdrawal re
sulting from things like home responsibilities. This
might be considered a rough measure of purely volun
tary withdrawal.
As table 4 shows, in each of the years presented, the
rate of withdrawal from unemployment swamps the
withdrawal rate from employment. On average, in 1969
only 4 percent of the employed withdrew while 29 per
cent of the unemployed withdrew. Although these exit
rates differ by demographic groups, the data strongly
suggest that only some small proportion of labor force
exit from unemployment is strictly voluntary in the
sense of not depending on the prospects of finding an
acceptable job. This, admittedly rough, evidence has re
ceived substantial support from other research as well.23
However, before too much reliance is placed on the
suggestion that labor market discouragement is the pri
mary cause of withdrawal from the labor force follow
ing unemployment, other evidence needs to be exam
28
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 4. P ro b a b ility o f m o v in g fro m o n e la b o r-m a rk e t
s ta te to a n o th e r in d iffe re n t b u s in e s s c y c le c o n d itio n s ,
1969, 1975, an d 1978
Labor fo rc e flo w from —
1969
1975
1978
Em ploym ent to unem ploym ent ...................
Em ploym ent to not in labor f o r c e ................
U nem ploym ent to em ploym ent ...................
U nem ploym ent to not in labor f o r c e ...........
Not In labor force to em ploym ent .............
N ot in labor force to u n e m p lo y m e n t...........
0.0100
.0434
.3516
.2910
.0507
.0162
0.0191
.0351
.2338
.2028
.0445
.0271
0.0145
.0340
.2855
.2319
.0492
.0251
3.5
8.5
6.0
A verage unem ploym ent rate
.............
ined. BLS currently compiles quarterly data on discour
aged workers— persons who want a job but who are
not looking for work because they believe they could
not find it. The average number of discouraged workers
was 574,000 in 1969; 1,082,000 in 1975; 1,010,000 in
1977; and 750,000 in 1979. The interesting question,
however, is not how many workers become discouraged
but, rather, what proportion of the people who leave
unemployment to move outside the labor force subse
quently are classified as discouraged workers? The one
piece of evidence that is available on this question is
based on the research of Kim Clark and Lawrence
Summers. (See footnote 11.) They calculated that, in
1977, just 15 percent of the outflow from unemploy
ment became classified as discouraged workers. Howev
er, fully 46 percent of this group said they wanted a job
now.24 Exactly where the truth lies in assessing whether
labor force withdrawal is really “voluntary” or “invol
untary” cannot be pinpointed solely on the basis of
scanning a wide array of data; adequate answers will
only be forthcoming with the development of robust ex
planatory theories of labor market dynamics.25
Ambiguity of labor force classification. The unemployed/
not in the labor force distinction has recently been criti
cized for being too ambiguous and arbitrary. Clark and
Summers, in particular, have argued that the flow be
tween unemployment and not in the labor force in table
4 might be primarily the result of the misclassification
of consistent behavior.26 They cite evidence— discussed
earlier in this article—on the existence of rotation
group bias and other classification problems. Because
Clark and Summers see the crucial concept of “looking
for work” as too ambiguous, particularly in light of evi
dence they have presented on the relative brevity of la
bor force withdrawal, they conclude that
“It appears that m any of those w ho withdraw experience a
brief spell outside the labor force and a further period of
“reentrant” unem ploym ent. The official statistics capture
tw o relatively brief spells of unem ploym ent, yet the evi
dence presented here suggests that the experience m ight be
m ore appropriately characterized as a single lengthy spell of
unem ploym ent.” 27
Undoubtedly, for some people at least, the distinction
between being unemployed and not in the labor force is
unclear. However, the phenomenon of temporary labor
force withdrawal is not well understood theoretically.
Further examination of this issue is certainly desirable.
One thing stands out from this discussion on labor
force exit: irrespective of one’s view as to how labor
force flows should be interpreted, accounting for the
flows is necessary to render the meaning/significance
of duration statistics intelligible.
The meaning of unemployment duration might be
sharpened by considering the unemployment experience
over a period longer than the “average” month and by
analyzing the concentration of unemployment.
Multiple spells of unemployment and the concentration of
total unemployment. The length of time an individual
spends unemployed is the product of both the average
duration of an unemployment spell and the number of
separate spells. In an economy where repeated spells of
unemployment are not unusual, the short average dura
tion of completed spells of unemployment may under
state the impact of joblessness on individuals.28 First,
many people may suffer multiple spells of unemploy
ment, so that average duration understates their total
unemployment experience. Second, persons experiencing
only one spell may have more unemployment than
suggested by the data on average duration of a complet
ed spell, because single spells tend to be longer than the
average of multiple spells.
Data on the prevalence and average duration of un
employment spells are available from the “Work Expe
rience” supplement to the CPS. But these data have
important limitations.
Every March, a series of questions about the previous
year’s labor force experience is asked of respondents in
the Current Population Survey. Included are questions
on the total length of time the respondent was unem
ployed and on the number of spells of unemployment
experienced. The major potential biases of the data re
sult from recall problems and interruption bias. In addi
tion, the work experience questions do not appear well
suited to measure jobseeking activity associated with la
bor force entry. Recall problems are straightforward:
people may have trouble accurately remembering what
they were actually doing, say, 8 months ago; in particu
lar, individuals may not recall a brief period in which
they were unavailable for work and, therefore, report
one longer spell of unemployment.29 The evidence sug
gests that the data for prime working age males are
consistent with the monthly CPS, but that women and
teenagers tend to report fewer weeks of unemployment
than implied in the monthly figures. Interruption bias
concerns the fact that the period of observation is 1
year, so that some spells of unemployment will be
interrupted by both the beginning and ending of the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 5. A v e ra g e d u ra tio n o f u n e m p lo y m e n t b y sp e lls
o f u n e m p lo y m e n t, fo r all p e rs o n s w ith s o m e w o rk
e x p e rie n c e , 1 9 6 7 -7 8
Total duration o f unem
A verag e spell length (in
ploym ent (In w eeks)
w ee ks) fo r peo p le with:
fo r peo p le with:
Year
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
....
...
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
1
spell
2
spells
3 spells
or
m o re 1
1
spell
2
spells
7.6
7.2
7.5
10.0
11.8
11.2
9.7
9.8
14.4
13.8
12.9
12.0
13.3
13.3
12.4
15.4
17.6
16.4
15.2
15.7
19.2
18.4
17.1
16.1
16.5
16.5
16.5
19.1
20.4
19.4
18.3
18.0
19.4
20.3
18.8
18.1
7.6
7.2
7.5
10.0
11.8
11.2
9.7
9.8
14.4
13.8
12.9
12.0
6.7
6.7
6.2
7.7
8.8
8.2
7.6
7.9
9.6
9.2
8.6
8.1
Total
Percent
num ber unem ploy
o f spells
ed with
3 spells (in thous m ore than
ands) 2
one spell
or
m o re 1
4.7
4.7
4.7
5.5
5.8
5.5
5.2
5.1
5.6
5.8
5.4
5.2
16,449
15,681
16,719
20,489
21,515
20,855
20,325
25,569
27,422
27,405
26,399
24,400
31.6
31.0
32.2
33.6
32.5
32.6
32.4
36.0
31.3
32.7
32.6
32.5
1 Assum es average of 3.5 spells.
2 Excludes persons who looked for w ork but did not work.
year. This means that even work experience data do not
translate into completed spells of unemployment.
Table 5 contains information on the total duration
and average duration by number of reported spells. The
last two columns of table 5 show the total number of
spells reported and the percent of those who experi
enced more than one spell of unemployment. The aver
age durations in table 5 are based on the number of
persons reporting both some work experience and un
employment. It excludes all persons who looked for
work but did not work at all because there is no infor
mation on the number of spells of unemployment. The
average duration of unemployment was taken as the
midpoint of the following intervals: 0-5; 6-10; 11-14;
15-26; and 27-52. This is a simple assumption, but it
should not affect the relative values of the estimates be
cause it is used consistently.
The data are suggestive of several phenomena. First,
as expected in a retrospective framework, the total num
ber of spells reported is less than the estimated number
of spells from table 3. Second, repeat spells seem to be
frequent enough that they cannot be ignored when con
sidering the overall experience of unemployment. For
example, in 1978, more than 30 percent of all persons
with some unemployment reported more than one spell.
Many persons with multiple spells of unemployment
work in industries that are highly seasonal or cyclical,
or both. The construction industry is one of the best ex
amples; whereas in 1978 construction workers made up
only about 6 percent of those with work experience,
about one-fifth of all persons with 3 or more spells in
1978 were in the construction industry. Production
workers in the automobile industry often experience
multiple spells of unemployment because of effects of
both model changeover and economic downturns. Not
all persons who experience multiple spells can be neatly
29
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Unemployment Duration
classified into a particular industrial situation, however.
There is some evidence that some people are frequently
unemployed because they leave jobs to escape from me
nial tasks and end up moving form one unsatisfactory
job to another, often experiencing a spell of unemploy
ment or exiting the labor force for a brief period.
Another important feature of table 5 is that the aver
age duration of unemployment consistently decreases
with the number of spells experienced. That is, while
the total amount (in weeks) of unemployment increases
as number of spells increase, it does so less than pro
portionately. Similar patterns of diminishing duration
for additional unemployment spells have also been
found from direct observations of individuals.30
Table 5 indicates that the estimated average duration
of unemployment is dependent upon the number of
spells the average unemployed person will experience.
Statistics on the estimated duration of a completed spell
of unemployment are underestimates of the total experi
ence of unemployment: persons with a single spell suffer
longer average durations than those with multiple
spells; those with multiple spells experience more total
unemployment than the average because of the multi
plicity of their spells.31
The concentration of unemployment. The picture pres
ented thus far has focused on the average duration of
unemployment and the number of unemployment spells.
It is incomplete: the differential impact of unemploy
ment throughout the labor force can change the mean
ing and significance of the aggregate data. For example,
a minority of people may account for the bulk of the
total weeks of unemployment within any given period.
The same unemployment statistic, however, could indi
cate a situation in which most people experience a short
bout of unemployment at some time, but each only
T a b le 6. T h e d is trib u tio n o f w e e k s o f u n e m p lo y m e n t,
1969, 1975, an d 1978
_____________________
Duration m easure
1969
1975
1978
1.5
0.8
0.6
4.5
3.8
1.7
1.0
4.5
6.1
4.4
4.4
4.2
5.5
3.2
2.3
1.8
.4
.4
9.0
28.5
28.3
32.5
3.4
17.3
27.2
51.7
4.8
23.4
29.4
42.2
Percent of labor force unem ployed by
duration:
Y ear-round w o rk e rs 1 .............................
O ther w o rk e rs 2
1 to 4 w eeks ..................................
5 to 14 w eeks ................................
15 to 26 w eeks .............................
More than 26 w e e k s .....................
W eeks unem ploym ent by duration as a
percent of total w eeks unem ployed:
Y ear-round w o rk e rs 1 .............................
O ther w o rk e rs 2
1 to 4 w e e k s 3 ................................
5 to 14 w eeks ................................
15 to 26 w eeks .............................
M ore than 26 w e e k s .....................
1 Y ear-round w orkers experienced 1 to 2 w eeks of unem ploym ent.
2 O the r w orkers includes those who looked for w ork but did not w ork during the year.
3 Calculations are based on the m id-range of the unem ploym ent duration categories.
30
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
loses a small proportion of his or her potential work
time. Not much information is available on this issue
primarily because of the difficulties in obtaining unem
ployment spell histories. Nevertheless, data from the
“Work Experience” supplement of the CPS can provide
some aggregate information on the distribution of weeks
of unemployment. These data will be supplemented by
recent information from the Panel Studies on Income
Dynamics Survey conducted by the University of
Michigan.
Table 6 contains the CPS “work experience” informa
tion. It is critical to understand the limitations of the
data. From table 2, it was noted that, in the aggregate,
the probability of escaping unemployment declined sig
nificantly with time unemployed. This will naturally
tend to show up as a concentration of unemployment in
longer spells simply because the longer a spell has last
ed, the lower the probability of escape. Even if the
probability of escape for each individual is constant, a
large share of unemployment would be the result of the
individuals who have lower escape probabilities. To get
the “true” picture one must be able to test for heteroge
neity between individuals—sorting— or duration depen
dence—as unemployment lengthens, the escape rate for
individuals declines.32
Given these caveats, table 6 contains some interesting
information. The concentration of unemployment is
stark. In 1969, the 1 percent of the labor force unem
ployed more than 27 weeks accounted for 32 percent of
total weeks unemployed. There is also a pronounced cy
clical pattern to the distribution. In 1975, the propor
tion of the labor force unemployed at least 27 weeks
jumped fourfold from 1969 and accounted for 52 per
cent of total unemployment. The distribution in 1978
lies between 1969 and 1975.
Because table 6 provides only annual data and con
tains no information on spells of unemployment, it is
not possible to determine whether the same group of
people become unemployed over and over again. Per
haps the most important information is the cyclical pat
tern; it is exactly what one would predict from an
examination of escape probabilities. If nothing else, it is
clear that a key to understanding unemployment dura
tion involves explaining its behavior over the course of
a business cycle.
A last bit of information on the concentration of un
employment is from a study on the 10-year (1968—77)
work history of married adult males.33 Although the
data suffer many of the defects of table 6 (multiple
spells in a year are not measured) it does follow the
same individuals over a long period of time. The results
are fairly consistent with the CPS “work experience”
data. A large number of people experienced some unem
ployment over the 10-year period, but just 5 percent
accounted for about half (46.6 percent) of the total time
unemployed among the entire sample. The poor, bluecollar workers, and construction workers were dispro
portionately concentrated in this small group.
Some analysts have claimed such data challenge most
theories of the labor market (for example, on search
and turnover, dual labor markets, and others) because
these theories focus on the relative brevity of completed
spells of unemployment and are based on the notion
that, except in recessions, jobs are readily available.
Yet, the data are neither capable of evaluating the effi
cacy of various theories nor, more importantly, are they
inconsistent with different versions of each theory. The
data show only that some people are unemployed a lot;
they do not show that jobs are never held between peri
ods of joblessness. Data encompassing unemployment
and employment spell histories would be necessary to
determine the existence of a group of workers who are
more or less permanently unemployed.
T h i s ARTICLE has presented one method to estimate the
expected duration of a completed spell of unemploy
ment and the number of spells of unemployment. Data
and measurement problems associated with unemploy
ment were also discussed. From this review, it is clear
that five issues are most important in analyzing unem
ployment patterns. First, a sharp conceptual distinction
exists when measuring the duration of completed spells
of unemployment and in-progress spells. In general, the
estimates of the average length of a completed spell
were about 75 percent of the average of an in-progress
spell. Second, duration statistics may be a very un
reliable guide on the relative ease of finding work; one
necessary complement to the data is analysis of the
causes of labor force withdrawal. Third, it is important
to gauge the importance of multiple spells of unemploy
ment to adequately interpret duration data. Fourth, in
formation on the concentration of unemployment is
important. For example, while most spells of unem
ployment may be relatively short, most unemployment
may be accounted for by those with many spells or
with long periods of joblessness. Last, and very impor
tant, an understanding of the business cycle and its im
pact on the labor market is essential to any analysis of
unemployment duration.
□
FOOTNOTES
' See Hyman Kaitz, “Analyzing the length of spells of unemploy
ment,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , November 1970, pp. 11-20. Kaitz’s
path-breaking work was the first to estimate the duration of complet
ed spells of unemployment in the United States. For an early applica
tion to data from England, see R.F. Fowler, “Duration of Unem
ployment on the Register of the Wholly Unemployed,” Studies in Of
ficial Statistics, Research Series 1, London, Her Majesty’s Stationary
Office, 1968.
Force,” E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, October 1968, pp. 6-13; Robert
Pearl, “Gross Changes in the Labor Force: A Problem in Measure
ment,” E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, April 1963, pp. IV -X ; and Ralph
Smith and Jean Vanski, “Gross Change Data: The Neglected Data
Base,” National Commission on Employment and Unemployment
Statistics, Background Paper No. 11, July 1978. A discussion of gross
change data from the Canadian labor force survey appears in Frank
Denton, “A Simulation Model of Month-to-Month Labor Force
2
Stephen W. Salant, “Search Theory and Duration Data: A Theory Movement in Canada,” I n te r n a tio n a l E c o n o m ic R ev ie w , June 1973, pp
293-311.
of Sorts,” Q u a r te r ly J o u r n a l o f E co n o m ic s, February 1977, pp. 39-57
George Akerlof and Brian Main, “Unemployment Spells and Unem
7See Smith and Vanski, “Gross Change . . . ,” pp. 17-25.
ployment Experience,” Special Studies Paper, Federal Reserve Board,
8 For an extended discussion of these problems see Philip J.
Number 123, Oct. 23, 1978; and Robert Frank, “How Long is a Spell
McCarthy, “Some Sources of Error in Labor Force Estimates from
of Unemployment,” E c o n o m e tric a , March 1978, pp. 285-301.
the Current Population Survey,” Background Paper No. 15, National
Salant, “Search Theory . . . ,” has shown that three propositions
Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, 1978; and
concerning the measure of interrupted and completed spells of unem
Hilaski, “The Status . . . ,” pp. 6-1 3 .
ployment follow from a knowledge of escape rates: (1) If the probabil
See T h e C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n S u r v e y R e in te r v ie w s P r o g ra m , J a n u a r y
ity of escape increases the longer one is unemployed, the expected
1 9 6 1 th ro u g h D e c e m b e r 1 966, Census Bureau, Technical Paper 19,
length of a completed spell, E(C), is greater than the expected length
1968.
of an interrupted spell, E(T). This results from the fact that interrup
10I b id .; and Henry Woltman and Irv Schreider, “Possible Effects of
tion bias predominates; (2) If the probability of escape is constant, the
Response Variance on the Gross Changes from Month to Month in
two measures, E(C) and E(T), are the same. In this case, the effects of
the Current Population Survey,” Census Bureau, Memorandum, May
interruption bias and length bias exactly offset each other; and (3) if
11, 1979.
the probability of escape declines, E(T) is greater than E(C), and the
effect of length bias predominates.
" Kim Clark and Lawrence Summers, “Labor Market Dynamics
and Unemployment: A Reconsideration,” B ro o k in g s P a p e r s on E c o
See Kaitz, “Analyzing . . . ,” for one example of this.
n o m ic A c tiv ity , No. 1, 1979, pp. 13-72.
5For a discussion of this issue see, John Barron and Wesley Mel
low, “Changes in Labor Force Status Among the Unemployed,” J o u r
n a l o f H u m a n R e s o u r c e s (forthcoming); A. McGregor, “Unemploy
ment Duration and Re-employment Probability,” E c o n o m ic J o u rn a l,
December 1978, pp. 693-706; Stephen Nickell, “Estimating the Prob
ability of Leaving Unemployment,” E co n o m e tric a , September 1979,
pp. 1249-66; Anders Bjorklund, “On the Duration of Unemployment
in Sweden, 1965-1976,” S c a n d a n a v ia n J o u r n a l o f E co n o m ics, Vol. 80,
No. 4, 1978, pp. 421-439; and Timothy Carr, “A Comparative Study
of the Duration of Unemployment of Young and Middle-Aged Men,”
Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University, Colum
bus, Ohio, 1978.
6 For more detailed discussion of the gross change data, see Harvey
Hilaski, “The Status of Research on Gross Changes in the Labor
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12 See McCarthy, “Some Sources of Error . . . ,” pp. 62-76;
Barbara Bailar, “The Effects of Rotation Group Bias on Estimates
from Panel Surveys,” J o u r n a l o f th e A m e r ic a n S ta tis tic a l A sso cia tio n ,
March 1975, pp. 23-30; and “Current Population Survey Rotation
Group Bias,” presented to the Census Advisory Committee of the
American Statistical Association, Mar. 4 -5 , 1976.
13Smith and Vanski, “Gross Change . . . ,” pp. 20-21; Smith,
Vanski, and others have developed various ad hoc procedures to cor
rect the gross change data. On the basis of recommendations from the
National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics is beginning an intensive study of the
data problems and how they might be corrected.
14One such study is Stephen Marston, “Employment Instability and
31
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Unemployment Duration
H ig h U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te s ,” B ro o k in g s P a p e r on E c o n o m ic A c tiv ity ,
N o . 1, 1 9 7 6 , p p . 1 6 9 - 2 1 0 . A ls o see G e o r g e P erry, “ U n e m p lo y m e n t
F lo w s in th e U .S . L a b o r M a r k e t,” B ro o k in g s P a p e rs on E c o n o m ic A c
tiv ity , N o . 2, 19 7 2 , p p . 2 4 5 - 7 8 .
15 S ee K a itz , “ A n a ly z in g . . . ,” pp . 1 1 - 2 0 ; S a la n t, “ S ea rch T h e o r y
. . . ,” p p . 3 9 - 5 7 ; a n d J o h n B arron a n d W e sle y M e llo w , “ U n e m p lo y
m e n t In su ra n ce : T h e R e c ip ie n ts a n d I ts I m p a c t,” B L S W o r k in g P a p er
8 2 , S e p te m b e r 1978.
16 O u r e stim a te s differ s o m e w h a t fr o m th o s e o f K a itz a n d S a la n t.
B e c a u s e th e y u s e d d ifferen t m e th o d s , it is n o t su r p r isin g . W h ic h re
s u lts are “ b e s t” w o u ld b e d ifficu lt to d e te r m in e .
17 M a rtin F e ld ste in , L o w e rin g th e P e r m a n e n t R a te o f U n e m p lo y m e n t
(W a s h in g to n , J o in t E c o n o m ic C o m m itte e , U .S . C o n g r e ss ,
1 9 7 3 ), p.
11.
18 “ C o m m e n ts a n d D is c u s s io n ” o n G e o r g e P erry , “ U n e m p lo y m e n t
F lo w s in th e U .S . L a b o r M a r k e t,” B ro o k in g s P a p e r s on E c o n o m ic A c
tiv ity , N o . 2, 197 2 , pp . 2 4 5 - 7 8 .
19 R o b e r t H a ll, “ W h y is th e U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te S o H ig h a t F u ll
E m p lo y m e n t,” B ro o k in g s P a p e r on E c o n o m ic A c tiv ity , N o . 3, 1 9 7 0 , pp.
3 6 9 - 4 0 2 ; R ic h a r d E d w a r d s, “T h e S o c ia l R e la tio n s o f P r o d u c t io n in
th e F ir m ,” P o litic s a n d S o c ie ty , N o . 1, 1975; a n d M a rtin C a r n o y a n d
R u s s e ll R u m b er g e r , “ S e g m e n te d L a b o r M a rk ets: S o m e E m p ir ic a l F o r
a y s ,”
D is c u s s io n
P a p er 7 5 - 2 ,
C e n te r for E c o n o m ic
S tu d ie s ,
P a lo
A lt o , 1975.
20 B o th G e o r g e P erry, “ U n e m p lo y m e n t F lo w s . . . ,” a n d S tep h e n
M a r s to n , “ E m p lo y m e n t I n sta b ility . . . ,” h a v e e m p h a siz e d th e p r o b
le m s w ith in ter p r e tin g d u ra tio n d a ta b e c a u s e o f th e p o s s ib ilit y o f
e x itin g fro m th e la b o r fo rce. A ls o se e S tu a rt G a r fin k e l, “T h e o u t c o m e
o f a s p e ll o f u n e m p lo y m e n t,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , J a n u a ry 1 9 7 7 ,
pp . 5 4 - 5 7 ; a n d T . A ld r ic h F in e g a n , “ T h e M e a s u r e m e n t, B e h a v io r ,
a n d C la s sific a tio n o f D is c o u r a g e d W o r k e r s ,” N a tio n a l C o m m is s io n o n
E m p lo y m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t S ta tis tic s, B a c k g r o u n d P a p er N o .
12, J u n e 1978.
21 C lark a n d S u m m e r s, “ L a b o r M a rk et . . . ,” p. 19. E x it fr o m th e
la b o r fo r c e varies w id e ly a m o n g d ifferen t d e m o g r a p h ic g r o u p s a n d
th er e m a y b e d ifferen t e x p la n a tio n s fo r ea ch . T h u s , s o m e c a u tio n is re
q u ire d in in te r p r e ta tin g th e a g g r e g a te s ta tis tic s . F u r th e r m o r e , u n le s s
o th e r w is e n o te d , w e h a v e a s s u m e d th a t th e la b o r fo r c e m o v e m e n t s are
real a n d n o t th e r esu lt o f m is c la ss ific a tio n or o th e r errors. L a stly ,
n o n e o f o u r d a ta are a p p ro p ria te fo r e x p la in in g u n e m p lo y m e n t d if
fe r en tia ls a m o n g s o c ia l g r o u p s , fo r e x a m p le , te e n a g e rs a n d a d u lts .
22 P erry, “ U n e m p lo y m e n t F lo w s . . . ,” p p . 2 7 0 - 7 5 .
23 S ee R a lp h S m ith , “ A S im u la tio n M o d e l o f th e D e m o g r a p h ic
C o m p o s itio n o f E m p lo y m e n t, U n e m p lo y m e n t a n d L a b o r F o r c e P a r
tic ip a tio n ,” in R o n a ld E h r en b erg , e d ., R es e a rc h in L a b o r E co n o m ic s,
V o lu m e 1 (G r e e n w ic h , C o n n ., J A I P r e ss, 1 9 7 7 ) p p . 2 5 9 - 3 0 4 ; a n d
R a lp h S m ith a n d C h a r le s H o lt , “ R e c e s s io n a n d th e E m p lo y m e n t o f
D e m o g r a p h ic G r o u p s ,” B ro o k in g s P a p e rs on E c o n o m ic A c tiv ity , N o . 3,
1 9 7 4 , pp . 7 3 7 - 6 0 .
24 C la rk a n d S u m m e r s, “ L a b o r M a rk et . . . , ” p. 26. T o b e c la ss ified
a s d is c o u r a g e d a p e r so n m u st o n ly c ite r ea s o n s o f d is c o u r a g e m e n t. If
th e r e s p o n d e n t c ite s o th e r r e a so n s, su c h a s h o m e r e s p o n sib ilitie s , e v en
32
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
if along with reasons of discouragement, the person is not counted as
discouraged. For a more in-depth analysis of discouraged workers, see
Finegan, “The Measurement . . . ,” pp. 3-11.
25 Another hypothesis is that the unemployed remain in the labor
force in order to collect unemployment compensation. When the bene
fits are exhausted they withdraw from the labor force. It is doubtful
that this is very important in explaining labor force exits overall be
cause the probability of withdrawal is greatest among those groups
less likely to be eligible for benefits. In addition, over time, there
seems to be no trend in the proportion of unemployment spells that
ended in withdrawal, yet there have been important modifications in
unemployment compensation, for example, extensions in the benefit
period. There is some (tentative) evidence that the unemployment in
surance system may induce some labor force participation among
those eligible to receive benefits who otherwise might have stopped
looking for work. See Gary Solon, “Labor Supply Effects of Extended
Unemployment Benefits,” J o u r n a l o f H u m a n R eso u rces, Spring 1979,
pp. 247-55.
26 Clark and Summers, “Labor Market . . . , pp. 28-31.
27 Clark and Summers, “Labor Market . . . ,” p. 31.
28 See Perry, “Unemployment . . . ,” pp. 248-78; Marston, “Em
ployment Instability . . . ,” pp. 169-210; Richard Disney, “Recurrent
Spells and the Concentration of Unemployment in Great Britain,”
E c o n o m ic J o u rn a l, March 1979, pp. 109-19; Richard Freeman and
Robert Frank, “The Distribution of the Unemployment Burden,” R e
view o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta tistic s, August 1978, pp. 380-91; Robert
Hall, “Turnover in the Labor Force,” B ro o k in g s P a p e r on E c o n o m ic
A c tiv ity , No. 3, 1972, pp. 709-56; and David Stevens and McNeil
Gima, “The ‘Incidence’ Theory of Black-White Unemployment Dif
ferentials Revisited,” Unpublished paper, University of Missouri,
1975, pp. 1-16.
29See Dale Morgenstern and Nancy Barrett, “The Retrospective
Bias in Unemployment Reporting by Sex, Race, and Age,” J o u r n a l o f
th e A m e r ic a n S ta tis tic a l A sso cia tio n , June 1974, p. 356. Clark and
Summers, “Labor Market . . . ,” argue, that a benefit of the work ex
perience data is that its retrospective nature reduces problems associ
ated with “spurious” movements into and out of the labor force.
30 Stevens and Gima, “The ‘Incidence’ Theory . . . ,” pp. 5 -7 .
31 Similar results have been obtained using data from the National
Longitudinal Survey. See Akerloff and Main, “Unemployment Experi
ence . . . , ” pp. 14-18.
32One attempt to test this using data from England is contained in
A. McGregor, “Unemployment Duration . . . ,” pp. 693-706. The re
sults, though not flawless, suggest that individual escape rates do de
cline with time unemployed even after controlling for other char
acteristics.
33 Martha Hill and Mary Corcoran, “Unemployment among family
men: A 10-year longitudinal study,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , Novem
ber 1979, pp. 19-23. Disney, “Recurrent Spells . . . ,” presents esti
mates of the concentration of unemployment among three cohorts of
males in England. The results are similar to those of Hill and Corco
ran.
Construction machinery industry
posts slow rise in productivity
Growth was slower than manufacturing average
in 1958-78, with 4 years recording declines,
despite considerable capital expenditure
and new technology; 1977-78, however,
showed strong productivity advances
Jo h n D
uke
Output per employee-hour in the construction machin
ery industry rose at an average annual rate of 2.0 per
cent between 1958 and 1978,' compared with a
2.6-percent rate for the entire manufacturing sector.
This was the result of an average annual increase of 4.5
percent in output, and 2.5 percent in employee-hours.
(See table 1.) The long-term trend was marked by cycli
cal swings. In 1977 and 1978, there were strong gains.
Productivity declines occurred in 4 of the 21 years
between 1958 and 1978. In two of them, 1959 and
1968, increases in employee-hours exceeded output
gains. In the other two years of decline, 1960 and 1975,
productivity fell because sharp drops in output exceeded
reductions in employee-hours.
The long-term gain in productivity resulted mainly
from innovations in the machining and welding opera
tions at the industry’s plants, and from improvements
in handling and storing materials. Computerization of
accounting functions also helped to increase pro
ductivity.
Following 2 years of decline in 1959 and 1960, pro
ductivity increased at an average annual rate of 4.8 per
cent per year during 1960-65, induced largely by a
strong rise in output, averaging 9.1 percent per year.
Between 1965 and 1970, productivity slowed to an aver
age rate of only 0.8 percent per year, as output gains
slackened to an average annual rate of 2.4 percent. Pro
ductivity rebounded once again in the early 1970’s, in
creasing at an average annual rate of 4.4 percent
between 1970 and 1974, with output increasing 11.8
percent. Output per employee-hour declined 6.9 percent
in 1975, as output fell 12.8 percent, but rose again in
1976, by 1.6 percent, when a 4.7-percent drop in output
was exceeded by a decrease in employee-hours. Produc
tivity rose by 5.0 percent in 1977 and 2.8 percent in
1978 as output recorded strong gains.
John Duke is an economist in the Division of Industry Productivity
Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The construction equipment industry produces a vari
ety of machines for earthmoving, hauling, lifting, grad
ing, and paving. The machines are used not only in the
construction industry, but also in mining, logging, rail
road track maintenance, agriculture, and military opera
tions.
Most construction equipment has not undergone
major change over the past 20 years, but there has been
a steady increase in the size, power, and flexibility of
the machinery produced. For example, in 1958 only
about 15 percent of new crawler tractors had greater
than 160 horsepower. By 1977, nearly 40 percent were
that powerful.2 Demand for more powerful machines
has come from construction contractors seeking to
boost the efficiency of their operations.
T a b le 1. P ro d u c tiv ity an d re la te d in d e x e s fo r th e
c o n s tru c tio n m a c h in e ry in d u s try
O utput p er em ployee-hour
Year
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
Em ployee-hours
All em
ployees
Produ c
tion
w orkers
N onpro
duction
w ork ers
Output
90.1
844
75.5
82.7
89.8
90.9
94.4
96.9
98.5
100 0
99.6
100.7
101.0
103.9
111.4
113.2
119.9
111.6
113.4
119.1
122.4
97.4
86.3
80.4
86.8
92.0
91.3
93.2
95.3
94.9
100.0
101.5
101.0
103.6
107.9
112.5
113.1
119.9
114.6
120.6
124.4
127.2
73.0
78.9
63.7
72.6
83.6
89.7
98.3
102.2
111.9
100.0
94.1
99.5
93.9
93.1
108.0
113.5
119.9
103.2
96.0
105.0
109.6
62.6
74.0
63.2
59.0
67.5
73.1
85.4
91.4
943
100.0
104.3
107.1
99.4
94.3
114.5
132.9
146.3
127.6
121.6
135.5
151.3
All em
ployees
Produ c
tion
w orkers
N o n p ro
duction
w orkers
695
87.7
83.7
71.3
75.2
80.4
90.5
94.3
95.7
100.0
104.7
1 064
98.4
90.8
102.8
117.4
122.0
114.3
107.2
113.8
123.6
64.3
85.7
78.6
68.0
73.4
80.1
91.6
95.9
99.4
100.0
102.8
106.0
95.9
87.4
101.8
117.5
122.0
111.3
100 8
108 9
118.9
85.8
93.8
99.2
81.3
80.7
81.5
86.9
89.4
84.3
100.0
110.8
107.6
105.9
101.3
106.0
117.1
122.0
123.6
126.7
129.0
138.1
A verag e annual rates o f chan ge (p erc en t)
1 9 5 8 -7 8 . . .
1 9 7 3 -7 8
..
2.0
1.1
2.0
2.2
2.0
-1 .8
4.5
1.1
2.5
0
2.5
- 1 .1
2.4
2.9
33
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Construction Machinery Productivity
Output doubles
Output of construction machinery more than doubled
over the 1958-78 period. The increase was generated by
expanding overall construction activity and strong ex
port demand. The value of total new construction (in
constant dollars) rose 60 percent during 1958-72, be
fore turning fiat in 1973, and dropping sharply in 1974
and 1975. Since 1975, new construction has risen nearly
20 percent.3 Exports of construction machinery, which
currently account for nearly one-third of U.S. produc
tion, almost quadrupled between 1960 and the mid1970’s. Construction and related activities in foreign
countries during this period rose considerably faster
than did U.S. construction, providing a strong impetus
to U.S. exports.4
Although overall construction activity remains the
most important determinant of construction equipment
output, the cyclical and year-to-year variations in con
struction equipment output during 1958-78 did not al
ways closely follow changes in construction activity.
One reason is that the use of construction equipment
varies greatly, depending upon the type of construction.
The different types have widely varying ratios of cost
between construction equipment and total contract.5For
example, in the construction of single family housing,
machinery is a relatively minor factor, while for projects
such as sewer lines and highways, large amounts of
construction equipment are employed. Some types of
construction machinery, such as crawler tractors and
tractor shovel loaders, are used to prepare many kinds
of construction sites, making it difficult to associate
changes in production of these units with those in spe
cific construction markets.
Changes in output in the industry were large over the
period. In only 5 years were year-to-year output chang
es less than 6 percent. After an 18-percent increase in
1959, when nearly all segments of construction activity
showed strong gains, output fell by 15 percent in 1960.
This decline resulted from a downturn in many con
struction markets, and from the existence of a large in
ventory of machines in operation. The downturn
continued with a 7-percent drop in 1961. Sustained high
levels of construction and an expansion in exports dur
ing 1962-65 led to strong increases in construction ma
chinery output, particularly in 1962 and 1964, 14 per
cent and 17 percent, respectively.
After 1965, output gains narrowed, as activity in
many construction markets dropped from the high lev
els of the early 1960’s. An acceleration in exports dur
ing this period helped maintain continued increases in
output. Declines in construction activity during 1969—
70 led to an output drop of 7 percent in 1970 and 5
percent in 1971. But output rebounded during 1972-74,
posting consecutive gains of 21 percent, 16 percent, and
34
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10 percent for the 3-year period. Expanding construction
activity boosted demand for construction equipment in
the United States; foreign demand for U.S.-built machin
ery soared during 1973-74, aided by changes in the rel
ative values of national currencies. The severe drop in
construction activity during 1974-75 caused machinery
output to fall sharply, 13 percent in 1975, despite con
tinued strength in foreign demand. The decline contin
ued into 1976, with a 5-percent decrease. Output
rebounded in 1977 and 1978, rising 11 and 12 percent,
in response to the upturn in construction.
Employment and investment
The construction machinery industry is characterized
by large scale production. In 1977, the average plant
employed 169 persons, more than triple the average of
53 employees for the entire manufacturing sector. Es
tablishments with 500 or more employees account for
more than two-thirds of industry’s value of shipments.
Industry operations are concentrated in the North Cen
tral region of the United States, with more than threefourths of employment located in those States.
Between 1958 and 1977, the number of establishments
rose 57 percent to 910. The increase was somewhat less
than the gain in employment, resulting in a slight rise in
the average number of employees per plant. The increase
in establishments was associated with a slight shift in in
dustry operations to the Southern region. The number of
establishments in the South doubled during 1958-72 to
162, raising the South’s regional share of employment in
the industry from 5 to 11 percent.
Currently at 165,000 persons, employment in the con
struction machinery industry rose 74 percent during
1958-78. However, the upward trend was not steady;
employee-hours fluctuated considerably over the period,
because of large swings in output. For example, output
rose 18.2 percent in 1959, with a 26.2-percent gain in
employee-hours. In 1961, employee-hours dropped 14.8
percent, following 2 consecutive years of declines in
output. Sharp output increases in 1964, 1972, and 1973
accompanied large increases in employee-hours in those
years.
Production workers accounted for 72 percent of total
employment in the industry during 1978, virtually
unchanged from the 1958 proportion, and about the
same as the manufacturing average. Women accounted
for only 8 percent of total employment, compared with
30 percent for manufacturing as a whole. Hourly earn
ings averaged $8.01 in the industry, about 30 percent
above the manufacturing average. Regional and skill
factors as well as the high degree of unionization ac
count for the higher wage levels.6The North Central re
gion, where construction machinery manufacturing
operations are concentrated, had earnings about 10 per
cent above the average for all manufacturing, according
to 1972 Census data. Skill levels in the industry are also
above the average for manufacturing in general. Profes
sional, technical, and kindred workers accounted for
11.8 percent of construction machinery employees,
while total manufacturing had 10.2 percent of its em
ployees in such positions. Crafts and kindred workers
represented 21.4 percent of workers in the industry,
while manufacturing in general had 19.7 percent of its
employees in these positions. Although the proportion
of operatives (less-skilled employees) was only slightly
lower (39.4 percent) for this industry than for the man
ufacturing average (42.2 percent), almost half of these
employees in construction machinery were semiskilled
metalworkers, whose earnings exceed that of most other
groups of operatives.
Labor turnover in the industry has been well be
low that for all manufacturing during 1958-78. For
example, in the average month of the study, quits per
100 employees were 1.0 for construction machinery and
1.9 for all manufacturing. New hires and layoffs per
month averaged 1.7 and 1.0 percent, respectively, for
this industry, compared with 2.8 and 1.6 for all manu
facturing.7 The comparatively low rates of turnover re
flect the above-average skill levels and high degree of
unionization in the industry. Firms are more reluctant
to lay off skilled employees during downturns, because
of the cost of training new employees when production
again increases. Also, unionized workers resign less fre
quently.8
Capital expenditures per employee averaged $3,212 in
1977, considerably above the $2,587 average for all of
manufacturing. However, above-average capital expendi
tures did not occur in the industry until the mid-1970’s.
Industry expenditures per employee in 1958 were below
that of all manufacturing but rose faster during the
study period, 10 percent per year on average, compared
with 8 percent. Total assets per employee per establish
ment were $21,879 in 1976, below the $22,326 all-manu
facturing average, but they had risen slightly faster than
average since the early 1960’s. Nearly half of the capital
expenditures for equipment during the mid-1960’s
went for machine tools.9 Although no precise data are
available on the proportion of machine tools that are
numerically controlled, industry sources indicate that
the use of these tools increased significantly during the
late 1960’s and the 1970’s.
Technological gains
The basic processes in the production of construction
machinery^parts machining, heat treating, welding and
fabrication, and assembly, did not change significantly
during 1958-78. However, there were productivity
gains from gradual technological improvements in them.
Capital investment in improved machine tools with in
creased horsepower, and faster operating speeds, have
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
increased productivity in the machining processes. Nu
merical control has speeded up the machining of parts.
This involves the automatic setting of machining angles,
speeds, and feeds by electronic control units. Tools such
as gear cutting and grinding machines have been used
for many years, but the operator had to manually place
the material into position, set the speeds for the feeding
and machining of the material, and monitor the machin
ing process. Numerical control is considerably faster
and allows one operator to monitor several machines.10
Since the mid-1970’s, the industry has been investing in
manufacturing systems, comprised of groups of machine
tools linked by material handling equipment, which
greatly reduce machine set-up and component handling
time.11
The heat treating process has been largely unaffected
by technological changes in the industry. Machined
parts are fed into a furnace, heated, and then quenched
in oil or water. This process strengthens the parts and
relieves stress, for greater durability. Feeding parts
through the furnace automatically has been introduced,
but the process has remained mostly a manual opera
tion.
There have been significant labor-saving innovations
in welding operations in construction machinery manu
facturing plants during 1958-78. In earlier years, the
most prevalent welding techniques produced “slag,” a
film of debris that had to be cleaned from the weld sur
face. In the early 1960’s, improved welding techniques
were introduced which produced very little slag. Their
rapid diffusion greatly reduced the labor time in clean
ing welded parts. Also, the new welding process is
quicker; the welding electrode is continuously fed to the
welding surface. Under the old process, individual
“sticks” of electrode material were used and replaced
manually.
Other improvements include the introduction, in
some plants, of conveyor systems to transfer parts be
tween stations. These systems, which have been replac
ing hand carts, reduce bottlenecks in the production
flow. The introduction of computers has saved labor in
purchasing and accounting functions, and has helped
maintain better inventory control.12
Future developments
Although the pace of construction activity is difficult
to predict, some factors that will probably affect con
struction machinery demand in the near future are evi
dent. The interstate highway system, which helped
boost purchases of construction equipment in the late
1950’s and 1960’s, is more than 90 percent complete,
and real expenditures for construction of new highways
and streets have trended downward since 1970. In addi
tion, export demand for construction equipment, which
had risen rapidly in the early and mid-1970’s, may sta35
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Construction Machinery Productivity
bilize. Foreign manufacturers are becoming increasingly
competitive in the construction machinery market, and
U.S. subsidiaries abroad are also increasing their market
share. These factors portend a slackening in the years
ahead in the booming export market for U.S.-built con
struction equipment. However, offsetting these factors
will be increased demand from specific domestic mar
kets. Sewer and water projects are expected to increase
significantly, due to pollution control mandates. Also,
mining, particularly strip-mining of coal, should show a
strong rise in the near future, increasing the demand for
large excavating and earthmoving machines. Overall,
construction equipment output is expected to grow
about 3 percent per year over the next 5 years, signifi
cantly below the long-term rate.13
The slackening in demand anticipated for the next
few years will tend to retard productivity improvement.
However, the quickening pace of adoption of technolog
ical innovations should offset this to some extent. In
vestment in numerically controlled machine tools is
expected to increase, with emphasis on more flexible
machines that can perform a number of different func
tions. Many machines in the industry have limited capa
bilities, and the set up and material handling time
inherent in them have proven to be bottlenecks in the
production flow. The low volume of production for in
dividual types of construction equipment, combined
with the specialized nature of most conventional ma
chine tools, has limited the diffusion of numerical con
trol. In recent years, however, advanced manufacturing
systems have been developed which greatly facilitate
smooth production flow and which are efficient for the
low-to-medium volume in the industry. Capital expendi
tures increased greatly during the mid-1970’s and there
is evidence that a significant amount is being invested in
these advanced systems.14 The industry’s substantial in
vestment in this equipment should cause productivity
gains to accelerate.
□
FOOTNOTES
' The construction machinery industry is composed of establishments
primarily engaged in producing heavy machinery and equipment used
by the construction industries; it produces items such as bulldozers,
concrete mixers, cranes, pavers, and power shovels. It is designated as
industry number 3531 in the 1 9 7 2 S ta n d a r d I n d u s tr ia l C la ssifica tio n
M a n u a l of the Office of Management and Budget. Data for this pro
ductivity measure first became available in 1958. All average annual
rates of change are based on the linear least squares trend of the loga
rithms of the index numbers. A technical note describing the methods
used in the construction of the indexes is available upon request.
2 C u r re n t I n d u s tr ia l R ep o rts, series M35S and MQ35D (Bureau of
the Census) July 1958, 1959, 1977, September 1978).
3 C o n stru ctio n R ep o rts, series C 30-74S, December 1975 and C 3080-2, April 1980 (Bureau of the Census).
4Out of 51 countries, 47 had higher rates of growth in construction
between 1960 and 1970 than did the United States S ta tis tic a l A b s tr a c t
o f th e U n ite d S ta te s 1974, (Bureau of the Census, 1974), p. 823.
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Productivity and Technology,
Division of Technological Studies.
6 A recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the
weekly earnings of workers represented by labor organizations were
18 percent higher than those of workers not represented. E a rn in g s a n d
O th e r C h a r a c te r istic s o f O r g a n iz e d W o rk e rs M a y 1977, Report 556 (Bu
reau of Labor Statistics, 1979).
7The turnover rates cited here for construction machinery actually
comprise both construction and mining machinery. However, because
construction machinery employs about 80 percent of the total work
force in both groups, these rates should be representative for con
struction machinery alone.
8 See Charles Brown and James Medoff, “Trade Unions in the Pro
duction Process,” J o u r n a l o f P o litic a l E c o n o m y , 1978, Volume 86, No.
3, p. 357.
’ I n te r in d u s tr y T r a n s a c tio n s in N e w S tr u c tu r e s a n d E q u ip m e n t, 1 9 6 3
a n d 1 9 6 7 , V o lu m e 2, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Eco
nomic Analysis, September 1975.
10 See Lloyd T. O’Carroll, “Technology and Manpower in Non
electrical Machinery,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , June 1971, p. 58-59.
" See, for example, Raymond J. Larsen, “Taking the Wraps Off
Flexibility in Manufacturing,” Iro n A ge, Nov. 20, 1978, p. 75-91.
12 Information on technological developments was provided by vari
ous industry representatives.
13 U.S. I n d u s tr ia l O u tlo o k 1980, Domestic and International Business
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, January 1980.
14Jack Thornton, “Big Metalcutting Systems,” A m e r ic a n M e ta l
M a r k e t, Nov. 12, 1979.
APPENDIX: Measurement techniques and limitations
The productivity indexes in this study measure the
change over time in industry output per unit of labor
input. They do not measure the specific contribution of
labor, but reflect the influence of many factors such as
technology, capital investment, and managerial skills, as
well as skill and effort of the work force.
The output index for this industry is based upon val
ue of shipments data, published by the Bureau of the
Census. Detailed data from the Census of Manufactures
for 1958, 1963, 1967, and 1972 were used to derive
benchmark indexes, to which the annual indexes for in
tervening years, based on the Annual Survey of Manu
36
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
factures, were adjusted. The value of shipments of the
various product classes were adjusted for price changes
by appropriate Producer Price Indexes to derive con
stant dollar output measures. These, in turn, were com
bined with employee-hour weights to derive the overall
output measure. Employment and employee-hour index
es were derived from Census and Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics data. Employees and employee-hours are
considered homogeneous and additive, and thus do not
reflect changes in the qualitative aspects of labor such
as skill and experience of persons constituting the ag
gregate.
Conference Papers
Although the phrase “quality of worklife” has been part
of the industrial relations vocabulary for more than a
decade, the concept has not yet found wide acceptance.
Some practitioners view it with enthusiasm, others with
cynicism. Among the former are Stephen H. Fuller, a
vice president of the General Motors Corp., Irving
Bluestone, who recently retired as a vice president of
the United Auto Workers, and Barry A. Macy, director
of the Texas Center for Productivity and Quality of
Work Life. Fuller and Macy spoke at last December’s
annual meeting of the Industrial Relations Research
Association in Atlanta, Ga., Bluestone at a December
conference on “Critical Economic and Work Force Is
sues Facing Western Nations,” sponsored by the Work
in America Institute and the International Institute of
Labor Studies in Washington, D.C.
How quality-of-worklife projects
work for General Motors
St e p h e n
H.
F uller
Quality of worklife is not a happiness program, al
though happy employees may certainly be a byproduct.
It is not a personnel department program, although
quality of worklife has important implications for per
sonnel management. It is not a sublte employee
incentive program, although employees motivated to
achieving the goals of the organization certainly ought
to be one of the outcomes. And, it is not another pro
ductivity program, although better productivity is cer
tainly one of the important results.
Quality of worklife is all of these things and more:
•A continuing process, not something that can be
turned on today and turned off tomorrow.
•Using all resources, especially human resources, bet
ter today than yesterday . . . and even better tomorrow.
•Developing among all members of an organization
an awareness and understanding of the concerns and
needs of others, and a willingness to be more responsive
to those concerns and needs.
Stephen H. Fuller is a vice president of General Motors Corp.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
•Improving the way things get done to assure the
long-term effectiveness and success of organizations.
General Motors is making a concerted effort to im
prove the quality of worklife for its employees. Projects
are underway in most North American operations and
in many overseas operations as well. The approach was
not developed overnight. It evolved from a philosophy
of management, shaped by events and experiences oc
curring over a considerable period of time.
A key component of our quality-of-worklife process
is union participation. Quality of worklife became a
joint effort of General Motors and the United Auto
Workers in 1973, when a National Committee to Im
prove the Quality of Work Life was established. Repre
senting the UAW on the committee are two officials of
the international union. The corporation is represented
by two personnel officers. The committee meets periodi
cally to discuss activities underway in the corporation.
One of its chief functions is to educate executives of the
union and the corporation in order to encourage coop
erative quality-of-worklife ventures at the local level.
The committee adopted minimum standards to assure
that every GM plant has the basics of a quality-ofworklife effort. Each operation is expected to have:
• A group to oversee the quality of worklife process.
•A statement of long-term objectives incorporating
quality of worklife along with other desirable business
targets.
• Regular measurement of quality of worklife.
•Seminars and other activities to make the organiza
tion more knowledgeable about quality-of-worklife con
cepts and techniques.
•Adequate internal resources and skills to assure the
developmental process is moving ahead and accomplish
ing its objectives.
Approaches vary
A quality-of-worklife improvement program is man
datory at GM, however, specific approaches are
optional. Following are some examples of approaches
being applied at existing and new plants.
A decade ago, one of our assembly plants could have
been characterized as a problem plant. There was an air
of hostility between management and the union. Costs
were high. Performance was poor. Something had to be
done. Fortunately, the local management and union
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Conference Papers
were willing to undertake some initiatives. As both
sides explored and discussed their mutual problems and
concerns, an atmosphere of understanding and mutual
respect began to emerge. In 1972, the plant faced a ma
jor rearrangement which provided an opportunity for
management to involve employees in planning the
change, something that had not been done before. The
rearrangement went well, due, in part, to the employees’
suggestions.
Then, following the lead set by the GM-UAW National
Quality of Work Life Committee, plant management
and the union established their own committee. In
1977, management and the union initiated a 3-day
training program providing employees at the plant
training in team problem-solving. Although the pro
gram was voluntary, nearly all of the 3,600 employees
participated. Today, employee morale at that plant is
high, grievances are only a fraction of what they were a
decade ago, and the plant has become one of the best
performing assembly plants at General Motors.
Another GM plant abandoned the traditional organi
zational structure a few years ago. Today, the plant is
organized into six business teams, each consisting of the
necessary production activities and support elements:
engineering, scheduling, material handling, quality con
trol, maintenance, and accounting. The system has
made support employees an integral part of the plant’s
business operations. The quality-control circle concept,
which has flourished in Japan and is being introduced
by a growing number of firms in this country, has been
incorporated into the business-team structure. The circle
concept gives employees the opportunity to meet regu
larly to discuss problems affecting their work environ
ment and the plant’s performance.
These are only two of many approaches underway in
established GM plants. New plants provide a unique op
portunity to design an organization from a blank sheet
of paper. Free from the constraints of past practice and
stereotyped roles, each plant is an opportunity to intro
duce new approaches.
There are three important considerations underlying
quality-of-worklife initiatives in new plants: (1) there is
no best system or organizational design, (2) there is an
ongoing interaction among the parts of the system—a
change in one part of the system can have a significant
impact on the entire system, and (3) each part of the
system must reinforce consistency of operations and fa
cilitate employee involvement.
To achieve an organizational system in which each
part is congruent with the rest, careful consideration is
given to the basic values, principles, and objectives held
by local management. The development of a philosophy
and goals is viewed as a necessary first step in the plan
ning process. (The philosophy and goals are statements
reflecting the local management’s beliefs about people
38
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and work and the relationship between those beliefs and
the plant’s objectives.)
A team concept is a major feature of many new GM
plants. Job rotation within the team is encouraged. Em
ployees thus acquire broader skills which, in turn, al
lows for greater flexibility in performing all of the tasks
within the team. This concept tends to promote em
ployee involvement and satisfaction, and to minimize
the disruptive effects of occasional absenteeism and
turnover. Employees are encouraged to move from one
team to another once they have learned all of the jobs
in the team. This further adds to the fulfillment of em
ployee interests and to the expansion of experiences and
achievements.
The team concept encourages employee responsibility
and involvement. For example, employees may have re
sponsibility for training team members; assessing indi
vidual team members’ progress in satisfactorily per
forming job assignments; forecasting efficiency, scrap,
and manpower requirements in their operating areas;
recommending corrective action for improper conduct
of team members; contributing to the selection of new
employees; selecting team leaders; and maintaining op
eration of tools and equipment within process stand
ards.
Employee-management communications essential. In our
plants, emphasis is placed on effective communication,
particularly face-to-face communication. It begins with
the orientation, which includes, in addition to tradition
al topics, a thorough review of the plant’s philosophy
and goals. Periodic plant meetings and team meetings
are used to discuss aspects of the business—for exam
ple, quality, schedules, scrap and rework, housekeeping,
safety, employee facilities, production facilities, and cus
tomer orders. There also is ample opportunity for em
ployees to discuss their concerns with management.
The role of the personnel department at General
Motors is to facilitate the development of the qualityof-worklife process by consulting with management,
with employees, and with their elected representatives.
Well-conceived and effectively administered personnel
programs are absolutely essential for a strong qualityof-worklife effort.
One such program is a system of redress for those
employees not represented by a union. A formal “open
door policy” is one approach, but it must have the sup
port of all levels of management. An effective appraisal
system for all employees, including managers and exec
utives, also is essential. The appraisal also should evalu
ate managers’ support and implementation of qualityof-worklife principles.
Training for all employees is an absolute necessity. If
employees are to be involved in the decisionmaking pro
cess, if they are to grow and develop, they must have
the opportunity to acquire the necessary knowledge and
skills.
Finally, it is necessary to have a statement of philoso
phy that spells out the general role workers have in the
organization and how they are to be treated. A state
ment of philosophy that represents the consensus of se
nior management provides a basis for encouraging
managerial behavior consistent across plants and func
tions. The philosophy also lets employees know how
they can expect to be treated.
All efforts at General Motors require a firm commit
ment at the top levels of the corporation. Such support,
combined with a variety of successful projects has led
to the creation of a quality-of-worklife program in near
ly all plants. This does not mean that GM has all the
answers or that quality of worklife is fully developed in
General Motors. There is much to be done, but the cor
poration is on the right track and making progress.
Future of the projects
An important shift in union-management relations
began in the decade of the 1970’s. Unions and manage
ment showed a willingness to explore new alternatives
and, in some instances, levels of cooperation once
thought impossible produced dramatic results. What
about the decade of the 1980’s? What is the future of
quality of worklife in America?
Two critical forces will have a significant impact on
the future of quality-of-worklife projects. One is the
changing values of workers. Increased sense of entitle
ment, disregard for authority, and a general low esteem
of our institutions have been major factors in the devel
opmental years of quality of worklife. Today’s workers
place less emphasis on material achievement and more
on personal fulfillment. The value shift of Americans
will significantly impact the future of quality of worklife.
The second force is economic. While business is being
challenged to respond to dramatically changing values,
our country is facing economic problems. The fact is,
the United States is locked in a fiercely competitive eco
nomic struggle which could have either a positive or
negative impact on quality of worklife— positive if it
leads to innovative solutions and negative if it results in
simply greater emphasis on traditional approaches.
Our Nation’s poor productivity improvement rate is a
major factor contributing to our economic ills. The
problem has not come about overnight. Between 1947
and 1967, output per hour of work in the United States
nearly doubled. Since 1967, output per hour worked has
risen only about one-fifth. And in 1978, the U.S. pro
ductivity growth rate was an alarming one-half of 1 per
cent, a dismal performance compared to the rate of
growth of other major industrial nations, particularly
Japan.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
In the past, America has been able to compete with
cheap overseas labor because of our capital investment.
In 1978, however, capital investment per worker in this
country amounted to less than $3,700, compared with
nearly $5,000 per Japanese worker. There are many fac
tors in addition to capital investment which contribute
to Japan’s envious productivity growth rate. Among
them are government policies and programs that active
ly support economic expansion, technological innova
tion, harmonious union-management relations, and a
totally dedicated work force. Group goals are far more
important than individual successes in the Japanese
structure.
I do not think we can ignore the traits present in the
Japanese system. In this country, we have been overly
loyal to organizational tradition. But, today, we cannot
afford not to take new risks. The joint efforts of busi
ness, government, and labor are essential if we are to
respond to the needs of a changing workforce and re
solve our economic problems.
Stumbling blocks. As we push forward the frontiers of
quality of worklife there are some formidable obstacles
to overcome. One is the issue of control. Should control
be viewed as external to the individual, as provided for
through a supervisor and shop rules? Or should it lie
within the individual’s self-regulating ability and value
system and based upon mutual influence and interest
that leads to “win-win” rather than “win-lose” relation
ships? Moving from external to self-regulating sources
of control would seem to be consistent with the qualityof-worklife viewpoint. How much training and how
much information is management willing to provide if
employees are to be self-regulating? Many organizations
in the past have been cautious about sharing informa
tion, particularly financial information, for fear employ
ees will use this knowledge to make “unfair” claims on
the enterprise.
□
How quality-of-worklife projects
work for the United Auto Workers
Irving Bluestone
In 1973, in bargaining with General Motors Corp. for a
new national agreement, the United Auto Workers
(uaw ) proposed the establishment of a National Joint
Committee to Improve the Quality of Worklife. The
parties agreed to a document which set forth their genIrving Bluestone recently retired as a vice president of the United
Auto Workers and director of the union’s General Motors depart
ment.
39
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Conference Papers
eral understanding on the subject and pledged to urge
their respective local managements and local unions to
cooperate “in (quality-of-worklife) experiments and
projects.”
How, where, and when to go about the task were left
open for the parties to consider. Over time, certain gen
eralized concepts have become accepted. However, the
approach varies in each situation because the program
is not imposed from the top down, but must be cooper
atively and voluntarily developed and implemented
from the bottom up—at the local union-management
level.
Today, there are approximately 50 quality-of-worklife
programs in U A W -G M bargaining units. Most are still
in the early stages—an indication that such programs
are not “instant utopias” but rather follow a slow, cau
tious, deliberate pace.
How did the u a w and GM go about setting up a
quality-of-worklife program? What were the “nuts and
bolts” steps taken and how were they implemented?
While no two projects are identical, the following de
scribes in concrete terms what happened.
The fact that the National Joint Committee to Im
prove the Quality of Worklife exists and urges the local
parties to consider undertaking a project supplies the
initiative to create interest in the subject. A local man
agement may contact the local union shop committee
(or vice versa) suggesting the local parties discuss the
possibility of initiating a quality-of-worklife project. The
local union as a rule will contact the international union
and ask for a thorough explanation of the concept, how
it works, what it entails, and its advantages and disad
vantages.
An international union representative will meet with
the local union official and describe in detail the mean
ing and purpose of the concept and what has been done
elsewhere and why. The representative will set forth cer
tain guiding principles which are usually agreed upon as
a basis for proceeding:
•There must be no increase in production standards
as a result of the quality-of-worklife program—an as
surance against speed-up. (Naturally, increased produc
tion due to technological change is another matter.)
•There must be no loss of jobs as a result of the
program—an assurance of job security. (Obviously,
layoffs due to business cycles are another matter.)
•The provisions of the national agreement and of the
local agreements and practices remain inviolable.
•The program will be voluntary. No worker will be
compelled to participate.
•The union representatives will be involved in all as
pects of the program— sharing with management equal
ly in the development and implementation of the pro
gram.
40
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
• Either party may cancel the program at any time—
an assurance against either being tied to a project in
which it has lost faith.
The local, after full discussion, will decide whether to
proceed. It is advised to “go slow,” to experiment with
a pilot project at first and approach the program on a
“cut and try” basis. The local understands that normal
collective bargaining continues, that a quality-of-work
life program will not solve all the plant problems.
In the U A W -G M approach, no separate quality-ofworklife committee is formed. The local union shop
committee— the elected representatives of the workers
for purposes of handling grievances and bargaining—is
the union counterpart in the program. This avoids any
conflict in determining which subjects fall within the
purview of adversarial collective bargaining and which
are subject to the cooperative effort of quality of worklife.
A quality-of-worklife program cannot succeed unless
the local parties develop a collective bargaining climate
of mutual respect, a climate in which solving problems
supersedes beating the other party down. Therefore, the
first phase, before the parties can move significantly to
ward worker participation programs, entails fostering a
mutually respectful relationship as the groundwork for
a program which will involve the workers directly.
This is no overnight task. It may take months of get
ting together and talking things through. Essentially the
problem is attitudinal, and breaking down distrust and
cynicism on both sides is a slow but extremely reward
ing process.
Once phase one is well underway, the road is paved
for the local parties to embark on pilot projects in
which workers on a volunteer basis become involved in
problem solving and participate in making decisions re
garding the workplace which, heretofore, have been de
nied them. By now, the parties have learned to work
together more cooperatively. Without pervasive rancor
and suspicion beclouding their efforts, they can join
mutually in analyzing the problems which trouble the
workers and create the opportunity for workers to help
resolve them.
The overriding consideration is that all decisions are
by mutual desire and consent at the local level. Neither
the corporation nor the international union instructs the
local parties; each is merely a catalyst (to advise and
consult) when called upon.
There is ample evidence that the introduction of a
quality-of-worklife program has a salubrious effect upon
the adversarial collective bargaining system. For exam
ple, simultaneously with national negotiations between
the u a w and GM, the local parties negotiate on local is
sues, including seniority, transfer, shift preference,
equalization of overtime agreements, and other propos-
als to improve working conditions and health and safe
ty, grievances, and other issues. Of the first 90 local set
tlements in 1979, all of which were accomplished
without a strike threat, 44 were engaged in some stage
of a quality-of-worklife program. Considering there are
about 50 programs at GM, this represents a noteworthy
achievement.
Studies at locations where a quality-of-worklife pro
gram has existed long enough to be meaningful indicate
a more constructive collective bargaining relationship; a
more satisfied workforce; improved product quality; a
reduction in grievance handling, absenteeism, labor
turnover, and disciplinary layoffs and discharges.
These are all mutually desirable objectives; they rep
resent benefits for the workers and advantages for both
the union and the management. But above all, from the
workers’ point of view, they add up to one of the most
fundamental objectives of unionism: the enhancement of
human dignity and self-fulfillment at work.
For decades, we have heard corporation executives
exclaim: “Our workers are our most valuable resource.”
Quality-of-worklife programs are designed to make that
slogan a reality. How? By altering the autocratic cli
mate of the workplace and providing workers, through
their union, with the opportunity to participate mean
ingfully in the decisionmaking process at the workplace;
by focusing management’s orientation toward concern
for the needs and aspiration of the workers; and by cre
ating an atmosphere of cooperative effort between union
and management to achieve the above noted objec
tive.
□
The quality-of-worklife project
at Bolivar: an assessment
Barry A. Macy
The quality-of-worklife project1at Harman International
Industries, Inc., in Bolivar, Tennessee, is a cooperative
change effort between the company and the United Au
tomobile Workers of America (uaw ). The project is
structured so that both parties can jointly determine
and implement organizational change according to mu
tually agreed-upon principles. The objectives of the
project are to improve employees, quality of worklife
and enhance organizational effectiveness.
The explicit internal goals were identified as job secu-
Barry A. Macy is director of The Texas Center for Productivity and
Quality of Work Life and associate professor of Organizational Be
havior at the College of Business Administration, Texas Tech Univer
sity.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
rity, job equity, worker humanization, and worker de
mocracy. These were ambitious undertakings in 1973—
ahead of their times in many respects—particularly be
cause they were shared and agreed to by both labor and
management. However, some of the objectives of the
project have been reached and surpassed, while others
have yet to be reached. Other outcomes and critical
process events are discussed in an assessment study by
Macy and others.2
According to the five intervention phases of the Boli
var experiment, each composed of 11 months beginning
with the baseline phase through plant-wide experimen
tation to coincide with the change program, the follow
ing changes were measured:
Job security. More jobs were created, as the hourly
employment level rose 55 percent to 839. Once the pro
gram was underway, the cooperative union-management
climate stimulated an effort to develop a joint bid on a
particular product, and the company and the uaw
established joint efficiency rates with the goals of in
creasing employees’ quality of worklife and improving
job security. Ultimately, this venture saved 70 jobs.
Voluntary turnover rates declined by 72 percent, while
involuntary turnover (discharges, retirements, and so
forth) rates decreased by 95 percent.
Health and working conditions. Accident rates, as de
fined by the Occupational Safety and Health Adminis
tration, declined 60 percent, while minor accidents de
creased 20 percent even with the presence of many new
and inexperienced employees. Rates of short-term ab
sences due to sickness declined 16 percent. However,
not all of the changes were favorable, as the rate of mi
nor illnesses rose 71 percent and the rate of medical
leaves increased 19 percent. (Perceptions of Bolivar em
ployees’ health appear later in this report.)
Financial security. The average hourly rate remained
constant and the wage rates relative to area standards
did not change (during this time, the wage rates for the
whole country did not increase relative to real wages).
The fringe benefit package increased by a small amount.
Proposals for the introduction of a gain-sharing com
pensation plan (a negotiable issue) were discussed but
none was adopted.
Job security based on organizational performance. Daily
output per hourly-paid employee, adjusted for inflation,
rose 23 percent. Two other measures of productivity—
efficiency and standard performance— verify this posi
tive change in plant performance. On the product side
of the financial ledger, net product reject cost rates de
clined 39 percent, while the rate of customer returns de
creased by 47 percent. Once again, not all was positive
41
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Conference Papers
as the rate of manufacturing supplies used rose 22 per
cent and the rate of machine downtime increased slight
ly. What is so striking about productivity and product
quality at the Harman International plant is the fact
that both of these performance measures increased.
Moreover, these measures have held positive and signifi
cant trends for approximately 3 years. Some of the
gains are attributable to technological and capital in
puts; however, many can be attributed to the coopera
tive labor-management change.
Cost-benefit. The cost-benefit calculations for the project
reflect the program costs and benefits per hourly-paid
employee per phase, summed over 55 months. The re
sults show a net discounted benefit per hourly-paid em
ployee to the company of more than $3,000. There are,
multiple reasons for this net savings, but nevertheless,
the plant improved its performance through a combina
tion of forces, including the cooperative quality-ofworklife program.
In summary, the evidence shows that because of the
T a b le 1. A s s e s s m e n t o f q u a lity -o f-w o rk life in d ic a to rs an d
w o rk e n v iro n m e n t c h a ra c te ris tic s
Gains
Losses
No change
QUALITY OF W ORKLIFE
Less alienation
Job satisfaction
M ore reports of physical
stress sym ptom s
Treated in a m ore personal
way
Job offers opportunity for
personal growth
M ore reports o f psychological stress sym ptom s
Job involved m ore use of,
or higher level, skills
W orking conditions
Less satisfaction with pay
level
W ork equity
Job is m ore secure
Fringe benefits
Less satisfaction with pay
equity
W O RK EN VIR O NM ENT
Supervisors more
participative
R ole conflict
Supervisors are less w orkfacilitating, supportive,
and respectful
Job variety
M ore w ork-group
participation
Supervisory closeness,
favoritism , and feedback
M ore em ployee influence
over task-related
decisions
W ork-group feedback
Less satisfaction with
w ork group
M ore adequate w ork
resources
Em ployee influence over
w ork-schedule decisions
Less association betw een
w ork perform ance and
rew ard received (3
indicators)
M ore w ork im provem ent
ideas provided by
em ployees
Association betw een job
security and intrinsic
motivation with work
perform ance
Less job feedback
General organizational
clim ate
W ork im provem ent
suggestions
NOTE:
A ssessm ent based on 85 m atched UAW m em bers.
42
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
quality-of-worklife program, jobs objectively became
more secure; productivity and product quality rose; ac
cidents decreased at a faster rate than their industry av
erage; minor accidents declined while minor illnesses
rose; short-term absences due to sickness declined; man
ufacturing supplies and machine downtime increased;
and employee earnings held steady. Also, grievances de
creased 51 percent and absences due to lack of work de
creased 94 percent.
These positive behavioral and organizational per
formance gains seem to have had some practical
implications for both the company and the union in
their contractual process. The company’s 1976 contract
with the UAW was signed earlier than ever before and
benefited both the company and the union membership
by reducing the need for higher product inventories
while maintaining the same employment level. These
bargaining sessions, as contrasted to previous ones,
were accomplished and concluded in a mutual atmo
sphere of cordiality, creativity, and trust. Absent was
the win-lose philosophy and counterthreats that often
accompany traditional labor-management bargaining.
This is not to indicate that the adversary relationship
between the UAW and Harman International Industries
has vanished. It has not! The union still grieves con
tract issues; however, the spirit or climate in which
grievances are handled has improved.
Generally, the behavioral and performance findings
were positive, while the attitudinal indicators showed
mixed results. Thirteen indicators of the quality of
worklife and 24 measures of job and work environment
characteristics known to be associated with higher qual
ity of worklife are assessed in table 1. (The data refer
only to UAW members; however, these indicators repre
sent fairly well the different types of employees sur
veyed at the Bolivar plant.) Some of the gains have
been offset by losses or no change. It must be remem
bered, however, that over the extended period studied,
there were some unmeasured changes in the employees’
level of aspirations and expectations. These changes in
expectations and aspirations were enhanced by the quality-of-worklife program and the later conditions were
probably judged more critically than the earlier condi
tions. When asked a series of questions pertaining to
the goals and outcomes of the quality-of-worklife pro
gram, the employees responded generally with positive
opinions about the impact, the desirability of the pro
gram, the effectiveness of the union-management rela
tionships, and the ability of the UAW to represent
membership concerns. For example, 60 percent found
the program to be desirable; a majority found the joint
union-management committee responsible for designing
and implementing the program to be effective without
domination from either party; and 67 percent indicated
that the program strengthened the local union. In addi-
tion, 90 percent of the u a w membership were satisfied
with the local union in 1976, compared with 78 percent
in 1973. This is substantially higher than the satisfac
tion level of a national sample of blue-collar union
members with their union during this period.3 More
over, union membership at the Bolivar plant has in
creased from 65 percent to more than 90 percent, and
100 percent of the union membership responded affir
matively when asked: “If there were an election today
on whether or not the union should be kept at Harman
International Industries, how would you vote?”
These results and other outcomes not reported here4
seem to indicate that the union members perfer to use
joint union-management programs to deal with quality
of worklife and other important domains of their life at
work. Recently, many other reports and studies5 have
indicated similar trends and like results with other
union members. One trend seems very clear. The time is
ripe for the U.S. industrial relations system to seriously
consider cooperative union-management programs along
with their traditional contractual and collective bar
gaining structures and processes.
□
FOOTNOTES
The project was independently assessed during 1972-79. The be
havioral and performance outcomes were evaluated for 55 consecutive
months during 1972-76. Support for this article was provided by the
Ford Foundation and the Economic Development Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
2 B. A. Macy, G. E. Ledford, Jr., and E. E. Lawler III, An Assess
m e n t o f the B olivar Q u a lity o f W ork L ife E xperim ent: 1 9 7 2 -1 9 7 9
(New York, Wiley-Interscience, forthcoming).
3 R. P. Quinn and G. L. Staines, The 1 9 7 7 Q u a lity o f E m p lo ym en t
S u rvey (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Survey Research Center,
1978). A general discussion of the survey results is described in an ar
ticle by G. L. Staines and R. P. Quinn, “American workers evaluate
the quality of their jobs,” M o n th ly L a b o r Review, January 1979,
pp. 3-12. For a more in-depth discussion of union attitudes, see T.
A. Kochan, “How American workers view labor unions,” M on th ly
L a b o r Review, April 1979, pp. 23-31.
4 See Macy et al, A n Assessment.
5For example, see T. A. Kochan, D. Lipsky, and L. Dyer, “Collec
tive Bargaining and the Quality of Work — the Views of Local Union
Activists,” Proceedings o f the Twenty-Seventh A n n u a l M eeting (Madi
son, Wis., Industrial Relations Research Association, 1975), pp. ISO62; A. Ponak and C. Fraser, “Union Activists’ Support for Joint Pro
grams,” In d u stria l R elations, Spring 1979, pp. 197-209; B. A. Macy,
“A Progress Report on the Bolivar Quality of Work Life Project,”
Personnel, August 1979, pp. 527-30 and 557-59; P. S. Goodman and
E. E. Lawler III, N ew Form s o f W ork O rganization in the U nited
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S tates (Geneva, Switzerland, International Labor Organization, 1977);
J. Drexler and E. E. Lawler III, “A Union-Management Cooperative
Project to Improve the Quality of Work Life,” The Jou rn al o f A pplied
B ehavioral Science (July-August-September, 1977), pp. 351-86; I.
Bluestone, “The Quality of Work Life Project Between UAW and
Harman International Industries,” paper presented at the Thirty-Sev
enth Annual Meeting, The Academy of Management, Aug. 14-18,
1977; E. E. Lawler III and L. Ozley, “Winning Union-Management
Cooperation,” M an agem en t R eview (March 1979), pp. 19-24; E. E.
Lawler III, and J. Drexler, “The dynamics of establishing cooperative
quality-of-worklife projects,” M on th ly L a b o r Review, March 1978, pp.
23-28; D. Nadler, “Hospitals, Organized Labor and Quality of
Work: An Intervention Case Study,” The Jou rn al o f A pp lied B ehavior
a l Science (September 1978), pp. 366-81; J. Perry and others, The
Im p a c t o f L abor-M an agem en t R elation s on P rodu ctivity a n d E fficien cy
in Urban M ass Transit (Institute of Transportation Studies and Grad
uate School of Administration, University of California at Irvine,
1979); B. A. Macy and M. Peterson, “Evaluating Attitudinal Change
in a Longitudinal Quality of Work Life Intervention,” in S. Seashore,
E. Lawler III, and others, eds., O bserving a n d M easuring O rganization
a l Change: A G uide to F ield P ractice (New York, Wiley-Interscience,
forthcoming); P. S. Goodman, Assessing O rganizational Change: The
R ushton Q u ality o f W ork E xperim en t (New York, Wiley-Interscience,
1979); B. A. Macy and A. Nurick, Assessing O rganizational Change
a n d Participation: The T V A Q u ality o f W ork E xperim en t (New York,
Wiley-Interscience, forthcoming); and M. Duckies, R. Duckies, and
M. Maccoby “The Process of Change at Bolivar,” The Jou rn al o f A p
p lie d B ehavioral Science (July-August-September, 1977), pp. 387-99.
43
Special
Labor Force
Reports—Summaries
Trends in educational attainment
among workers in the 1970’s
A nne M cD ougall Y oung
The proportion of working men and women with some
college education increased steadily throughout the
1970’s. By March 1979, 36 percent of all workers age
18 and over had completed at least 1 year of college, üp
from 26 percent 9 years earlier; about half of those with
some college education had completed at least 4 years.
The proportion of workers whose formal education had
ended with high school graduation remained close to 40
percent throughout the decade, but the percent who
had not completed high school declined considerably
(table l).1
Labor force participation. During the 1970’s, the propor
tion of men participating in the labor force continued to
fall. The decline was steepest for those with less than a
high school education—from 73 percent in 1970 to 62
percent in 1979 (table 2). As might be expected, the de
crease was greatest among dropouts 55 years old and
over, who were least equipped educationally to compete
in an increasingly technological and specialized labor
market, and who, in many cases, qualified for social se
curity or other retirement benefits. But even the labor
force participation rates of males with a high school ed
ucation or better, with the exception of those under 25,
tended to edge downward over the decade.
In contrast to the situation for men, women with at
least a high school education sharply increased their la
bor force participation during the 1970’s. When ranked
by age and years of school completed, the greatest
surge occurred among those 25 to 34 with 1 to 3 years
of college. Their labor force participation rate rose from
45 percent to 67 percent between March 1970 and
March 1979. The pattern of rising labor force participa
tion also extended to younger women who had dropped
out of high school and who lacked job market experi
ence as well.
Anne McDougall Young is an economist in the Office of Current Em
ployment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
44
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The increasing labor force participation of women is
related, in part, to the growing proportion of women
with post-secondary education. By 1979, 34 percent of
female workers had completed at least 1 year of college,
compared with 24 percent in 1970. Over the same 9-year
period, the number of women awarded associate degrees2
nearly tripled, while the number of men receiving such
degrees almost doubled.3 As a result, women accounted
for 50 percent of all associate degrees in 1979— up from
42 percent in 1970— and nearly equaled men in the
proportion completing vocationally oriented science and
engineering-related courses. The availability of occupa
tional training at community colleges, as well as the
convenient locations of such schools, have particularly
benefited women, both recent high school graduates and
older workers, by providing an opportunity to acquire
T a b le 1. E d u c a tio n a l a tta in m e n t o f th e la b o r fo r c e 18 an d
o v e r, b y s e x an d ra c e , M a rc h 1 9 7 0 -and M a rc h 1979
[Percent distribution]
W om en
Men
Total
Characteristic
1970
1979
1970
1979
1970
1979
ALL PERSONS
Labor force:
N um ber (in thousands) .
P e r c e n t.............................
Elem entary:
High school:
C ollege:
8 years or le s s 1 . .
1 to 3 y e a r s ...........
4 y e a r s .....................
1 to 3 years ..........
4 y e a r s .....................
5 years or m ore . .
78,955 97,906
100.0
100.0
17.5
17.3
39.0
13.3
7.7
5.1
9.0
13.1
41.4
18.2
10.6
7.7
48,891 56,646 30,064 41,260
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
19.9
17.5
35.1
13.5
8.0
6.2
10.5
13.4
37.9
17.9
11.2
9.1
13.7
16.9
45.5
13.2
7.3
3.4
6.9
12.7
46.3
18.5
9.7
5.8
W H ITE
Labor force:
N um ber (in thousands) .
P e r c e n t.............................
Elem entary: 8 years or le s s 1 . .
High school: 1 to 3 y e a r s ...........
4 y e a r s .....................
C ollege:
1 to 3 years ..........
4 y e a r s .....................
5 years or m ore . .
70,186 86,177
100.0
100.0
43,962 50,526 26,224 35,651
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.2
12.3
42.0
18.4
11.1
8.1
18.3
16.7
35.8
14.1
8.4
6.6
9.7
12.6
38.1
18.3
11.8
9.6
12.5
15.8
47.1
13.6
7.6
3.5
6.2
11.8
47.4
18.6
10.1
5.9
8,769 11,729
100.0
100.0
4,929
100.0
6,120
100.0
3,840
100.0
5,609
100.0
14.4
19.4
37.4
16.7
6.9
5.1
32.5
24.6
28.3
8.0
4.3
2.4
17.0
19.9
36.2
15.2
6.5
5.2
22.2
24.8
34.5
10.3
5.1
2.9
11.6
18.9
38.8
18.3
7.3
5.1
16.2
16.4
40.0
13.9
8.1
5.4
BLACK A N D O T H E R 2
Labor force:
N um ber (in thousands) .
P e r c e n t.............................
Elem entary:
High school:
C ollege:
8 years or le s s 1 . .
1 to 3 years ...........
4 y e a r s .....................
1 to 3 years ..........
4 y e a r s .....................
5 years or m ore . .
28.0
24.7
31.0
9.0
4.7
2.6
' Includes persons reporting no school years com pleted.
2 Includes blacks, Am erican Indians, Japanese, Chinese, and any other race, except white.
T a b le 2. L a b o r fo r c e p a rtic ip a tio n ra te s an d u n e m p lo y m e n t ra te s b y y e a rs o f s c h o o l c o m p le te d , s e x , an d a g e , M a rc h 1970
an d M a rc h 1979
C haracteristic
Less than 4 years
o f high school
4 years of
high school
1 to 3 years of
college
4 years of
co llege or m ore
1970
1979
1970
1979
1970
1979
1970
1979
72.5
77.5
71.9
93.5
95.1
94.7
91.5
48.8
62.1
76.0
59.8
88.3
89.6
91.1
85.6
34.6
90.1
82.8
92.0
97.6
98.2
98.2
96.3
70.2
86.1
88.4
85.4
95.8
96.5
97.0
93.5
57.3
80.6
59.9
90.8
97.1
95.7
98.7
97.5
67.0
81.7
66.7
87.4
95.2
95.2
96.4
93.7
59.2
90.2
75.4
91.5
97.1
97.2
99.5
97.6
70.8
90.2
84.2
90.6
97.0
97.6
98.2
96.5
63.9
33.0
37.5
32.5
45.7
40.3
47.6
47.9
19.8
32.6
48.4
30.5
48.8
46.9
51.2
48.2
16.2
50.3
59.7
47.7
51.6
45.5
52.7
57.8
34.3
57.1
71.3
53.5
62.7
61.9
65.6
60.6
31.6
48.6
53.8
46.1
50.9
45.5
52.7
57.0
34.0
59.8
65.1
57.8
66.9
67.4
67.2
65.6
31.3
59.7
82.5
56.3
60.2
54.1
49.7
60.6
46.1
67.1
86.6
64.8
74.9
73.6
67.8
64.5
30.5
4.8
11.8
4.1
4.2
3.8
8.3
17.6
6.2
7.0
4.7
3.4
7.6
2.4
2.4
2.3
5.5
10.0
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.8
7.0
2.7
2.5
3.9
4.2
8.0
3.1
3.3
1.9
1.2
3.9
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.8
4.0
1.7
1.6
2.6
6.8
16.7
5.5
6.2
3.8
10.4
22.2
7.8
9.2
4.6
4.6
7.6
3.5
3.8
2.1
6.0
10.2
4.6
4.9
3.2
4.0
5.8
3.0
3.7
.7
4.3
5.7
3.7
3.0
3.4
2.0
3.0
1.8
2.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
2.8
2.8
2.4
LABOR FORCE PARTIC IPA TIO N RATES
M en
Total, 18 years and o v e r ..................................................
18 to 24 years ..........................................................
25 years and o v e r .....................................................
25 to 54 y e a r s ..................................................
25 to 34 years ........................................
35 to 44 years ........................................
45 to 54 years ........................................
55 years and over ...........................................
W om en
Total, 18 years and o v e r ..................................................
18 to 24 years ..........................................................
25 years and o v e r .....................................................
25 to 54 y e a r s ..................................................
25 to 34 years ........................................
35 to 44 years ........................................
45 to 54 years ........................................
55 years and over ..........................................
U NEM P LO YM EN T RATES
Men
Total, 18 years and o v e r ..................................................
18 to 24 years ..........................................................
25 years and o v e r .....................................................
25 to 54 y e a r s ..................................................
55 years and over ..........................................
W om en
Total, 18 years and o v e r ...................................................
18 to 24 years ..........................................................
25 years and o v e r .....................................................
25 to 54 y e a r s ..................................................
55 years and over ..........................................
para-professional training for a wide variety of jobs.
Historically, college graduates have maintained rela
tively high labor force participation rates. As expected,
rates for male graduates under age 55 remained high
during the 1970’s. Among female graduates, however,
the growth in labor force participation rates was truly
startling. The rate increased nearly 20 percentage points
for graduates age 25 to 34 and by almost as much
among those 35 to 44. Apparently, women college grad
uates have become more determined to use their skills
in the labor market.
Women have been keeping up with men in terms of
the proportion receiving a bachelor’s degree, but still
lag far behind in the acquisition of advanced degrees.4
However, women continued to increase, at least slight
ly, their percentage representation among graduates in
the various fields at all degree levels over the decade.
Among bachelor’s and master’s degree recipients, repre
sentation increased most in those fields which had rela
tively few female graduates in the early 1970’s. Among
Ph.D recipients, the opposite relationship prevailed; the
smaller the representation of women early in the de
cade, the smaller the percentage-point gain. In the
words of one observer, “It may be conjectured that the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
complex sociocultural forces which are influencing
women to enter nontraditional fields of study have not
been operating long enough to be manifest at the high
est degree levels. If this is so, then the trends al
ready observed at the bachelor’s and master’s degree
levels may soon be evident at the doctoral degree
level.”5
Unemployment. In March 1980, unemployment rates
continued their traditional relationship to years of
school completed; that is, the more years of education,
the lower the unemployment rate (table 2). As might be
expected, older workers were less likely than younger
ones to be unemployed, regardless of their educational
attainment. Black workers had higher unemployment
rates than whites at every level of educational attain
ment. The difference was greatest for men who had
completed only 1 to 3 years of high school, but black
unemployment rates were double those of whites even
among college graduates.
Occupations. The steady rise in average years of school
completed by American workers has led to a substantial
upward shift in the educational levels of workers in ma45
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Special Labor Force Reports— Summaries
jor occupational groups. College graduates dominated
high-level white-collar occupations to a much greater
extent in 1979 than in 1970. Over the same period, the
proportion of blue-collar workers who were at least
high school graduates also increased (table 3).
During the 1970’s, college graduates filled an increas
ing proportion of professional and technical jobs for
merly held by persons with only a high school diploma.
The proportion of workers in professional and technical
occupations who were college graduates grew from 61
to 71 percent for men and from 54 to 63 percent for
women over the decade. Similarly, the proportion of
managers who had either attended or graduated from
college rose, while the proportion of such positions held
by high school dropouts declined sharply. The latter
change also reflected the retirement from the labor force
of older workers who had attained positions of respon
sibility many years earlier.
The proportion of sales and clerical workers of both
sexes who were college graduates almost doubled over
the decade, while the percentage with fewer than 12
years of high school fell by more than half. Among
male clerical workers, for example, the proportion with
out a high school diploma dropped from 30 to 13 per
cent, and among women, from 20 to 8 percent.
Computerization of business transactions and other
changes in office practices have obviously generated a
need for more highly trained workers. The increase in
the supply of such workers thus coincided with, and
made possible, the use of more complex information
processing techniques. The upgrading of the educational
level of workers was apparent among other occupations
as well. For example, in 1970, more than half of all
blue-collar and service workers had completed fewer
than 4 years of high school, but by 1979, 44 percent
were high school graduates and the proportion with 1
or more years of college had doubled.
Over the decade, the content of many jobs has
changed drastically because of technological advances.
Nonetheless, the data appear to indicate that many bet
ter educated persons are entering jobs for which formal
educational requirements in previous years were far
lower. This trend could have negative repercussions.
“To the extent that growing numbers of workers may
perceive themselves to be overqualified for their jobs,”
writes one analyst, “declining job satisfaction may re
flect a worsening match between workers’ educational
attainment and the actual requirements of the work
T a b le 3. P ro p o rtio n o f w o rk e rs 25 y e a rs an d o v e r in m a jo r o c c u p a tio n a l g ro u p s , b y e d u c a tio n a l a tta in m e n t an d s e x , M a rc h
1970 an d M a rc h 1979
Sex and occupation
Total em ployed,
25 years and over
(in thousands)
P erc en t with less
than 4 years
o f high school
P erc ent with 4 years of
high scho ol only
P ece nt with 1 to 3
years o f college
1970
1979
1970
23.6
30.7
35.3
11.6
24.8
11.1
30.5
31.6
42.8
18.9
17.2
19.7
22.0
18.4
1970
1979
1970
1979
40.889
44,154
42.3
P erc ent with 4 years of
college or m ore
1970
1979
17.2
15.4
23.9
21.0
16.2
22.2
26.9
25.8
34.7
60.5
25.6
19.2
10.3
46.5
70.6
35.9
32.8
18.5
1979
MEN
Total ...............................................................................
W hite-collar w orkers ........................................
Professional and technical w orkers ..
M anagers and adm inistrators .............
Sales w orkers ..........................................
C lerical w o r k e r s ........................................
16,863
6,141
5,107
2,789
2,826
20,434
7,802
7,356
2,658
2,618
18.0
6.0
22.6
23.8
29.5
7.7
2.0
11.3
8.7
12.9
28.4
16.3
32.1
35.0
41.8
B lue-collar w orke rs ..........................................
C raft w o rk e rs .............................................
O peratives, except tr a n s p o r t................
Transport equipm ent o p e ra tiv e s ..........
Laborers .....................................................
19,318
9,242
5,236
2,466
2,374
18,829
9,583
4,538
2,610
2,098
59.2
52.1
62.4
64.8
73.9
36.7
30.3
40.6
43.9
48.4
33.0
37.7
31.5
29.8
21.2
45.8
48.7
45.2
41.6
39.2
6.2
8.0
5.0
4.6
3.7
13.8
16.4
11.7
11.4
10.0
1.6
2.2
1.1
.9
1.1
3.6
4.6
2.4
S ervice w orkers ................................................
2,994
3,210
53.6
36.0
30.1
39.5
8.5
16.8
2.6
7.7
Farm ers and farm w orkers .............................
1,869
1,681
65.1
46.9
26.1
35.8
5.7
9.6
3.2
7.7
23,249
30,283
37.8
20.2
39.3
44.9
11.4
17.1
11.4
17.8
7.7
2.2
10.9
17.6
8.0
45.7
19.7
42.5
46.8
59.4
45.6
15.4
42.6
52.0
61.7
16.5
19.1
16.7
10.8
16.4
21.1
19.1
22.3
19.1
22.4
18.6
54.2
13.9
3.6
4.2
25.6
63.3
24.2
11.3
7.9
.7
2.4
.5
.8
.9
2.3
7.2
1.4
2.9
2.4
W OMEN
Total ...............................................................................
W hite-collar w orke rs ........................................
Professional and technical w orkers . .
M anagers and adm inistrators .............
Sales w orkers ..........................................
C lerical w o r k e r s ........................................
13,748
3,784
1,000
1,688
7,276
19,858
5,603
2,190
1,868
10,197
19.2
6.7
27.0
38.8
20.0
Blue-collar w o r k e r s ...........................................
C raft w o rk e rs .............................................
O peratives except transport ................
Transport equipm ent o p e ra tiv e s ..........
Laborers .....................................................
4,493
465
3,681
120
227
4,485
556
3,398
209
322
66.4
52.5
68.7
50.0
64.3
48.2
33.6
52.6
23.4
41.9
29.9
37.8
28.4
43.3
30.8
43.4
46.0
41.7
56.9
48.1
3.0
7.3
2.4
5.8
4.0
6.1
13.1
4.3
16.7
6.2
Service w orkers
4,798
5,630
63.4
41.6
30.4
43.6
5.1
11.9
1.1
3.0
35.5
26.0
44.2
6.3
11.9
2.4
9.4
................................................
Farm ers and farm w orkers .............................
46
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
208
310
65.4
they perform,”6 and emerge as a major problem for
workers and employers in the 1980’s.
□
bor Force Report 225. Data on the educational attainment of the
population are published by the Bureau of the Census in C urrent Pop
ulation Reports, Series P -20.
2A degree awarded for completion of programs below the baccalau
reate level, based on fewer than 4 years of work beyond high school
in an accredited institution of higher learning.
------------F O O T N O T E S ------------
1
Data for this report are based primarily on special annual tabula
tions of information obtained through the Current Population Survey,
conducted monthly for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau
of the Census. The data relate to the civilian noninstitutional popula
tion 16 years and over (unless otherwise specified) in the week ending
Mar. 17, 1979. Because the estimates are based on a sample, they may
differ from the figures that would have been obtained from a complete
census. Sampling variability may be relatively large in cases where the
numbers are small. Small estimates, or small differences between esti
mates, should be interpreted with caution. This report is the latest in
a series on this subject. The most recent was published in the M on th ly
L a b o r Review, February 1979, pp. 54-58, and reprinted as Special La
3 Marie Evans Hooper, “Associate Degrees and Other Formal
Awards Below the Baccalaureate, 1969-70” (National Center for Ed
ucational Statistics, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel
fare), Publication No. (OE) 72-48, table C, and unpublished data for
1977-78 from the National Center for Education Statistics.
“George H. Brown, “Degree Awards to Women: An Update” (Na
tional Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare), January 1979, p. 3.
5Ibid., p. 17.
6 Denis Johnston, S ocial In dicators III, Ch. VII (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, forthcoming).
A note on communications
The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications
that supplement, challenge, or expand on research pub
lished in its pages. To be considered for publication, com
munications should be factual and analytical, not polemi-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cal in tone. Communications should be addressed to the
Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.
20212.
47
Research
Summaries
Wage gains in 1979
offset by inflation
Joan D. Borum
Although workers received large pay gains in 1979,
prices rose at an even higher rate and their purchasing
power fell. Many of the key statistical series discussed
in this article posted smaller money wage increases in
1979 than in 1978. And, for the first time since 1974,
they all showed declines when adjusted for inflation. A
number of forces tempered 1979 wage increases, includ
ing the voluntary wage and price standards announced
by President Carter in late 1978, a slowdown in em
ployment growth, and a decline in productivity.
Compensation measures
The Bureau publishes several measures of changes in
employee compensation.1 Some cover rates of pay, oth
ers study workers’ earnings. Depending on the series,
the data may reflect payments for benefits as well as
wages and may show the influence of weekly hours and
Federal tax rates. Data usually are available in both
current dollars and 1967 dollars. A brief review of key
measures in 1979 follows. Earnings data reflect percent
changes from December to December; average hourly
compensation data reflect percent changes from fourth
quarter to fourth quarter.
Gross average hourly earnings, one of the basic mea
sures, covers production and nonsupervisory workers in
the private nonfarm sector. In 1979, these earnings rose
7.9 percent, considerably less than the 9.4-percent rise
in 1978. (See table 1.) When adjusted for inflation, real
earnings were down by 4.8 percent, compared with a
0.3-percent increase in 1978.
The Hourly Earnings Index is widely used for mea
suring the general movement in wages because it elimi
nates from the gross hourly earnings the effects of
interindustry employment shifts (that is, changes in the
relative number of workers in high-paying and low-pay
ing industries) and overtime fluctuations in manufactur
ing. This index increased 8.4 percent— about the same
Joan D. Borum is an economist in the Office of Wages and Industrial
Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
48
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
a
as in 1978. However, after adjustment for price in
creases, the index was down 4.4 percent, compared with
a 0.5-percent decrease in 1978.
Average weekly earnings reflect both gross hourly
earnings and the number of weekly hours. Because of a
decline in weekly hours during 1979, average weekly
earnings rose at a 7.6-percent rate, slightly less than
gross average hourly earnings. Real average weekly
earnings declined at a 5.1-percent rate, after rising
slightly (0.1 percent) in the previous year.
Spendable weekly earnings measure weekly earnings
after deductions of Federal social security and income
taxes for a worker earning the average weekly pay,
taxed at the rates applicable to a married worker with
three dependents. This series posted a 7.6-percent gain
in 1979, considerably more than in 1978 (5.7 percent).
When adjusted for inflation, spendable weekly earnings
were down 5.1 percent, a steeper drop than in 1978
( —3.1). Unlike other earnings measures, this series was
affected by an increase in social security taxes. The 1979
tax paid by employees (and matched by their employ
ers) was 6.13 percent of the first $22,900 of annual
earnings; in 1978, the tax was 6.05 percent of the first
$17,700 of earnings. The series was also influenced by
revisions in the Federal income tax laws.
Compensation per hour, a more inclusive measure, inT a b le 1. P e rc e n t c h a n g e in e m p lo y e e c o m p e n s a tio n
m e a s u re s , 1 9 7 4 - 7 9 1
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
G ross average hourly e arn ings:2
C urrènt dollars ........................
1967 d o lla r s .............................
8.4
- 3 .4
6.1
- 1 .1
7.7
2.9
7.6
.7
9.4
.3
7.9
-4 .8
H ourly Earnings Index:2
C urrent dolla rs ........................
1967 d o lla r s .............................
9.2
-2 .8
7.2
.1
7.5
2.6
7.4
.6
8.5
-.5
8.4
- 4 .4
Average w eekly earn ings:2
C urren t d o lla r s ........................
1967 d o lla r s .............................
6.3
- 5 .4
6.7
-.4
6.8
1.9
7.3
.4
9.1
.1
7.6
-5 .1
Spendable w eekly e arn ings:2
C urrent dollars ........................
1967 d o lla r s .............................
5.6
-5 .7
10.7
3.3
5.0
.2
10.4
3.4
5.7
- 3 .1
7.6
-5 .1
Average hourly com p ensation :3
C urrent dollars ........................
1967 d o lla r s .............................
10.9
-1 .2
8.6
1.1
9.2
4.0
7.2
.5
9.1
.1
9.2
- 3 .2
M easure
1 Changes are based on seasonally adjusted data and reflect fourth quarter to fourth
quarter change fo r average hourly com pensation and D ecem ber to D ecem ber change for
other m easures.
2 C overs production and nonsupervisory w orke rs In the private nonfarm econom y.
3 C overs all persons in the private business sector.
eludes wages and salaries plus employer contributions
for social insurance and private benefit plans.2 Hourly
compensation for all persons in the private business sec
tor increased 9.2 percent; for those in the private non
farm business sector, 9.0 percent; and in manufacturing,
9.2 percent. Comparable changes in 1978 were 9.1, 9.1
and 8.7 percent. Although hourly compensation rose
substantially in the private business sector, productivi
ty— output per hour of labor input— fell 1.7 percent.
As a result, labor costs per unit of output rose even
more rapidly than hourly compensation.
The Employment Cost Index, a relatively new series,
provides a more refined measure of change in the
“price” of labor. Covering both supervisory and nonsupervisory workers, this series measures changes in pay
rates of a standardized mix of labor services. It is,
therefore, unaffected by shifts of workers among occu
pations, firms, and industries. Data currently available
pertain to wage and salary rates in the private nonfarm
economy, excluding households, as approximated by
straight-time hourly earnings.
In 1979, overall pay increases, as measured by the in
dex, averaged 8.7 percent, up from 7.7 percent in 1978.
(See table 2.) Pay in manufacturing was up 8.6 percent,
nearly the same as in nonmanufacturing (8.8 percent).
Among industries, pay increases ranged from 7.2 per
cent in construction to 13.2 percent in finance, insur
ance, and real estate—where compensation is largely
influenced by fluctuations in commission earnings for
sales workers. Among occupational classifications bluecollar workers received the highest 1979 pay increase,
averaging 9.0 percent, followed by white-collar workers
(8.6 percent), and service workers (7.2 percent). As in
previous years, union workers received larger increases
than nonunion workers. The differential can be attribut
ed largely to wage increases in manufacturing where
pay advanced 9.4 percent for union workers, compared
with a 7.9-percent increase for nonunion workers.
Wage changes under major labor contracts
Data on wage changes in major collective bargaining
units are restricted to bargaining units covering 1,000
workers or more in the private nonfarm sector. About 1
worker in 10 in the civilian labor force is covered by a
major bargaining agreement. The agreements are usual
ly in key industries and often set wage patterns for
other establishments. Two basic types of data are avail
able—data limited to contract settlements negotiated in
the current period and all general wage changes put
into effect in the period.
Negotiated wage settlements affect a limited number of
workers each year, but generally are reflective of current
economic conditions and, because they usually cover 2
or 3 year periods, tend to influence wage increases in
the following years. New contracts negotiated during
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 2. R a te o f w a g e a n d s a la ry c h a n g e s in E m p lo y m e n t
C o s t In d e x , 1979
[In percent]
12 m onths
ende d Dec.
3 m onths ended
Characteristics
Mar.
1979
June
1979
Sept.
1979
Dec.
1979
1978
1979
.............................
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.4
7.7
8.7
O ccupation:
W hite-collar ..................................................
B lue-collar .....................................................
Service ..........................................................
1.9
1.9
3.2
1.7
2.3
.9
2.3
2.0
1.1
2.4
2.5
1.8
7.2
8.2
8.7
8.6
9.0
7.2
Industry:
M a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................
N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ........................................
C onstruction .............................................
Transportation and public utilities . . .
W holesale and retail t r a d e ...................
Finance, insurance and real estate . .
S e r v ic e s .....................................................
1.7
2.2
1.3
2.6
2.1
3.1
2.1
1.8
2.0
2.6
1.6
2.4
3.2
1.1
1.8
2.3
2.0
2.9
1.9
1.9
2.6
3.1
2.0
1.1
2.0
1.3
4.3
2.5
8.3
7.4
7.8
7.6
8.3
(’ )
6.7
8.6
8.8
7.2
9.4
7.9
13.2
8.5
Region:
N o r th e a s t........................................................
S o u th ................................................................
North Central ................................................
W est ................................................................
1.5
2.6
1.9
2.0
1.7
1.7
2.5
2.0
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.5
2.1
2.4
2.6
1.8
7.1
9.3
6.9
7.8
7.3
8.5
9.4
8.5
All private nonfarm w orkers
Bargaining status:
C overed by collective bargaining
agreem ent ................................................
N ot covered by collective bargaining
agreem ent ................................................
1.8
2.1
2.2
2.6
8.0
9.0
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.3
7.6
8.5
Area:
M etropolitan areas .....................................
O the r areas ..................................................
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.2
1.6
2.5
1.9
7.5
9.0
8.9
7.9
1 N ot available.
NOTE: The statistics are percent changes in straight-tim e average hourly earnings over
the period indicated. They are not annualized, nor are they adjusted for seasonal influences.
1979 provided for average first-year wage gains of 7.4
percent, the lowest since 1973. Annual wage adjust
ments over the life of the contracts averaged 6.0 per
cent, less than in any year since 1973, except 1977. (See
table 3.)
In bargaining units with 5,000 workers or more, 1979
wage and benefit adjustments averaged 9.0 percent in
the first contract year and 6.6 percent annually over the
life of the agreement, compared with 8.3 and 6.3 per
cent in 1978.
About 58 percent of the workers covered by con
tracts negotiated in 1979 had cost-of-living adjustment
( c o l a ) provisions in their agreements (37 percent in
1978), and most of these workers also had escalator
provisions in their prior agreements. The existence of
COLA clauses influences the size and the duration of set
tlements. (However, actual COLA increases are not in
cluded in the data presented here.) Agreements without
automatic escalator provisions usually specify higher an
nual rates of change over the contract life. In units with
1,000 workers or more, 1979 contracts without COLA
clauses specified an average annual wage increase of 8.0
percent; those with c o l a ’s averaged 4.6 percent.
Agreements with COLA provisions are generally for a
longer duration than those without escalator clauses. In
1979, the average duration for settlements with COLA
49
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Research Summaries
T a b le 3. P e rc e n t c h a n g e in w a g e s an d w a g e s an d
b e n e fits in m a jo r c o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n ts ,
1 9 7 4 -7 9
M easure
S e ttle m e n ts:1
W age rate settlem ents (1.000
w orke rs or more):
First-year adjustm ent . . . .
Annual rate over life of
contract .............................
C ontracts with c o l a
clauses ...................
C ontracts without
c o l a clauses
....
W age and benefit settlem ents
(5,000 w orkers or more):
First-year adjustm ent . . . .
Annual rate over life of
c o n tra c t.............................
C ontracts with c o l a
clauses ...................
C ontracts without
c o l a clauses
....
Effective w age-rate changes:
Total effective w age-rate
adjustm ent ..........................
Adjustm ent resulting from:
C urrent settlem ent . .
Prior settlem ent . . . .
E s c a la to r p ro v is io n
. .
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
9.8
10.2
8.4
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.8
6.4
5.8
6.4
6.0
6.1
7.1
5.7
5.0
5.3
4.6
9.1
8.3
7.3
6.9
7.1
8.0
10.7
11.4
8.5
9.6
8.3
9.0
7.8
8.1
6.6
6.2
6.3
6.6
7.1
7.5
6.2
5.9
5.3
5.9
9.4
8.5
7.6
7.0
7.2
8.0
9.4
8.7
8.1
8.0
8.2
9.1
4.8
2.6
2.8
3.7
2.2
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.2
1 .6
1.7
2.0
3.7
2.4
3.1
1.9
3.0
3.0
1 D ata exclude possible increases under esca lator provisions, except for minim um In
creases guaranteed by the contract.
NOTE:
Data relate to private nonfarm agreem ents.
was 35.9 months, 6 months longer than those without
such clauses.
Effective wage-rate changes are more comprehensive
than the settlement data and are more comparable to
the earnings measures. This measure comprises all
changes put into effect in a given period, including
gains won in current settlements, increases negotiated in
earlier years (deferred changes), and payments triggered
by automatic cost-of-living escalator clauses. The size of
each type of increase and the number of workers affect
ed determine the total effective adjustment. Although
the 9.1-percent average adjustment in 1979 for 9.3 mil
lion production and nonsupervisory workers was the
highest since the 9.4-percent increase in 1974, it was
considerably less than the 13.4-percent rise in prices (as
measured by the Consumer Price Index for Urban
Wage Earners and Clerical Workers— CPl-w). This is
the second consecutive year in which wage changes in
bargaining units averaged less than the change in prices.
The following tabulation compares the percent in
crease in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers with wage changes in ma
jor collective bargaining units:
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
....
....
....
....
....
CPI
T o ta l effective
a d ju s tm e n t
A vera g e e sc a la to r
in crease
7.0
4.8
6.8
9.0
13.4
8.7
8.1
8.0
8.2
9.1
4.8
3.5
3.9
5.0
6.8
50
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The current settlement component of the effectivechange measure is normally the largest of the three
components in terms of the size of increase. During
1979, 3.5 million workers received increases averaging
7.9 percent as a result of settlements during the year.
When prorated over the 9.3 million workers in the
bargaining universe, this accounted for 3.0 percentage
points of the total adjustment. (See table 3.)
The deferred component is more influential in light
bargaining years, when fewer workers are covered by
settlements and more receive deferred wage increases. In
1979, 5.5 million workers had deferred increases averag
ing 5.1 percent, accounting for 3.0 percentage points of
the total effective adjustments.
Although a smaller portion of workers under major
agreements received increases from COLA (44 percent,
compared with 48 percent in 1978), the average size of
their increases was larger (6.8 percent compared with
5.0). Prorated over all workers in major bargaining
units, the average escalator adjustment was 3.1 percent.
Interestingly, both the size of the average escalator ad
justment and its share of the total adjustment were
higher in 1979 than in any year since data became avail
able in 1968.
The size of cost-of-living adjustments reflects the type
of COLA formula, the timing of COLA reviews, and pos
sible “caps” or limits on increases. In 1979, workers re
ceiving COLA increases under major agreements
recovered an average 51 percent of the rise in consumer
prices. The most common formula, calling for a 1-cent
an-hour increase for each 0.3-point rise in the CPI, af
fected about 2.1 million workers.3
In 1979, a heavy bargaining year, 3.5 million workers
negotiated new contracts. The transportation equipment
manufacturing industry accounted for about one-fifth of
the total; the transportation industry accounted for an
other one-fifth; and many of the remaining workers
were in the apparel, construction, electrical equipment,
food manufacturing, and retail food store industries.
More than 3.7 million workers are covered by contracts
either expiring or permitting wage reopenings in 1980,
another heavy bargaining year.4 Key agreements to be
negotiated are in the petroleum refining, construction,
steel, telephone, and aerospace industries. Although the
size of new settlements and the effective adjustments to
be implemented cannot be predicted, it is known that
4.9 million workers are scheduled to receive deferred in
creases averaging 5.1 percent and that cost-of-living re
views are scheduled for 3.6 million workers.5
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' For an overall description of the programs, see B L S M e a s u r e s o f
Bulletin 1941 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1977).
2Except for nonfinancial corporations in which there are no self
C o m p e n sa tio n ,
employed, data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and sup
plemental payments for the self-employed.
3For additional analysis of current escalator coverage and provi
sions, see Edward Wasilewski, “Scheduled wage increases and
escalator provisions in 1980,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , January 1980,
pp. 9-1 3 .
4 For a more detailed discussion of the collective bargaining sched
ule for 1980, see Mary A. Andrews and Winston Tillery, “Heavy
bargaining again in 1980,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , December 1979,
pp. 20-28.
5The remaining 1.1 million workers are under clauses that do not
provide for a review in 1980, primarily in contracts scheduled to ex
pire during the year.
Working wives reduce inequality
in distribution of family earnings
F r a n c is W . H o r v a t h
Past studies have shown that working wives move the
aggregate family earnings distribution towards greater
equality.1That is, the distribution of family earnings has
shown more relative equality than the distribution of
husbands' earnings. This effect occurred, in part, be
cause the wives entered the labor force in greater num
bers from families with lower than average earnings.
Labor force participation of wives had been found to be
negatively related to the earnings of their husbands.2
In recent years, more wives from higher income fami
lies have been entering the labor force.3 In the absence
of other changes that would affect the earnings distribu
tion of families (for example, changes in the participa
tion rate or earnings of wives of low earners), an
increase in the labor force participation rate of wives of
high earners would increase family earnings inequality
regardless of the level of wives’ earnings. This occurs be
cause families already near the top of the earnings dis
tribution with only the husband working will move
farther up the distribution with any additional earnings
of the wife. In addition, if these wives display earnings
which are higher than average for women, the increase
in inequality would even be greater.4 Such a positive re
lationship between earnings of husbands and wives can
be expected, given the observed tendency of men and
women to marry persons with socioeconomic character
istics and hence earnings capacities similar to their own.
While the extent to which earnings capacities are trans
lated into current earnings is tempered by a variety of
institutional and personal factors, including the individ
ual’s lifetime labor force participation and the degree of
discrimination in the labor market, an emerging positive
relationship between observed earnings of husbands and
Francis W. Horvath is an economist in the Office of Current Employ
ment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
wives will tend to increase inequality in the family earn
ings distribution.
The question is: is the distribution of the combined
earnings of husbands and wives still more equal than
the distribution of earnings of husbands alone? Ideally,
the appropriate test would involve a comparison of
standardized inequality measures over time. The test
here involves a single point in time. Nevertheless, it is
possible to highlight the increasing influence of working
wives on earnings inequality by contrasting two work
experience groupings: all husband-wife families and
families with both spouses working year round, full
time. If two-earner families continue to increase as a
proportion of husband and wife families, a comparison
of earnings inequality between couples who each work
full time and overall families may provide some indica
tion of future trends.
The difference between the distribution of husbands’
earnings and the distribution of the combined earnings
of husbands and wives can be accounted for completely
by three factors: the distributions of wives’ earnings,
husbands’ earnings, and the interrelationship between
husbands’ and wives’ earnings. The impact of working
wives’ earnings will be reflected by a difference in the
measures of inequality between the earnings distribu
tions for husbands and the combined husband-wife
earnings distribution.
To examine inequality, we employ a method similar
to that used by Jacob Mincer in Schooling, Experience,
and Earnings.5 Simply stated, inequality is measured by
the size of the standard deviation of the natural loga
rithm of earnings. The lower this measure is, the more
equal is the distribution of earnings. (See appendix.)
The data used here are for 1977 and are based on a
subsample of the Current Population Survey of March
1978. The sample included only husband-wife families
who were living together during March 1978. Excluded
were families with husbands who were self employed,
farmers, students, or over 64 years of age— persons
whose earnings are known to vary widely. Because the
log of zero is undefined, husbands with no earnings and
families with zero total earnings also were omitted.
Table 1 shows the mean values for husbands’ earn
ings, husbands’ and wives’ earnings, the respective stan
dard deviations and the standard deviations of the
natural logarithms of earnings. The data are displayed
by age of the husband and two work experience classi
fications. The first set of data shows all families in the
sample regardless of work experience; the second group
ing contains only families in which both husband and
wife worked year round, full time.
The difference in inequality between husbands and
husbands and wives in the first set is related to both the
labor force participation of wives and earnings levels.
The second grouping, however, contains no variation in
51
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Research Summaries
T a b le 1. E arn in g s o f h u s b a n d s a n d c o m b in e d e a rn in g s o f
h u s b a n d s an d w iv e s b y a g e o f h u s b a n d s an d w o rk
e x p e rie n c e , 1977
Earnings
A ge
H usbands
Husbands
and wives
$ 9,234
14,260
17,787
17,918
15,241
$10,878
14,256
16,705
16,929
15,641
Standard deviations
Absolute
Logarithm s
Husbands
Husbands
and w ives
Husbands
H usbands
and w ives
$12,309
17,988
21,301
21,621
18,362
$ 4,467
7,113
9,465
9,966
9,747
$ 5 ,8 1 0
8,306
10,317
10,851
11,031
.668
.570
.599
.772
.916
.606
.522
.554
.600
.828
$18,258
23,720
25,987
26,148
25,039
$ 3,783
5,416
8,328
8,006
8,328
$ 5,534
7,730
10,437
10,334
11,332
.370
.366
.456
.565
.767
.288
.326
.388
.388
.573
Husband-wife
families:
1 6 -2 4
2 5 -3 4
3 5 -4 4
4 5 -5 4
5 5 -6 4
....
....
....
....
....
Families
with
working
s p o u se s:1
1 6 -2 4
2 5 -3 4
3 5 -4 4
4 5 -5 4
55 - 64
....
....
....
....
....
This finding becomes more intuitive after consider
ation of some of the facts which underlie the data. The
earnings distribution of full-time, year-round working
wives tends to be highly concentrated about its mean.
Until this earnings distribution of wives begins to
spread out, the impact on the family earnings distribu
tion is roughly equivalent to the addition of a constant
amount to each husband’s earnings, which causes rela
tive inequality to fall.
Despite larger numbers of wives from higher income
families in the labor force, working wives still tend to
be an equalizing force on the distribution of family
earnings. The combined earnings distribution, whether
for all husband-wife families or husband-wife fami
lies in which both spouses work full time year round,
shows more equality than the husbands’ earnings distri
bution.
□
------------F O O T N O T E S ------------
1 Both spouses em ployed year round, full time.
labor force participation. Here, the impact of the pre
sumed positive correlation of husbands’ and wives’
earnings may contribute to inequality of earnings be
cause there is no participation-income relationship as in
the first set.
The main issue is the comparison of the standard de
viations of the logarithms of earnings of the husbands
and the combined earnings of husbands and wives.
(Smaller values indicate lesser relative inequality.) In all
age groups, the combined earnings distribution shows
greater relative equality than the husbands’ earnings
distribution alone. This was true even for families in
which both husbands and wives worked year round in
full-time jobs. In fact, the drop in relative inequality ap
pears to be greater for working families than for the
overall groups. That is, in families with both spouses
working full time, where observed earnings more closely
approximate potentials, the equalizing effect of working
wives was more apparent.
1Works include Jacob Mincer, Schooling, Experience a n d Earnings
(New York, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1974), Herman
P. Miller, In com e D istribution in the U nited S tates (Washington, Gov
ernment Printing Office, 1966), and James Sweet, “The employment of
wives and the inequality of family income”, Proceedings o f the A m eri
can S tatistica l Association, 1971. A more complete discussion of some
of the issues presented here appeared in James P. Smith, “The Distri
bution of Family Earnings”, Jou rn al o f P olitical E conom y, 1979, Vol.
87, No. 5, pp. SI63-92. That study, which used the Census Public
Use Samples and the Michigan Income Dynamics Survey Panel,
comes to conclusions analogous to those here.
2Glen Cain, M a rried W om en in the L a b o r Force (Chicago, Universi
ty of Chicago Press, 1966).
3Paul Ryscavage, “More wives in the labor force have husbands
with ‘above-average’ incomes”, M on th ly L ab o r Review, June 1979, pp.
40-42.
4 David Ignatius, “Women at Work The Rich Get Richer As Wellto-Do Wives Enter the Labor Force,” The W all S treet Journal, Sept.
8, 1978, pp. 1, 33 and Alice Rivlin, “Income Distribution — Can
Economists Help?” A m erican E conom ic Review, May 1975, pp. 1-19.
5Mincer compared the inequality of the husbands’ earnings distri
bution to the inequality of the total family income distribution. The
use of the combined distributions of husbands’ and wives’ earnings
differs slightly from Mincer’s method. We chose this procedure be
cause the possibility exists that family income may include other in
comes besides those of the earnings of husbands and wives.
APPENDIX: Variance of the natural logarithm as a measure of inequality
The variance (or standard deviation) of the natural log
arithm (s2) is one of the most frequently used measures
of inequality. The larger the variance, the greater the in
equality evidenced in the data. If each of the observa
tions on earnings in a data set is increased by the same
percentage, the value of the variance of the logs remains
the same. However, if each of the observations is in
creased by a constant amount, the variance of the logs
will diminish. This occurs because a fixed amount will
represent a greater percentage increase for those at the
52
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
bottom of the earnings distribution than those at the
top. While the absolute spread between the bottom and
the top of the distribution remains the same size, in
equality has lessened since the spread is around a higher
mean.
The relationship between husbands’ earnings and
combined earnings of husbands and wives is not com
pletely obvious, and in moving from the absolute stan
dard deviations to the log measures, some pitfalls in
interpretation can arise. In absolute terms, the relation-
ship between husbands’ earnings and combined earnings
follows the general form of the variance of a sum. If
on which we may apply the variance operator as
above:
E t = Eh -f Ew
where ET is combined earnings, EH earnings of the
husband, and Ew earnings of the wife, then
Var (Et ) = Var (EH) + Var (Ew) -f 2 Cov(EH, Ew).
The variance of the total must be greater than the vari
ance of the husbands’ and wives’ earnings unless the covariance between husband and wife earnings is negative
and large enough to overwhelm the variance of wives’
earnings.
The relationship between the relative values is not as
simple. Consider the following:
E j — E h + Ew
which we may write as:
E t = Eh(1 +
e * / e h)
= Eh(1 +
r f)
where RF is the ratio of wife’s to husband’s earnings.
Taking the logarithm of this product yields:
In E t = In E h + ln(l + RF)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Var(ln ET) = Var(ln EH) + Var(ln(l + R F))
+ 2 Cov(ln EH,ln(l + RF))
It should be noted that it is possible for absolute earn
ings of husbands and wives to be positively related
(Cov(Eh,Ew) > 0), and yet to observe a drop in relative
inequality (Var In ET < Var In EH).
Indeed, among families in which both husband and
wife work full time year round, a positive relationship
was found between husband and wife earnings (not
shown here) together with a large drop in relative in
equality. While a positive relation between husbands’
and wives’ earnings will tend to reduce the equalizing
effect of working women on inequality, it is only one
part of the total effect. The other consequence is to re
duce the variation in ln(l + RF), which may be closely
identified with the ratio of wives’ to husbands’ earnings.
As wives enter the full-time labor force, the bottom end
of the distribution (those with a ratio of zero) drops in
size, and the total variation of ln(l + RF) diminishes.
53
M ajor Agreements
Expiring Next M onth
This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in August is based on contracts on file in the
Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000
workers or more.
Employer and location
Industry
Union1
Number of
workers
Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Contractors Association of Southern
California (California)
A1 Tech Specialty Steel Corp. (Dunkirk & Watervliet, N .Y .)......................
Alabama Power Co. (Alabama) .....................................................................
Allegheny Ludlum Industries, Inc. (Interstate) ............................................
American Telephone and Telegraph Co., Long Lines Department
(Interstate)
Armco, Inc. (Interstate)...................................................................................
Construction.............................
Plumbers ..............................................
1,200
Primary metals ........................
Utilities .....................................
Primary metals .........................
Communication........................
Steelworkers ..........................................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Steelworkers ..........................................
Communications W o rk ers...................
2,000
3,500
5,800
Primary metals .........................
Steelworkers ..........................................
22,600
12,100
Babcock & Wilcock Co., Tubular Products Division (Beaver Falls, Pa.) . .
Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania:
Commercial and Marketing Departm ents...............................................
Comptrollers and Treasurers Department ............................................
Primary metals ........................
Steelworkers ..........................................
5,050
Communication........................
Communication........................
2,700
1,300
5,250
1,450
50,000
3,300
6,000
31,750
3,500
3,800
11,900
4,500
1,100
1,950
6,300
...................................................................................
Communication.........................
Traffic D epartm ent...................................................................................
Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. (Illinois and New Jersey) ......................
Bethlehem Steel Corp. (Interstate)..................................................................
Communication........................
Electrical products....................
Primary metals ........................
Pennsylvania Telephone Guild (Ind.) . .
Federation of Telephone Workers of
Pennsylvania (Ind.)
Federation of Telephone Workers of
Pennsylvania (Ind.)
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Communications W o rk ers...................
Steelworkers .........................................
Cameron Iron Works, Inc. (Texas) ................................................................
CF&I Steel Corp. (Pueblo, C o lo .)..................................................................
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. (In terstate)..................................
Cincinnati Bell, Inc. (Ohio and K entucky)............................................ . . .
Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co. (Interstate).............................................................
Cleveland Food Industry Committee, 2 Agreements (Interstate) ...............
Consumers Power Co. (M ichigan)..................................................................
Cooper Industries, Inc., Cooper Energy Services Division (Grove City, Pa.)
Copperweld Steel Co. (Warren, Ohio) ...........................................................
Crucible, Inc. (New York and Pennsylvania) ...............................................
Machinery ................................
Primary m e ta ls .........................
Communication.........................
Communication.........................
M ining.......................................
Retail trade .............................
Utilities .....................................
Machinery ................................
Primary metals .........................
Primary m e ta ls ........................
Machinists ............................................
Steelworkers ..........................................
Communications W o rk ers....................
Communications W o rk ers...................
Steelworkers ..........................................
Food and Commercial W o rk ers..........
Utility W o rk ers.....................................
Steelworkers ..........................................
Steelworkers ..........................................
Steelworkers ..........................................
Diamond State Telephone Co. (Pennsylvania)..............................................
Communication........................
United Telephone Workers of
Delaware (Ind.)
1,300
Fisher Controls Co. (Marshalltown, la.) ......................................................
Fluid Milk-Ice Cream Agreement (California)2 ............................................
Fry’s Food Stores of Arizona, Inc. (Arizona) ..............................................
Fabricated metal products . . .
Food products ........................
Retail trade .............................
Auto Workers (In d .).............................
Teamsters (Ind.) ..................................
Food and Commercial Workers ..........
1,700
1,350
1,000
General Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania) .............................
Glass Packaging Institute (Interstate) ...........................................................
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. (New Y o r k ) .....................................
Gulf Resources and Chemical Corp., Bunker Hill Co. subsidiary
(Kellogg, Idaho)
Communication........................
Stone, clay, and glass products
Retail trade .............................
M ining.......................................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Flint Glass W orkers.............................
Food and Commercial W o rk e rs..........
Steelworkers ..........................................
2,400
3,500
1,700
Harnischfeger Corp. (Milwaukee, Wis.) ........................................................
Machinery ................................
Steelworkers ..........................................
2,350
Illinois Bell Telephone Co.:
Commercial and Marketing Departm ents...............................................
Communication........................
1,800
Commercial Operations & others ...........................................................
Communication........................
Comptrollers Department & 3 others (Illinois and Indiana) ...............
Military Agreement (Illinois & Indiana) ...............................................
Traffic Department (Illinois & Indiana).................................................
Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc. (Indiana)...................................................
Industry Food Agreement (Arizona)2 .............................................................
Inland Steel Co. (Interstate)............................................................................
Interlake, Inc., 2 Agreements (Kentucky & Illinois).....................................
Communication........................
Communication........................
Communication........................
Communication........................
Retail trade .............................
Primary metals ........................
Primary metals ........................
Telephone Commercial Employees
Union (Ind.)
Telephone Commercial Employees
Union (Ind.)
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Communications W o rk ers....................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Communications W o rk ers....................
Food and Commercial W o rk e rs..........
Steelworkers ..........................................
Steelworkers ..........................................
Plant Department
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12,150
1,400
2,000
1,100
13,500
6,350
7,600
2,800
18,000
3,200
Continued—Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
Number of
workers
Employer and location
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (Interstate)......................................................
Joy Manufacturing Co. (Franklin, P a .) ...........................................................
Primary metals
Machinery
Steelworkers .....................................
M achinists..........................................
18,900
1,850
Kaiser Steel Corp., Steel Manufacturing Division (Fontana, C alif.)............
Primary metals
Steelworkers .....................................
6.300
Latrobe Steel Co. (Latrobe, Pa.) .....................................................................
Lukens Steel Co. (Coatesville, P a .) ..................................................................
Primary metals
Primary metals
Steelworkers .....................................
Steelworkers .....................................
2,700
Master Plumbers’ Association of Boston and Vicinity, Inc. (Massachusetts)
McGraw-Edison Co., Power Systems Division (Canonsburg, P a .) ...............
Michigan Bell Telephone Co. (Michigan) ......................................................
Microdot, Inc., Valley Mould and Iron Co. Division (Ohio and Illinois) . .
Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co. (Interstate) ........................
Construction . . . .
Electrical products
Communication . .
Primary metals . .
Communication . .
Plum bers............................................
Steelworkers .....................................
Communications Workers ...............
Steelworkers .....................................
Communications Workers ...............
National Electrical Contractors Association and 1 other association
(Boston, Mass.)
National Steel Corp.:
Granite City Steel Division (Granite City, 111.) .....................................
Great Lakes Steel Division (Ecorse and River Rouge, Mich.) ............
Midwest Steel Division (Portage, I n d .) ...................................................
Weirton Steel Division (Weirton, W. V a .)...............................................
New England Telephone and Telegraph Co. (Interstate);
Accounting Department . . . . , .............................................................
Plant D epartm ent......................................................................................
Traffic D epartm ent...................................................................................
New England Mechanical Contractors Association, Inc. (Boston, Mass.) . .
New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.:
Commercial and Marketing D epartm ents...............................................
Plant and Engineering Departments ......................................................
Traffic D ep artm en t...................................................................................
Vice President and Comptroller and General D epartm ents.................
New York Telephone Co.:
Accounting Department (New York City a r e a ) .....................................
Construction
Electrical Workers (IBEW)
............
2.300
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Steelworkers .....................................
Steelworkers .....................................
Steelworkers .....................................
Independent Steelworkers Union . . .
2.500
9,000
1.300
15.000
Communication
Communication
Communication
Construction . .
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ............
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ............
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ............
Plum bers............................................
1.500
16.000
7.500
1,350
Communication
Communication
Communication
Communication
Communications Workers ...............
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ............
Communications Workers ...............
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ............
Communication
2,850
Communication
Telephone Employees’ Organization
(Ind.)
Union of Telephone Workers (Ind.) .
Communication
Telephone Commercial Union (Ind.)
2,000
Communication
Communication
Commercial, Directory, Public Telephone, Sales and Headquarters
Departments (Downstate)
Customer Services, Directory, Accounting, Network Operations
(New York)
Empire City Subway Co. (New York City area) ..................................
Traffic Department (D ow nstate).............................................................
metals
metals
metals
metals
1,100
1,100
1,500
19,850
1,200
27,050
3,450
11,200
4.700
1.300
8.050
30.800
Traffic Department (U p sta te )..................................................................
Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. (Interstate) ...............................................
Northeastern Ohio Food Industry Employers (Ohio) ..................................
Northwestern Steel and Wire Co. (Sterling, 111.)............................................
Communication
Communication
Retail trade . . .
Primary metals
Communications Workers ...............
Telephone Traffic Union (New York)
(Ind.)
Telephone Traffic Union (Ind.) . . . .
Communications Workers ...............
Food and Commercial Workers . . .
Steelworkers .....................................
Ohio Bell Telephone Co. (Ohio) .....................................................................
Communication
Communications Workers
17,250
Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. (Interstate) .......................................
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company and 1 other, 3 agreements
(California and Nevada)
Phoenix Steel Corp. (Claymont, D el.).............................................................
Communication
Communication
17.800
59,450
Primary metals ...................
Communications Workers ...................
Communications Workers and Electrical
Workers (IBEW)
Steelworkers ..........................................
Quester Corp., Spalding Division (Chicopee, M a ss.).....................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing
Boilermakers ..........................................
1.300
Republic Steel Corp. (In terstate).....................................................................
Reserve Mining Co. (Silver Bay and Babbitt, Minn.) ..................................
Roofing Contractors Association of Southern California, Inc. (California) .
Primary metals
M in in g ..........
Construction .
Steelworkers
Steelworkers
Roofers . . .
27.900
2.300
1,650
South Central Bell Telephone Co. (In terstate)...............................................
Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. (In terstate).............................
Southern New England Telephone Co. (Connecticut)..................................
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. (Interstate) ...............................................
Communication
Communication
Communication
Communication
Communications Workers
Communications Workers
Telecommunications (Ind.)
Communications Workers
60,650
50.000
9.000
62.000
Teletype Corp., 2 agreements (Illinois and A rk an sas)..................................
Electrical products
Machinery............
Electrical Workers (IBEW) and Teletype
Employees’ Industrial Union (Ind.)
Steelworkers ..........................................
3.300
Timken Co. (Canton, Ohio) ............................................................................
U and I, Inc., Sugar Division (In terstate)......................................................
United States Steel Corp.:
American Bridge Division (In terstate)....................................................
Master Nation-wide agreement (Interstate)............................................
Minnesota Ore Operations (Minnesota) .................................................
Salaried Employees (Interstate)................................................................
Food products . . .
Grain M illers..........................................
3.000
Fabricated metal products . .
Primary metals ....................
M in in g ..................................
Primary metals ....................
Steelworkers
Steelworkers
Steelworkers
Steelworkers
10,000
3.700
20.900
1,200
4.000
1.050
8,400
2.300
90,000
4.000
5.800
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
55
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 •
M a jo r A g reem en ts E x p irin g N e x t M o n th
Continued—Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
Industry
Union1
Number of
workers
Western Electric Co.:
Allentown Works (Allentown, P a . ) ........................................................
Atlanta Works (Norcross, G a .) ................................................................
Baltimore Works (Maryland) ..................................................................
Denver Works (Colorado) .......................................................................
H a w th o rn e Works, 2 agreements (Illinois) ............................................
Indianapolis Works (Indianapolis, I n d .) .................................................
Installation Department (Interstate) ......................................................
Kansas City Works (Jackson County, Mo.) ..........................................
Kearny Works (New Jersey).....................................................................
Montgomery Works (In terstate)................................................. ............
Merrimack Valley Works (Massachusetts) ............................................
North Carolina Works ............................................................................
Oklahoma City Works (O klahom a)........................................................
Omaha Works (Omaha, Neb.) ................................................................
Phoenix Works (Arizona)..........................................................................
Reading Works (Pennsylvania)................................................................
Service Division (In terstate).....................................................................
Shreveport Works (Shreveport, L a .)........................................................
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 2 agreements (Ohio and Pennsylvania) . .
Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Wisconsin) ...................................................
Wisconsin Telephone Co. (Wisconsin) ...........................................................
Electrical p ro d u cts....................
Electrical p ro d u cts....................
Electrical p ro d u c ts...................
Electrical p ro d u c ts....................
Electrical p ro d u c ts....................
Electrical p ro d u c ts....................
Com m unication........................
Electrical p ro d u cts....................
Electrical p ro d u cts....................
Electrical p ro d u c ts....................
Electrical p ro d u c ts....................
Electrical p ro d u c ts....................
Electrical p ro d u c ts....................
Electrical p ro d u c ts....................
Primary metals ........................
Electrical p ro d u c ts....................
Com m unication........................
Electrical p ro d u c ts....................
Primary metals ........................
Utilities .....................................
Com m unication........................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Communications Workers ...................
Communications Workers ...................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Communications Workers ....................
Communications Workers ....................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Communications Workers ....................
Communications Workers ....................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Communications Workers ...................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Communications Workers ....................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Steelworkers ..........................................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Communications Workers ....................
3,250
1,350
2,200
1,850
6,800
6,250
17,300
3,350
5,150
1,550
5,250
3,750
4,200
3,400
1,150
1,650
14,200
5,700
14,400
1,050
6,500
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. (Ohio and Pennsylvania)
Primary metals ........................
Steelworkers
13,000
Employer and location
...........................
1Affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as independent (Ind.).
2Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).
56
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
..........................................
Developments in
Industrial Relations
AFL-CIO remains committed to ‘national accord’
At its spring meeting, the Executive Council of the
AFL-CIO contended that President Carter’s efforts to
cotinter inflation by cutting the Federal budget had re
sulted in a “budget that was ‘balanced’ in dollars, but
which was unbalanced in human terms, creating in
creased joblessness and needless suffering and hardship
for millions.” The Council asserted that the President’s
actions amounted to abandonment of some of the prin
ciples and commitments of the “national accord”
between organized labor and the Administration on
stemming inflation. However, the 35-member Council
reaffirmed the AFL-CIO’s commitment to the accord;
the only dissenting vote was cast by Rubber Workers
president Peter Bommarito.
Federation President Lane Kirkland said there was
no other choice because “we’re here to maintain repre
sentational relations with the institutions of policy and
of power and of government in this country. . . . The
game may be rigged, but it’s the only game in town.”
Turning to the issue of wage negotiations, Kirkland
said he would “advise our members to engage in vigor
ous collective bargaining in representing their members
as forcefully as they can.” Asked if this meant ignoring
the current 7.5- to 9.5-percent annual pay guideline first
advocated by himself and the other members of the Pay
Advisory Committee established in conjunction with
the national accord, Kirkland replied that the voluntary
pay program hadn’t “repealed” Federal labor laws re
quiring union leaders to represent their members’ best
interests. However, he later softened his stance, saying
that the pay standard is flexible enough to generally
permit union negotiators to negotiate economic gains
approaching those that could be won if there was no
pay standard.
Master agreement covers Atlantic and Gulf ports
The International Longshoremen’s Association and
shipping associations along the Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts tentatively agreed on the first master contract
for all major ports, except New Orleans. In the past, a
master agreement was reached for the major North At
lantic Coast ports which set the pattern for agreements
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
in other Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports.
The agreement, subject to worker ratification after lo
cal port agreements have been reached, covers 45,000
workers. The agreement will be effective on the October
1, 1980, termination date of existing contracts. The ear
ly settlement on master terms was part of the parties’
plan to permit the maximum possible time for settle
ment of difficult local port issues, such as guaranteed
annual income plans, which vary from port to port and
guarantee eligible ILA members specified numbers of
hours of pay per year.
The new 3-year agreement provided for increases in
the basic wage rate of $1.20 an hour on October 1,
1980 (the previous rate was $10.40) and on October 1,
of 1981 and 1982. The current employer contribution to
the pension funds of $2.25 an hour will increase by 25
cents in each year of the contract and the current con
tribution to the health and welfare funds of $1.50 an
hour will increase by 17 cents in each of the first 2 con
tract years and 16 cents in the third year. Also, the
contract permits the union to refuse to load and unload
ships of ocean carriers which refuse to subscribe to the
Job Security Program, which requires ocean carriers to
pay uniform assessments, regardless of the port, into a
common pool to meet shortfalls in local guaranteed an
nual income, pension, and health and welfare funds.
During the first bargaining sessions, which began in
February, the parties reviewed the legal status of the
Rules on Containers—a key contract item— which
have been in litigation before the National Labor Rela
tions Board and the Federal courts for nearly 7 years.
The rules were developed over the years to preserve
specified container cargo handling work for ILA mem
bers. In 1977, an adverse ruling on the legality of the
container clause precipitated strikes aimed at containerships. No such problem was expected in 1980 because
the Supreme Court is scheduled to review the rules.
However, the union can cancel the agreement on 60
days’ notice after December 1, 1980, if the Supreme
Court strikes down the Rules on Containers.
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben
and other members of the staff of the Division of Trends in Employee
Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on in
formation from secondary sources.
57
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Developments in Industrial Relations
Harvester employees end 172-day strike
One of the longest strikes in the history of the Auto
Workers ended when employees of International Har
vester Co. ratified a 3-year contract. Throughout the
172-day walkout, which involved 35,000 workers in
nine States, the chief issues were demands for changes
in overtime work and job transfer provisions the com
pany said were needed to reduce a labor cost imbalance
with its competitors in the farm and construction equip
ment industry.
International Harvester did not gain its demand for
the right to require employees to work overtime, but
there were some changes in the voluntary approach to
overtime. The company will be permitted to establish a
pool of volunteers who will work the overtime, if
enough regular employees refuse the work. If this pool
is not adequate, additional volunteers will be available
from a pool of laid-off employees who are not eligible
for Supplemental Unemployment Benefits or have
exhausted their benefits. The final source will be a pool
of retirees who have volunteered to perform overtime
work.
The company’s demand that employee-initiated job
transfers be limited to two a year was shifted from the
national bargaining table to the local bargainers for res
olution, resulting in some variation in the final provi
sions. Reportedly, most of the local agreements contin
ue to permit employees to make an unlimited number of
upward transfers in a year but limit the number of lat
eral and downward moves.
According to the union, the economic terms of the
national contract meet or exceed the pattern established
by the union with the International Harvester’s compet
itors, such as Deere and Co.
Continued cutbacks in steel and auto industries
The depressed state of the steel industry was reflected
in U.S. Steel Corp.’s announcement that its manage
ment employees will not receive a general salary
increase in 1980. In the letter to the employees, dis
tributed after U.S. Steel and other major basic pro
ducers settled with the Steelworkers for production
and related workers (see Monthly Labor Review, June
1980, p. 57), the company indicated that funds had
beenallocated for merit increases. The management
employees are not represented by a union. U.S. Steel,
like other steel producers, also was cutting back out
put and employment to counter the industry’s prob
lems, which, it says, stemmed from continuing
increases in steel imports and production cuts by
steel-using industries, such as construction and auto
mobile manufacturing.
The continuing decline in sales of domestically manu
58
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
factured automobiles and trucks was evident, as steel
manufacturers announced some permanent plant clos
ings as well as some short-term closings. About 300,000
workers were affected by layoffs or permanent job
losses, and about 40,000 salaried jobs were expected to
be eliminated by June. During the last sales slump, in
1974-75, fewer salaried employees were affected and
virtually all of them were recalled when the slump end
ed. The latest announcement of white-collar job termi
nations came at the end of April, when General Motors
Corp. said that it was reducing its worldwide staff of
180,000 salaried workers about 10 percent, on top of
some 2,000 jobs it had eliminated earlier. Cuts in sala
ried jobs at Ford Motor Co. had reportedly totaled
more than 6,000 in recent months and, at Chrysler
Corp., more than 15,000 white-collar employees have
been terminated since last fall.
The manufacturers also were making other moves to
reduce labor costs. Ford Motor Co. ceased granting
merit increases to its 70,000 salaried workers for at
least the balance of 1980 and also ceased contributing
to the workers’ investment plan for an indefinite peri
od. The 56,000 participants in the investment plan
were permitted to invest a portion of their salary in
Ford stock, with the company contributing 60 cents
for each dollar. For 1979, Ford’s contribution totaled
$78 million.
New contract for General Telephone employees
More than 20,000 employees of General Telephone
Co. of California are covered by a 3-year contract nego
tiated by the Communications Workers. It provides for
a wage increase of 7 percent, retroactive to the March 5
termination date of the prior contract, and for increases
of 2.5 percent in October 1980, 3 percent in March
1981, and 2.5 percent in March 1982. The agreement
also establishes a wage escalator clause providing for in
creases of up to 6 percent in October 1981 and 6.5 per
cent in October 1982, calculated at the rate of 0.7
percent for each 1-percent rise in the BLS Consumer
Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers for the Los Angeles area during the preceding
12 months.
Benefit improvements included a fifth week of paid
vacation after 25 years of service (beginning in 1982), a
12th annual paid holiday, and an increase in the annual
pension rate to 1.35 (formerly 1.3 percent) percent of
average annual preretirement earnings for each year of
credited service.
Union president Glenn E. Watts said that the agree
ment was within the 7.5- to 9.5-percent guidelines for
increases in employee compensation specified in Presi
dent Carter’s anti-inflation program. Watts, an alternate
member of the President’s Pay Advisory Committee,
earlier had said that the Communications Workers
would stay within the pay guidelines in its negotiations
with the Bell telephone system companies to replace
contracts expiring in August 1980 for more than
500,000 workers. General Telephone Co. of California is
not part of the Bell system.
Workers gain access to medical records
Another development in the continuing effort to im
prove job safety and health occurred when the Depart
ment of Labor announced a new rule giving employees
access to their on-the-job medical records. Effective Au
gust 21, employers must furnish medical records within
15 days after an employee requests them. The only in
formation that can be withheld is that regarding a ter
minal illness or mental problems; such information will
be furnished to a person chosen by the employee, who
will decide if it is in the employee’s best interest to see
it.
Employers are also required to furnish medical re
cords to unions representing the workers, if the workers
give their consent. However, OSHA investigators can
obtain the records without the prior consent of the em
ployees. Another provision of the rule requires that
medical records be kept for up to 30 years after an em
ployee stops working.
OSHA officials indicated that the new rule will not
require additional recordkeeping by employers. Eula
Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, said that the regulation fulfills a ba
sic right of workers— the right to know “what they are
working with and its effect on them,” vital information
which previously has been “locked away in employers’
files.”
Jewelry Workers to merge with Service Workers
Delegates to the Jewelry Workers triennial conven
tion voted to merge their 10,000-member union into the
Service Employees union, which currently has about
625,000 members. Jewelry Workers President Leon
Sverdlove said that the move will help in efforts to or
ganize unrepresented workers in the industry. Under the
merger, Jewelry Workers locals will retain their identity
in a new jewelry division of the Service Employees
union that will be headed by Sverdlove, who will also
become a member of the Service Employees executive
board.
In welcoming the Jewelry Workers, Service Employ
ees President George Hardy assured them that there
would be no change in the basic structure of their
union, that his union had added 50,000 members in the
past 10 years through mergers and affiliations and the
incoming groups have been strengthened while uphold
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ing their autonomy and contracts.
Pattern-setting contract for Las Vegas hotels
More than 12,000 employees of resort hotels on “The
Strip” in Las Vegas were affected by a 4-year settlement
between the Nevada Resort Association and the Hotel
and Restaurant Employees Union. The accord also was
expected to influence settlements for a similar number
of employees the union represents at other hotels in the
city.
Skilled workers, who previously earned about $55 a
shift, received a 75-cent-an-hour wage increase, retroac
tive to April 2, 70 cents in the second year, 60 cents
in the third, and 55 cents in the fourth year. Semi
skilled employees, who earned about $40 a shift, re
ceived increases of 60, 50, 40, and 40 cents an hour
on the corresponding dates. Tipped employees, who
are paid about $25 a shift by the hotels, received 40,
35, 35 and 30 cents increases. In addition, their guar
anteed tip was increased to 16 percent from 15 per
cent, in the first contract year and to 17 percent in the
second year.
Other wage provisions included a requirement that
bell captains either have at least two of the three con
cessions they formerly operated returned to them or be
paid an additional $30 a shift. The concessions are for
show reservations, tours, and car rentals.
The association agreed to permit the international
union to take over as the administrative agency for the
health and welfare fund, which the union claimed could
reduce operating costs and, thus, permit improved bene
fits.
Other changes included a 5-cent-an-hour increase (to
45 cents) in the employers’ payment into the pension
fund; a new provision permitting employees of either
sex to take a leave of absence of 90 days to 1 year to
rear an infant child; extension of sickness and accident
benefits to cover childbearing; and a ban on using lie
detectors for screening job applicants, except those who
will be bonded.
Kansas City bakery workers get new contract
The Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers ne
gotiated 2-year contracts with four Kansas City baker
ies that the union said would set a pattern for 25,000
other bakery employees in eight midwestern States.
The accords provided for a 75-cent-an-hour wage in
crease in the first year, 70 cents in the second, and 3
cents to be used for special wage adjustments or benefit
improvements.
Other provisions included accelerated progression to
top pay rates for new employees; increased employer
pension funding to permit an increase in the normal
59
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Developments in Industrial Relations
pension to $550 a month; a 2-year reduction in the ser
vice required for 4 weeks’ vacation; and an increased
employer contribution to maintain the level of health
benefits for pensioners.
The four companies involved were ITT Continental
Baking Co., Campbell-Taggert, Inc., Interstate Brands,
and American Bakeries Co.
GPO female bookbinders awarded back pay
Federal District Judge Charles R. Richey awarded an
estimated $6 million in back pay and $10 million in in
creased future earnings to 324 female bindery workers
at the Government Printing Office to settle a class ac
tion job discrimination suit initiated in 1974. Richey,
who had found the Federal facility guilty of the job dis
crimination in October 1979, held that 28 of the women
had been paid only about 70 percent of the amount re
ceived by male bookbinders, despite the fact that they
performed essentially the same operations. An attorney
for the women said that they earned about $15,000 a
year, compared with $25,000 for men. The women will
receive the difference between the amounts for each year
back to 1971.
The remaining 296 women will share an estimated $3
million that they would have earned had they not been
denied an equal opportunity to be promoted to book
binders.
Richey also awarded so-called “forward pay” to com
pensate the women for the continuing inequities in
salaries, pensions, and other benefits that resulted from
the unfair job policies. This pay will continue until 50
percent of all bookbinders positions are filled by wom
en. Currently, only one of GPO’s 106 bookbinders is a
woman.
60
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Residency requirement struck down
New York City’s efforts to require its employees to
live in the city suffered a blow when the State’s highest
court struck down the residency ordinance the city had
enacted in 1978. The Court of Appeals ruling immedi
ately applied only to the uniformed employees repre
sented by the unions that had initiated the suit but city
officials were studying the possibility that the principle
might extend to nonuniformed employees. There was no
immediate impact on the city’s employees because the
city had agreed not to enforce the ordinance pending
the outcome of the court tests.
In a unanimous ruling, the court held, “While the
structure and control of the municipal service depart
ments in issue here may be considered of local concern
within the meaning of municipal home rule, the resi
dence of their members, unrelated to job performance or
departmental organization, is a matter of statewide con
cern not subject to municipal home rule.” More speci
fically, the court said that the ordinance was inconsis
tent with parts of the State’s Public Officers Law, which
prohibits residency requirements for firefighters and cor
rections officers in cities of a million or more popula
tion, of police officers in departments of 200 officers or
more, and sanitation workers in cities of any size.
Mayor Edward Koch indicated that he would ask the
State Legislature to pass a law allowing such a local re
quirement. The city had unsuccessfully sought such a
State law a number of times before enacting the residen
cy ordinance. No other city in New York State has a
residency law. Elsewhere in the Nation, residency re
quirements have been adopted by a number of cities, in
cluding Houston, San Francisco, Chicago, and by
Washington, D.C.
□
Book Reviews
Nice protection if you can get it
Facing Mechanization: The West Coast Longshore Plan.
By Lincoln Fairley. Los Angeles, University of
California, Institute of Industrial Relations, 1979.
447 pp. (Monograph Series, 23.) $8.50, paper.
Twenty years have passed since the much-heralded
mechanization and modernization agreement was nego
tiated by the Pacific Maritime Association and the inde
pendent International Longshoremen’s and Warehouse
men’s Union covering Pacific Coast longshore opera
tions. This was a major cynosure coming as it did in a
climate in which work rules were active issues also in
east coast longshoring, in railroads, meatpacking, and
in steel among other leading bargaining situations. The
personalities and backgrounds of the leading protago
nists and the history of west coast longshore labor rela
tions added to the attention given to the maritime
agreement. There was Harry Bridges, long-time presi
dent of the ILWU, with his left-wing background, and
his leadership of the union through the initial period of
virtual internecine warfare with stevedores over work
rules, which culminated in what was touted as the “new
look” in the labor-management relationship. It re
mained for Paul St. Sure, negotiating for almost a de
cade on behalf of the Pacific Maritime Association, with
Bridges, to turn the new look from a standoff relation
ship, to one which is regarded as innovative and pattern
setting.
It is the long, tortuous, and delicate foundation lay
ing for the M and M agreement, together with the
metamorphoses of the agreement, that Lincoln Fairley
treats in this study. That it is an admirable narrative
analysis is due to Fairley’s long service, from 1946 to
1967, as research director of the International Long
shoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union; his analytical
abilities and background; and his subsequent service as
an area arbitrator under the agreement by appointment
of both the association and the union. Fairley had am
ple association with and understanding of the factors
involved in the preparations for and modification of the
M and M plan. Fairley does not claim to have been in
volved in deliberations which took place at the leader
ship levels, notably involving Bridges and St. Sure
directly; rather it is clear that his evaluation is that of
an observer.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Fairley takes us through the background and struc
ture of the west coast relationship. Underlying the abili
ty to achieve agreement was the coastwide organization
of employers and the International Longshoremen’s and
Warehousemen’s Union as well as the joint control of
the longshore labor force through the dispatch halls in
each of the ports. The hiring halls assured a balance be
tween labor supply and demand, with relative equality
in longshoremen’s earnings and equitable labor distribu
tion among ship operators and stevedores, as basic op
erational features. In the fifties, the prewar legalistic ap
proach to contract enforcement was carefully avoided,
and expressed employer dissatisfaction with restrictive
work rules in the ports was approached through con
tinuing discussions.
In the union, the periodic coast wide caucuses of dele
gates representing the union locals played an integral
role in the educative process, with full and frank study
of the impact of mechanization and of the likely delete
rious effect of adhering to the former union policy of re
fusing to alter work rules. Mutual agreement in 1959
that none of the registered workforce would be laid off
made possible the agreement in 1960 for basically a
“buy-out” of the restrictive provisions, with reductions
in gang size and increased flexibility in worker use.
Funds were set up to encourage early retirement and to
guarantee 35 hours work or pay per week. The former
was effective; the latter was not required and was
dropped in 1966. The success of the first contract re
sulted in renewal with substantial wage increases.
As Fairley points out, it was during the renewal peri
od of the M and M agreement, from 1966 to 1971, that
a combination of unanticipated factors led to dissatis
faction. Despite the substantial increase in earnings un
der the 1966 agreement, these were eroded by the
unanticipated rise in living costs from 1968 on. The an
nual hours worked by the “A” men fell off, with the
decline in shipments to Southeast Asia, and the
unexpected explosive effect of the container revolution.
The work or pay guarantee was restored. An effort to
retain some of the lost work opportunities by agreement
to have containers loaded at waterfront container
freight stations, under jurisdiction of the International
Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, proved to
be abortive in the face of Teamster jurisdiction and de
cisions by the National Labor Relations Board.
61
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Book Renews
There is a continuous questing approach throughout
Fairley’s intensive analysis of this adaptation of the
modernization of maritime transport. All of the criti
cisms leveled against the union acceptance of the
change are set out. He cites the great gains made in
productivity and labor-cost savings which accrued to
shippers, ship operators, and stevedores. The continuing
undercurrent of skepticism and actual opposition of sec
ondary union officials and substantial minorities of
rank-and-file union members, as expressed in the voting
on the agreements, are detailed. Cited are the views of
Marxists that the agreement was class collaborationist,
betraying the union’s apparent left-wing orientation.
Cited at several points is the view that the west coast
union should have held out for protection of the role of
the gang, as had the east coast International Long
shoremen’s Association. Acceptance of technology, in
the view of some critics, has made for alienation in
work relationships, through growing routinization of
the longshoremen’s work, displacement of gangs, and
growing “steady” work.
While stress is placed on the contrasting east coast
resistance to the manning and work rule concessions,
there is insufficient treatment of the contrasting institu
tional and structural labor-management relations on the
two coasts. Rather submerged is explanation of the
decentralized bargaining structure on the east coast, the
difference in waterfront jurisdiction on the two coasts,
and hardly treated at all are the divergent approaches
to job security. As this reviewer has pointed out, the
International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s
Union apparently did not emphasize the role of the
gang because sufficient job security was achieved
through the dispatch hall, with equalization of earnings
and assurance of employment for registered long
shoremen. On the east coast, in the absence of dispatch
halls, the regular gangs provided the persistent and ba
sic avenues for job security and earnings. Fairley con
cludes that institutional differences probably accounted
for the apparently divergent policies. (“Longshoremen
and the Modernization of Cargo Handling in the Unit
ed States,” International Labor Review, March 1973,
pp. 272-74.)
Fairley finds the 20-year developments advantageous
to the union and its members, although he apparently is
unwilling to concede completely that there could not
have been a more deliberate and gradual yielding of the
work rules. While the registered longshore workforce
and man-hours worked have declined by 40 percent
since 1960, the longshore hourly rate has increased
fourfold with earnings averaging $26,000 to $30,000 per
year for registered longshoremen. He points out that
even the older men tend to welcome the elimination of
the former back-breaking work, and enjoy operating the
new machines. Even with the work or pay guarantee,
62
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
they continue to have the contractual right to work
onl) when they please, and to go hunting and fishing
when they want to. The young men in the southern
ports, who have not experienced the early issues and
battles of the union, are more concerned about wages.
Thus, in contrast to the rank-and-file opposition in the
thirties to “steady” work for single employees, the
younger men are prepared to accept such work now re
quired for the operation of complex and costly machin
ery. Fairley concludes that: “ . . . though membership
has declined, no one has been laid off, earnings have ris
en, and with a wage guarantee and a good pension plan
west coast longshoremen continue to enjoy a unique de
gree of lifetime security.”
In summary, the labor-management adjustments to
maritime industry modernization mean that, so long as
the volume of cargo handled grows in the United
States, the longshoring occupation will continue to be
in the forefront of regular and well-paid occupations in
sharp contrast to the casual employment offered in this
industry hardly 50 years ago.
— Joseph P. G oldberg
Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Working women on the rise? Yes and no
The Subtle Revolution: Women At Work. Edited by
Ralph E. Smith. Washington, The Urban Institute,
1979. 255 pp. $7.50, paper.
The rapid growth of the female labor force— and the
expectation that this growth will continue to mushroom
as we look towards the 1990’s— has created the need
for a comprehensive analysis of women at work. The
Subtle Revolution, edited by Ralph E. Smith, appears to
be the most ambitious effort so far to provide historical
analyses and long-range projections. And because it is
the intent of the volume’s six authors to make a signifi
cant impact on public policy, the ambitiousness of the
work is both its strength and its weakness.
Over the past 30 years, 6 out of 10 additions to the
workplace have been female and it is estimated one mil
lion women will be entering the work force each year in
the 1980’s. But despite some gains in certain areas, the
ratio of women’s earnings to men’s has actually
dropped from about 63 percent in the mid-1950’s to be
low 60 percent in the mid-1960’s and 1970’s. This alone
demonstrates the importance of a volume that analyzes
the effects of women’s employment on the family struc
ture, the workplace, and the tax and social security sys
tems, and examines the many myths that keep women’s
pay so far below men’s.
For example, studies included in this book indicate
clearly that most women work because they have to, al-
though inflation— unfortunately relegated to a lesser
role because of the long-range nature of the study— of
ten blurs the line between choice and need. Women’s
workplace commitment, the authors show, is compara
ble to men’s, although because many women’s jobs are
dead end and low-paying, women’s commitment toward
individual jobs may be less. And myths and early stud
ies that indicate damage to marriages or to the children
of working women are carefully examined and con
tradicted.
Also examined closely are what the authors consider
the inequities facing the growing army of female second
earners from the Federal income tax system and the so
cial security system. Their recommendations are some
what controversial—measures to ease the marriage tax
penalty and earnings-sharing in social security— but
they can provide a framework for significant policy de
bate.
In one major area, however, the authors’ analysis and
conclusions are likely instead to distort discussion on a
fundamental question— the pay gap between men and
women and how to narrow it. In her study, Nancy
Barrett correctly identifies occupational segregation as
the main obstacle to narrowing the pay gap. But her
basic conclusion is that the chief way to narrow it is for
women to “increase their representation in jobs former
ly dominated by men’’ and to move into “more respon
sible jobs with good pay.”
This ignores high unemployment in many fields
considered “nontraditional” for women and further con
signs the jobs held by the majority of women—clerical,
service, health— to unimportance. One of the most
significant current efforts in relation to women in the
workplace is research into comparable worth— analysis
of jobs in terms of various factors rather than tradition
al market value— to determine their worth. Pioneering
in these efforts are labor unions that represent women
officeworkers, particularly in the public sector. This
book contains not one word about upgrading the pay of
“women’s-type” jobs, and there are only two para
graphs that discuss unions.
Women workers currently constitute 23.5 percent of
all union membership, and approximately 17 percent of
the female work force is covered by a collective
bargaining agreement. This can be a major avenue for
upgrading women’s pay and other conditions of em
ployment; women in unions make significantly more
than nonunion women. Unions such as the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
have pioneered comparable worth studies across the
Nation. The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Ameri
ca has instituted child-care centers for employees. A
number of unions sponsor training programs to help
break down obstacles to promotions many women
workers face. By ignoring these developments, the book
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
obscures a major avenue for improvement of the pay
and jobs that are largely held and will continue to be
held by women.
However, The Subtle Revolution does provide a useful
and comprehensive compilation of data and analysis.
But because its historical perspective and long-range ap
proach do not take into account a number of current
economic trends and situations, some of its conclusions
and recommendations should be examined carefully in
terms of immediate public policy.
— Ju d y
Ba s t o n
Public Affairs Coordinator
American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees
Economic portrait of China
China ’s Economy: A Basic Guide. By Christopher Howe.
New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1978. 248 pp., appen
dix. $16 cloth; $4.95, paper.
Recognition of the People’s Republic of China last
year did for Americans of this generation what Marco
Polo did centuries earlier for Europeans—it opened
trade, economic exchange, and tourism between the
United States and China. It also made Americans in
creasingly interested in the basic economic facts of one
of the largest land masses in the world under a single
government and a country with the largest population.
Economic data on the People’s Republic of China has
been almost nonexistent from 1960 to 197 U and
sketchy after 1971. Christopher Howe fills part of this
gap by presenting a chronology of events in China, as
well as tables and text on the current status of Chinese
resources. Among the valuable appendixes are bio
graphical notes on persons frequently referred to in lit
erature on the Chinese economy, Chinese measures and
Western equivalents, and how to find out about and
keep up with economic developments in China.
The author makes the point that Chinese leaders have
had a continuous struggle with problems of food and
population. At the international level, China now shares
with other developing countries a growing preoccupa
tion with raw material prices, the working of interna
tional economic institutions, and the general problems
of world economic order.
Howe writes that in 1949 the Chinese economy re
flected two fundamental developments: a crisis in the
long-term relationship between the growth of popula
tion and the growth of the food supply and the begin
ning of industrialization that started during the First
World War. Much of the economic dislocation and lack
of investment in China was due to war. From 1927, the
Chinese were fighting a civil war and from 1937, they
63
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Book Reviews
were fighting the Japanese, according to Howe.
China’s development since 1949 has been uneven. The
first phase lasted from 1949 to 1952. The Communist
Party took control of the monetary, fiscal, and trade
systems and implemented a land reform. The latter was
a traumatic event which eliminated the political and
economic power of the landlords and distributed land
and other assets to the rural population.
Howe labels the four phases of development since
1952 as (1) the periods of fastest growth (1952-59); (2)
the Great Depression (1959-61); (3) readjustment and
the Cultural Revolution (1961-70); and (4) the revival
of growth with trade (1970-77).
The First Five-Year Plan (1953-57) raised by about
20 percent the share of the nation’s resources to be in
vested and proposed that these resources be used for
the development of heavy industry.
The Plan’s impact on agricultural collectivism was
dramatic. By March 1956, more than 90 percent of all
the Chinese peasants were in cooperatives and by 1957,
virtually all were in the 680,000 more sophisticated co
operatives. Thus, a revolution planned to take 15 years
was over in little more than 1 year, says Howe.
But the results were not satisfactory. Growth of agri
culture was still too slow. Growth of urban employ
ment was slow. Relations with the Soviet Union (upon
which industrial assistance depended) were worsening.
This crisis led Chairman Mao (who dominated China’s
political life from the 1930’s to his death) to launch the
most extraordinary economic adventure the world has
ever seen— the Great Leap Forward of 1958. It embod
ied changes in ownership and organization combined
with a radical psychological transformation that would
stimulate people to work more intensively, more cre
atively, more selflessly.
As the Leap went on into 1959, administrative confu
sion deepened and the consequences of strain, of the
misuse of resources, and of sheer human exhaustion be
came increasingly serious. When the end came, it coin
cided with the withdrawal of Soviet assistance and a
succession of natural disasters.
From 1962 to 1965, China’s economic position im
proved. However, Howe points out that the political sit
uation remained difficult. Mao believed the retreat from
the Leap had led to corruption— to selfish, anti-Socialist economic behavior, and to the entrenchment of his
enemies in the bureaucracy. By mid-1966, the revival of
the economy finally made it possible for Mao to launch
a campaign against his enemies. Thus, unlike his Leap,
Mao’s Cultural Revolution was not launched to remedy
economic problems. It was mainly a political struggle.
In the 1970’s, claims Howe, the Chinese economy re
awoke after years of isolation. Chou En-lai, prime min
ister and a power in economic matters, died in April
1976. Mao died in September 1976, and his death was
64
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
followed immediately by signs of a decisive new phase
of economic policy. The critics of Chou’s program were
identified as the “Gang of Four” and included Mao’s
widow. Howe says that the disgrace of the Gang has
been very important because it has been possible to
blame them for many of China’s economic troubles.
Howe indicates that the 1953 census was the first
count in China to approach modern standards of enu
meration. It was undertaken because information about
the population was needed for preparation of the First
Five Year Plan. The Chinese population is a young one,
Howe points out. The bulk of it is of working age (15
to 64). The number of trained or educated workers
grew very rapidly between the 1950’s and the early
1960’s.
The basic sectors of the Chinese economic system are
producers, consumers, and the government. The “pro
ducers” are mainly industrial enterprises, people’s com
munes, and other collectively organized units. The State
owns nearly all industrial organizations with significant
capital equipment. A collective sector (collective units
are owned by their workers) employs over a third of all
industrial workers and produces 14 percent of total out
put. In agriculture, approximately 90 percent of culti
vated land and irrigation equipment is collectively
owned, mainly by “teams” which often correspond to
villages.
China's Economy draws on standard Chinese, Japa
nese, U.S., and English sources and on documents as
well as on firsthand observations and interviews. It is
the best up-to-date survey of the Chinese economy now
in print with an analysis of agriculture, industry, foreign
trade, population, and incomes for the nonspecialist
reader.
— M
ary
Ellen A yres
Office of Publications
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Publications received
Agriculture and natural resources
Brown, Michael H., Laying Waste: The
Poisoning o f America
by Toxic Chemicals. New York, Pantheon Books, 1980,
351 pp. $11.95.
Burt, Oscar R., Won W. Koo, Norman J. Dudley, “Optimal
Stochastic Control of U.S. Wheat Stocks and Exports,”
American Journal o f Agricultural Economics, May 1980,
pp. 172-87.
Sant, Roger W„ “Coming Markets for Energy Services,” Har
vard Business Review, May-June 1980, beginning on p. 6.
Economic and social statistics
Duncan, Joseph W., “Recent Developments in Reorganization
of Statistical Policy,” Statistical Reporter, April 1980, pp.
157-67.
Fellegi, Ivan P., “Data, Statistics, Information—Some Issues
of the Canadian Statistics Scene,” Statistical Reporter,
April 1980, pp. 168-81.
Greenhut, John, M. L. Greenhut, Sheng-yung Li, “Spatial
Pricing Patterns in the United States,” The Quarterly
Journal o f Economics, March 1980, pp. 329-50.
Konda, Suresh L. and Shelby Stewman, “An Opportunity La
bor Demand Model and Markovian Labor Supply Mod
els: Comparative Tests in an Organization,” American
Sociological Review, April 1980, pp. 276-301.
Kushner, Harvey W. and Gerald De Maio, Understanding Ba
sic Statistics. San Francisco, Holden-Day, Inc., 1980, 381
pp. $12.95.
Reynaud, Jean-Daniel, “Industrial Relations and Political
Systems: Some Reflections on the Crisis in Industrial Re
lations in Western Europe,” British Journal o f Industrial
Relations, March 1980, pp. 1-13.
Rosen, Gerald E., “Labor Law Reform: Dead or Alive?”
Journal o f Urban Law, University of Detroit, Fall 1979,
pp. 1-40.
Shalev, Michael, “Industrial Relations Theory and the Com
parative Study of Industrial Relations and Industrial
Conflict,” British Journal o f Industrial Relations, March
1980, pp. 26-43.
The Rockefeller Foundation, Bakke, Weber, and Affirmative
Economic growth and development
251 pp.
“U.S. Workers and Their Unions, 1959-1979,” The AFL-CIO
American Federationist, March 1980, pp. 5-8.
Wagner, David and Marcia B. Cohen, “Labor’s Political Ac
tion in the 1930’s and 1940’s,” Labor Center Review,
Fall-Winter 1980, pp. 8-23.
Castells, Manuel, The Economic Crisis and American Society.
Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1980, 285 pp.
$20, cloth; $7.50, paper.
McGranahan, David A., “The Spatial Structure of Income
Distribution in Rural Regions,” American Sociological
Review, April 1980, pp. 313-24.
Ratner, Sidney, James H. Soltow, Richard Sylla, The Evolu
tion o f the American Economy: Growth, Welfare, and D e
cision Making. New York, Basic Books, Inc., Publishers,
1979, 548 pp. $18.50.
Tolbert, Charles, Patrick M. Horan, E. M. Beck, “The Struc
ture of Economic Segmentation: A Dual Economy Ap
proach,” American Journal o f Sociology, March 1980, pp.
1095-1116.
Industrial relations
Anton, Frank R., Worker Participation: Prescription fo r Indus
trial Change. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Detselig Enter
prises Limited, 1980, 135 pp., bibliography. $5.95, paper.
Bohlander, George W., “Fair Representation: Not Just a
Union Problem,” The Personnel Administrator, March
1980, beginning on p. 36.
Great Britain, Department of Employment, “Strikers’ Occupa
tions: An Analysis,” by Stephen Creigh and Peter
Makeham, Employment Gazette, March 1980, pp. 23739.
Kamer, Gregory J., “Employee Participation in Settlement
Negotiations and Proceedings Before the OSHRC,” L a
bor Law Journal, April 1980, pp. 208-22.
Marmo, Michael, “Arbitrating Sex Harassment Cases,” The
Arbitration Journal, March 1980, pp. 35-40.
Marovich, Joseph M., “The Applicability of the AttorneyWitness Rule to Labor Arbitration,” The Arbitration
Journal, March 1980, pp. 41-51.
Martin, James E., “A Framework for Analyzing Public-Sector
Union-Management Relations: An Exploration with Six
Cases,” Quarterly Review o f Economics and Business,
Spring 1980, pp. 49-62.
Minarcini, Joanne G., “Illegal Aliens: Employment Restric
tions and Responses,” The Personnel Administrator,
March 1980, pp. 71-78.
Rand, James E., “Creative Problem-Solving Applied to Grievance/Arbitration Procedures,” The Personnel Administra
tor, March 1980, pp. 50-52.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Action: A Rockefeller Foundation Conference Held July 12
-1 3 , 1979. New York, The Rockefeller Foundation, 1979,
Westin, Alan F., “What Should Be Done About Employee
Privacy?” The Personnel Administrator, March 1980, pp.
27-30.
Industry and government organization
America, Richard F., “How Minority Business Can Build on
Its Strength,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1980,
pp. 116-21.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, M a
jo r Regulatory Initiatives During 1979: The Agencies, the
Courts, the Congress. Washington, 1980, 46 pp. (AEI Spe
cial Analysis, 80-2.) $3.75, paper.
Holtz, Herman, The $100 Billion Market: How to Do Business
With the U.S. Government. New York, AMACOM, A di
vision of American Management Associations, 1980, 272
pp.
Toffler, Alvin, “The Third Wave: The Corporate Identity Cri
sis,” Management Review, May 1980, pp. 8-17.
“Twenty-Five Years of Change in the Fortune 500,” by Linda
Snyder Hayes; “The Year There Was No Inflation,” by
Daniel Seligman; “Veterans Who Make the 500 Run,” by
Andrew C. Brown, Fortune, May 5, 1980, beginning on
p. 88.
International economics
Adkins, Lynn, “Recycling OPEC’s Surplus,” Dun's Review,
May 1980, pp. 100-02.
Burton, David, “Expectations and a Small Open Economy
with a Flexible Exchange Rate,” The Canadian Journal
o f Economics, February 1980, pp. 1-15.
Driskill, Robert and Stephen McCafferty, “Speculation, Ra
tional Expectations, and Stability of the Foreign Ex
change Market,” Journal o f International Economics, Feb
ruary 1980, pp. 91-102.
Fapohunda, Olanrewaju J., “Urbanisation and Employment in
Developing Countries: The Role of the Informal Sector,”
Labour and Society, Quarterly Journal of The Institute
for Labour Studies, January 1980, pp. 31-48.
Gladstone, Alan, “Trade Unions, Growth and Development,”
Labour and Society, Quarterly Journal of the Internation-
65
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Book Reviews
al Institute for Labour Studies, January 1980, pp. 49-68.
Great Britain, National Institute of Economic and Social Re
search, “The Economic Situation,” National Institute Eco
nomic Review, February 1980, pp. 8-77.
Jabara, Cathy L. and Robert L. Thompson, “Agricultural
Comparative Advantage Under International Price Un
certainty: The Case of Senegal,” American Journal o f Ag
ricultural Economics, May 1980, pp. 188-98.
Koizumi, Tetsunori and Kenneth J. Kopecky, “Foreign Direct
Investment, Technology Transfer and Domestic Employ
ment Effects,” Journal o f International Economics, Febru
ary 1980, pp. 1-20.
Soffan, Linda U., “The Role of Women in the Economy of
the United Arab Emirates,” Labour and Society, Quarter
ly Journal of the International Institute for Labour Stud
ies, January 1980, pp. 3-17.
“Special Report, World Economic Outlook: Pt. I, Synchro-,
nous Slump in the West; Pt. II, Socialist Nations Have
Economic Troubles, Too,” Business Week, beginning on
p. 70.
“The World of Islam,” Current History, April 1980, pp. 145—
86.
Thursby, Marie C., “The Resource Reallocation Costs of
Fixed and Flexible Exchange Rates,” Journal o f Interna
tional Economics, February 1980, pp. 79-90.
U.S. Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Country Labor
Profile: Canada (by Franz Groemping, 8 pp.); Kenya (by
Ronald A. Watts, 8 pp.); Malaysia (by Donald S. Harris,
6 pp.); Nigeria (by Donald S. Harris and Badru I. O.
Rabiu, 8 pp.), Washington, U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 1980, 60 cents
each, Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402.
By
William James Knight. Washington, U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 1980, 36
pp. (Monograph, 4.) Stock No. 029-000-00395-5. $2.50,
Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402.
----------- The World's Exploited Children: Growing Up Sadly.
Labor force
Berman, Eleanor, Re-entering: Successful Back-to-Work Strate
gies fo r Women Seeking a Fresh Start. New York, Crown
Publishers, Inc., 1980, 179 pp. $8.95.
Carliner, Geoffrey, Christopher Robinson, Nigel Tomes, “Fe
male Labour Supply and Fertility in Canada,” The Cana
dian Journal o f Economics, February 1980, pp. 46-64.
Coelho, Richard J., “A Severe Employment Handicap: A
Criminal Record,” Journal o f Employment Counseling,
March 1980, pp. 75-80.
Fogel, Walter, ed., “Immigration Issues in an Era of Un
sanctioned Migration: A Symposium,” Industrial and L a
bor Relations Review, April 1980, pp. 295-354.
Freeman, Richard B. and David A. Wise, Youth Unemploy
ment: NBER Summ ary Report. Cambridge, Mass.,
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1980, 24
pp.
Great Britain, Department of Employment, “The Anatomy of
Youth Unemployment,” by Peter Makeham, Employment
Gazette, March 1980, pp. 234-36.
Greenberg, Edward S., “Participation in Industrial Decision
66
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Making and Work Satisfaction: The Case of Producer
Cooperatives,” Social Science Quarterly, March 1980, pp.
551-69.
Jacobson, Carolyn J., “New Challenges for Women Workers,”
The AFL-CIO American Federationist, April 1980, pp. 18.
James, Dilmus D., James H. Street, Allen D. Jedlicka, “Issues
in Indigenous Research and Development in Third World
Countries,” Social Science Quarterly, March 1980, pp.
588-603.
Presser, Harriet B. and Wendy Baldwin, “Child Care as a
Constraint on Employment: Prevalence, Correlates, and
Bearing on the Work and Fertility Nexus,” American
Journal o f Sociology," March 1980, pp. 1202-13.
Sandell, Steven H., “Job Search by Unemployed Women: De
terminants of the Asking Wage,” Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, April 1980, pp. 368-78.
Scharf, Lois, To Work and to Wed: Female Employment, Fem
inism, and the Great Depression. Westport, Conn., Green
wood Press, 1980, 240 pp. (Contributions in Women’s
Studies, 15.) $18.95.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Measuring Labor Force Move
ments: A New Approach. By Alan Eck. Washington, 1980,
24 pp. (Report 581.)
Warner, John T., J. Carl Poindexter, Jr., Robert M. Fearn,
“Employer-Employee Interaction and the Duration of
Unemployment,” The Quarterly Journal o f Economics,
March 1980, pp. 211-33.
Management and organization theory
Baskin, Otis W. and Craig E. Arnoff, Interpersonal Communi
cation in Organizations. Santa Monica, Calif., Goodyear
Publishing Co., Inc., 1980, 173 pp.
Dailey, Charles A. and Ann M. Madsen, How to Evaluate
People in Business: The Track-Record M ethod o f M aking
Correct Judgments. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1980, 225 pp., bibliography. $12.95.
Gardner, James E., Training the New Supervisor. New York,
AMACOM, A division of American Management Asso
ciations, 1980, 192 pp. $14.95.
Griffith, Albert R., “Career Development: What Organiza
tions Are Doing About It,” Personnel, March-April
1980, pp. 63-69.
Hunt, Bridgford, “Managers of Change: Why They Are in
Demand,” S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Winter
1980, pp. 40-44.
Jackson, Lauren Hite and Mark C. Mindell, “Motivating the
New Breed,” Personnel, March-April 1980, pp. 53-61.
Jain, Hem C, “Worker Participation: Lessons from the Euro
pean Experience,” Management Review, May 1980, pp.
46-52.
Koehn, Hank, “Conference Report: Work, Aging and Retire
ment,” Personnel Journal, May 1980, pp. 359-62.
Koontz, Harold, “The Management Theory Jungle Revisit
ed,” Academy o f Management Review, April 1980, pp.
175-87.
Kuzmits, Frank E., “How Good Is Your Absenteeism Con
trol System?” S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal,
Winter 1980, pp. 4-15.
Larson, Steven H., “The Behavioral Side of Productive Meet
ings,” P erso n n el Jou rn al, April 1980, pp. 292-95.
Mode, V. Alan, “System Dynamics: A Tool for Manage
ment,” M a n a g e m e n t R eview , May 1980, pp. 18-22.
Munson, Lawrence S., “Performance Standards: Do Training
Directors Practice What They Teach?” P erso n n el Jou rn al,
May 1980, pp. 365-67.
Nieva, Veronica F. and Barbara A. Gutek, “Sex Effects on
Evaluation,” A c a d e m y o f M a n a g e m e n t R eview , April
1980, pp. 267-76.
Osgood, William R., B asics o f S u cc e ssfu l B u sin ess P lan ning.
New York, AMACOM, A division of American Manage
ment Associations, 1980, 252 pp. $21.95.
Unni, V. K., “Action Learning: On-the-Job Training for the
Top Manager of the Future,” S .A .M . A d v a n c e d M a n a g e
m e n t Jou rn al, Winter 1980, pp. 28-34.
Weed, Stanley E. and Terence R. Mitchell, “The Role of En
vironmental and Behavioral Uncertainty as a Mediator of
Situation-Performance Relationships,” A c a d e m y o f M a n
a g e m e n t Jou rn al, March 1980, pp. 38-60.
Wolf, William B.,ed., Top M a n a g e m e n t o f th e P erso n n el F u n c
tion: C u rre n t Issu es a n d P ractices. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell
University, New York State School of Industrial and La
bor Relations, 1980, 76 pp. $8.95, cloth; $5.95, paper.
Zeldman, Maurice I., “How Management Can Develop and
Sustain a Creative Environment,” S .A .M . A d v a n c e d M a n
a g e m e n t Jou rn al, Winter 1980, pp. 23-27.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey and John Lawler, “Effects of Job Alternatives,
Extrinsic Rewards, and Behavioral Commitment on Atti
tude toward the Organization: A Field Test of the Insuf
ficient Justification Paradigm,” A d m in is tra tiv e S cien ce
Q u a rterly, March 1980, pp. 38-56.
Potter, Beverly A., T u rn in g A ro u n d : T he B e h a v io ra l A pproach
to M a n a g in g P eople. New York, AMACOM, A division
of American Management Associations, 1980, 266 pp.
$15.95.
Ballentine, J. Gregory and Charles E. McLure, Jr., “Taxation
and Corporate Financial Policy,” T h e Q u a rterly J o u r n a l
o f E con om ics, March 1980, pp. 351-72.
Great Britain, National Institute of Economic and Social Re
search, “Some Issues of Monetary Policy,” by David Sav
age, N a tio n a l In s titu te E c o n o m ic R eview , February 1980,
pp. 78-85.
Poza, Ernesto J. and M. Lynn Markus, “Success Story: The
Team Approach to Work Restructuring,” O r g a n iza tio n a l
D y n a m ics, Winter 1980, pp. 2-25.
McLure, Charles E., Jr., M u s t C orp o ra te I n c o m e B e T a x e d
T w ice? Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1979, 262
pp. $11.95, cloth; $4.95, paper.
Ranson, Stewart, Bob Hinings, Royston Greenwood, “The
Structuring of Organizational Structures,” A d m in is tra tiv e
S cien ce Q u a rterly, March 1980, pp. 1-17.
Rostain, Hana, Peter Allan, Stephen Rosenberg, “New York
City’s Approach to Problem-Employee Counseling,” P er
so n n e l J o u rn al, April 1980, beginning on p. 305.
Runcie, John F., “By Days I Make the Cars,” H a r v a r d B u si
n ess R eview , May-June 1980, pp. 106-15.
Tsiang, S. C., “Keynes’s ‘Finance’ Demand for Liquidity,
Robertson’s Loanable Funds Theory, and Friedman’s
Monetarism,” T he Q u a rterly J o u r n a l o f E con om ics, May
1980, pp. 467-91.
Sassman, Thomas C., “Postretirement Increase Plans: Why
You Need Them and How to Pick the Right One,” P er
so n n e l Jou rn a l, April 1980, pp. 285-91.
Sheldon, Alan, “Organizational Paradigms: A Theory of Or
ganizational Change,” O rg a n iza tio n a l D yn a m ics, Winter
1980, pp. 61-80.
Siegel, Irving H., C o m p a n y P ro d u c tiv ity : M e a su re m e n t f o r I m
p ro v e m e n t. Kalamazoo, Mich., The W. E. Upjohn Insti
tute for Employment Research, 1980, 88 pp. $3.50,
paper.
Stockard, James G., R e th in k in g P eople M a n a g e m e n t: A N e w
L o o k a t th e H u m a n R eso u rces F un ction. New York,
AMACOM, A division of American Management Asso
ciations, 1980, 225 pp. $14.95.
Sundstrom, Eric, Robert E. Burt, Douglas Kamp, “Privacy at
Work: Architectural Correlates of Job Satisfaction and
Job Performance,” A c a d e m y o f M a n a g e m e n t Jou rn al,
March 1980, pp. 101-17.
Teel, Kenneth S., “Performance Appraisal: Current Trends,
Persistent Progress,” P erso n n el Jou rn al, April 1980, be
ginning on p. 296.
Monetary and fiscal policy
Prices and living conditions
Foss, Murray, “Measuring the Rate of Inflation,”
E co n o m ist, April 1980, pp. 4-8.
The A E I
Philips, Louis, “Intertemporal Price Discrimination and Sticky
Prices,” T h e Q u a rte r ly J o u r n a l o f E con om ics, May 1980,
pp. 525-42.
Rosen, Gerald R., “The CPI Controversy,” D u n 's R eview ,
May 1980,'beginning on p. 54.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, C P I Issues. By Janet L. Nor
wood. Washington, 1980, 12 pp. (Report 593.)
Productivity and technological change
Hatry, Harry P. and others,
E fficien cy M e a su re m e n t f o r L o c a l
G o v ern m e n t S e rv ice s— S o m e I n itia l S u ggestion s. Washing
ton, The Urban Institute, 1979, 204 pp. (URI, 27700.)
$6.50.
Kendrick, John W. and Elliot S. Grossman, P ro d u c tiv ity in th e
U n ite d S ta tes: T ren d s a n d C ycles. Baltimore, The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1980, 172 pp., bibliography.
$14.95.
Rosenberg, Richard D. and Eliezer Rosenstein, “Participation
and Productivity: An Empirical Study,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d
L a b o r R e la tio n s R eview , April 1980, pp. 355-67.
Social institutions and social change
Thomas, William C., “A Career Development Program That
Works,” M a n a g e m e n t R eview , May 1980, pp. 38-40.
Sandmaier, Marian,
University of Chicago, A n n u a l R eport, 1979. Chicago, Univer
sity of Chicago, Human Resources Center, 1980, 20 pp.
Co., 1980, 298 pp. $12.95.
Shields, Dorothy, “The American Family: Children in Trou-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T he In visib le A lcoh olics: W om en a n d A lc o
h o l A b u se in A m erica . New York, McGraw-Hill Book
67
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 •
B o o k R eview s
ble,” The AFL-CIO American Federationist, April 1980,
pp. 15-18.
“The American Family: Labor’s View,” The AFL-CIO Ameri
can Federationist, April 1980, pp. 9-14.
The Canadian Journey: Rivers o f Memory, River o f Dreams.
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, The Seagram Co., Ltd., 1980,
34 pp.
Williams, James D., ed., The State o f Black America 1980.
New York, National Urban League, Inc., 1980, 279 pp.
$12.50.
Wynne, Edward A., “Youth Attitudes: Some Disturbing
Trends,” The AFL-CIO American Federationist, April
1980, pp. 19-22.
Wages and compensation
Bosworth, D. L. and P. J. Dawkins, “Compensation for
Workers’ Disutility: Time of Day, Length of Shift and
Other Features of Work Patterns,” Scottish Journal o f Po
litical Economy, February 1980, pp. 80-96.
Parsley, C. J., “Labor Union Effects on Wage Gains: A Sur
vey of Recent Literature,” Journal o f Economic Litera
ture, March 1980, pp. 1-31.
Scarth, William M. and Anthony Myatt, “The Real WageEmployment Relationship,” The Economic Journal,
March 1980, pp. 85-94.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wage Chronology: Dan River
Inc., and the Textile Workers (UTWA), 19 4 3 - 79. Wash
ington, 1980, 14 pp. (Bulletin 2048.) Stock No.
029-001-02439-8. $1.50, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
----------- Wage Differences Among Large City Governments and
Comparisons with Industry and Federal Pay, 1977- 78.
Washington, 1980, 10 pp. (Report 596.)
U.S. Employment and Training Administration, Financing
America's Unemployment Compensation Program. (Pre
pared by Donald L. Diefenbach.) Washington, U.S. De
partment of Labor, Employment and Training Adminis
tration, 1979, 115 pp. (Unemployment Insurance
Technical Staff Paper 4.)
Welfare programs and social insurance
Krogman, Robert, “Help for Small Pension-Plan Sponsors,”
Management Review, March 1980, pp. 25-28.
Leman, Christopher, The Collapse o f Welfare Reform: Political
Institutions, Policy, and the Poor in Canada and the Unit
ed States. Cambridge, The Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 1980, 292 pp. $19.95, The MIT Press, Cam
bridge, Mass.
Macarov, David, Work and Welfare: The Unholy Alliance.
Beverly Hills, Calif., Sage Publications, Inc., 1980, 232
pp. (Sage Library of Social Research, Vol. 99.) $18, cloth;
$8.95, paper.
Munnell, Alicia H. and Ann M. Connolly, “Financing Public
68
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Pensions,” New England Economic Review, Federal Re
serve Bank of Boston, January-February 1980, pp. 3044.
van den Haag, Ernest, “Realistic Steps for ‘Reforming’ Wel
fare,” The Journal I The. Institute for Socioeconomic Stud
ies, Winter 1979, pp. 73-79.
Worker training and development
Burns, John L., “Benefits of Training the Hard-to-Employ,”
Harvard Business Review, May-June 1980, pp. 141-51.
Hughes, James J. and Ian Brinkley, “The Measurement of
Secondary Labour Market Effects Associated with Gov
ernment Training,” Scottish Journal o f Political Economy,
February 1980, pp. 63-79.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Exploring Careers. Washing
ton, 1979, 547 pp. (Bulletin 20001.) $10, Superintendent
of Documents, Washington 20402.
----------- Occupational Employment in Manufacturing Industries,
1977. Washington, 1980, 91 pp. (Bulletin 2057.) Stock
No. 029-001-02451-7. $4, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
U.S. Employment and Training Administration, A Guide fo r
Communities Facing Major Layoffs or Plant Shutdowns.
Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment
and Training Administration, 1980, 32 pp. Stock No.
029-000-00391-2. $2, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
----------- Areawide Planning in CETA. Washington, U.S. De
partment of Labor, Employment and Training Adminis
tration, 1979, 128 pp. (R&D Monograph, 74.) Stock No.
029-000-00388-4. $4.50, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
----------- Dateline: CETA: A Selection o f Programs, Washington,
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, 1980, 24 pp.
----------- The Socioeconomic Status o f Households Headed by
Women: Results from the National Longitudinal Surveys.
Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment
and Training Administration, 1979, 68 pp. (R&D Mono
graph, 72.) Stock No. 029-000-00390-4. $3.50, Superin
tendent of Documents, Washington 20402.
----------- Training Information fo r Policy Guidance. Washington,
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, 1980, 209 pp., bibliography. (R&D
Monograph 76.) $6, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
Vandergoot, David and John D. Worrall, eds., Placement in
Rehabilitation: A Career Development Perspective. Balti
more, Md., University Park Press, 1979, 236 pp.
Verheyen, Leland G., and Louis Olivas, “Attitude Survey
Supports Training Needs,” Public Personnel Management,
January-February 1980, pp. 31-35.
Wyant, Dennis R., “Employment Services for Veterans,” L a
bor Law Journal, April 1980, pp. 195-99.
Current
Labor Statistics
Notes on Current Labor Statistics
....................................................................................................................................
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
..........................................................................
Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
.............................................................
Employment status of noninstitutional population, selected years,1950-79 ..................................................................
Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted ..............
Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted .......................................................................................................
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................................................
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted ...............................................................................................
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonallyadjusted ..............................
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted ...............................................................................................................
Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Employment by industry, 1950-79 .......................................................................................................; .............................
Employment by State ...............................................................................................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group ................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ........................................
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date ........................................................................................................
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group ...................................................................................
Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1949-79 ..........................................................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ..............................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ......................................
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
Hourly Earnings Index, by industry division, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date .....................................................
Unemployment insurance data. Definitions and notes
71
71
72
73
74
75
75
75
76
77
77
78
79
80
80
81
82
83
84
84
85
86
87
..........................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, 1967-79 ............................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, general summary and selected items ..........................................................
Consumer Price Index, cross classification of region and populationsize class ............................................................
Consumer Price Index, selected areas .....................................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing ..................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings .............................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings ...............................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ...............................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries ..................................................................................
88
89
89
95
96
97
98
100
100
100
Price data. Definitions and notes
Productivity data. Definitions and notes
31.
32.
33.
34.
70
.......................................................................................
........................................................................................
21. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
70
.......................................................................................................................
Indexes of productivity and related data, selected years, 1950-79
.......................................................................
Annual percent change in productivity and related data, 1969-79
.......................................................................
Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs ........................................................................................
Percent change in productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs ..........................................................................
Labor-management data. Definitions and notes
.......................................................................................................
35. Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date ........................................................
36. Effective wage rate adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to d a t e .....................
37. Work stoppages, 1947 to date ...............................................................................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
87
103
103
104
104
105
106
106
107
107
NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
This section of the R e view presents the principal statistical se
ries collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A brief introduction to each group of tables provides defi
nitions, notes on the data, sources, and other material usually
found in footnotes.
Readers who need additional information are invited to
consult the BLS regional offices listed on the inside front cov
er of this issue of the R eview . Some general notes applicable to
several series are given below.
Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted
to eliminate the effect of such factors as climatic conditions, industry
production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying
periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short
term movements of the statistical series. Tables containing these data
are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated
on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are com
puted each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for sev
eral preceding years. For a technical discussion of the method used to
make seasonal adjustments, see “Appendix A. The BLS Seasonal Fac
tor Method,” B L S H an dbook o f M ethods f o r S urveys a n d Studies, Bul
letin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1976), pp. 272-78, and X - l l
Variant o f the Census M e th o d I I Seasonal A d ju stm e n t Program , Tech
nical Paper No. 15 (Bureau of the Census, 1967). Seasonally adjusted
labor force data in tables 2 - 7 were last revised in the February 1980
issue of the R eview to reflect the preceding year’s experience. Begin
ning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major modifications in
the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the
data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure called X - l l /
ARIMA, which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of
the standard X -ll method. A detailed description of the procedure
appears in The X - l l A R IM A Seasonal A d ju stm e n t M e th o d by Estela
Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 12-564E, September
1979).
The second change is that seasonal factors are now being calculated
for use during the first 6 months of the year, rather than for the entire
year, and then are calculated at mid-year for the July-December peri
od. Revisions of historical data continue to be made only at the end of
each calendar year. Annual revision of the seasonally adjusted payroll
data in tables 11, 13, 16, and 18 was last introduced in the November
1979 issue of the Review. New seasonal factors for productivity data in
tables 33 and 34 are usually introduced in the September issue. Sea
sonally adjusted indexes and percent changes from month to month
and from quarter to quarter are published for numerous Consumer
and Producer Price Index series. However, seasonally adjusted indexes
are not published for the U.S. average All Items CPI. Only seasonally
adjusted percent changes are available for this series.
Adjustments for price changes. Some data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing
current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate
component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given
a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of
150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is
$2 ($3/150 X 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as
“real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars.
Availability of information. Data that supplement the tables in this
section are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of
sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical information
published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published
according to the schedule given below. The H an dbook o f L a b o r S ta tis
tics 1978, Bulletin 2000, provides more detailed data and greater his
torical coverage for most of the statistical series presented in the
M o n th ly L a b o r Review. More information from the household and es
tablishment surveys is provided in E m p lo ym en t a n d Earnings, a
monthly publication of the Bureau, and in two comprehensive data
books issued annually — E m p lo ym en t a n d Earnings, U nited S tates and
E m p lo ym en t a n d Earnings, S tates a n d Areas. More detailed informa
tion on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining appears in
the monthly periodical, C urrent W age D evelopm ents. More detailed
price information is published each month in the periodicals, the C P I
D eta iled R eport and P roducer Prices a n d Price Indexes.
Symbols
p = preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series,
preliminary figures are issued based on representative
but incomplete returns.
r = revised. Generally this revision reflects the availability
of later data but may also reflect other adjustments,
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified.
S c h e d u le o f re le a s e d a te s fo r m a jo r B LS s ta tis tic a l s e rie s
Title and frequency
(monthly except where indicated)
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Period
covered
MLR table
number
1 -1 1
E m p lo y m e n t s i t u a t io n ..........................................................................................
J u ly 3
Ju n e
August 1
Ju ly
P ro d u c e r P rice Index
J u ly 8
Ju n e
A u g u st 15
Ju ly
2 6 -3 0
2 2 -2 5
C o n s u m e r P rice Index
R eal e a rn in g s
..........................................................................................
Ju n e
A u g u st 22
Ju ly
J u ly 23
Ju n e
A u g u s t 22
Ju ly
.................................
J u ly 25
1st half
..............................................
J u ly 28
2nd q u a rte r
.......................................................................................
........................................................................................................
M a jo r c o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g s e ttle m e n ts (q u a rte rly )
J u ly 23
1 4 -2 0
3 5 -3 6
P ro d u c tiv ity an d c o s ts (q u a rte rly ):
N o n fa rm b u sin e ss and m a n u fa c tu rin g
N o n fin a n cia l c o rp o ra tio n s
.............................. ........................................
31 - 3 4
A u g u st 27
2n d q u a rte r
3 1 -3 4
W o rk s to p p a g e s .....................................................................................................
J u ly 29
Ju n e
A u g u st 28
Ju ly
37
L a b o r tu rn o v e r in m a n u fa c tu rin g
J u ly 30
June
A u g u s t 29
Ju ly
1 2 -1 3
70
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
....................................................................
EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
E m p l o y m e n t d a t a in this section are obtained from the
Current Population Survey, a program of personal interviews
conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. The sample consists of about 65,000
households beginning in January 1980, selected to represent the
U S. population 16 years of age and older. Households are
interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the
sample is the same for*any 2 consecutive months.
those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes
persons retired, those engaged in their own housework, those not
working while attending school, those unable to work because of
longterm illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of
personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle.
The noninstitutional population comprises all persons 16 years of age
and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions,
sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy.
Definitions
part-time workers are those who work fewer hours. Workers on part-
Full-tim e workers are those employed at least 35 hours a week;
time schedules for economic reasons (such as slack work, terminating
or starting a job during the week, material shortages, or inability to
find full-time work) are among those counted as being on full-time
status, under the assumption that they would be working full time if
conditions permitted. The survey classifies unemployed persons in
full-time or part-time status by their reported preferences for full-time
or part-time work.
Employed persons are (1) those who worked for pay any time
during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who
worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise
and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs
because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. A
person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at
which he or she worked the greatest number of hours.
Notes on the data
Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and
had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did
not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new
jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed.
The unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a
percent of the civilian labor force.
From time to tjme, and especially after a decennial census,
adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to
correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These
adjustments affect the comparability of historical data presented in
table 1. A description of these adjustments and their effect on the
various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of E m p lo y m e n t
The civilian labor force consists of all employed or unemployed
persons in the civilian noninstitutional population; the total labor
force includes military personnel. Persons not in the labor force are
1.
a n d E a rn in g s.
Data in tables 2 - 7 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through December 1979.
E m p l o y m e n t s t a t u s o f t h e n< ^ i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o p u l a t i o n , 1 6 y e a r s a n d o v e r , s e l e c t e d y e a r s , 1 9 5 0 - 7 9
[N um bers in thousands]
Total lattor force
Year
1950
1955
1960
1964
1965
..........................
..................................
...............................
.................
..........................
Total non
institutional
population
Civilian labor force
Employed
Number
Percent o f
population
Total
Unem ployed
Total
Agriculture
Nonagricultural
industries
Number
Percent o f
labor
force
Not in
labor force
106,645
112,732
119,759
127,224
129,236
63,858
68,072
72,142
75,830
77,178
59.9
60.4
60.2
59.6
59.7
62,208
65,023
69,628
73,091
74,455
58,918
62,170
65,778
69,305
71,088
7,160
6,450
5,458
4,523
4,361
51,758
55,722
60,318
64,782
66,726
3.288
2.852
3.852
3,786
3,366
1966 ..........................
1967 .............................
1968 ........................
1969 .............................
1970 ........................
4.5
42,787
44,660
47,617
51,394
52,058
131,180
133,319
135,562
137,841
140,182
78,893
80.793
82,272
84.240
85,903
60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1
61.3
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,734
82,715
72,895
74.372
75,920
77,902
78,627
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606
3,462
68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296
75,165
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,832
4,088
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
........................
.................................
......................
......................
..................................
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.9
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602
54,280
142,596
145,775
148,263
150,827
153,449
86,929
88,991
91,040
93.240
94.793
61.0
61.0
61.4
61.8
61.8
84,113
86,542
88,714
91,011
92,613
79,120
81,702
84,409
83,935
84,783
3,387
3,472
3,452
3,492
3,380
75,732
78,230
80,957
82,443
81,403
4,993
4,840
4,304
5,076
7,830
5.9
5.6
4.9
5.6
8.5
1976
1977
1978
1979
..........................
.............................
...............................
..................................
55,666
56,785
57,222
57,587
58,655
156,048
158,559
161,058
163,620
96,917
99,534
102,537
104,996
62.1
62.8
63.7
64.2
94,773
97,401
100,420
102,908
87,485
90,546
94.373
96,945
3.297
3,244
3,342
3.297
84,188
87,302
91,031
93,648
7.288
6,855
6,047
5,963
7.7
59,130
59,025
58,521
58,623
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5.3
4.4
5.5
5.2
7.0
6.0
5.8
71
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
2.
E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s b y s e x , a g e , an d ra c e , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d
[N um bers in thousands]
1978
1979
1980
1979
Annual Average
Employment status
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
TOTAL
T o ta l nonin stitu tio n a l p o p u la tio n 1 ..............................
T o ta l la b o r fo rc e
....................................................
163,620
1 63,290
163,469
163,685
163,891
164,106
164,468
164,682
164,898
165,101
165,298
165,506
165,693
1 65,886
102,537
104,996
1 04,476
104,552
105,475
105,218
105,586
105,688
105,744
106,088
106 ,3 1 0
1 06,346
106,184
106,511
1 07,230
162,589
162,809
1 63,020
163,211
163,416
163,601
163,799
..............................
158,941
161,532
1 61,182
1 61,393
161,604
161,801
162,013
162,375
............................................
1 00,420
102,908
102,398
1 02,476
103,093
103,128
103,494
103,595
1 03,652
1 03,999
1 04,229
104,260
104,094
104,419
105,142
....................................................
9 4 ,373
9 6 ,945
9 6 ,495
9 6 ,6 5 2
9 7 ,184
9 7 ,004
9 7 ,504
9 7 ,474
9 7 ,608
9 7 ,912
9 7 ,804
9 7 ,9 5 3
9 7 ,6 5 6
97,154
9 6 ,988
3,342
3,297
3,246
3,243
3,267
3,315
3,364
3,294
3,385
3,359
3,2 7 0
3 ,3 2 6
3,358
3,242
3,379
9 4 ,223
9 4 ,5 5 3
9 4 ,534
9 4 ,6 2 6
9 4 ,298
9 3 ,912
9 3 ,6 0 9
C iv ilia n n o n in s t it u tio n a l p o p u la tio n 1
C ivilian la b o r fo rc e
E m p lo y e d
161,058
A g ric u ltu re
.........................................
...........
91,031
9 3 ,648
9 3 ,249
9 3 ,409
9 3 ,917
9 3 ,689
9 4 ,1 4 0
9 4 ,180
..............................................
6,047
5,963
5,903
5,824
5,909
6,124
5,990
6,121
6,044
6,087
6,425
6 ,3 0 7
6,438
7,265
6.0
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.9
5.8
5.9
5.8
5.9
6.2
6.0
6.2
7.0
7.8
N o n a g ric u ltu ra l in d u strie s
U n e m p lo y e d
U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te
N o t In la b o r fo rc e
.................................
..............................................
8,154
58,521
5 8 ,623
5 8 ,784
5 8 ,917
58,511
5 8 ,673
5 8 ,519
5 8 ,780
5 8 ,937
5 8 ,8 1 0
58,791
58,951
5 9 ,322
59,182
5 8 ,6 5 7
6 7 ,0 0 6
6 8 ,293
6 8 ,123
6 8 ,227
6 8 ,3 1 9
6 8 ,417
6 8 ,522
6 8 ,697
68,804
6 8 ,9 4 0
6 9 ,047
6 9 ,140
6 9 ,238
6 9 ,3 2 9
6 9 ,428
53,464
5 4 ,4 8 6
5 4 ,288
5 4 ,3 7 0
5 4 ,579
54,597
5 4 ,735
5 4 ,7 6 0
5 4 ,709
54,781
5 4 ,855
5 5 ,038
5 4 ,996
55,114
5 5 ,467
5 1 ,212
52,264
5 2 ,158
52,201
5 2 ,325
52,311
5 2 ,453
52,443
5 2 ,374
5 2 ,478
5 2 ,279
52,531
5 2 ,3 0 0
5 1 ,868
2,361
2,350
2,301
2,305
2,327
2,375
2,377
2,371
2,438
2,427
2,387
2 ,4 3 5
2,394
2,3 2 0
2,384
4 9 ,548
4 9 ,412
3,671
Men, 20 years and over
C ivilian n o n in stitu tio n a l p o p u la tio n 1
..............................
N o n a g ric u ltu ra l Industries
......................
4 9 ,857
4 9 ,896
49,998
4 9 ,9 3 6
5 0 ,0 7 6
5 0 ,072
4 9 ,936
50,051
4 9 ,892
5 0 ,0 9 6
2 ,2 8 6
2,282
2,317
2,335
2,303
2,577
2 ,5 0 7
2 ,6 9 6
3,246
2,252
2,223
2,130
2,169
.........................................
4.2
4.1
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.7
4.6
4.9
5.9
6.6
......................................................
13,541
13,807
13,835
13,857
13,740
13,820
13,787
13,937
14,095
14,159
14,192
14,102
14,242
14,215
13,961
U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te
N o t in la b o r fo rc e
4 9 ,913
5 1 ,796
2,254
......................................................
U n e m p lo y e d
4 8 ,852
4 9 ,906
Women, 20 years and over
..............................
7 5 ,489
7 6 ,860
7 6 ,6 7 0
7 6 ,784
7 6 ,897
7 7 ,0 0 6
7 7 ,124
7 7 ,308
7 7 ,426
7 7 ,5 4 2
7 7 ,6 5 6
7 7 ,7 6 6
7 7 ,8 7 6
77,981
7 8 ,0 9 0
....................................................
3 7 ,416
3 8 ,910
3 8 ,6 1 9
3 8 ,6 5 3
3 9 ,033
3 9 ,304
39,239
3 9 ,362
3 9 ,445
3 9 ,659
3 9 ,8 7 8
3 9 ,857
39,751
4 0 ,137
4 0 ,2 4 6
3 5 ,180
36,698
36,411
3 6 ,457
3 6 ,873
3 7 ,0 0 0
3 7 ,0 7 5
3 7 ,112
3 7 ,248
3 7 ,402
37,574
3 7 ,604
3 7 ,4 9 6
3 7 ,602
586
591
577
583
585
600
628
572
612
582
540
567
582
552
61 6
C ivilian n o n in stitu tio n a l p o p u la tio n 1
C ivilian la b o r fo rc e
N o n a g ric u ltu ra l in d u s trie s
U n e m p lo y e d
......................
......................................................
2,236
3 6 ,107
2,213
3 5 ,834
2,208
3 5 ,874
2,1 9 6
3 6 ,288
3 6 ,400
3 6 ,447
3 6 ,540
3 6 ,636
3 6 ,820
3 7 ,034
3 7 ,037
3 6 ,914
37,051
2 ,1 6 0
2,304
2,164
2,2 5 0
2,197
2,257
2,304
2,254
2,255
2,534
2,6 7 0
.........................................
6.0
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.5
5.9
5.5
5.7
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.7
5.7
6.3
6.6
.......................................................
3 8 ,073
3 7 ,949
38,051
38,131
37,864
3 7 ,702
3 7 ,8 8 5
3 7 ,946
37,981
3 7 ,883
3 7 ,778
3 7 ,909
38,125
3 7 ,844
3 7 ,844
..............................
16,447
16,379
16,389
16,381
16,387
16,377
16,367
16,370
16,360
16,326
16,317
16,305
16,302
16,291
16,281
....................................................
9,540
9,512
9,491
9 ,4 5 3
9,481
9,227
9,520
9,473
9,498
9,559
9,497
9,365
9,3 4 6
9,168
9,429
7,986
7,693
7,976
7,919
7,986
8,032
7,952
7,818
7,859
7,6 8 3
7 ,6 1 6
U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te
N o t in la b o r fo rc e
34,593
3 7 ,576
3 6 ,9 6 0
Both sexes, 16 19 years
C ivilian n c 'in s titu tio n a l p o p u la tio n 1
C ivilian la b o r fo rc e
N o n a g ric u ltu ra l in d u s trie s
U n e m p lo y e d
......................
.......................................................
7,984
7,926
395
356
368
355
355
34 0
359
351
335
350
344
325
381
37 0
379
7,586
7,628
7,558
7,639
7,631
7,353
7,617
7,5 6 8
7,651
7,682
7,608
7,493
7,478
7,313
7,237
1,554
1,512
1,527
1,545
1,547
1,487
1,485
1,813
1,559
1,528
1,565
1,459
1,495
1,534
1,544
.........................................
16.3
16.1
16.5
15.4
15.8
16.6
16.2
16.4
15.9
16.0
16.3
16.5
15.9
16.2
19.2
......................................................
6,907
6,867
6,898
6,928
6,9 0 6
7 ,1 5 0
6,847
6,897
6,862
6,767
6 ,8 2 0
6,940
6,956
7,123
6,852
..............................
139,580
141,614
141,331
141,492
141,661
1 41,822
141,981
142 ,2 9 6
142,461
142,645
142,806
142,951
143,115
143,254
1 43,403
....................................................
8 8 ,456
9 0 ,602
9 0 ,1 2 0
9 0 ,215
9 0 ,659
9 0 ,759
9 1 ,082
9 1 ,147
9 1 ,242
9 1 ,579
9 1 ,852
9 1 ,977
91,821
9 2 ,083
9 2 ,5 3 5
8 6 ,425
8 6 ,454
86,571
8 6 ,894
8 6 ,895
87,081
8 6 ,822
8 6 ,385
8 6 ,148
4,999
5,698
U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te
N o t in la b o r fo rc e
7,981
7,994
White
C ivilian n o n in stitu tio n a l p o p u la tio n 1
C ivilian la b o r fo rc e
E m p lo y e d
............................................................
8 3 ,836
8 6 ,0 2 5
8 5 ,632
8 5 ,775
8 6 ,1 2 0
8 5 ,9 7 6
......................................................
4 ,6 2 0
4,577
4,488
4,440
4,539
4,783
4,6 5 7
4,693
4,671
4,685
4,957
4,896
5.2
5.1
5.0
4.9
5.0
5.3
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.4
5.3
5.4
6.2
6.9
51,171
5 0 ,868
2 0 ,395
U n e m p lo y e d
U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te
N o t in la b o r fo rc e
.........................................
.......................................................
51,124
51,011
5 1 ,313
5 1 ,213
5 1 ,107
51,161
5 0 ,9 0 0
5 1 ,149
5 1 ,219
5 1 ,066
50,954
5 0 ,975
5 1 ,294
6,3 8 6
Black and other
..............................
19,361
19,918
19,850
19,901
19,943
19,979
2 0 ,032
2 0 ,079
2 0 ,1 2 8
2 0 ,163
2 0 ,214
20,261
20,301
2 0 ,346
....................................................
11,964
12,306
12,219
12,260
12,386
12,343
12,404
12,512
12,391
12,432
12,453
12,362
12,266
12,319
12,559
............................................................
10,537
10,920
10,816
10,887
11,023
10,982
11,063
11,076
11,044
11,024
10,979
10,937
10,823
10,771
10,813
......................................................
1,427
1,386
1,403
1,373
1,363
11.9
11.3
11.5
11.2
11.0
11.0
10.8
11.5
10.9
11.3
11.8
7,579
7,639
7,264
7 ,5 6 7
7,737
7,731
7,761
C ivilian n o n in s titu tio n a l p o p u la tio n 1
C ivilian la b o r fo rc e
E m p lo y e d
U n e m p lo y e d
U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te
N o t in la b o r fo rc e
.........................................
.......................................................
7,397
7,612
7,674
7,629
1A s in ta b le 1, p o p u la tio n fig u re s a re n o t s e a s o n a lly a d ju ste d .
N O T E : T he m o n th ly d a ta in th is ta b le ha ve b e e n re vise d to re fle c t se a s o n a l e x p e rie n c e th ro u g h 1979.
72
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1,361
1,341
1,436
1,347
1,408
1,474
1,424
11.5
7,899
...
1,443
1,549
1,746
11.8
12.6
13.9
8,035
8,027
7,836
3.
S e le c te d e m p lo y m e n t in d ic a to rs , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d
[ In thousands]
Annual average
1979
Selected categories
1978
1979
May
June
July
Aug.
9 6 ,652
1980
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
CHARACTERISTIC
T o ta l e m p lo y e d , 16 y e a rs a n d o v e r
..............................
9 4 ,3 7 3
9 6 ,945
9 6 ,495
9 7 ,184
97,004
9 7 ,504
9 7 ,474
9 7 ,608
9 7 ,912
9 7 ,804
9 7 ,9 5 3
9 7 ,6 5 6
97,154
9 6 ,988
55,491
5 6 ,499
5 6 ,372
5 6 ,477
5 6 ,5 7 0
56,408
5 6 ,714
5 6 ,629
5 6 ,580
56,734
5 6 ,4 8 6
5 6 ,7 3 2
56,601
55,998
5 5 ,823
W o m e n .................................................
3 8 ,882
4 0 ,4 4 6
4 0 ,123
4 0 ,175
4 0 ,614
4 1 ,318
41,221
4 1 ,1 5 6
4 1 ,165
M a rrie d m en, s p o u s e p re s e n t
.................................
3 8 ,688
3 9 ,0 9 0
3 9 ,045
3 9 ,079
3 9 ,1 7 6
3 9 ,180
39,198
3 9 ,124
3 8 ,845
3 8 ,924
3 8 ,749
3 8 ,9 5 5
3 8 ,745
3 8 ,342
3 8 ,147
M a rrie d w o m e n , s p o u s e p r e s e n t ...........................
21,881
2 2 ,7 2 4
2 2 ,5 4 7
2 2 ,664
2 2 ,908
2 2 ,8 6 9
2 2 ,937
2 2 ,9 1 9
2 2 ,9 4 0
2 3 ,027
23,111
2 3 ,178
2 3 ,2 0 2
2 3 ,0 8 0
2 3 ,155
4 7 ,205
4 9 ,342
4 9 ,136
4 9 ,192
4 9 ,5 3 6
4 9 ,663
4 9 ,8 1 6
4 9 ,738
4 9 ,912
49,911
5 0 ,3 1 3
5 0 ,4 4 8
5 0 ,302
50,405
5 0 ,6 0 6
14,245
15,050
15,100
15,010
15,057
15,068
15,141
15,057
15,131
15,272
15,337
15,444
15,397
15,542
15,551
10,105
10,516
10,427
10,534
10,612
10,698
10,659
10,639
10,617
10,535
10,608
10,971
M en
.........................................................
4 0 ,5 9 6
4 0 ,790
4 0 ,845
4 1 ,028
4 1 ,178
41,051
OCCUPATION
W h ite -c o lla r w o r k e r s .........................................................
P ro fe s s io n a l an d te c h n ic a l
......................................
M a n a g e rs an d a d m in is tra to rs , e x c e p t
fa rm
..................................................................
S a le s w o r k e r s .........................................................
C le ric a l w o r k e r s .........................................................
B lu e -c o lla r w o r k e r s ......................................................
C ra ft an d k in d re d w o rk e rs
10,755
10,745
10,882
5,951
6,163
6,101
6,103
6,163
6,145
6,181
6,261
6,362
6,3 4 6
6,452
6,185
6,113
5,988
6,022
16,904
17,613
17,508
17,545
17,704
17,752
17,835
17,781
17,802
17,758
17,915
17,848
18,037
18,129
18,152
31,531
3 2 ,066
3 1 ,904
31,992
32,051
31,849
3 2 ,209
3 2 ,205
3 2 ,1 1 0
3 2 ,3 0 2
3 1 ,882
3 1 ,754
3 1 ,6 7 0
3 1 ,127
30,681
......................................
12,386
12,880
12,820
12,944
12,876
12,761
12,993
13,001
12,925
13,041
12,814
12,728
12,767
12,773
12,523
O p e ra tiv e s , e x c e p t t r a n s p o r t ....................................
10,875
10,909
10,755
10,804
10,884
10,909
10,964
10,967
10,963
11,042
10,678
10,661
10,579
10,408
10,336
3,421
T ra n s p o rt e q u ip m e n t o p e ra tiv e s
...........................
3,541
3,6 1 6
3,571
3,558
3,483
N o n fa rm la b o r e r s .........................................................
4,729
4,665
4,685
4,639
4,664
4,575
4,635
4,644
4,594
4,584
4,774
4,795
4,767
4,463
4,402
12,839
12,834
12,772
12,805
12,766
12,621
12,859
12,937
12,899
12,970
12,979
13,080
12,981
13,034
12,932
2,798
2,703
2,628
2,679
2 ,6 7 8
2,707
2,722
2,695
2,718
2,694
2 ,6 6 0
2,764
2,7 3 3
2,658
2,745
W a g e a n d s a la ry w o r k e r s .........................................
1,419
1,413
1,424
1,423
1,419
1,384
1,399
1,381
1,475
1,451
1,428
1,417
1,449
1,370
1,405
S e lf-e m p lo y e d w o r k e r s ..............................................
1,607
1,580
1,519
1,539
1,558
1,614
1,642
1,602
1,622
1,596
1,554
1,648
1,600
1,591
1,662
31 6
304
283
291
291
31 0
325
313
310
310
293
283
300
281
289
8 4 ,253
8 6 ,5 4 0
8 6 ,232
8 6 ,309
8 6 ,454
86,421
8 6 ,912
8 6 ,982
S e rvic e w o rk e rs
F a rm w o rk e rs
............................................
...............................................................
3,612
3,644
3,605
3,627
3,604
3,617
3 ,5 9 3
3,628
3,635
MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS
OF WORKER
A g ricu ltu re :
U n paid fa m ily w o rk e rs
......................................
N o n a g ric u ltu ra l industries:
W a g e an d s a la ry w o r k e r s .........................................
G o v e rn m e n t
....................................................
8 7 ,578
8 7 ,419
87,221
86,741
86,631
15,616
15,318
15,393
15,279
15,407
15,423
15,358
15,397
15,414
15,540
15,622
15,668
15,799
7 0 ,616
70,991
71,061
7 1 ,142
71,505
7 1 ,559
7 1 ,662
7 1 ,987
7 2 ,163
7 1 ,879
7 1 ,599
7 1 ,072
7 0 ,832
...................................
1,363
1,240
1,195
1,235
1,219
1,211
1,313
1,261
1,211
1,228
1,132
1,178
1,115
1,123
1,206
.........................................
6 7 ,603
69,931
69,421
6 9 ,756
6 9 ,8 4 2
69,931
7 0 ,192
70,298
70,451
7 0 ,759
71,031
7 0 ,702
70,484
6 9 ,949
6 9 ,625
6,305
6,652
6,608
6,6 2 9
6,7 5 2
6,689
6,731
6,812
6,781
6 ,7 3 7
6,752
6,899
6,825
6,813
6,648
472
455
460
474
519
450
449
43 0
417
409
379
397
376
363
411
S e lf-e m p lo y e d w o r k e r s ......................................
U n paid fa m ily w o rk e rs
87,384
15,369
71,171
P riva te h o u s e h o ld s
O th e r in dustries
8 7 ,0 2 0
15,289
6 8 ,966
P riva te in d u s tr ie s .........................................
............................................
PERSONS AT W ORK1
N o n a g ric u ltu ra l in d u s trie s
..............................
.................................
8 5 ,693
8 8 ,133
8 7 ,785
8 7 ,7 4 9
8 8 ,7 6 9
8 8 ,855
8 8 ,723
8 8 ,638
8 8 ,617
8 9 ,1 8 0
8 9 ,454
8 8 ,985
8 8 ,585
8 7 ,6 6 0
8 7 ,6 8 0
7 0 ,5 4 3
7 2 ,647
7 2 ,496
7 2 ,243
7 2 ,915
7 3 ,053
7 3 ,159
7 3 ,204
7 2 ,997
7 3 ,137
7 3 ,223
7 3 ,110
7 2 ,749
7 1 ,807
71,224
P a rt tim e fo r e c o n o m ic r e a s o n s ..............................
3,216
3,281
3,283
3,284
3,274
3,298
3,167
3,315
3,392
3,519
3,5 1 3
3,4 0 6
3,418
3,816
4,349
U s u a lly w o rk fu ll t i m e .................................
1,249
1,325
1,273
1,322
1,334
1,401
1,273
1,354
1,413
1,491
1,549
1,380
U s u a lly w o rk p a rt t i m e ...........................
1,463
1,709
2 064
1,967
1,956
2,0 1 0
1,962
1,940
1,897
1,894
1,961
1,979
2,028
1,964
2 ,0 2 6
1,955
2,107
2,285
11,934
12,205
12,006
12,222
12,580
12,504
12,397
12,119
12,228
12,524
12,718
12,469
12,418
12,037
12,106
F u ll-tim e s c h e d u le s
P a rt tim e fo r n o n e c o n o m ic r e a s o n s ......................
'E x c lu d e s p e rs o n s "w ith a jo b b u t n o t a t w o r k " d u rin g th e s u rv e y p e rio d fo r su c h re a s o n s as
v a ca tio n , illness, o r ind u stria l disputes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
N O T E : T he m o n th ly d a ta in th is ta b le ha ve been re vise d to re fle c t s e a so n a l e xp e rie n ce th ro u q h 1979
73
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
4.
S e le c te d u n e m p lo y m e n t in d ic a to rs , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d
[U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te s ]
1978
1979
1980
1979
Annual average
Selected categories
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
CHARACTERISTIC
T o ta l, 16 y e a rs and o v e r ....................................................
6.0
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.9
5.8
5.9
5.8
5.9
6.2
6.0
6.2
7.0
7.8
M en, 20 y e a rs an d o v e r ............................................
4.2
4.1
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.7
4.6
4.9
5.9
6.6
5.7
6.3
6.6
...................................
6.0
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.5
5.9
5.5
5.7
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.7
......................................
16.3
16.1
16.5
15.4
15.8
16.6
16.2
16.4
15.9
16.0
16.3
16.5
15.9
16.2
19.2
W o m e n , 2 0 y e a rs a n d o v e r
Both s e xe s, 1 6 - 1 9 y e a rs
5.2
5.1
5.0
4.9
5.0
5.3
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.4
5.3
5.4
6.2
6.9
.................................
3.7
3.6
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
4.1
4.0
4.4
5.3
5.9
W o m e n , 2 0 y e a rs an d o v e r ...........................
5.2
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.8
5.2
4.8
5.0
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2
4.9
5.5
5.8
..............................
13.9
13.9
14.2
13.2
13.8
14.8
14.3
14.1
13.9
13.9
14.0
13.8
13.8
14,6
17.4
B la c k and o ther, t o t a l .................................................
11.9
11.3
11.5
11.2
11.0
11.0
10.8
11.5
10.9
11.3
11.8
11.5
11.8
12.6
13.9
8.6
8.4
8.4
8.1
8.4
8.1
8.0
8.6
8.4
8.6
9.6
9.2
9.3
10.9
12.0
W hite, to ta l ....................................................................
M en, 2 0 y e a rs and o v e r
Both s e x e s , 1 6 - 1 9 y e a rs
M en, 2 0 y e a rs an d o v e r
.................................
W o m e n , 20 y e a rs and o v e r ...........................
10.6
10.1
10.0
10.4
10.0
10.3
9.8
10.2
9.5
10.0
10.0
9.0
10.5
11.4
11.9
B o th se xe s, 1 6 - 1 9 y e a rs
..............................
36.3
33.5
361
33.5
31.5
32.6
32.3
35.1
32.8
34.3
34.6
37 .9
33 .0
29.8
35.2
M a rrie d m en, s p o u s e p r e s e n t .................................
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
3.4
3.1
3.4
4.1
4.7
M a rrie d w o m e n , sp o u se p r e s e n t ...........................
5.5
5.1
5.2
5.1
4.9
5.3
4.8
5.2
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.3
5.7
6.3
W o m e n w h o h ead f a m i l i e s ......................................
8.5
8.3
8.6
9.0
8.1
7.9
7.7
8.4
8.4
8.4
9.2
8.5
8.7
9.3
8.3
5.4
5.4
5.7
5.6
5.8
6.6
7.5
8.3
8.5
8.7
8.9
8.3
8.9
9.3
F u ll-tim e w o r k e r s .........................................................
5.5
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.3
5.4
P a rt-tim e w o rk e rs
9.0
8.7
9.3
8.6
8.3
8.8
8.4
8.9
.......................................................
U n e m p lo y e d 15 w e e k s and o v e r ...........................
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.6
L a b o r fo rc e tim e lo s t1 ..............................................
6.5
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.2
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.7
6.6
6.8
7.5
8.8
.........................................................
3.5
3.3
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.4
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.7
3.9
......................................
2.6
2.4
2.1
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.7
2.2
2.4
OCCUPATION
W h ite -c o lla r w o rk e rs
P ro fe ssio n a l and te c h n ic a l
M a n a g e rs and a d m in is tra to rs , e x c e p t
fa rm
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.2
2.2
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.6
2.7
4.1
3.9
4.0
4.4
3.5
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.8
4.4
4.5
4.0
4.7
4.5
.........................................................
4.9
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.9
4.5
4.7
4.4
4.6
4.8
4.7
4.5
5.1
5.4
............................................................
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.6
6.8
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.5
7.2
8.0
7.7
8.0
9.7
11.3
8.1
14.0
............................................................................
S a le s w o rk e rs
...............................................................
C le ric a l w o rk e rs
B lu e -c o lla r w o rk e rs
C ra ft an d k indred w o rk e rs
......................................
O p e ra tiv e s , e x c e p t tra n s p o rt
.................................
4.6
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.7
4.3
4.6
4.9
4.4
4.9
4.8
5.4
6.7
8.1
8.4
8.2
7.7
8.3
8.9
9.0
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.9
9.2
9.3
11.6
...........................
5.2
5.4
5.4
5.7
5.1
6.2
6.1
5.6
5.2
5.0
6.9
6.7
6.6
8.9
9.0
......................................................
10.7
10.8
11.1
10.6
11.0
11.3
11.0
10.7
12.2
12.2
12.3
12.0
13.0
14.1
15.4
6.9
7.1
8.0
8.5
3.9
4.0
5.0
4.8
T ra n s p o rt e q u ip m e n t o p e ra tive s
N o n fa rm la b o re rs
2.1
S e rv ic e w o r k e r s ....................................................................
7.4
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
6.7
6.8
6.6
6.6
6.9
F a r m w o r k e r s .........................................................................
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.2
4.2
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.3
4,4
INDUSTRY
5.9
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.7
6.0
5.8
5.9
5.8
5.8
6.2
6.0
6.2
7.1
8.2
.................................................................
10.6
10.2
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.1
9.6
9.9
10.2
10.3
10.8
10.5
13.0
15.1
17.5
M a n u fa c tu r in g ...............................................................
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.7
5.9
6.0
6.0
5.9
5.9
6.7
6.4
N o n a g ric u ltu ra l p riv a te w a g e and s a la ry w o r k e r s 2
C o n s tru c tio n
6.5
7.9
9.9
....................................................
4.9
5.0
4.4
4.9
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.5
5.6
5.5
6.7
6.3
6.4
8.3
10.5
N o n d u ra b le g o o d s ..............................................
6.3
6.4
6.9
6.3
6.2
6.8
7.1
6.8
6.3
6.4
6.8
6.7
6.7
7.4
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.1
3.8
3.7
4.0
3.8
4.2
4.1
4.4
4.4
3.8
4.6
5.1
D u ra b le g o o d s
T ra n s p o rta tio n and p u b lic utilities
........................
5.4
W h o le s a le and retail t r a d e ......................................
6.9
6.5
6.4
6.7
6.3
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.6
6.4
6.3
7.0
F in a n c e a n d se rv ic e in d u s trie s
..............................
5.1
4.9
4.9
4.7
4.9
5.2
4.7
4.9
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.9
5.1
5.7
.........................................................
3.9
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.3
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.2
8.8
9.1
9.3
7.8
9.7
9.9
10.0
9.9
10.1
9.4
10.3
9.2
10.2
11.9
11.7
G o ve rn m e n t w o rk e rs
A g ric u ltu ra l w a g e an d s a la ry w o rk e rs
........................
1 A g g re g a te ho u rs lo s t by the u n e m p lo y e d and p e rs o n s on p a rt tim e fo r e c o n o m ic re a so n s a s a
p e rc e n t o f p o te n tia lly a v a ila b le la b o r fo rc e hours.
2 In clu d e s m ining, n o t s h o w n s e p a ra te ly .
74
8.8
7.6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
N O TE: T he m o n th ly d a ta in th is ta b le h a ve b een re vise d to re fle c t se a so n a l e x p e rie n c e th ro u g h
1979.
5.
U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te s , b y s e x a n d a g e , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d
Annual average
Sex and age
1978
T o ta l, 16 y e a rs a n d o v e r ....................................................
6.0
1979
May
June
July
Aug.
1980
S ept
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.9
5.8
5.9
5.8
5.9
6.2
6.2
7.0
7.8
16.3
16.1
16.5
15.4
15.8
16.6
16.2
16.4
15.9
16.0
16.3
16.5
15.9
16.2
19.2
16 to 17 y e a rs
....................................................
19.3
18.1
18.9
17.5
17.3
18.5
16.9
18.4
17.3
18.0
19.0
18.7
17.4
18.7
21.7
18 to 19 y e a rs
16 to 19 y e a rs
............................................................
6 .0
....................................................
14.2
14.6
15.0
14.4
14.5
15.4
15.6
15.0
14.7
14.5
14.0
15.1
14.7
14.4
17.7
............................................................
9.5
9.0
8.9
8.9
9.1
9.3
9.2
9.6
8.8
9.8
10.1
9.5
9.7
11.4
12.7
2 5 y e a rs and o v e r .......................................................
4.0
3.9
3.9
2 0 to 24 y e a rs
3.9
3.9
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.8
4.2
4.1
4.4
5.0
....................................................
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.5
4.7
5.4
5.9
55 y e a rs a n d o v e r ..............................................
3.2
3.0
3.1
2.9
3.2
3.1
2.9
3.0
2.7
2.7
3.5
2.8
2.8
3.4
3.6
25 to 54 y e a rs
M en, 16 y e a rs a n d o v e r ............................................
5.5
5.2
5.1
5.0
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.7
5.5
5.7
6.7
....................................................
15.7
15.8
16.1
14.5
15.4
16.3
16.1
15.7
15.8
15.6
16.2
15.6
14.8
16.1
19.7
16 to 17 y e a r s ............................................
19.2
17.9
18.9
16.8
16.1
18.0
16.7
17.1
17.8
17.9
19.0
18.0
15.9
18.3
22 .0
18 to 19 y e a r s ............................................
16 to 19 y e a rs
5.2
7.7
13.2
14.2
14.0
14.0
14.8
15.1
15.3
14.4
14.0
13.6
13.9
14.1
14.0
14.2
17.9
....................................................
9.1
8.6
8.2
8.3
8.8
8.8
8.8
9.5
8.4
9.4
10.4
9.9
10.4
12.3
13.7
25 y e a rs a n d o v e r ..............................................
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.2
3.7
3.6
3.9
4.7
5.3
2 5 to 54 y e a r s ............................................
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.8
3.4
3.8
3.8
4.2
5.0
5.7
55 y e a rs a n d o v e r
...................................
3.1
2.9
2.8
3.1
3.3
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.7
3.4
3.5
W o m e n , 16 y e a rs an d o v e r
....................................
7.2
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.6
7.0
6.6
6.9
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.8
2 0 to 24 y e a rs
16 to 19 y e a rs
6.8
7.3
7.8
....................................................
17.0
16.4
16.9
16.5
16.2
17.0
16.4
17.2
16.1
16.4
16.3
17.6
17.3
16.3
18.7
16 to 17 y e a r s ............................................
19.5
183
18.8
18.3
18.6
19.0
17.2
19.8
16.7
18.0
19.1
19.5
19.2
19.1
21.4
18 to 19 y e a r s ............................................
15.3
15.0
16.0
14.9
14.2
15.7
15.9
15.6
15.5
15.5
14.2
16.2
15.6
14.6
17.5
....................................................
10.1
9.6
9.7
9.7
9.4
9.8
9.6
9.7
9.3
10.2
9.8
9.1
9.0
10.2
11.6
25 y e a rs a n d o v e r ..............................................
5.1
4.8
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.9
4.6
4.9
4.7
4.7
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.5
5.7
25 to 54 y e a r s ............................................
5.4
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.0
5.3
5.0
5.2
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.4
5.5
6.0
6.1
55 y e a rs and o v e r
3.3
3.2
3.6
28
3.1
3.2
2.9
3.4
2.9
2.9
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.4
3.6
Apr.
May
2 0 to 24 y e a rs
6.
1979
....................................
U n e m p lo y e d p e rs o n s , b y re a s o n fo r u n e m p lo y m e n t, s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d
[N u m b e r s in th o u s a n d s ]
1979
Reason fo r unem ploym ent
1980
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
2,356
2,449
2,5 2 6
2 ,6 8 0
2,632
2,731
2,729
2,728
2,988
2,907
3,047
NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
L o s t la s t jo b
.....................................................................................
O r la y o ff
........................................................................................................
O th e r jo b lo s e rs
..................................................................................
Le ft la s t j o b ..................................................................................................
R e e n te re d la b o r fo rc e
.............................................................................................
S e e kin g firs t j o b ...............................................................................
3,611
4,301
725
816
797
915
855
929
987
944
1,019
1,031
1,129
1,424
1,944
1,631
1,633
1,729
1,765
1,777
1,802
1,742
1,784
1,969
1,876
1,918
2,188
2,3 5 7
94 0
857
846
875
825
835
845
800
779
813
788
92 6
992
1,767
1,753
1,762
1,788
1,760
1,762
1,698
1,771
1,797
1,784
1,803
1,967
2,015
824
781
726
745
801
804
736
858
811
827
805
743
884
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
40 .0
41.9
43.1
44.0
43.7
4 4.5
45.4
44.3
46.9
45.9
47 .3
49.8
52.5
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
T o ta l u n e m p lo y e d
.................................................................
J o b l o s e r s ..........................................................................................
O r la y o ff
................................................................................................
12.3
14.0
13.6
15.0
14.2
15.2
16.4
15.3
16.0
16.3
17.5
19.6
23.7
27.7
2 8.0
29 .5
29 .0
29.5
29.4
2 9.0
29.0
30.9
2 9.6
29.8
30.2
28.8
J o b l e a v e r s ...............................................................................
16.0
14.7
14.4
14.4
13.7
13.6
14.1
13.0
12.2
12.8
12.2
12.8
12.1
R e e n tra n ts
300
3 0.0
30.1
29.4
2 9.2
28.7
28.3
28.8
28.2
28.2
28 .0
27.1
2 4.6
14.0
13.4
12.4
12.2
13.3
13.1
12.3
13.9
12.7
13.1
12.5
10.3
10.8
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.9
2.8
2.9
3.5
4.1
.9
8
.8
.8
.8
.8
8
.8
.7
.8
.8
9
.9
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.9
.8
.8
.7
.7
.8
.8
.7
.8
.8
.8
.8
.7
.8
O th e r jo b lo s e rs
..................................................................
....................................................................
N e w e n t r a n t s .......................................................................................
UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF
THE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
J o b l o s e r s ...........................................................................................................
J o b l e a v e r s .............................................................................................
R e e n tra n ts
..........................................................................
N e w e n t r a n t s ...............................................................................
7.
D u ra tio n o f u n e m p lo y m e n t, s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d
[ N u m b e r s in th o u s a n d s ]
Weeks o f unem ploym ent
Annual average
1978
1979
1979
1980
May
June
July
Aug.
S ept
O ct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Less th a n 5 w e e k s ...............................................................
2,793
2,869
2,823
2 ,8 8 0
2 ,8 2 0
3,168
2 ,7 7 8
2 ,9 5 5
2,919
2,9 1 6
3,184
2,995
2,995
3,309
3,872
5 to 14 w e e k s
1,875
1,892
1,919
1,808
1,934
1,738
2 ,0 3 5
1,963
1,869
1,966
1,907
2,081
2,169
2,391
2,697
............................................................
1,379
1,202
1,212
1,152
1,067
1,185
1,152
1,195
1,191
1,230
1,334
1,286
1,363
1,629
1,722
15 to 2 6 w e e k s ............................................................
74 6
684
705
65 6
615
658
644
67 8
660
711
795
790
776
953
1,014
27 w eeks and over
633
518
507
49 6
452
527
508
517
531
519
539
49 6
58 7
676
709
11.9
10.8
10.9
10.5
10.1
10.7
10.7
10.5
10.6
10.5
10.5
10.7
11.0
11.3
10.5
.......................................................................
15 w e e k s a n d o v e r
....................................................
A v e ra g e (m e a n ) du ra tio n , in w e e k s
..............................
N O T E : T he m o n th ly d a ta in th e s e ta b le s h a v e b een re v is e d to re fle c t s e a s o n a l e x p e rie n c e th ro u g h 1979.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
75
EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS
E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n i n g s d a t a in this section are
compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a volun
tary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperat
ing State agencies by 162,000 establishments representing all
industries except agriculture. In most industries, the sampling,
probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most
large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An estab
lishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant,
for example, or warehouse.) Self-employed persons and others
not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the
survey because they are excluded from establishment records.
This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures
between the household and establishment surveys.
L a b o r t u r n o v e r d a t a in this section are compiled from per
sonnel records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies.
A sample of 40,000 establishments represents all industries in
the manufacturing and mining sectors of the economy.
Bureau of Labor Statistics computes spendable earnings from gross
weekly earnings for only two illustrative cases: (1) a worker with no
dependents and (2) a married worker with three dependents.
Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or
nonsupervisory workers for which pay was received and are different
from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the por
tion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular
hours and for which overtime premiums were paid.
Labor turnover is the movement of all wage and salary workers
from one employment status to another. Accession rates indicate the
average number of persons added to a payroll in a given period per
100 employees; separation rates indicate the average number dropped
from a payroll per 100 employees. Although month-to-month changes
in employment can be calculated from the labor turnover data, the re
sults are not comparable with employment data from the employment
and payroll survey. The labor turnover survey measures changes dur
ing the calendar month while the employment and payroll survey
measures changes from midmonth to midmonth.
Notes on the data
Definitions
Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holi
day and sick pay)
12th of the month.
cent of all persons
ment which reports
for any part of the payroll period including the
Persons holding more than one job (about 5 per
in the labor force) are counted in each establish
them.
Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker
supervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with
production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 14-20 in
clude production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction
workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in transporta
tion and public utilities, in wholesale and retail trade, in finance, in
surance, and real estate, and in service industries. These groups
account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private
nonagricultural payrolls.
Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers
receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime
or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special
payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to eliminate the effects
of price change. The H ourly Earnings Index is calculated from aver
age hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types
of changes that are unrelated to underlying wage-rate developments:
fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only sector
for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes and
seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and lowwage industries. Spendable earnings are earnings from which estimat
ed social security and Federal income taxes have been deducted. The
76
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are
periodically adjusted to comprehensive counts of employment (called
“benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the re
lease of September 1979 data, published in the November 1979 issue of
the Review. Consequently, data published in the R eview prior to that
issue are not necessarily comparable to current data. Complete compa
rable historical unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published
in a Supplement to Employment and Earnings (unadjusted data from
April 1977 through June 1979 and seasonally adjusted data from Jan
uary 1974 through June 1979) and in E m p lo ym en t a n d Earnings, U nit
e d States, 1 9 0 9 -7 8 , BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods).
Data on recalls were shown for the first time in tables 12 and 13 in
the January 1978 issue of the Review. For a detailed discussion of the
recalls series, along with historical data, see “New Series on Recalls
from the Labor Turnover Survey,” E m p lo ym en t a n d Earnings, Decem
ber 1977, pp. 10-19.
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household
and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green,
“Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll sur
veys,” M on th ly L a bor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-2 0 . See also
B L S H an dbook o f M ethods f o r Surveys a n d Studies, Bulletin 1910 (Bu
reau of Labor Statistics, 1976).
The formulas used to construct the spendable average weekly earn
ings series reflect the latest provisions of the Federal income tax and
social security tax laws. For the spendable average weekly earnings
formulas for the years 1978-80, see E m p lo y m e n t-a n d Earnings,
March 1980, pp. 10-11. Real earnings data are adjusted using the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(CPI-W).
8.
E m p lo y m e n t b y in d u s try , 1 9 5 0 -7 9
[N onagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
Total
Mining
Construc
tion
Manufac
turing
Trans
portation
and
public
utilities
Whole
sale
and
retail
trade
Wholesale
trade
Retail
trade
Finance,
insur
ance,
and real
estate
Services
1950
4 5 ,197
901
2,364
15,241
4,034
9 ,3 8 6
2,635
6,751
1,888
5,357
1951
4 7 ,819
929
2,637
16,393
4,226
9,742
2,727
7,015
1,956
5,547
State
and local
6 ,0 2 6
1,928
4,098
6,389
2,302
4,087
1952
48,793
898
2,6 6 8
16,632
4,248
10,004
2,812
7,192
2,035
5,699
6 ,6 0 9
2 ,4 2 0
4,188
1953
5 0 ,202
866
2,659
17,549
4,290
10,247
2,854
7,393
2,111
5,835
6,645
2,305
4,340
1954
4 8 ,990
791
2,646
16,314
4,084
10,235
2,867
7,368
2,200
5,969
6,751
2,188
1955
4,563
50,641
792
2 ,8 3 9
16,882
4,141
10,535
2,926
7,6 1 0
2,298
6,2 4 0
6 ,9 1 4
2,187
4,727
1956
5 2 ,369
822
3,039
17,243
4,244
10,858
3,018
7,840
2,389
6,497
7,278
2,209
1957
5,069
52,853
828
2,962
17,174
4,241
10,886
3,028
7,858
2,438
6,708
7 ,6 1 6
2 ,2 1 7
1958
5,399
51,324
751
2,817
15,945
3,976
10,750
2,980
7 ,7 7 0
2,481
6 ,7 6 5
7,839
2,191
1959'
5,648
5 3 ,268
732
3,004
16,675
4,011
11,127
3,082
8,045
2,5 4 9
7,087
8,083
2,233
1960
5,850
54,189
712
2 ,9 2 6
16,796
4,004
11,391
3,143
8,248
2,629
7,378
8,353
2 ,2 7 0
6,083
8,594
1961
5 3 ,999
672
2,859
16,326
3,903
11,337
3,133
8,204
2,688
7,620
1962
5 5 ,549
65 0
2,948
16,853
3,906
11,566
3,198
8,368
2,754
7,982
8,890
2,340
1963
6,550
56,653
635
3 ,0 1 0
16,995
3,903
11,778
3,248
8,5 3 0
2,830
8,277
9,2 2 5
2,358
1964
6,868
5 8 ,283
634
3,097
17,274
3,951
12,160
3,337
8,823
2,911
8 ,6 6 0
9,5 9 6
2,348
7,248
1965
6 0 ,765
632
3,232
18,062
4,036
1 2 ,716
3,466
9 ,2 5 0
2,977
9,036
10,074
2,378
7,696
1966
63,901
627
3,317
19,214
4,158
13,245
3,597
9,6 4 8
3,058
9,498
10,784
2,564
8,220
2,279
6,315
1967
6 5 ,803
61 3
3,248
19,447
4,268
10,045
11,391
2,719
1968
8,672
6 7 ,897
606
3,350
19,781
4,318
14,099
3,779
10,320
3,337
10,567
11,839
2,737
1969
9 ,1 0 2
70,384
619
3,575
20,167
4,442
14,705
3,907
10,798
3,512
11,169
12,195
2,758
9,437
1970
7 0 ,8 8 0
623
3,588
19,367
4,515
15,040
3,993
11,047
3,645
11,548
12,554
2,731
9,823
1971
71,214
60 9
3,704
18,623
4,476
15,352
4,001
11,351
3,772
11,797
13,606
3,689
9,917
3,185
12,881
2,6 9 6
1972
10,185
73,675
628
3,889
19,151
4,541
15,949
4,113
11,836
3,908
12,276
13,334
2,684
10,649
1973
7 6 ,790
642
4,097
20,154
4 ,6 5 6
16,607
4,277
12,329
4,046
12,857
1974
13,732
2,663
11,068
78,265
697
4 ,0 2 0
20,077
4,725
16,987
4,433
12,554
4,148
13,441
14,170
2,724
1975
11,446
7 6 ,945
752
3,525
18,323
4,542
17,060
4,415
12,645
4,165
13,892
14,686
2,748
11,937
1976
79,382
779
3,5 7 6
18,997
4,582
17,755
4,546
13,209
4,271
14,551
14,871
2,733
12,138
1977
8 2 ,423
813
3,851
19,682
4,713
18,516
4,708
13,808
4,467
15,303
15,079
2,727
1978
12,352
8 6 ,446
851
4,271
2 0 ,476
4,927
19,499
4,957
14,542
4,727
16,220
15,476
1979
2 ,7 5 3
12,723
89,482
957
4,644
20,972
5,154
2 0 ,137
5,170
14,966
4,963
17,043
15,612
2,773
12,839
’ D a ta in c lu d e A la s k a and H a w a ii b eginning in 1959.
9.
E m p lo y m e n t b y S ta te
[N o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o ll d a ta , in th o u s a n d s ]
State
A la b a m a
Apr. 1979
...................
Mar. 1980
Apr. 1980»
......................
97 3 .0
A rka n sa s ...................
749.8
C a lif o r n ia ...................
9 ,541.7
C o lo ra d o
1.197.6
...................
C o n n e c tic u t
..............
1.394.7
D e la w a r e ...................
254.4
D istrict o f C o lu m b ia ,
612.8
F l o r i d a ........................
3 .365.0
G e o r g i a ......................
2 ,109.3
H a w a i i ........................
393.4
I d a h o ...........................
333.1
Illinois
.........................
4 ,762.5
In d ia n a ........................
2 .251.7
Iow a
1,130.2
...........................
K a n sa s
......................
94 6 .0
...................
1.247.1
L o u is ia n a ...................
1.490.8
K e n tu cky
M a in e
.........................
4093
2 ,5 8 9 5
M ich ig a n
...................
3,621.1
M in n e so ta
................
1,743,3
M ississippi
................
83 4 1
M is s o u r i......................
2 0 03.0
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Mar. 1980
Apr. 1980»
1,364.2
1,008.4
754.0
9,788.6
1,008.7
754.2
9,804.2
M ontana.............................................
N e b ra ska ..................................................
Nevada ................................................
New Hampshire ........................
New Jersey .........................
2774
622.5
374.5
369.2
2,994.4
279.9
624.3
394.7
379.5
3,0140
279.3
628.5
396.9
373.8
3,030.7
1,248.1
1,404.7
256.0
614.0
3,548.5
1,246.0
1,411.1
254.1
615.8
3,533.1
New M e x ic o .................................
New Y o rk ...............................
North Carolina .............................
North Dakota .............................
Ohio ................................................
455.9
7,122.3
2,362.0
236.8
4,473.4
469.7
7,140.3
2,410.2
243.1
4,438.2
473,5
7,096.5
2,4206
245.5
4,445.6
2,137.9
411.3
327.7
4,712.3
2,206.5
2,136.8
410.5
325.9
4,712.5
2,219.3
Oklahoma ......................
Oregor .................................
Pennsylvania ......................................
Rhode Island .............................
South Carolina ...........................................
1,075.3
1,036.7
4,819.4
396.5
1,174,7
1,120.0
1,051.9
4,773.2
392.5
1,194.4
1,128.4
1,040.6
4,805.5
393.9
1,200.7
1,124.7
953.3
1,223.3
1,520.9
406.9
1,131.7
955.0
1,227.2
1,525.6
412.0
South D a k o ta .............................
Tennessee ........................
Texas ................................................
Utah ...........................................
V e rm o n t....................................
237.3
1,776.2
5,543.1
5400
192.1
2345
1,789.1
5,742.8
562.9
201.1
236.4
1.788.3
5,754.3
566.6
196.0
2,097.5
2,665.7
3,439.1
1,781.8
835.7
1,997.5
Virginia.............................
Washington .................................
West Virginia ........................
W isconsin.............................
Wyoming ...................
Virgin Islands ........................
2,082.8
2,634.5
3,505.2
1,770.0
836.6
1.985.2
2,106,5
6399
1,931.6
193.8
360
6299
1,962 6
211.3
37.8
6334
1,973.0
213.5
37.3
M a r y l a n d ...................
M a ssa ch u s e tts
Apr. 1979
1,362.8
A l a s k a ........................
A rizo n a
State
&
c
77
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
10.
E m p lo y m e n t b y in d u stry d iv is io n an d m a jo r m a n u fa c tu rin g g ro u p
[ N o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o ll d a ta , in th o u s a n d s ]
1980
1979
Annual average
Industry division and group
TOTAL ...................................................................
MINING
CONSTRUCTION
MANUFACTURING
P ro d u c tio n w o rk e rs
....................................................
Durable goods
P ro d u c tio n w o r k e r s ............................................
1978
1979
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
A p r.p
May p
8 6 ,446
8 9 ,482
89,671
90,541
8 9 ,618
8 9 ,673
90,211
9 0 ,678
9 0 ,902
9 1 ,009
8 9 ,285
8 9 ,417
8 9 ,960
90,295
9 0 ,606
980
982
984
984
982
986
996
1,007
1,034
851
957
944
968
976
986
4,271
4,644
4,662
4,881
4,993
5,048
4,984
4,9 7 6
4,879
4,711
4,350
4,261
4,305
4,444
4,615
2 1 ,094
2 0 ,966
2 0 ,902
20,699
2 0 ,648
2 0 ,709
20,448
2 0 ,256
15,082
14,954
14,891
14,674
14,615
14,662
14,398
14,175
2 0 ,4 7 6
2 0 ,972
2 0 ,988
2 1 ,234
20,965
2 0 ,996
2 1 ,192
14,714
15,010
15,061
15,240
14,946
14,960
15,172
12,246
12,690
12,739
12,877
12,712
12,598
12,805
12,737
12,661
12,649
12,525
12,523
12,569
12,344
12,149
8 ,7 8 6
9,053
9,129
9,223
9,031
8,907
9,116
9,058
8,983
8,971
8 ,8 2 5
8,813
8 ,8 5 0
8,6 2 0
8,399
...................................
752.4
758.4
763.8
783.2
776.8
780.0
776.3
771.3
748.9
729.2
709.2
710.6
708.5
671.1
659.1
F u rn itu re and f ix t u r e s .................................................
491.1
487.3
48 3 .9
484.2
4 7 5 .5
483.5
485.3
487.6
488.7
486.9
484.4
480.7
480.7
475.1
46 1 .3
723.6
721.0
712.9
6 9 9 .6
680.8
677.5
682.5
67 9 .8
669.4
1 ,162.0
L u m b e r a n d w o o d p ro d u c ts
...........................
69 8 .0
710.8
718.6
733.1
727.1
728.2
P rim a ry m e ta l in d u s tr ie s ............................................
1,2 12.7
1,243.9
1,258.6
1,274.3
1,260.7
1,244.5
1,244.3
1,225.1
1,216.7
1,204.4
1,201.6
1,199.4
1,197.9
1,187.7
F a b ric a te d m e ta l p ro d u c ts
......................................
1,6 73.4
1,727.2
1,727.8
1,749.0
1,715.7
1,716.1
1,735.3
1,738.3
1,738.2
1,730.4
1,703.8
1,706.5
1,711.0
1,678.8
1,624.3
M a c h in e ry , e x c e p t e l e c t r ic a l...................................
2 ,319.2
2 ,462.5
2 ,4 6 3 .6
2 ,491.2
2,485.1
2,467.1
2,496.4
2 ,447.2
2,440.9
2 ,455.8
2 ,522.5
2 ,520.8
2 ,522.9
2 ,505.2
2 ,4 9 9 .0
2 ,143.7
2 ,146.3
2,153.1
2 ,1 4 4 .5
2 ,138.3
2,147.4
2 ,133.9
2 ,110.9
1,823.0
S to n e , c la y , and g la s s p ro d u c ts
2 ,108.7
2 ,095.2
2 ,1 2 8 .2
2 ,111.7
2 ,089.5
2,136.1
1,991.7
2 ,048.3
2 ,091.8
2 ,077.9
2,027.7
1,933.2
2 ,051.0
2 ,040.9
2 ,009.7
2 ,043.4
1,943.6
1,950.4
1,972.1
1,866.9
.........................
653.5
690.4
686.5
698.8
692.9
695.3
692.7
695.4
695.9
699.8
698.9
701.2
704.4
704.3
704.2
.................................
454.0
452.4
44 8 ,9
457.4
438.6
46 0 .6
463.8
466.9
462.8
446.4
435.9
437.2
441.4
440.7
435.8
8 ,2 3 0
8,283
8,249
8,357
8 ,2 5 3
8,398
8,387
8,357
8,305
8,253
8,174
8,125
8,140
8,104
8,107
5,928
5,957
5,932
6,017
5,915
6,053
6,0 5 6
6,024
5,971
5,920
5,849
5,802
5,812
5,778
5,776
1,737.8
1,810.0
1,814.1
1,766.8
1,725.0
1,695.9
1,650.5
1,634.9
1,632.5
1,615.7
1,633.8
E le c tric an d e le c tro n ic e q u ip m e n t ........................
1,999.5
T ra n s p o rta tio n e q u ip m e n t.........................................
In s tru m e n ts and re la te d p ro d u c ts
M is c e lla n e o u s m a n u fa c tu rin g
P ro d u c tio n w o r k e r s ............................................
F o o d a n d k in d re d p r o d u c ts ......................................
1,721.2
1,716.3
1,669.6
1,716.6
61.1
59.9
59.3
69.6
66.2
61.9
62.1
62.1
69.0
72.2
71.9
64.8
66.7
900.2
891.9
892.5
900.4
87 5 .5
890.4
888.9
889.8
893.9
893.5
887.4
887.9
890.6
887.1
877.1
1,292.0
1,284.4
1,305.9
1,317.0
1,304.4
1,301.0
T o b a c c o m a n u fa c tu re s
A p p a re l an d o th e r te x tile p ro d u c ts
......................
1,332.5
1,313.1
1,327.5
1,333.1
1,278.7
1,308.9
1,309.1
1,317.0
1,306.2
65.1
63.4
............................................
T e x tile m ill p r o d u c t s ....................................................
......................................
700.9
714.1
712.7
7 2 4 .6
719.6
723.3
718.5
717.7
715.9
71 4 .0
711.8
71 0 .0
710.7
707.8
702.6
Printing an d p u b lis h in g ..............................................
1,193.1
1,242.9
1,234.7
1,243.4
1,245.8
1,245.4
1,246.1
1,254.5
1,265.6
1,272.0
1,269.5
1,274.0
1,275.8
1,273.2
1,270.1
C h e m ic a ls and a llie d p ro d u c ts
..............................
1,096.3
1,112.7
1,110.9
1,126.6
1,123.0
1,121.2
1,114.9
1,115.0
1,115.2
1,115.6
1,113.9
1,113.0
1,118.5
1,121.0
1,121.2
.................................
2087
2138
212.9
216.8
2 1 8 .0
218.3
218.1
218.1
217.2
214.9
213.1
159.1
156.3
168.2
204.9
R u b b e r and m is c e lla n e o u s p la s tic s p ro d u c ts
751.9
767.5
77 7 .0
779.4
767.4
765.8
76 2 .0
7 6 2 .6
757.6
747.5
742,2
738.3
738.7
7 2 7 .9
696.4
L e a th e r and le a th e r p ro d u c ts
255.6
243.8
24 9 .2
253.7
224.7
245.8
243.1
243.1
2 4 3 .2
240.7
236.1
238.3
238.8
239.2
240.9
5,210
5,242
5,244
5,255
5,254
5,149
5,142
5,156
5,153
5,182
P a p e r an d a llie d p ro d u c ts
P e tro le u m an d c o a l p ro d u c ts
.................................
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
4,927
5,154
5,125
5,231
5,200
19,499
2 0 ,137
2 0 ,119
2 0 ,222
2 0 ,118
2 0 ,137
2 0 ,2 6 0
2 0 ,314
2 0 ,580
2 0 ,932
2 0 ,224
20,041
2 0 ,112
2 0 ,217
20,361
4,957
5,170
5,146
5,211
5,208
5,211
5,206
5,235
5,251
5,234
5,211
5,221
5,241
5,212
5,217
14,542
14,966
14,973
15,011
14,910
14,926
15,054
15,079
15,329
15,698
15,013
14,820
14,871
15,005
15,144
4,727
4,963
4,9 3 6
5,003
5,032
5,053
5,002
5,013
5,029
5,041
5,040
5,051
5,076
5,092
5,131
SERVICES
16,220
17,043
17,039
17,239
17,314
17,312
17,225
17,292
17,281
17,270
17,111
17,294
17,460
17,596
17,738
GOVERNMENT
15,476
15,612
15,858
15,763
15,020
14,931
15,326
15,763
15,928
15,915
15,730
15,994
16,146
16,338
16,289
2,753
2,773
2,773
2,824
2,838
2,844
2,751
2,7 5 6
2,760
2,770
2,763
2,803
2,869
3,103
3 ,0 2 9
13,277
13,235
13,260
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
WHOLESALE TRADE
RETAIL TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
F e d e r a l ............................................................................
S ta te a n d lo ca l
............................................................
78
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12,723
12,839
13,085
12,939
12,182
12,087
12,575
13,007
13,168
13,145
12,967
13,191
11.
E m p lo y m e n t b y in d u s try d iv is io n a n d m a jo r m a n u fa c tu rin g g ro u p , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d
[N onagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
1979
1980
Industry division and group
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
A p r.p
M ayp
TOTAL ......................................................................
89,398
89,626
89,713
89,762
89,803
89,982
90,100
90,241
90,652
90,845
90,819
90,508
90,328
MINING ..........................................................................
944
949
956
968
973
979
983
991
1,000
1,009
1,011
1,016
1,034
4,648
4,662
4,688
4,674
4,671
4,694
4,714
4,783
4,893
4,831
4,700
4,591
4,601
21,059
15,112
21,063
15,096
21,079
15,090
20,957
14,956
20,949
14,957
20,899
14,894
20,836
14,829
20,881
14,865
20,890
14,848
20,892
14,826
20,889
14,815
20,603
14,522
20,328
14,226
12,739
9,119
12,760
9,123
12,786
9,124
12,714
9,044
12,737
9,066
12,650
8,972
12,587
8,908
12,615
. 8,931
12,601
8,894
12,655
8,926
12,653
8,924
12,396
8,658
12,153
8,393
762
487
715
1,254
1,730
2,471
2,106
2,077
688
449
757
485
715
1,257
1,737
2,484
2,124
2,057
693
451
753
488
711
1,256
1,730
2,500
2,131
2,073
694
450
752
484
710
1,245
1,714
2,492
2,092
2,079
695
451
758
480
708
1,236
1,716
2,496
2,117
2,086
692
448
760
482
709
1,226
1,723
2,455
2,125
2,025
696
449
751
483
704
1,223
1,726
2,438
2,125
1,994
694
449
740
483
706
1,208
1,725
2,444
2,140
2,019
698
452
737
484
708
1,208
1,712
2,512
2,149
1,938
700
453
740
481
709
1,210
1,724
2,511
2,147
1,980
703
450
730
482
703
1,205
1,723
2,513
2,158
1,982
707
450
682
477
687
1,189
1,687
2,503
2,149
1,869
706
447
658
465
666
1,157
1,626
2,507
2,122
1,810
706
436
8,320
5,993
8,303
5,973
8,293
5,966
8,243
5,912
8,212
5,891
8,249
5,922
8,249
5,921
8,266
5,934
8,289
5,954
8,237
5,900
8,236
5,891
8,207
5,864
8,175
5,833
1,725
70
893
1,324
714
1,236
1,114
213
784
247
1,720
69
892
1,312
715
1,242
1,119
212
775
247
1,707
68
892
1,324
718
1,250
1,116
212
777
229
1,696
64
886
1,302
717
1,247
1,111
213
764
243
1,691
65
884
1,294
714
1,245
1,110
215
751
243
1,707
65
887
1,299
715
1,252
1,113
217
751
243
1,710
60
889
1,292
714
1,262
1,114
217
749
242
1,715
62
893
1,297
713
1,263
1,119
217
745
242
1,707
64
891
1,309
718
1,273
1,123
219
745
240
1,705
65
891
1,312
717
1,278
1,121
163
744
241
1,701
65
893
1,314
718
1,278
1,123
160
744
240
1,685
66
889
1,306
714
1,276
1,126
170
737
238
1,688
67
877
1,297
704
1,271
1,125
205
703
238
CONSTRUCTION
MANUFACTURING ......................................................................
Production workers .................................................................
Durable goods
Production w o rk e rs ...........................................................................
Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ..................................................
Furniture and fix tu re s .............................................................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..............................................................
Primary metal industries.................................................................
Fabricated metal p ro d u c ts ..........................................................
Machinery, except e le c tric a l......................................................................
Electric and electronic e q u ip m e n t................................................
Transportation equipm ent.......................................................
Instruments and related products ..............................................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ...................................................................
Nondurable goods
Production w o rk e rs .............................................................................
Food and kindred prod ucts..........................................................................
Tobacco manufactures .............................................................................
Textile mill prod ucts....................................................................................
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 .................................................................
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES ......................................
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
WHOLESALE TRADE .................................................................
RETAIL T R A D E .................................................................
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE ...........................................
5,130
5,190
5,169
5,194
5,180
5,218
5,229
5,223
5,212
5,210
5,213
5,189
5,187
20,129
20,116
20,122
20,126
20,169
20,243
20,308
20,254
20,428
20,521
20,499
20,349
20,371
5,156
5,180
5,182
5,185
5,190
5,209
5,235
5,218
5,248
5,274
5,278
5,238
5,227
14,973
14,936
14,940
14,941
14,979
15,034
15,073
15,036
15,180
15,247
15,221
15,111
15,144
4,936
4,958
4,972
5,003
4,997
5,018
5,039
5,056
5,081
5,092
5,107
5,107
5,131
SERVICES ....................................................................................
16,954
17,051
17,092
17,141
17,191
17,257
17,298
17,357
17,442
17,522
17,548
17,578
17,650
GOVERNMENT
F ede ral.....................................................................................................
State and local .........................................................................................
15,598
2,770
12,828
15,637
2,788
12,849
15,635
2,785
12,850
15,699
2,813
12,886
15,673
2,762
12,911
15,674
2,770
12,904
15,693
2,771
12,922
15,696
2,771
12,925
15,706
2,791
12,915
15,768
2,823
12,945
15,852
2,886
12,966
16,075
3,112
12,963
16,026
3,026
13,000
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
79
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
12.
L a b o r tu rn o v e r ra te s in m a n u fa c tu rin g , 19 77 to d a te
[Per 100 employees]
Year
Annual
average
Jan.
Mar.
Feb.
June
May
Apr.
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
4.3
4.4
4.3
5.3
5.4
4.9
4.6
4.9
4.4
3.9
4.3
4.1
3.1
3.3
2.9
2.4
2.4
2.2
3.0
3.3
3.1
4.0
4.2
3.7
3.5
3.9
3.4
3.0
3.5
3.1
2.2
2.6
2.2
1.6
1.7
1.5
.9
.8
9
1.0
.9
.9
.8
.7
.8
.6
.6
.7
.6
.5
.5
.6
.5
.5
4.3
4.1
4.3
5.1
5.3
5.7
4.9
4.8
4.7
3.8
4.1
4.2
3.4
3.5
3.8
3.4
3.4
3.5
1.9
2.1
2.0
3.1
3.5
3.3
2.8
3.1
2.7
1.9
2.3
2.1
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.0
1.4
1.0
.8
1.3
1.1 '
.8
1.1
1.1
.9
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.7
Total accessions
1977
1978
1979
1980
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
3.7
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.7
3.8
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.1
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.8
4.0
3.9
p 3.1
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.6
4.7
4.7
New hires
3.7
3.9
3.8
1977
1978
1979
1980
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
2.8
3.1
2.9
2.2
2.5
2.8
2.4
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.3
2.7
2.9
2.9
p2.0
3.5
3.6
3.6
1977
1978
1979
1980
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.9
.7
.7
1.2
1.0
.9
1.1
1.3
.7
.7
.9
1.1
.8
.7
.9
.9
.8
.7
p .8
.8
.8
.8
3.9
3.6
3.8
4.1
3.4
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.4
3.6
3.6
p 4.6
3.5
3.7
3.8
Recalls
.8
.7
.7
Total separations
1977
1978
1979
1980
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.5
3.8
3.9
Quits
1977
1978
1979
1980
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
p 1.5
1.6
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.9
2.2
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1
Layoffs
1977
1978
1979
1980
13.
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
1.4
.9
.8
.12
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.6
1.1
.9
1.1
.8
.7
.7
.9
.8
.9
p 2.3
1.0
.9
.8
1.3
.8
.7
.8
L a b o r tu rn o v e r ra te s in m a n u fa c tu rin g , b y m a jo r in d u s try g ro u p
[Per 100 employees]
Separation rates
Accession rates
New hires
Total
Major industry group
Layoffs
Quits
Total
Recalls
Apr.
1979
Mar.
1980
Apr.
1980 p
Apr.
1979
Mar.
1980
Apr.
1980 p
Apr.
1979
Mar.
1980
Apr.
1980 p
Apr.
1979
Mar.
1980
Apr.
1980p
Apr.
1979
Mar.
1980
Apr.
1980 p
Apr.
1979
Mar.
1980
Apr.
1980p
MANUFACTURING
Seasonally a d ju s te d .................
3.9
3.5
3.1
2.9
2.3
2.0
0.7
0.9
0.8
3.6
3.7
4.6
2.0
1.6
1.5
0.9
1.3
2.3
Durable goods
Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ............
Furniture and fixtures ......................
Stone, clay, and glass products . ..
Primary metal industries .................
Fabricated metal p ro d u cts..............
Machinery, except e lectrical............
Electric and electronic equipment ..
Transportation equipment ..............
Instruments and related products . .
Miscellaneous m anufacturing.........
3.6
6.6
5.0
5.1
2.6
3.9
2.8
3.1
3.3
2.8
5.0
3.1
4.4
4.0
3.9
2.7
3.6
2.5
2.9
3.0
2.8
4.6
2.6
4.1
3.4
3.6
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.6
2.7
5.1
4.3
3.4
1.9
3.0
2.3
2.4
2.1
2.4
3.8
2.0
2.9
3.2
2.0
1.2
2.3
1.8
2.1
1.4
2.3
2.9
1.7
2.3
2.8
1.8
.9
1.9
1.6
1.8
.6
1.3
.6
1.5
.5
.7
.2
.4
.8
.2
1.0
.8
1.3
.6
1,7
1.2
1.0
.4
.4
1.2
.2
1.4
.7
1.6
.4
1.6
.8
.9
.3
.5
3.2
5.7
5.4
3.6
2.2
3.9
2.5
3.0
2.9
2.4
4.7
3.5
6.5
4.5
3.7
2.7
4.0
2.6
2.9
4.1
2.2
4.8
4.7
10.0
5.1
4.5
3.8
6.0
3.6
3.5
1.7
3.7
3.3
2.0
.9
2.0
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.4
2.5
1.3
2.3
2.5
1.3
.6
1.5
1.1
1.3
.9
1.2
2.0
1.2
2.5
2.3
1.3
6
1.5
1.1
1.2
.7
.9
.9
.7
.4
.9
.3
.6
.9
.3
1.2
1.3
3.2
.9
1.6
1.2
1.6
.8
,6
2.3
.4
1.8
2.6
6.4
1.8
2.3
2.4
3.6
1.8
1.4
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products ............
Tobacco m anufacturers...................
Textile mill products ........................
Apparel and other p ro d u c ts ............
Paper and allied products ..............
Printing and publishing......................
Chemicals and allied products . . . .
Petroleum and coal p ro d u c ts ..........
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products ..........................
Leather and leather p ro d u cts.........
4.3
5.9
2.2
4.9
5.2
2.9
3.3
1.9
2.6
4.0
5.2
1.8
4.3
5.4
2.5
3.1
1.7
2.2
3.7
5.4
2.8
3.1
.7
3.4
3.9
1.6
2.6
1.3
1.5
2.6
3.3
1.0
1.8
.4
.6
1.3
.7
.4
.3
.6
.9
1.8
3.9
5.2
4.8
4.0
5.1
2.8
3.1
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.2
.4
2.5
3.0
1.0
1.8
.7
.8
2.7
2.8
.9
1.8
.6
.7
1.1
2.2
2.3
.6
1.7
.6
.6
.3
.5
1.2
2.1
3.2
.5
1.4
1.1
.6
.3
.6
1.7
2.8
4.8
5.6
2.9
3.1
1.7
2.8
2.3
2.9
.6
3.2
3.0
1.4
2.0
.7
.8
1.9
2.3
.5
1.5
.7
.3
.2
.8
4.3
5.9
3.8
4.8
5.6
2.7
3.3
1.6
1.9
4.5
5.9
4.0
5.2
2.2
2.8
1.5
2.6
3.1
4.0
.8
3.8
3.4
2.1
2.8
1.4
1.9
5.0
7.0
4.1
7.1
3.1
6.5
4.0
5.0
2.9
4.6
2.1
4.8
.9
2.1
.7
1.3
4.8
6.9
4.8
6.5
6.7
6.7
2.8
4.1
2.2
3.3
1.9
3.6
1.0
1.8
1.6
2.1
3.6
2.0
80
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2.4
4.4
2.0
3.1
3.2
3.5
1.4
2.4
1.2
1.8
.9
1.7
.7
.6
1.5
.6
.4
.4
.5
.7
1.6
.2
1.1
3.0
5.2
1.3
1.9
.9
2.2
1.1
2.0
1.3
.7
.6
1.5
14.
H o u rs an d e a rn in g s , b y in d u s try d iv is io n , 1 9 4 9 -7 9
[G r o s s a v e r a g e s , p r o d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o lls ]
Year
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Total private
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Mining
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Construction
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Manufacturing
1949 ......................
1950 ......................
$50.24
53.13
39.4
39.8
$1,275
1.335
$62.33
67.16
36.3
37.9
$1,717
1.772
$67.56
69.68
37.7
37.4
$1,792
1.863
$53.88
58.32
39.1
40.5
$1,378
1.440
1 9 5 1 ......................
1952 ......................
1953 ......................
1954 ......................
1955 ......................
57.86
60.65
63.76
64.52
67.72
39.9
39.9
39.6
39.1
396
1.45
1.52
1.61
1.65
1.71
74.11
77.59
83.03
82.60
89.54
38.4
38.6
38.8
38.6
40.7
1.93
2.01
2.14
2.14
2.20
76.96
82.86
86.41
88.91
90.90
38.1
38.9
37.9
37.2
37.1
2.02
2.13
2.28
2.39
2.45
63.34
66.75
70.47
70.49
75.30
40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40,7
1.56
1.64
1.74
1.78
1.85
1956 ......................
1957 ......................
1958 .....................
■959' ...................
1960 ......................
70.74
73.33
75.08
78.78
80.67
39.3
38.8
38.5
39.0
386
1.80
1.89
1.95
2.02
2.09
9506
98.25
96.08
103.68
105.04
40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4
2.33
2.45
2.47
2.56
2.60
96.38
100.27
103.78
108.41
112.67
37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7
2.57
2.71
2.82
2.93
3.07
78.78
81.19
82.32
88.26
89.72
40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7
1.95
2.04
2.10
2.19
226
1 9 6 1 ......................
1962 .....................
1963 .....................
1964 .....................
1965 ......................
82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45
38.6
38.7
38,8
38.7
388
2.14
2.22
2.28
2.36
2.46
106.92
110.70
114.40
117.74
123.52
40.5
41.0
41.6
41.9
42.3
2.64
2.70
2.75
2.81
2.92
118.08
122.47
127.19
132.06
138.38
36.9
37.0
37.3
37.2
37.4
3.20
3.31
3.41
3.55
3.70
9234
96.56
99.23
102.97
107.53
39.8
40,4
40.5
40.7
41.2
2.32
2.39
2.45
2.53
2.61
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
......................
......................
.....................
......................
......................
98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83
38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
37.1
2.56
2.68
2.85
3.04
3.23
130.24
135.89
142.71
154.80
164.40
42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
42.7
3.05
3.19
3.35
3.60
3.85
146.26
154.95
164.49
181.54
195.45
37.6
37.7
37.3
37.9
37.3
389
4.11
4.41
4.79
5.24
112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33
41.4
40.6
40.7
40.6
398
2.71
2.82
3.01
3.19
3.35
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53
36.9
37.0
36.9
36.5
36.1
3.45
3.70
3.94
4.24
4.53
172.14
189.14
201 40
219.14
249.31
42.4
42.6
42.4
41.9
41.9
4.06
4.44
4.75
5.23
5.95
211.67
221.19
235.89
249.25
266.08
37.2
36.5
36.8
36.6
364
5.69
6.06
6.41
6.81
7.31
142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79
399
40.5
40.7
40.0
395
3.57
3.82
4.09
4.42
4.83
1976
1977
1978
1979
......................
......................
......................
......................
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.91
36.1
36.0
358
35.7
4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16
273.90
301.20
332.11
364.64
42.4
43.4
43.3
43.0
6.46
6.94
7.67
8.48
28373
295 65
318.32
341.69
36.8
36.5
368
36.9
7.71
8.10
8.65
9.26
209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
5.22
5.68
6.17
6.69
Transportation and public
utilities
Finance, insurance, and
real estate
wnoiesaie ana retail trade
1949 ......................
1950 ......................
Services
$42.93
44.55
40.5
40.5
$1.060
1.100
$47 63
50.52
37 8
37.7
$1 260
1 340
.....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
47.79
49.20
51.35
53.33
55.16
40.5
40.0
39.5
39.5
39.4
1.18
1.23
1.30
1.35
1.40
54.67
57.08
59.57
62.04
63 92
37 7
37 8
37 7
37.6
37 6
1 45
1 51
1 58
1 65
1 70
1956 ......................
1957 ......................
1958 ......................
19591 ...................
1960 ......................
57.48
59.60
61.76
64.41
66.01
39.1
38.7
38.6
38.8
38.6
1.47
1.54
1.60
1.66
1.71
65 68
67 53
7012
72.74
75 14
36 9
36 7
37 1
37 3
37 2
1 78
1 84
1 89
1 95
2 02
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
......................
......................
......................
.....................
.....................
$118.78
125.14
41.1
41.3
$2.89
3.03
67.41
69.91
72.01
7466
76.91
38.3
38.2
38.1
37.9
37.7
1.76
1.83
1.89
1.97
2.04
77 12
80 94
84.38
85.79
88.91
36 9
37 3
37 5
37.3
37.2
2 09
2 17
2 25
2.30
2.39
$70.03
73.60
36.1
35.9
$1.94
2.05
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
......................
......................
......................
.....................
.....................
128.13
130.82
138 85
147.74
155.93
41.2
40.5
40.6
40.7
40.5
3.11
3.23
3.42
3.63
3.85
79.39
82.35
87 00
91.39
96.02
37.1
36.6
36.1
35.7
35.3
2.14
2.25
2.41
2.56
2.72
92.13
95.72
101.75
108.70
112.67
37.3
37.1
37.0
37.1
36.7
2.47
2.58
2.75
2.93
3.07
77.04
80.38
83.97
90.57
96.66
35.5
35.1
34.7
34.7
34.4
2.17
2.29
242
2.61
2.81
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
......................
.....................
......................
.....................
......................
168.82
187.86
203.31
217.48
233.44
40.1
40.4
40.5
40.2
39.7
4.21
4.65
5.02
5.41
5.88
101.09
106 45
111.76
119.02
126.45
35.1
34.9
34.6
34.2
339
2.88
3.05
3.23
3.48
3.73
117.85
122.98
129.20
137.61
148.19
36.6
366
366
36.5
36.5
3.22
3.36
3.53
3.77
4.06
103.06
110.85
117.29
126.00
134.67
33.9
339
338
336
33.5
3.04
3.27
3.47
3.75
4.02
1976
1977
1978
1979
.....................
.....................
......................
......................
256.71
278.90
302.80
326.38
39.8
39.9
40.0
39.9
6.45
6.99
7.57
8.18
133.79
142.52
15364
164.96
33.7
33.3
32.9
32.6
3.97
4.28
4.67
5.06
155.43
165.26
178.36
191.66
36.4
364
364
36.3
4.27
4.54
4.90
5.28
143.52
153.45
163.67
175.27
33.3
330
32.8
32.7
4.31
4.65
4.99
5.36
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
' Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
81
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
15.
W e e k ly h o u rs , b y in d u s try d iv is io n an d m a jo r m a n u fa c tu rin g g ro u p
[G r o s s a v e r a g e s , p r o d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n p r iv a te n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o lls ]
1980
1979
Annual Average
Industry division and group
TOTAL PR IVA TE ..................................................
MINING
1978
1979
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
A pr.p
May»
35 8
35.7
35.5
359
36.0
36.0
35.8
35.7
35.6
35.9
35.1
35.1
35.2
35.0
35.0
43.3
43.0
42.8
43.3
41.7
43.1
43.5
43.7
43.7
43.9
43.4
43.2
43.3
42.9
42.8
CONSTRUCTION
36.8
36.9
37.2
37.9
37.7
38.0
37.9
37.6
36.5
37.1
35.1
35.5
36.0
36.5
36.9
MANUFACTURING .....................................................
Overtime h o u r s .............................................
40.4
3.6
40.2
3.3
40.1
3.3
40.4
3.4
39.9
3.2
40.0
3.3
40.3
3.6
40.3
3.4
40.4
3.4
40.9
3.4
39.8
3.0
39.8
2.9
39.8
3.0
39.4
2.7
39.4
2.5
Durable goods
Overtime h o u r s .............................................
41.1
3.8
40.8
3.5
40.8
3.6
41.0
3.6
40.4
3.4
40.4
3.4
40.8
3.6
40.8
3.5
40.8
3.5
41.6
3.5
40.3
3.1
40.3
3.0
40.4
3.1
39.9
2.7
39.8
2.5
Lumber and wood products ...............................
Furniture and fixtures ...........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products..........................
Primary metal indu stries......................................
Fabricated metal products ..................................
39.8
39.3
41.6
41.8
41.0
39.5
38.6
41.5
41.4
408
39.6
38.2
41.9
41.4
40.7
40.2
38.8
42.1
41.6
41.0
39.4
38.0
41.5
41.3
40.3
39.9
38.6
41.7
40.8
40.5
40.1
39.0
41.7
41.3
40.8
39.8
39.3
41.7
40.9
41.0
38.8
39.2
41.7
40.7
41.0
39.2
39.9
41.8
40.9
41.9
38.1
38.4
40.1
40.7
40.6
38.5
38.3
40.1
40.7
40.4
38.3
38.5
40.7
40.7
40.6
37.1
38.0
40.4
40.6
40.2
37.3
37.2
40.9
39.8
39.9
Machinery except e lectrical..................................
Electric and electronic equipment .....................
Transportation equipment ....................................
Instruments and related products ......................
Miscellaneous manufacturing .............................
42.0
40.3
42.2
40.9
38.8
41.8
40.3
41.2
40.8
38.9
41.7
40.2
41.6
40.8
38,5
42.0
40.5
41.3
40.7
39.0
41.2
39.6
40.9
40.3
387
41.3
39.7
40.5
40.3
38.9
41.9
40.5
40.7
40.7
39.3
41.6
40.3
41.3
40.8
39.3
41.9
40.9
40.8
41.4
39.6
42.8
41.3
42.6
41.6
39.7
41.5
40.2
40.1
41.0
39.1
41.5
40.2
40,4
40.7
38.8
41.6
40.0
40.4
40.6
38.9
41.1
39.6
39.7
40,4
38.6
41.0
39.5
39.7
40.5
38.4
Nondurable goods
Overtime h o u r s .............................................
39.4
3.2
39.3
3.1
39.1
2.9
39.4
3.0
39.2
30
39.4
3.2
39.6
3.5
39.4
3.2
39.6
3.3
39.9
3.2
39.0
2.9
38.9
2.8
38.9
2.9
38.7
2.7
38.8
2.6
Food and kindred p ro d u c ts ..................................
Tobacco m anufactures.........................................
Textile mill p ro d u c ts ..............................................
Apparel and other textile pro d u cts .....................
Paper and allied p ro d u cts....................................
39.7
38.1
40.4
35.6
42.9
39.9
38.0
40.3
35.2
42.6
39.6
38.9
40.1
35.1
42.4
39.8
39.0
40.6
35.6
42.8
40.1
36.1
39.9
35.4
42.5
40.3
37.6
40.3
35.6
42.6
40.6
39.1
40.8
35.4
42.7
40.0
38.8
40.8
35.5
426
40.2
39.0
41.3
35.6
42.9
40.3
39.5
41.5
35.9
43.5
39.5
37.4
40.9
35.2
42.6
39.0
36.9
40.8
35.5
42.4
39.0
37.7
40.9
35.5
42.4
38.9
38.1
39.8
35.3
42.2
39.7
37.9
40.1
35.3
41.6
Printing and publishing .........................................
Chemicals and allied products.............................
Petroleum and coal products .............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products .............................
37.6
41.9
43,6
40.9
37.1
37.5
41.8
43.8
40.5
36.5
37.3
41.8
43.7
40.5
36.4
37.4
41.8
43.4
40.7
37.1
37.4
41.7
44.1
40.2
36.9
37.9
41.8
4 36
40.0
36.6
37.9
41.8
44.7
40.5
36.8
37.5
41.7
44.1
40.5
36.5
37.9
42.1
44.8
40.3
36.8
38.1
42.2
43.4
40.7
37.3
37.2
41.7
36.1
40.3
36.7
37.0
41.6
39.6
39.9
36.8
37.2
41.6
39.4
40.0
36.4
36.8
41.6
41.8
39.7
36.6
36.7
41.4
42.4
39.1
36.9
40.0
39.9
39.6
40.0
40.0
40.3
39.9
39.9
40.2
40.0
39.5
39.4
39.5
39.3
39.1
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
32.9
32.6
32.4
32.9
33.3
33.2
32.7
32.5
32.4
32.9
31.9
31.9
32.0
31.8
31.9
WHOLESALE TRADE
388
38.8
38.9
39.0
39.0
38.9
38.8
38.9
38.9
39.1
38.5
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.5
RETAIL TRADE
31.0
30.7
30.4
31.0
31.5
31.4
30.7
30.4
30.4
31.0
29.8
29.8
29.9
29.8
29.8
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE .....................................................................
36.4
36.3
36.1
36.2
36.4
362
36.3
36.3
36.4
36.4
36.3
36.4
36.4
36.3
36.3
SERVICES
328
32.7
32.5
32.9
33.3
33.2
32.7
32.6
32.6
32.8
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.3
82
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
16.
W e e k ly h o u rs , b y in d u s try d iv is io n an d m a jo r m a n u fa c tu rin g g ro u p , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d
[G ross averages, production o r nonsupervisory w orkers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1979
1980
Industry division and group
TOTAL PRIVATE
..................................................
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
A pr.p
M ayp
35.7
35.6
35.6
35.6
35.7
35.6
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.5
35.4
35.3
35.1
MINING ...............................................................................
42,8
43.0
41.6
43.2
43.1
43.1
43.2
43.9
44.4
43.7
43.5
43.2
42.8
CONSTRUCTION
37.1
37.2
36.8
37.2
37.5
36.6
36.8
37.1
37.6
36.7
36.1
36.5
36.8
MANUFACTURING
Overtime h o u rs .....................................................
40.2
3.5
40.1
3.4
40.2
3.3
40.1
3.2
40.2
3.2
40.2
3.2
40.1
3.3
40.2
3.2
40.3
3.2
40.1
3.1
39.8
3.2
39.6
2.9
39.4
2.6
Durable goods
Overtime h o u rs .....................................................
40.9
3.8
40.7
3.6
40.7
3.5
40.7
3.3
40.7
3.3
40.8
3.3
40.6
3.4
40.7
c 3"2
408
3.3
40.6
3.1
40.4
3.2
40.1
2.8
39.8
2.6
Lumber and wood products ......................................
Furniture and fix tu re s ..................................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ...............................
Primary metal industries..............................................
Fabricated metal products .........................................
39.4
38.5
41.7
41.4
40.7
39.4
38.5
41.6
41.2
40.7
39.3
38.4
41.4
41.3
40.8
39.5
38.3
41.3
41.0
40.6
39.7
38.6
41.5
41.0
40.7
39.4
38.8
41.3
41.1
40.9
38.9
38.9
41.5
40.7
40.7
39.0
39.0
41.6
40.6
41.0
39.5
39.0
41.3
40.8
40.9
39.1
39.0
41.0
40.8
40.8
38.6
38.6
40.9
40.8
40.6
37.1
38.6
40.5
40.7
40.5
37.1
37.5
40.7
39.8
39.9
Machinery, except e le c tric a l.......................................
Electric and electronic equip m e n t.............................
Transportation equipm ent...........................................
Instruments and related products .............................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ....................................
4 20
40.4
41.5
40.8
38.6
42.0
40.3
40.8
40.6
38.9
41.9
40.2
40.9
40.7
39.3
41.6
39.8
41.7
40.5
39.1
41.9
40.3
40.6
40.6
39.1
41.6
40.3
41.3
40.7
39.1
41.6
40.6
40.6
41.0
39.1
41.6
40.5
41.0
40.8
39.2
41.7
40.4
41.0
41.5
39.5
41.5
40.4
40.9
40.9
39.2
41.4
40.0
40.4
40.5
38.7
41.3
39.8
39.7
40.7
38.6
41.2
39.7
39.6
40.5
38.5
Nondurable goods
Overtime h o u rs .....................................................
39.2
3.0
39.2
3.0
39.2
3.0
39.2
3.0
39.3
3.1
39.3
3.0
39.4
3.2
39.4
3.1
39.5
3.1
39.4
3.0
39.1
3.1
39.0
2.9
38.9
2.7
Food and kindred prod ucts.........................................
Tobacco manufactures ..............................................
Textile mill p rod ucts.....................................................
Apparel and other textile products ..........................
Paper and allied products .........................................
39.8
38.9
40.0
35.2
42.6
39.8
37.6
40.1
35.2
42.5
39.8
38.5
40.1
35.5
42.5
39.7
38.0
40.1
35.3
42.6
40.0
38.6
40.6
35.3
42.4
39.9
38.3
40.8
35.3
42.6
40.0
37.8
41.1
35.3
42.7
39.9
38.8
41.0
35.6
42.9
40.0
385
41.7
35.9
42.8
39.6
37.7
41.1
36.0
42.9
39.4
37.6
40.8
35.5
426
39.5
38.1
40.0
35.6
42.4
39.9
37.9
40.0
35.4
41.8
Printing and publishing................................................
Chemicals and allied products ..................................
Petroleum and coal products ....................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ..........
Leather and leather products ....................................
37.4
41.9
43.7
40.9
36.1
37.4
41.7
43.3
40.7
36.4
37.5
41.9
43.6
40.6
36.6
37.7
42.0
43.7
40.2
36.5
37.5
41.7
44.1
40.3
37.0
37.4
41.7
43.7
40.3
36.5
37.6
41.9
44.4
40.0
36.7
37.4
41.7
43.5
39.9
36.9
37.8
42.0
36.6
40.6
37.2
37.4
41.9
40.4
39.9
37.3
37.2
41.6
396
39 9
36.8
37.1
41.4
41.8
40.0
36.9
36.8
41.5
42.4
39.5
36.6
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
39.8
39.8
39.7
39.9
39.9
39.9
40.2
39.8
39.9
c 39.5
39.7
39.5
39.3
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.5
32.6
32.6
32.7
32.6
32.5
32.3
32.3
32.1
32.0
WHOLESALE TRADE
39.0
38.8
38.8
38.7
38.7
38.8
38.9
38.9
38.8
38.7
38.5
38.5
38.6
RETAIL T R A D E ...................................................................
30.6
3 06
30.6
30.5
30.7
30.6
30.7
30.6
30.5
30.3
30.3
30.1
29.9
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ........................................................................
36.1
36.2
36.3
36.1
36.4
36.2
36.5
36.4
36.2
36.4
36.5
36.4
36.3
SERVICES
32.7
32.7
32.8
32.7
32.7
32.6
32.7
32.9
32.7
32.7
32.7
32.7
32.5
c=corrected.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
83
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
17.
H o u rly e a rn in g s , b y in d u s try d iv is io n an d m a jo r m a n u fa c tu rin g g ro u p
[G r o s s a v e r a g e s , p r o d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n p r iv a te n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o lls ]
Annual average
Industry division and group
TOTAL PR IVA TE...........................................................
1979
1980
1978
1979
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
A pr.p
M ayp
$5.69
$6.16
$6.09
$6.12
$6.16
$6.19
$6.31
$6.32
$6.35
$6.39
$6.42
$6.46
$6.51
$6.53
$6.57
M IN IN G ...................................................................................
7.67
8.48
8.45
8.49
8.52
8.48
8.57
8.57
8.70
8.73
8.85
8.88
8.92
9.05
9.05
CONSTRUCTION...................................................................
8.65
9.26
9.14
9.13
9.24
9.32
9.51
9.49
9.50
9.57
9.47
9.60
9.66
9.64
9.68
MANUFACTURING ..............................................................
6.17
6.69
6.63
6.66
6.71
6.69
6.80
6.82
6.86
6.97
6.96
6.99
7.06
7.08
7.12
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products .................................
Furniture and fix tu re s .............................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..........................
Primary metal industries.........................................
Fabricated metal products ....................................
6.58
5.60
4.68
6.32
8.20
6.34
7.12
6.08
5.06
6.84
8.97
6.82
7.07
5.97
4.97
6.78
8.83
6.77
7.11
6.16
5.05
6.85
8.91
6.81
7.15
6.23
5.04
6.89
9.04
6.80
7.12
6.23
5.10
6.90
9.10
6.83
7.24
6.32
5.18
6.98
9.16
6.93
7.25
6.24
5.20
7.00
9.10
6.96
7.29
6.23
5.23
7.07
9.26
6.99
7.41
6.25
5.27
7.10
9.28
7.12
7.39
6.22
5.27
7.05
9.30
7.06
7.45
6.34
5.34
7.13
9.44
7.12
7.54
6.36
5.38
7.26
9.45
7.22
7.55
6.28
5.42
7.34
9.53
7.25
7.59
6.39
5.43
7.42
9.52
7.30
Machinery, except e le c tric a l.................................
Electric and electronic equip m e n t........................
Transportation equipm ent......................................
Instruments and related products ........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ...............................
6.77
5.82
7.91
5.71
4.69
7.33
6.31
8.53
6.17
5.04
7.25
6.21
8.56
6.11
5.00
7.34
6.25
8.53
6.11
4.99
7.35
6.27
8.55
6.16
5.03
7.35
6.36
8.44
6.14
5.04
7.48
6.46
8.59
6.21
5.07
7.45
6.48
8.67
6.32
5.12
7.51
6.51
8.68
6.39
5.15
7.65
6.64
8.90
6.49
5.22
7.67
6.67
8.78
6.57
5.31
7.71
6.71
8.84
6.58
5.33
7.78
6.78
9.01
6.62
5.36
7.83
6.79
9.00
6.63
5.40
7.89
6.80
9.02
6.71
5.47
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred prod ucts....................................
Tobacco m anufactures...........................................
Textile mill prod ucts................................................
Apparel and other textile products ......................
Paper and allied products......................................
5.53
5.80
6.13
4.30
3.94
6.52
6.00
6.27
6.69
4.66
4.24
7.12
5.91
6.22
6.83
4.52
4.20
6.96
594
6.22
6.82
4.54
4.21
7.05
6.03
6.28
6.83
4.65
4.23
7.17
6.04
6.28
6.59
4.77
4.21
722
6.11
6.33
6.54
4.82
4.28
7.32
6.14
6.36
6.43
4.83
4.32
7.34
6.21
6.51
7.01
4.86
4.32
7.42
6.26
6.56
7.04
4.87
4.39
7.48
6.28
6.62
7.13
4.90
4.45
748
6.27
6.64
7.41
4.90
4.46
7.51
6.30
6.69
7.61
4.93
4.49
7.54
6.37
6.77
7.81
4.93
4.47
7.62
6.42
6.82
7.70
4.92
4.44
7.61
Printing and publishing...........................................
Chemicals and allied products .............................
Petroleum and coal products ...............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products .. .
Leather and leather products ...............................
6.50
7.01
8.63
5.52
3.89
6.91
7.59
9.37
5.96
4.23
6.83
7.47
9.39
5.90
4.18
6.88
7.53
9.32
5.91
4.19
6.90
760
9.39
5.95
4.19
6.94
7.65
9.35
5.94
4.22
7.04
7.73
9.51
6.03
4.29
7.06
7.82
9.49
6.12
4.31
7.09
7.87
9.57
6.14
4.34
7.17
7.91
9.49
6.21
4.36
7.20
7.96
9.48
6.25
4.46
7.25
7.99
9.40
6.25
4.48
7.30
804
9.32
6.27
4.52
7.30
8.11
9.84
6.31
4.53
7.41
8.15
10.16
6.32
4.57
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC U TILIT IE S .................
7.57
8.18
7.94
8.03
8.23
8.32
8.45
8.45
8.52
8.55
8.56
8.59
8.64
8.71
8.74
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE .................................
4.67
5.06
5.00
5.02
5.05
5.06
5.13
5.15
5.18
5.18
5.34
5.36
5.40
5.40
5.42
WHOLESALE TRADE
5.88
6.39
6.29
6.34
6.39
6.41
6.51
6.51
6.57
6.68
6.72
6.76
6.82
6.84
6.88
RETAIL TRADE
4.20
4.53
4.49
4.50
4.51
4.52
4.58
4.59
4.62
4.61
4.78
4.78
4.81
4.81
4.83
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ...............................................................................
4.90
5.28
5.22
5.22
529
5.29
5.38
5.37
5.42
549
5.55
5.62
5.69
5.70
5?0
SERVICES...............................................................................
4.99
5.36
5.27
5.27
5.29
5.30
5.45
5.48
5.54
5.60
5.65
5.70
5.74
5.75
5.78
18.
H o u rly E arn in g s In d e x fo r p ro d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e rv is o ry w o rk e rs o n p riv a te n o n a g ric u ltu ra l p a y ro lls , b y in d u s try d iv is io n
[S e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d d a ta : 1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 ]
1979
1980
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
A pr.p
May»
Apr. 1980
to
May 1980
227.5
229.0
230.9
232.2
234.3
234.9
237.3
239.5
240.5
242.6
245.3
246.4
247.9
0.6
- 9 .0
262.7
220.4
232.3
243.7
221.0
207.0
224.3
264.9
220.4
233.9
246.4
222.6
208.0
225.7
266.9
222.1
235.4
251.3
223.8
210.8
227.0
265.6
223.1
236.9
252.6
225.4
211.5
228.4
266.1
224.4
238.7
255.6
227.0
214.4
231.5
268.0
224.0
240.0
255.8
227.4
213.1
232.3
271.6
225.8
242.1
258.9
229.5
216.2
234.7
273.2
227.6
244.3
260.7
231.3
218.5
237.7
274.0
225.1
245.3
261.2
234.7
218.6
238.0
275.5
229.8
248.1
262.7
235.5
221.2
239.9
278.4
231.9
250.1
266.2
238.0
226.0
243.1
283.2
232.0
252.3
267.4
238.4
226.0
243.6
284.1
232.5
254.3
268.8
239.9
225.8
245.4
.3
.2
8
.5
.6
-.1
.7
-8 .1
- 5 .5
- 9 .5
-1 0 .3
- 8 .5
-9 .1
- 9 .4
106.3
105.8
105.6
105.1
104.9
104.1
104.1
103.8
102.8
102.3
102.0
101.5
(’ )
( ')
Industry
TOTAL PRIVATE (in current dollars)
M in in g ..................................................
Construction ......................................
Manufacturing ....................................
Transportation and public utilities . . .
Wholesale and retail trade ..............
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Services .............................................
TOTAL PRIVATE (in constant dollars)
1 Not available.
84
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
May 1979
to
May 1980
(’ )
19.
W e e k ly e a rn in g s , b y in d u s try d iv is io n an d m a jo r m a n u fa c tu rin g g ro u p
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual average
1979
1980
Industry division and group
1978
TOTAL PRIVATE
$203,70
1979
$219.91
May
$216.20
June
$219.71
July
$221.76
Aug.
Sept.
$22284
$225.90
Oct.
$225.62
Nov.
$226.06
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
$229.40
$225.34
$226.75
Mar.
A pr.p
May»
$229.15
$228.55 $229.95
MINING ..........................................................................
332.11
364.64
361.66
367.62
355.28
365.49
372.80
374.51
380.19
383.25
384.09
383.62
386.24
388.25
387.34
CONSTRUCTION
318.32
341.69
340.01
346.03
348.35
354.16
360.43
356.82
346.75
355.05
332.40
340.80
347.76
351.86
357.19
MANUFACTURING .......................................................
249.27
268.94
265.86
269.06
267.73
267.60
274.04
274.85
277.14
285.07
277.01
278.20
280.99
278.95
280.53
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products ...............................
Furniture and fixtures ...........................................
Stone, clay, and glass prod ucts..........................
Primary metal ind u strie s......................................
Fabricated metal products .................................
270.44
222.88
183.92
262.91
342.76
259.94
290.50
240.16
195.32
283.86
371.36
278.26
288.46
236.41
189.85
284.08
365.56
275.54
291.51
247.63
195.94
288.39
370.66
279.21
288.86
245.46
191.52
285.94
373,35
274.04
287.65
248.58
196.86
287.73
371.28
276.62
295.39
253.43
202.02
291.07
378.31
282.74
295.80
248.35
204.36
291.90
372.19
285.36
297.43
241.72
205.02
294.82
376.88
286.59
308.26
245.00
210.27
296.78
379.55
298.33
297.82
236.98
202.37
282.71
378.51
286.64
300.24
244.09
204.52
285.91
384.21
287.65
304.62
243.59
207.13
295.48
384.62
293.13
301.25
232.99
205.96
296.54
386.92
291.45
302.08
238.35
202.00
303.48
378.90
291.27
Machinery except e lectrical.................................
Electric and electronic equipment .....................
Transportation equipment ....................................
Instruments and related products ......................
Miscellaneous manufacturing .............................
284.34
234.55
333.80
233.54
181.97
306.39
254.29
351.44
251.74
196.06
302.33
249.64
356.10
249.29
192.50
308.28
253.13
352.29
248.68
194.61
302.82
248 29
349.70
248.25
194.66
303.56
252.49
341.82
247.44
196.06
313.41
261.63
349.61
252.75
199.25
309.92
261.14
358.07
257.86
201.22
314.67
266.26
354.14
264.55
203.94
327.42
274.23
379.14
269.98
207.23
318.31
268.13
352.08
269.37
207.62
319.97
269.74
357.14
267.81
206.80
323.65
271.20
364.00
268.77
208.50
321.81
268.88
357.30
267.85
208.44
323.49
268.60
358.09
271.76
210.05
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred p ro d u c ts ..................................
Tobacco m anufactures.........................................
Textile mill p ro d u c ts ..............................................
Apparel and other textile pro d u cts......................
Paper and allied p ro d u c ts ....................................
217.88
230.26
233.55
173 72
140.26
279.71
23580
250.17
254.22
187.80
149.25
303.31
231.08
246.31
265.69
181.25
147.42
295.10
234.04
247.56
265.98
184.32
149.88
302.74
236.38
251.83
246.56
185.54
149.74
304.73
237.98
253.08
247.78
192.23
149.88
307.57
241.96
257.00
255.71
196.66
151.51
312.56
241.92
254.40
249.48
197.06
153.36
312.68
245.92
261.70
273.39
200.72
153.79
318.32
249.77
264.37
278.08
202.11
157.60
325.38
244.92
261.49
266.66
200.41
156.64
318.65
243.90
258.96
273.43
199.92
158.33
318.42
245.07
260.91
286.90
201.64
159.40
319.70
246.52
263.35
297.56
196.21
157.79
321.56
249.10
270.75
291.83
197.29
156.73
316.58
Printing and publishing .........................................
Chemicals and allied prod ucts.............................
Petroleum and coal products .............................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics prod ucts................................................
Leather and leather products .............................
244.40
293.72
376.27
259.13
317.26
410.41
254.76
312.25
410.34
257.31
314.75
404.49
258.06
316.92
414.10
263 03
319.77
407.66
266.82
323.11
425.10
264.75
326.09
418.51
268.71
331.33
428.74
273.18
333.80
411.87
267.84
331.93
342.23
268.25
332.38
372.24
271.56
334.46
367.21
268.64
337.38
411.31
271.95
337.41
430.78
225.77
144.32
241.38
154.40
238.95
152.15
240.54
155.45
239.19
154.61
237.60
154.45
244.22
157.87
247.86
157.32
247.44
159.71
252.75
162.63
251.88
163.68
249.38
164.86
250.80
164.53
250.51
165.80
247.11
168.63
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
302.80
326 38
314.42
321.20
329.20
335.30
337.16
337.16
342.50
342.00
338.12
338.45
341 28
342.30
341.73
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
153.64
164.96
162.00
165.16
168.17
167.99
167.75
167.38
167.83
170.42
170.35
17098
172.80
171.72
172.90
WHOLESALE TRADE
228.14
247.93
244.68
247.26
249.21
249.35
252.59
253.24
255.57
261.19
258.72
259.58
261.89
262.66
264.88
RETAIL TRADE
130.20
139.07
136.50
139.50
142 07
141.93
140.61
139.54
140.45
142.91
142.44
142.44
143.82
143.34
143.93
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
178.36
191.66
188.44
188.96
192 56
191.50
195.29
194.93
197.29
199.84
201.47
204.57
207.12
206.91
206.91
SERVICES
163.67
175.27
171.28
173.38
176.16
175.96
178.22
178.65
180.60
183.68
183.63
185.25
186.55
186.88
186.69
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
85
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
20.
G ro s s an d s p e n d a b le w e e k ly e a rn in g s , in c u rre n t an d 19 67 d o lla rs , 1 9 60 to d a te
[A v e r a g e s fo r p r o d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n p r iv a te n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o lls ]
Manufacturing workers
Private nonagricultural workers
Year and month
Gross average
weekly earnings
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
Married worker with
3 dependents
Gross average
weekly earnings
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
Married worker with
3 dependents
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
$101.15
$72.57
$81.82
$80.11
$90.32
74.60
77.86
79.51
84.40
89.08
83.26
85.94
86.71
90.85
94.26
82.18
85.53
87.25
92.18
96.78
91.72
94.40
95.15
99.22
102.41
$80.67
$90.95
$65.59
$73.95
$72.96
$82.25
$89.72
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45
92.19
94.82
96.47
98.31
101.01
67.08
69.56
71.05
75.04
79.32
74.87
76.78
77.48
8078
83.94
74.48
76.99
78.56
82.57
86.63
83.13
84.98
85.67
88.88
91.67
92.34
96.56
99.23
102.97
107.53
103.06
106.58
108.21
110.84 113.79
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83
101.67
101.84
103.39
104.38
103.04
81.29
83.38
86.71
90.96
96.21
83 63
83.38
83.21
8284
82.73
88.66
90.86
95.28
99.99
104.90
91.21
90.86
91.44
91.07
90.20
112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33
115.42
114.49
117.57
117.95
114.64
91.45
92.97
97.70
101.90
106.32
94.08
92.97
93.76
92.81
91.42
99.33
100.93
106.75
111.44
115.58
102.19
100.93
102.45
101.49
99.38
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53
104.95
109.26
109.23
104.78
101.45
103.80
112.19
117.51
124.37
132.49
85.57
89.54
88.29
84.20
82.19
112.43
121.68
127.38
134.61
145.65
92.69
97.11
95.70
91.14
90.35
142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79
117.43
123.47
125.06
119.70
118.36
114.97
125.34
132.57
140.19
151.61
94.78
100.03
99.60
94.92
94.05
124.24
135.57
143.50
151.56
166.29
102.42
108.20
107.81
102.61
103.16
1976
1977
1978
1979
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.91
102.90
104.13
104.30
101.02
143.30
155.19
165.39
178.00
84.05
85.50
84.69
81.76
155.87
169.93
180.71
194.82
91.42
93.63
92.53
89.49
209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
122.77
126.12
127.63
123.54
167.83
183.80
197.40
212.43
98.43
101.27
101.08
97.58
181.32
200.06
214.87
232.07
106.35
110.23
110.02
106.60
1979: May ......................................
June ......................................
216.20
219.71
100.89
101.30
175.29
177.85
81 80
82.00
191.93
194.67
89.56
89.75
265.86
269.06
124.06
124.05
210.04
212.51
98.14
97.98
229.74
232.17
107.20
107.04
J u ly .........................................
August ..................................
September ..........................
221.76
222.84
225.90
101.08
100.60
100.98
179.35
180.13
182.36
81.75
81.32
81.52
196.26
197.11
199.42
89.45
88.99
89.15
267.73
267.60
274.04
122.03
120.81
122.50
211.61
211.52
215.89
96.45
95.49
96.51
231.16
231.06
235.94
105.36
104.32
105.47
O cto b e r..................................
N o ve m b e r.............................
D e ce m b e r.............................
225.62
226.06
229.40
100.01
99.32
99.74
182.16
182.48
184.84
80.74
80.18
80.37
199.21
199.54
202.08
88.30
87.67
87.86
274.85
277.14
285.07
121.83
121.77
123.94
216.44
217.99
223.38
95.94
95.78
97.12
236.56
238.30
244.31
104.86
104.70
106.22
1980: J a n u a ry..................................
F e b ru a ry ...............................
M a rc h ....................................
225.34
226.75
229.15
96.59
95.88
95.52
181.96
182.98
184.67
77.99
77.37
76.98
199.00
200.07
201.89
85.30
84.60
84.16
277.01
278.20
280.99
118.74
117.63
117.13
217.91
218.71
220.61
93.40
92.48
91.96
238.20
239.10
241.22
102.10
101.10
100.55
A prilp ....................................
M ayp ....................................
228.55
229.95
94.21
(’)
184.25
185.23
75.95
(’ )
201.43
202.49
83.03
(’ )
278.95
280.53
114.98
( ')
219.22
220.30
90.36
(’ )
239.67
240.87
98.79
(’ )
1960 ...................................................
'N o t available.
NOTE: The earnings expressed in 1967 dollars have been adjusted for changes in price level
as measured by the Bureau's Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.
86
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
These series are described in “ The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note on its Calculation," Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force, February 1969, pp.
6 -1 3 . See also "Spendable Earnings Formulas, 197 8 -8 0 ," Employment and Earnings, March 1980,
pp. 1 0 -1 1 .
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA
U n e m p l o y m e n t i n s u r a n c e d a t a are compiled monthly by
the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. De
partment of Labor from records of State and Federal unem
ployment insurance claims filed and benefits paid. Railroad
unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S. Rail
road Retirement Board.
ployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about onethird of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet
earned benefit rights are excluded from the scope of the survey. In i
tial claims are notices filed by persons in unemployment insurance
programs to indicate they are out of work and wish to begin receiv
ing compensation. A claimant who continued to be unemployed a
full week is then counted in the insured unemployment figure. The
rate of insured unemployment expresses the number of insured unem
ployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a
12-month period.
Definitions
Data for all programs represent an unduplicated count of insured
unemployment under State programs, Unemployment Compensation
for Ex-Servicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees, and the Railroad Insurance Act.
An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the be
ginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no ap
plication is required for subsequent periods in the same year. Num
ber of payments are payments made in 14-day registration periods.
The average amount of benefit payment is an average for all com
pensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or set
tlement of underpayments. However, total benefits paid have been
adjusted.
Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs
for civilian employees, insured workers must report the completion of
at least 1 week of unemployment before they are defined as unem
21.
U n e m p lo y m e n t In s u ra n c e an d e m p lo y m e n t s e rv ic e o p e ra tio n s
[All item s except average benefits am ounts are in thousands]
1979
Item
All programs:
Insured unem ploym ent..........................
Apr.
May
2,610
June
2,230
July
2,119
2,429
1980
Aug.
Sept
2,377
2,164
O ct
2,236
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb
2,559
3,047
3,740
Mar.
3,730
Apr.
3,652
3,627
State unemployment insurance
program:1
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) .................................
Rate of insured unemployment ............
Weeks of unemployment
1,589
1,309
1,400
1,978
1,545
1,219
1,641
1,827
2,263
2,837
1,818
1,705
2,440
3.1
2,078
2.6
1,991
2.5
2,300
2.8
2,245
2.7
2,024
2.4
2,057
2.4
2,384
2.8
2,864
3.4
3,537
4.1
3,518
4.1
3,356
3.9
13,792
12,800
13 170
$96 41
$98 46
$1,283,946 $1,229,877
$99 15
$1,218,231
8,956
8,442
7,197
7,889
8,830
6,993
7,638
8 107
9,171
$89.25
$777,699
$88.37
$725,229
$87.25
$610,269
$86.40
$665,687
$88 56
$767,025
$89 07
$606,095
$90 59
$673,965
$92 39
$728,370
$94 54
$843,869
3,278
3.8
Average weekly benefit amount
Unemployment compensation for exservicemen:3
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ..................................
Weeks of unemployment
20
20
24
28
28
23
26
24
24
25
21
21
48
45
45
51
52
52
52
54
56
60
58
63
207
$19,617
214
$20,440
193
$18,623
216
$20,965
234
$23,861
211
$19,634
236
$23,325
232
$23,093
233
$23,093
299
$29,635
255
$25,414
249
$24,928
12
12
13
16
13
13
18
15
15
19
11
12
52
Unemployment compensation for
Federal civilian employees:4
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ..................................
Weeks of unemployment
27
24
23
2.5
25
25
28
29
31
34
32
30
112
$10,345
106
$9,330
91
$8,341
96
$8,802
107
$9,829
91
$8,453
109
$10,093
118
$11,063
118
$11,047
150
$14,118
129
$12,387
123
$11,901
3
3
9
15
8
13
11
10
11
22
7
5
18
40
10
29
8
19
11
20
12
26
21
32
18
51
20
36
19
41
40
80
39
71
30
68
$195.55
$7,276
$177.39
$5,681
$183.13
$3,314
$190.10
$3,699
$195.61
$3,767
$189 08
$5,747
$189.61
$8,003
$183.38
$6,462
$197 22
$8,085
$199.01
$14,967
$208 73
$14,573
$210.79
$13,884
9,180
2,291
10,452
2,616
11,907
3'051
13,186
3,482
14,479
3,935
15,525
4,349
1,855
458
25
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Insured unemployment (average
Average amount of benefit
Employment service:5
Nonfarm placements .............................
11nitial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican
sugarcane workers.
2 Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands. Excludes transition claims under State programs.
3 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4,378
1,044
8,553
1 '816
4 Includes the Virgin Islands. Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs.
5 Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1 - September 30).
NOTE: Data for Puerto Rico included. Dashes indicate data not available.
87
PRICE DATA
P r ic e d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price
indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100,
unless otherwise noted).
Definitions
The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure of the
average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and ser
vices. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics began publishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. One
index, a new CPI for All Urban Consumers, covers 80 percent of the
total noninstitutional population; and the other index, a revised CPI
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covers about half the
new index population. The All Urban Consumers index includes, in
addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional, manageri
al, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the
unemployed, "retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs,
transportation fares, doctor’s and dentist’s fees, and other goods and
services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quali
ty of these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revi
sions so that only price changes will be measured. Prices are collected
from over 18,000 tenants, 24,000 retail establishments, and 18,000
housing units for property taxes in 85 urban areas across the country.
All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are
included in the index. Because the CPI’s are based on the expendi
tures of two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately
reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with
different buying habits.
Though the CPI is often called the “Cost-of-Living Index,” it mea
sures only price change, which is just one of several important factors
affecting living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the
level of prices among cities. They only measure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.
Producer Price Indexes measure average changes in prices received
in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodities
in all stages of processing. The sample used for calculating these in
dexes contains about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations
per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all com
modities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing,
mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The universe
includes all commodities produced or imported for sale in commercial
transactions in primary markets in the United States.
Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or
by commodity. The stage of processing structure organizes products
by degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or
semifinished goods, and crude materials). The commodity structure
organizes products by similarity of end-use or material composition.
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price In
dexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the Unit
ed States, from the production or central marketing point. Price data
are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire.
88
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Most prices are obtained directly from producing companies on a vol
untary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the
Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month.
In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the vari
ous commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights
representing their importance in the total net selling value of all com
modities as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain in
dexes for stage of processing groupings, commodity groupings, dura
bility of product groupings, and a number of special composite
groupings.
Price indexes for the output of selected S IC industries measure av
erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries,
as defined in the S ta n d a rd In du strial Classification M a n u a l 1972
(Washington, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These
indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the
economic activity of the specified industry and weighted by the value
of shipments in the industry. They use data from comprehensive in
dustrial censuses conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notes on the data
Beginning with the May 1978 issue of the Review, regional CPI’s
cross classified by population size, were introduced. These indexes will
enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a
better approximation of the CPI for their area by using the appropri
ate population size class measure for their region. The cross-classified
indexes will be published bimonthly. (See table 24.)
For further details about the new and the revised indexes and a
comparison of various aspects of these indexes with the old unrevised
CPI, see F acts A bou t the R evised C onsum er Price Index, a pamphlet in
the Consumer Price Index Revision 1978 series. See also The
C onsum er Price Index: Concepts a n d C ontent O ver the Years. Report
517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978).
For interarea comparisons of living costs at three hypothetical stan
dards of living, see the family budget data published in the H an dbook
o f L ab o r Statistics, 1977, Bulletin 1966 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1977), tables 122-133. Additional data and analysis on price changes
are provided in the C P I D eta iled R eport and P roducer Prices a n d Price
Indexes, both monthly publications of the Bureau.
As of January 1976, the Wholesale Price Index (as it was then
called) incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 val
ues of shipments. From January 1967 through December 1975, 1963
values of shipments were used as weights.
For a discussion of the general method of computing consumer,
producer, and industry price indexes, see B L S H an dbook o f M ethods
f o r S urveys a n d Studies, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1976), chapters 13-15. See also John F. Early, “Improving the mea
surement of producer price change,” M on th ly L ab o r Review, April
1978, pp. 7-1 5 . For industry prices, see also Bennett R. Moss, “In
dustry and Sector Price Indexes,” M on th ly L a b o r Review, August
1965, pp. 974-82.
22.
C o n s u m e r P ric e In d e x fo r U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs an d C le ric a l W o rk e rs , an n u al a v e ra g e s an d c h a n g e s , 1 9 6 7 - 7 9
[1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 ]
Food and
beverages
All items
Year
Index
Percent
change
Index
Apparel and
upkeep
Housing
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Index
Transportation
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Medical care
Index
Other goods
and services
Entertainment
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
1967
1968
1969
1970
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
100.0
104.2
109.8
116.3
4.2
5.4
5.9
100.0
103.6
108.8
114.7
3.6
5.0
5.4
100.0
104.0
110.4
118.2
4.0
6.2
7.1
100.0
105.4
111.5
116.1
5.4
5.8
4.1
100.0
103.2
107.2
112.7
3.2
3.9
5.1
100.0
106.1
113.4
120.6
6.1
6.9
6.3
100.0
105.7
111.0
116.7
5.7
5.0
5.1
100.0
105.2
110.4
116.8
5.2
4.9
5.8
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
.....................
......................
.....................
......................
......................
121.3
125.3
133.1
147.7
161.2
4.3
3.3
6.2
11.0
9.1
118.3
123.2
139.5
158.7
172.1
3.1
4.1
13.2
13.8
8.4
123.4
128.1
133.7
148.8
164.5
4.4
3.8
4.4
11.3
10.6
119.8
122.3
126.8
136.2
142.3
3.2
2.1
3.7
7.4
4.5
118.6
119.9
123.8
137.7
150.6
5.2
1.1
3.3
11.2
9.4
128.4
132.5
137.7
150.5
168.6
6.5
3.2
3.9
9.3
12.0
122.9
126.5
1300
139.8
152.2
5.3
2.9
2.8
7.5
8.9
122.4
127.5
132.5
142.0
153.9
4.8
4.2
3.9
7.2
8.4
1976
1977
1978
1979
.....................
......................
.....................
.....................
170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7
5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5
177.4
188.0
206.2
228.7
3.1
6.0
9.7
10.9
174.6
186.5
202.6
227.5
6.1
6.8
8.6
12.3
147.6
154.2
159.5
166.4
3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3
165.5
177.2
185.8
212.8
9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5
184.7
202.4
219.4
240.1
9.5
9.6
8.4
9.4
159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6
5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5
162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3
5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2
23. C o n s u m e r P ric e In d e x fo r A ll U rb an C o n s u m e rs an d re v is e d C P I fo r U rb an W a g e E a rn e rs an d C le ric a l W o rk e rs ,
U .S. c ity a v e r a g e — g e n e ra l s u m m a ry an d g ro u p s , su b g ro u p s , an d s e le c te d ite m s
[1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 u n le s s o th e r w is e s p e c ifie d ]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
1979
1980
Apr.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
All items
211.5
227.5
2299
233.2
236.4
239.8
242.5
211.8
227.6
230.0
233.3
236.5
239.9
242.6
Food anc beverages .................................................................................
H ousing.........................................................................................................
Apparel and u p ke e p ...................................................................................
Transportation.............................................................................................
Medical care ................................................................................................
Entertainment .............................................................................................
Other goods and services..........................................................................
226.3
219.8
165.4
202.9
235.1
186.5
193.2
233.1
240.8
171.7
224.9
248.0
192 8
202.9
235.5
243.6
172.2
227.7
250.7
193.4
204.0
237.5
247.3
171.0
233.5
253.9
195.3
206.3
238.6
250.5
171.9
239.6
257.9
197.8
208.1
241.0
254.5
176.0
243.7
260.2
200.6
208.9
242.8
257.9
177.3
246.8
262.0
202.5
209.8
226.7
219.7
165.4
203.7
235.2
185.5
193.1
233.1
240.7
171.3
225.7
249.1
192.0
202.0
235.7
243.6
171.4
228.3
251.7
192.3
203.0
237.8
247.3
169.8
234.1
254.9
193.9
206.0
239.0
250.5
171.5
240.2
258.7
196.2
207.7
241.2
254.4
175.1
244.3
260.9
199.5
208.3
243.2
257.8
176.1
247.7
263.1
201.3
209.2
C om m odities................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ...........................................
Nondurables less food and beve rages.........................................
D u ra b 'o s ...........................................................................................
203.3
190.1
191.9
187.2
217.4
206.9
216.6
198 4
219.4
208.8
219.0
199.8
222.4
212.0
224.6
201.3
225.2
215.5
231.8
202.1
228.0
218.4
237.5
203.0
229.9
220.4
239.5
204.9
203.6
190.2
192.7
186.8
217.4
206.9
218.1
196.9
219.4
208.7
220.5
198.2
222.3
212.0
226.3
199.6
225.3
215.7
234.1
200.3
228.1
218.7
239.8
201.2
230.1
220.6
241.7
203.3
Servces .......................................................................................................
Rent, residential...............................................................................
Household services less rent .......................................................
Transportation services...................................................................
Medical care services.....................................................................
Other se rvic e s.................................................................................
227.0
172.0
256.5
208.2
253.1
196.2
246.2
182.1
2846
221.5
267.6
2065
249.3
182 9
289.2
224.2
270.7
207.1
253.1
184.1
295.1
226.8
274.4
209.0
256.8
185.6
300.2
229.6
279.0
211.1
261.3
186 6
307.3
233.4
281.5
212.9
265.3
187.0
313.4
238.1
283.4
214.5
227.1
171.9
257.2
209.0
252.9
196.4
246.7
181.9
286.3
221.5
268.8
207.3
249.6
182.7
291.1
224.0
271.8
207.4
253.6
183.9
297.2
226.6
275.6
209.3
257.3
185.5
302.4
229.3
279.8
211.4
261.7
186.4
309.6
232.7
282.2
213.5
265.8
186.9
315.8
238.0
284.5
214.6
All items less food ......................................................................................
All items less mortgage interest costs .....................................................
Commodities less fo o d ...............................................................................
Nondurables less food ...............................................................................
Nondurables less food and a p p a re l.........................................................
Nondurables ................................................................................................
Services less rent ......................................................................................
Services less medical c a r e ........................................................................
Domestically produced farm foods .........................................................
Selected beef c u ts ......................................................................................
Energy .........................................................................................................
All items less energy .................................................................................
All items less food and energy .....................................................
Commodities less food and e n ergy...........................................
Energy commodities ...................................................................
Services less e n e rg y ...................................................................
206.3
206.4
188 9
189.6
205.2
209.9
237.1
222.7
222.4
264.0
250.2
208.8
202.3
182.1
253.2
225.6
224 1
219.8
205.4
212.9
236.8
225.8
258.2
242.3
224.5
256.5
307.8
221.4
216.1
191.4
332.5
244.6
226.4
221.7
207.2
215.2
240.1
228.2
261.6
245.3
227.5
263.2
313.7
223.6
218.1
192.6
340.0
247.6
229.9
224.3
210.4
220.5
248.6
232.0
266.1
249.2
229.2
265.7
327.9
225.9
220.6
193.7
361.5
251.6
233.5
227.1
213.8
227.3
258.2
236.3
270.2
252.7
229.1
267.2
344.6
228.0
222.8
194.9
385.0
255.2
237.1
229.8
216.7
232.6
264.1
240.3
275.4
257.4
231.2
270.2
355.0
230.8
225.7
196.5
398.5
259.6
239.9
231.8
218.6
234.6
266.5
242.2
280.0
261.5
232.7
268.0
358.8
233.4
228.5
198.2
402.3
263.5
206.3
206.8
189.0
190.2
205.8
210.6
237.3
222.9
222.3
265.6
251.2
209.0
202.1
181.8
253.9
225.8
224.2
220.1
205.4
214.4
238.2
226.5
258.8
242.6
224.4
259.2
310.7
221.0
215.4
190.4
333.8
245.1
226.4
222.0
207.1
216.7
241.5
229.0
262.1
245.5
227.5
265.2
317.0
223.0
217.3
191.4
341.5
248.0
230.0
224.7
210.3
222.1
250.2
232.9
266.7
249.5
229.0
268.1
331.5
225.3
219.6
192.4
362.8
252.2
233.7
227.6
214.0
229.4
260.1
237.4
270.8
253.1
229.2
270.3
348.7
227.3
221.8
193.5
386.4
255.7
237.3
230.2
216.9
234.8
266.3
241.4
275.9
257.7
231.0
272.3
359.6
230.0
224.6
195.1
400.3
260.0
240.2
232.4
218.9
236.7
268.7
243.3
280.8
261.9
232.4
269.5
363.3
232.7
227.5
196.9
404.0
264.2
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 ........................
$0,473
$0,440
$0,435
$0,429
$0,423
$0,417
$0,412
$0,472
$0,439
$0,435
$0,429
$0,423
$0,417
$0412
Special indexes:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
89
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
C o n tin u e d — C o n s u m e r P ric e In d e x — U .S. c ity a v e ra g e
[1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 unless otherw ise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
90
1979
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
1980
1979
Apr.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
FOOD AND BEVERAGES .................................................................................
226.3
233.1
235.5
237.5
238.6
241.0
242.8
226.7
233.1
235.7
237.8
239.0
241.2
243.2
Food .....................................................................................................................
232.3
239.1
241.7
243.8
244.9
247.3
249.1
232.7
239.1
241.8
244.0
245.2
247.5
249.5
Food at home .......................................................................................................
Cereals and bakery p ro d u c ts ......................................................................
Cereals and cereal products (12/77 - 1 0 0 )....................................
Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 = 1 0 0 )........................
Cereal (12/77 - 100) .................................................................
Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 100) ...............................
Bakery products (12/77 = 100) .......................................................
White b re a d ....................................................................................
Other breads (12/77 = 100) .....................................................
Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................
Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100) .............................
Cookies (12/77 = 100) ..............................................................
Crackers and bread and cracker products (12/77 = 100) ..
Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts (12/77 = 100) . . .
Frozen and refrigerated bakery products
and fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 = 100) ............
231.7
214.5
114.0
114.8
114.6
112.5
113.3
188.4
112.6
113.3
112.0
113.1
112.4
112.0
236.0
228.7
121.1
122.8
119.7
121.6
121.0
204.5
121.3
121.2
119.4
117.1
114.5
119.9
238.7
231.6
122.9
123.8
122.8
122.2
122.4
207.4
123.3
123.1
120.3
117.8
116.2
121.5
240.6
234.2
125.0
125.7
123.7
126.4
123.5
208.6
123.8
124.8
121.7
119.7
117.5
122.2
241.3
236.8
125.8
125.7
124.9
127.4
125.1
210.7
124.6
126.2
122.8
122.8
119.9
123.8
243.6
238.6
126.6
126.6
126.0
127.6
126.1
212.0
125.6
127.0
124.4
124.4
120.2
125.0
245.3
242.0
129.4
127.8
129.4
130.8
127.6
215.1
127.0
126.9
126.5
125.3
122.0
126.6
231.4
215.2
114.1
115.5
114.6
112.2
113.8
188.0
114.2
113.2
113.0
114.5
113.1
114.0
235.4
229.7
122.1
124.6
119.9
122.7
121.3
203.9
124.2
120.8
119.1
118.4
116.1
121.9
238.3
232.3
123.8
125.1
122.9
123.9
122.7
206.6
126.0
122.3
120.1
119.6
116.3
123.4
240.1
234.7
126.1
126.9
124.2
127.9
123.6
207.4
126.9
123.1
120.8
121.5
118.4
124.1
241.1
237.4
127.2
127.3
125.5
129.2
125.1
209.7
127.5
124.3
122.2
124.0
121.0
125.4
243.1
239.3
127.7
127.5
126.6
129.4
126.2
212.1
129.3
124.9
123.2
125.6
121.8
126.2
245.0
242.2
130.1
128.9
129.7
131.9
127.5
215.1
129.3
125.3
125.4
126.3
122.2
128.0
114.9
123.7
124.8
125.7
127.2
127.9
129.7
112.9
120.8
121.4
122.5
123.8
124.0
125.3
Meats, poultry, fish, and e g g s ......................................................................
Meats, poultry, and f is h ........................................................................
Meats ..............................................................................................
Beef ana v e a l.............................................................................
Ground beef other than canned .........................................
Chuck roast ...........................................................................
Round roast ...........................................................................
Round steak ..........................................................................
Sirloin steak ..........................................................................
Other beef and veal (12/77 = 100) ..................................
P o rk ..............................................................................................
Bacon .......................................................................................
Pork chops .............................................................................
Ham other than canned (12/77 = 1 0 0 ).............................
Sausage ..................................................................................
Canned h a m ...........................................................................
Other pork (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ..................................................
Other m e a ts ...............................................................................
Frankfurters ..........................................................................
Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 100) ..............
Other lunchmeats (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................
Lamb and organ meats (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .............................
Poultry ...........................................................................................
Fresh whole chicken ............................................................
Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 100) ..............
Other poultry (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Fish and seafood ..........................................................................
Canned fish and seafood (12/77 = 1 0 0 )..........................
Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ..........
E g g s .........................................................................................
240.0
245.1
248.3
262.5
273.7
278.5
235.8
247.8
248.4
148.4
248.4
220.8
212.8
103.7
282.0
234.4
127.8
239.4
240.1
132.5
121.8
131.2
189.9
191.5
121.5
123.0
295.6
108.9
114.8
179.3
230.2
235.2
237.4
255.5
264.2
263.1
229.1
241.9
247.0
146.3
201.0
186.3
188.8
95.9
254.5
214.8
112.9
242.0
238.9
133.4
121.6
138.3
171.6
166.7
110.8
115.9
312.2
116.8
120.1
170.1
235.5
239.8
242.3
262.2
271.2
268.1
238.1
247.5
250.8
150.2
205.0
193.6
187.8
102.5
256.5
218.9
112.6
243.0
239.3
134.4
121.5
140.0
176.2
175.2
112.3
116.9
312.6
117.1
120.2
185.9
238.0
243.0
244.1
264.6
271.4
274.7
241.9
249.8
250.9
151.8
206.4
194.5
192.1
99.1
256.6
220.8
116.2
243.2
239.0
134.1
121.2
141.6
187.8
191.1
120.7
119.3
316.7
118.5
121.9
178.2
236.2
242.6
244.1
266.2
273.3
277.7
244.5
252.3
251.1
152.2
202.8
190.1
189.7
95.7
255.1
219.5
114.3
244.7
242.7
135.6
120.7
142.4
182.6
183.6
116.8
118.8
320.4
120.3
123.0
157.2
237.8
243.8
245.7
269.1
275.3
286.2
244.2
254.2
254.3
153.8
202.6
187.6
190.7
95.8
257.6
219.3
113.6
245.8
244.6
135.5
121.8
142.3
180.7
179.5
116.8
118.2
322.6
120.4
124.3
164.5
235.1
241.1
242.6
267.0
272.9
277.9
242.7
253.5
256.1
153.3
197.1
182.1
187.0
90.6
255.1
213.5
110.7
243.9
240.6
134.9
121.9
140.1
177.2
174.7
114.5
117.3
325.3
122.9
124.5
161.2
239.4
244.4
247.6
263.9
273.2
286.8
237.2
245.1
247.5
149.1
225.6
223.2
214.1
101.5
280.9
234.3
127.3
236.1
238.9
130.9
119.0
131.2
187.2
187.8
121.0
120.6
292.9
107.9
113.9
179.8
230.0
235.0
237.3
257.7
266.0
273.1
232.7
239.7
247.4
146.6
201.5
188.7
188.1
95.4
255.8
214.6
112.7
238.5
237.2
130.4
119.5
139.8
170.1
163.3
110.7
116.0
307.5
116.0
117.8
169.6
235.1
239.2
241.8
263.7
273.0
274.2
240.5
246.2
253.5
149.9
205.6
195.8
189.1
100.9
258.3
219.1
112.7
239.5
238.7
130.8
119.4
141.7
173.9
169.8
111.8
117.4
309.1
116.5
118.5
186.6
237.5
242.5
243.7
266.7
272.7
283.6
245.1
249.4
253.5
151.9
206.8
195.3
194.8
96.5
260.3
219.3
116.2
239.3
239.5
130.5
118.7
142.5
184.3
183.8
118.7
120.1
315.4
118.4
121.2
177.0
236.4
242.8
244.3
268.9
276.2
288.7
245.8
250.5
253.0
152.8
204.1
193.8
191.0
95.2
257.0
218.9
114.6
240.9
242.1
132.3
118.6
143.4
118.1
178.9
117.0
119.4
317.9
119.7
122.0
156.7
237.1
243.0
245.0
270.8
278.7
293.4
244.5
251.1
256.0
153.7
203.0
189.4
190.5
94.7
259.8
217.4
113.7
241.5
242.8
132.2
118.8
144.3
177.4
172.5
116.3
117.7
320.2
119.5
123.5
164.3
234.3
240.2
241.3
268.2
274.7
286.1
242.1
249.6
257.8
153.1
196.7
183.9
184.7
88.7
258.0
214.5
110.0
239.0
239.3
131.1
118.4
141.3
176.0
170.6
114.7
118.1
325.1
121.8
125.1
161.5
Dairy products ......................................................................................
Fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Fresh whole m ilk ........................................................................
Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) ........................
Processed dairy products (12/77 = 1 0 0 )..................................
B u tte r...........................................................................................
Cheese (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................
Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 1 0 0 )...................
Other dairy products (12/77 = 100) ....................................
202.4
114.0
186.5
114.1
114.9
196.6
115.5
114.3
111.9
216.0
121.9
200.4
120.6
122.3
214.4
122.7
121.4
117.8
216.9
122.7
201.2
122.0
122.5
214.0
122.6
122.6
117.9
218.4
123.2
202.3
122.1
123.8
216.9
123.5
124.0
119.8
219.5
123.7
203.2
122.7
124.5
218.3
124.2
124.6
120.9
220.3
124.1
204.0
122.7
125.1
218.3
124.9
125.1
121.6
222.4
124.7
204.9
123.5
127.0
219.9
126.2
128.6
124.0
203.0
114.3
187.2
114.1
115.3
199.1
115.4
115.3
112.0
216.3
121.8
199.7
121.1
123.0
217.1
122.5
123.4
118.2
217.4
122.6
200.9
122.2
123.3
216.6
122.7
124.3
118.3
218.9
123.2
201.8
122.8
124.5
219.8
123.6
125.6
120.4
219.8
123.6
202.7
123.0
125.1
220.9
124.4
125.6
121.3
221.1
124.2
203.8
123.1
126.2
220.9
125.5
127.2
121.9
223.1
124.9
204.8
124.1
128.0
222.7
126.8
130.4
123.6
Fruits and vegetables ...........................................................................
Fresh fruits and vege tables..........................................................
Fresh fru its ..................................................................................
Apples ....................................................................................
Bananas ..................................................................................
Oranges ..................................................................................
Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 100) .......................................
Fresh vegetables .....................................................................
Potatoes ....................................................................................
L e ttu c e ....................................................................................
T o m a to e s ...............................................................................
Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 100) .............................
226.5
230.7
237.1
223.1
217.9
267.7
121.9
224.7
197.3
195.7
250.9
132.5
229.5
230.1
242.7
207.2
209.0
293.9
127.5
218.4
195.7
244.2
225.3
119.1
230.2
230.1
234.9
221.8
225.2
256.7
121.1
225.7
207.0
227.5
227.9
128.0
229.8
227.2
233.6
230.4
221.9
236.2
122.5
221.2
203.8
197.6
216.7
132.0
228.3
223.1
235.8
239.6
238.5
231.1
121.4
211.2
203.3
198.7
184.9
125.1
232.4
229.9
245.4
250.2
243.9
238.1
127.4
215.5
203.3
208.3
201.4
125.4
240.9
245.2
257.0
265.5
242.8
240.6
136.5
234.2
201.7
271.9
201.2
134.6
224.6
228.5
234.2
219.8
213.7
259.9
121.8
223.4
197.1
196.9
250.4
131.0
226.7
226.7
238.3
207.7
206.5
283.3
125.7
216.4
191.7
239.0
225.4
118.9
228.3
228.5
233.3
220.2
222.0
249.5
121.6
224.2
199.6
231.3
224.8
128.1
227.2
224.9
232.7
230.1
219.5
231.3
122.7
217.9
200.9
193.2
213.2
130.5
225.9
220.6
234.7
237.6
234.6
228.4
121.3
207.9
199.8
191.7
184.3
123.9
230.1
227.4
245.4
249.0
240.8
240.9
126.9
211.3
200.3
203.8
197.2
123.0
239.8
244.8
255.6
264.4
243.5
234.3
135.7
235.2
198.2
281.9
197.7
135.3
Processed fruits and vegetables ................................................
Processed fruits (12/77 = 1 0 0 )..............................................
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 100) ......................
Fruit juices and other than frozen (12/77 = 1 0 0 )............
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 = 1 0 0 ).............................
Processed vegetables (12/77 = 100) ..................................
Frozen vegetables (12/77 = 100) ....................................
223.9
117.0
114.8
115.2
120.9
108.0
106.9
231.0
121.2
116.6
122.1
124.2
110.9
110.2
232.3
121.8
116.8
123.6
124.2
111.7
110.6
234.7
122.9
117.2
125.1
125.3
113.0
111.9
236.2
123.4
117.6
126.0
125.5
114.0
113.0
237.2
123.9
117.7
127.2
125.5
114.6
112.6
238.4
125.0
119.3
128.3
126.3
114.5
113.3
222.1
116.8
114.5
115.3
120.2
107.1
106.8
228.6
121.1
115.7
122.4
124.0
109.4
109.6
230.0
121.3
115.9
123.4
123.5
110.5
110.8
231.8
122.4
116.5
124.5
124.8
111.2
111.4
233.9
123.6
117.8
126.3
125.3
112.2
111.7
235.0
123.9
116.5
127.4
125.9
113.0
111.9
236.2
124.9
118.4
128.4
126.4
113.2
113.0
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
23.
C o n tin u e d — C o n s u m e r P ric e In d e x — U.S. c ity a v e ra g e
[1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 unless otherw ise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1980
1979
1980
1979
Apr.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Fruits and vegetables— Continued
Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77=100) . . .
Other canned and dried vegetables (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 )..............
Other foods at h o m e ....................................................................................
Sugar and s w e e ts .........................................................................................
Candy and chewing gum (1 2 /7 7 -1 0 0 ) ...........................................
Sugar and artificial sweeteners (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 )..........................
Other sweets (12/77=100) .......................................................
Fats and oils (12/77=100) .................................................................
Margarine ......................................................................................
Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77=100) ............
Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77=100) .................
Nonalcoholic beverages .....................................................................
Cola drinks, excluding diet c o la ..................................................
Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 )..............
Roasted coffee .............................................................................
Freeze dried and instant c o ffe e ..................................................
Other noncarbonated drinks (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 )...............................
Other prepared foods ..........................................................................
Canned and packaged soup (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 )...............................
Frozen prepared foods (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ).........................................
Snacks (1 2 /7 7 - 1 0 0 ) ...................................................................
Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 )..............
Other condiments (12/77=100) ................................................
Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77=100) ..........................
Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77=100) ..
112.7
106.3
264.0
274.2
116.0
114.8
110.6
222.5
236.7
110.9
115.4
347.7
234.8
114.5
343.6
330.8
113.3
204.7
110.2
115 9
112.6
114.2
112.2
112.8
114.1
113.4
110.0
279.6
283.2
120.1
116.2
116.4
232.3
246.2
115.1
121.0
374.3
247.5
118.4
438.1
370.2
115.7
215.3
114.3
124.5
120.4
118.9
116.8
119.0
117.7
114.4
110.9
281.1
284.6
120.1
117.2
117.5
233.0
247.7
115.7
121.1
375.4
247.2
118.7
440.7
374.3
116.3
217.4
115.9
125.6
121.3
120.1
119.5
118.9
118.6
114.5
112.9
283.5
289.8
121.3
122.2
118.7
233.9
248.3
115.3
121.9
378.5
249.5
119.9
443.2
378.2
116.8
218.8
116.5
126.0
121.8
121.4
120.8
119.6
119.4
115.2
113.9
2880
297.5
122.4
131.5
119.5
235.9
247.9
116.4
123.6
384.5
255.9
122.3
439.6
382.2
118.3
221.8
118.1
126.6
123.4
123.6
123.7
120.7
121.2
116.0
114.8
292.0
313.5
123.8
153.0
120.4
236.8
248.8
117.9
123.7
387.1
259.3
123.5
437.6
381.7
118.6
224.1
118.0
128.2
124.1
124.9
126.0
122.2
122.2
115.6
114.7
295.1
319.5
126.3
156.9
121.3
238.3
247.9
119.8
124.8
390.3
261.7
125.6
434.0
3802
120.7
226.6
120.5
130.4
124.8
125.2
127.1
124.4
123.1
111.4
105 0
263.7
273.6
115.8
115.1
109.4
223.0
235.9
111.2
115.9
347.8
234.1
112.2
344.3
329.4
112.7
204.5
110.3
115.0
113.0
113.4
113.0
112.7
113.6
111.8
108.1
278.3
281.9
119.8
116.2
114.6
232.8
246.7
115.0
121.3
370.7
243.6
115.6
430.8
369.3
114.8
215.7
114.8
122.9
121.7
118.2
118.5
118.6
118.0
113.0
109.1
279.9
284.1
119.9
117.6
116.6
233.7
247.8
115.8
121.5
372.3
2e3.4
116.4
435.3
372.9
115.5
217.2
116.3
123.9
122.2
119.0
120.2
118.7
118.6
112.7
110.4
282.6
289.6
121.2
122.7
117.5
234.9
248.8
116.1
122.3
375.6
246.5
116.4
440.1
376.8
116.2
219.1
116.8
125.1
122.8
121.1
121.4
119.7
119.5
113.4
111.9
287.3
297.1
122.2
131.6
118.5
236.5
247.9
117.2
123.8
383.0
253.6
120.2
436.8
380.4
117.5
221.7
117.9
125.5
124.7
123.1
124.6
120.5
120.3
115.4
112.3
2909
314.1
123.9
153.8
119.3
236.8
248.3
118.5
123.4
384.4
255.4
121.1
432.3
380.3
118.1
224.0
117.6
127.1
125.3
124.0
126.6
122.2
122.0
114.3
112.7
294.6
320.8
126.5
158.6
120.0
238.3
248.3
120.0
124.4
389.2
260.1
123.4
430.4
379.2
119.6
226.6
120.6
128.8
126.0
124.5
128.1
123.7
123.3
Food away from h o m e .........................................................................................
Lunch (1 2 /7 7 -1 0 0 ) ....................................................................................
Dinner (1 2 /7 7 -1 0 0 ) ....................................................................................
Other meals dhd snacks (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ).....................................................
238.4
116.4
115.3
115.0
251.3
122.3
122.4
120.2
253.4
123.3
123.4
121.4
256.1
124.6
124.8
122.5
258.3
125.9
125.8
123.2
260.9
127.0
127.0
124.9
263.0
127.9
127.9
126.4
240.4
117.6
115.9
116.2
252.7
123.2
123.0
120.9
255.1
124.0
124.2
122.5
258.0
125.7
125.6
123.7
260.1
126.7
126.8
124.4
262.7
127.6
128.1
126.2
265.3
128.9
129.1
127.7
FOOD AND BEVERAGES
Food
Continued
Continued
Food at home— Continued
Alcoholic beverages
170.2
177.4
178.0
179.3
180.4
181.7
183.9
170.6
178.0
178.7
179.7
181.1
182.8
185.0
Alcoholic beverages at home (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ).....................................................
Bee- and a le ..................................................................................................
Whiskey .........................................................................................................
W in e .................................................................................................................
Other alcoholic beverages (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 )..................................................
Alcoholic beverages away from home (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 )......................................
110.6
167.7
125.4
190.7
105.0
112.8
115.6
176.9
130.7
198.1
107.0
116.4
116.0
177.8
130.8
199.1
106.9
116.8
116.8
179.0
131.6
201.6
107.1
118.0
117.4
179.9
132.6
202.5
107.3
119.2
118.2
182.0
132.8
204.1
107.4
120.0
119.9
185.9
133.4
206.6
108.2
120.5
111.6
168.0
126.8
194.1
104.6
110.2
116.5
176.9
131.9
201.5
106.2
114 9
117.0
177.6
132.0
204.0
106.4
115.2
117.6
178.8
132.9
203.8
106.4
115.9
118.3
179.9
133.8
206.1
106.7
117.6
119.3
181.7
134.4
208.4
107.2
119.1
120.8
185.1
134.6
209.8
107.8
120.5
H O U S IN G ..............................................................................................................
219.8
240.8
243.6
247.3
250.5
254.5
257.9
219.7
240.7
243.6
247.3
250.5
254.4
257.8
Shelter
230.7
255.9
259.4
264.0
267.2
271.6
276.0
231.2
256.9
260.4
265.1
268.3
272.7
277.2
Rent, residential.....................................................................................................
172.0
182.1
182.9
184.1
185.6
186.6
187.0
171.9
181.9
182.7
183.9
185.5
186.4
186.9
Other rental costs ................................................................................................
Lodging while out of to w n .............................................................................
Tenants' insurance (12/77=100) ..............................................................
228.3
239.7
107.1
243.1
256.2
114.6
244.9
258.4
115.1
251.1
267.0
116.2
255.7
272.8
117.8
258.6
276.8
113.6
260.7
279.3
119.9
228.0
238.7
107.1
242.6
254.6
115.0
244.4
256.9
115.5
251.1
266.1
116.8
255.6
271.6
118.5
258.6
275.7
119.3
260.5
278.0
120.1
Homeownership.....................................................................................................
Home purchase.............................................................................................
Financing, taxes, and insurance .................................................................
Property insurance ...............................................................................
Property taxes ......................................................................................
Contracted mortgage interest c o s t .....................................................
Mortgage interest ra te s .................................................................
Maintenance and repairs .............................................................................
Maintenance and repair services .......................................................
Maintenance and repair commodities ................................................
Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and
equipment (12/77=100) .........................................................
Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 )..............
Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
supplies (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 )..............................................................
Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (1 2 /7 7 -1 0 0 ) ............
251.7
215.4
292.1
303.2
181.1
350.8
160.2
250.6
271.5
201.8
282.4
237.3
340.1
320.8
185.1
423.1
175.4
266.4
288.8
214.0
286.9
239.9
348.3
323.1
186.0
435.3
178.3
268.3
290.4
216.6
292.5
242.1
359.8
327.7
186.7
452.8
183.7
270.6
293.2
217.6
296.3
243.0
367.7
333.7
188.2
464.0
187.5
273.7
297.1
218.9
302.0
244.0
379.9
335.7
188.2
483.0
194.4
278.8
303.2
221.4
307.7
246.5
390.6
338.9
188.4
499.4
199.4
282.9
307.9
224.3
252.7
215.4
294.0
303.2
182.6
351.1
160.3
251.7
273.8
202.6
284.1
237.7
343.5
322.6
186.6
424.2
175.6
266.5
290.3
213.6
288.7
240.2
351.6
324.5
187.4
436.1
178.4
268.9
292.8
215.8
294,6
242.3
363.4
328.8
188.2
453.7
183.8
271.9
295.9
218.4
298.4
243.0
371.6
335.2
189.9
465.0
187.8
274.4
299.3
219.5
304.0
243.8
384.1
337.4
189.9
484.1
194.8
278.2
303.5
222.3
310.0
246.5
395.3
3404
1901
500.9
199.8
281.7
307.7
224.3
110.5
110.4
118.8
115.5
121.6
115.4
122.5
115.9
123.5
115.8
125.0
117.6
126.6
118.8
111.3
111.3
118.1
117.2
120.3
118.1
122.2
118.6
122.3
119.3
123.6
119.9
126.0
119.7
106.8
109.5
113.4
113.8
114.7
114.3
114.7
115.4
115.3
116.4
116.4
117.0
119.1
118.2
108.0
107.8
114.0
112.2
114.5
112.3
117.0
113.2
117.9
114.5
119.3
118.2
120.0
119.4
Fuel and other u tilitie s ......................................................................................
227.5
252.0
255.1
258.6
263.8
268.0
270.5
227.8
252.4
255.7
259.2
264.4
268.7
271.0
Fuels ................................................................................. ....................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s .....................................................................
Fuel o il.....................................................................................................
Other fuels (6/78 = 100) ...................................................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ..........................................................................
E le ctricity................................................................................................
Utility (piped) gas .................................................................................
266.8
349.8
358.5
99.5
245.3
210.4
286.3
307.0
477.4
497.2
121.7
267.3
221.5
328.9
311.8
488.0
507.3
126.0
270.8
224.7
332.6
3180
514.0
534.4
132.7
273.0
226.6
335.1
327.1
539.1
561.9
136.6
278.8
233.8
336.8
333.9
553.4
577.9
138.3
2840
237.9
343.9
337.8
556.4
580.7
139.6
288.0
241.5
347.9
266.7
350.3
359.1
99.4
245.1
210.7
284.8
306.9
478.2
497.7
122.2
267.1
221.5
327.8
311.8
489.0
508.1
126.6
270.7
224.9
331.1
318.1
515.1
534.9
133.7
273.0
226.8
333.8
327.0
540.3
562.5
137.9
278.5
233.9
335.4
333.9
554.1
577.9
139.5
283.9
238.1
342.6
337.6
557.1
580.7
140.8
287.6
241.5
346.4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
91
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
C o n tin u e d — C o n s u m e r P ric e In d e x — U.S. c ity a v e ra g e
[1967 - 100 unless otherw ise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1980
1979
1980
1979
Apr.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Other utilities and public services ........................................................................
Telephone services .........................................................................................
Local charges (12/77 = 100) ..............................................................
Interstate toll calls (12/77 = 100) .......................................................
Intrastate toll calls (12/77 = 100) .......................................................
Water and sewerage maintenance ..............................................................
158.8
132.1
100.4
98.3
100.7
240.2
161.0
133.3
101.8
98.4
101.5
247.1
161.9
134.3
103.2
98.4
101.5
247.2
161.5
133.4
102.6
97.7
100.8
250.0
161.3
132.8
102.7
97.4
98.8
252.3
161.9
133.2
103.3
97.4
98.7
253.9
162.3
133.4
103.5
97.3
99.0
255.2
158.9
132.1
100.5
98.3
100.6
240.7
160.9
133.3
101.8
98.4
101.3
247.2
161.8
134.2
103.2
98.4
101.3
247.3
161.5
133.4
102.6
97.7
100.6
250.5
161.4
132.8
102.7
97.5
98.7
253.0
161.9
133.1
103.2
97.5
98.6
254.7
162.3
1332
103.3
97.4
98.9
256.2
Household furnishings and operations ..........................................................
188.6
195.1
195.8
196.9
199.0
201.3
203.0
187.3
193.2
193.9
194.9
196.8
199.2
200.7
Housefurnishings .....................................................................................................
Textile housefurnishings..................................................................................
Household linens (12/77 - 100) ..........................................................
Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing materials (12/77 = 100) .
Furniture and bedding ....................................................................................
Bedroom furniture (12/77 - 100) .......................................................
Sofas (12/77 - 100) .............................................................................
Living room chairs and tables (12/77 = 100) ....................................
Other furniture (12/77 - 1 0 0 )..............................................................
Appliances including TV and sound equipm ent...........................................
Television and sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ...............................
Television .........................................................................................
Sound equipment (12/77 - 100) ................................................
Household appliances.............................................................................
Refrigerators and home fre e z e r.....................................................
Laundry equipment (12/77 - 100) ..............................................
Other household appliances (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...............................
Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing
machines (12/77 = 100) .......................................................
Office machines, small electric appliances,
and air conditioners (12/77 = 1 0 0 ).......................................
Other household equipment (12/77 - 1 0 0 )................................................
Floor and window coverings, infants' laundry
cleaning and outdoor equipment (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Clocks, lamps, and decor items (12/77 = 100) ...............................
Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric
kitchenware (12/77 = 100) ..............................................................
Lawn equipment, power tools, and other hardware (12/77 = 100) .
162.4
173.1
106.2
109.7
176.5
112.7
106.8
103.1
113.8
135.3
104.2
103.0
106.3
154.5
151.4
108.7
109.4
166.6
178.9
108.8
114.4
182.2
117.7
107.9
107.7
116.8
137.5
105.0
103.6
107.4
158.2
156.0
113.1
110.8
166.9
178.6
108.3
114.6
182.8
118.3
108.2
108.1
117.1
137.5
105.3
103.6
107.8
157.9
156.7
113.6
109.9
167.6
176.7
105.4
115.1
184.0
119.1
108.2
108.9
118.1
137.8
105.3
103.7
107.8
158.5
156.7
114.1
110.5
169.3
182.9
110.1
118.2
185.2
120.5
108.5
110.0
118.3
138.3
105.4
103.7
108.1
159.4
156.5
115.0
111.3
171.5
187.2
113.9
119.7
189.2
122.5
110.9
110.8
122.6
138.8
105.7
104.0
108.3
160.2
157.9
116.8
111.2
172.7
188.2
114.8
119.9
190.9
124.3
111.6
110.9
124.0
139.3
105.7
104.0
108.3
161.4
160.6
117.5
111.5
161.9
174.1
106.3
111.1
175.8
111.2
107.0
104.8
112.7
135.2
103.9
102.3
106.2
154.7
155.2
108.5
108.4
165.5
178.4
108.3
114.5
182.1
115.9
111.7
108.6
115.3
136.2
104.4
102.4
107.1
156.2
158.1
112.2
107.6
165.9
177.3
107.2
114.4
182.7
116.0
111.6
109.2
115.9
136.9
104.8
102.2
108.0
157.1
159.0
112.8
108.2
166.5
175.3
106.0
113.2
183.6
116.8
110.6
109.4
117.8
137.2
104.9
102.2
108.2
157.7
159.4
113.8
108.6
167.9
181.2
109.8
116.6
184.3
117.5
110.3
111.2
117.5
137.8
104.9
102.3
108.2
158.8
159.7
114.7
109.5
170.4
185.3
113.2
118.2
187.9
119.2
112.7
111.9
121.3
139.0
105.5
102.9
108.7
160.7
161.4
116.6
110.7
171.5
186.3
113.8
118.9
189.4
120.9
111.8
112.6
123.1
139.7
105.4
102.8
108.6
162.3
163.5
117.8
111.6
110.1
109.7
108.6
110.0
110.8
110.9
110.0
109.5
107.1
108.1
109.2
110.5
111.1
111.6
108.6
109.3
112.1
112.4
111.4
113.0
111.1
114.6
112.0
115.9
111.6
117.3
113.1
118.4
107.2
108.5
108.2
111.6
108.3
111.8
107.8
113.3
108.4
114.4
110.2
116.0
111.6
117.0
109.0
105.6
111.1
110.0
111.7
110.1
113.1
111.6
114.5
112.7
116.4
114.9
118.2
115.6
103.9
106.6
107.7
108.2
107.4
107.3
108.9
109.4
109.4
109.8
110.8
112.3
113.1
112.6
112.8
107.2
116.8
109.0
117.2
110.3
119.9
110.6
121.4
111.7
122.6
112.2
123.4
113.5
110.8
109.4
115.2
111.1
115.2
112.5
117.3
113.0
118.9
114.2
120.8
115.0
121.4
115.9
Housekeeping supp lies...........................................................................................
Soaps and detergents ....................................................................................
Other laundry and cleaning products (12/77 = 100) ...............................
Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins (12/77 = 100) ..
Stationery, stationery supplies, and gift wrap (12/77 = 100) .................
Miscellaneous household products (12/77 = 1 0 0 )....................................
Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 = 1 0 0 )..................................................
219.7
210.9
109.1
115.9
107.4
111.2
110.0
228.3
220.6
114.1
119.2
111.3
115.6
113.8
229.2
221.2
114.7
120.5
111.9
116.9
112.5
231.1
224.1
116.1
120.6
111.6
117.7
114.4
235.0
228.9
117.2
121.2
112.7
119.4
119.4
2380
232.1
117.0
123.9
113.8
120.9
121.4
240.7
233.2
117.6
126.2
115.6
122.0
123.8
218.1
209.6
108.9
116.2
106.4
109.9
106.8
226.7
218.2
113.7
119.6
109.2
114.1
113.2
227.2
219.7
114.5
120.9
109.3
114.7
109.9
228.8
222.2
115.6
121.8
109.0
115.0
111.3
232.8
226.5
117.1
123.4
112.3
116.6
113.3
235.5
230.0
116.9
125.8
113.6
118.3
114.0
238 1
231.1
118.1
128.1
114.9
119.2
116.5
Housekeeping services...........................................................................................
Postage ............................................................................................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 = 100) .......................................................
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 100) ...........................................
244.5
257.3
256.6
257.3
258.1
257.3
260.0
257.3
261.6
257.3
263.6
257.3
266.0
257.3
243.1
257.2
255.9
257.2
257.5
257.2
259.2
257.2
261.1
257.2
262.7
257.2
264.3
257.3
112.6
108.0
120.4
112.9
121.2
113.4
122.9
114.0
124.2
114.7
125.4
115.8
128.3
116.5
112.6
107.1
121.2
112.9
122.3
113.4
123.3
114.4
124.6
115.5
126.1
116.0
127.8
116.2
APPAREL AND UPKE EP......................................................................................
165.4
171.7
172.2
171.0
171.9
176.0
177.3
165.4
171.3
171.4
169.8
171.5
175.1
176.1
Apparel com m odities...........................................................................................
160.2
165.9
166.1
164.3
165.1
169.2
170.2
160.4
165.7
165.7
163.6
165.2
168.7
169.5
Apparel commodities less footw ear..............................................................
Men's and boys’ ..............................................................................................
Men's (12/77 = 100) .............................................................................
Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Coats and jackets (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................
Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 100) ........................
Shirts (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................................................
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 - 100) ........................
B o ys '(12/77 = 100) .............................................................................
Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 100) .................
Furnishings (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................
Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) .........
Women's and girls' .........................................................................................
Women's (12/77 = 1 0 0 )........................................................................
Coats and jackets ..........................................................................
Dresses ..............................................................................................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ..................................
Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 1 0 0 )...................
Suits (12/77 = 1 0 0 )........................................................................
Girls (12/77 = 100) ...............................................................................
Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 = 1 0 0 )......................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ..................................
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and
accessories (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................................
157.9
159.6
100.8
99.0
94.0
105.4
103.8
99.8
102.5
99.1
106.5
103.6
152.5
101.7
167.2
165.9
100.0
104.6
92.3
100.0
101.5
95.6
162.9
165.4
104.3
101.2
98.1
112.4
109.7
100.5
106.6
103.2
111.5
107.4
155.1
103.0
173.3
164.3
99.2
108.1
95.2
103.9
102.2
103.6
163.0
165.4
104.3
100.9
98.0
112.3
110.5
100.4
106.6
102.4
111.9
107.8
154.6
102.8
170.0
165.3
98.6
108.2
95.8
102.8
100.3
102.6
161.1
162.8
102.6
98.8
95.5
112.2
108.6
98.2
105.6
99.3
111.5
108.2
151.5
100.8
166.4
161.3
96.1
1086
91.0
100.5
97.5
99.9
161.8
162.7
102.3
98.2
93.6
112.7
109.3
97.7
106.3
99.9
110.9
109.5
151.1
100.8
163.1
160.6
97.1
110.2
88.2
98.9
95.7
98.2
166.2
165.6
104.3
99.9
96.9
115.0
111.9
987
107.5
102.5
112.0
109.8
155.5
103.8
167.6
169.3
99.8
111.0
91.6
101.8
98.9
100.8
167.2
166.9
105.0
101.1
96.5
116.6
111.5
99.4
108.9
104.4
113.3
110.7
155.9
103.9
168.3
167.8
101.1
111.5
90.4
102.6
99.8
101.4
158.0
160.1
101.4
96.7
98.1
104.7
105.0
101.9
101.5
97.9
105.5
102.8
152.1
102.1
175.3
160.8
98.9
105.5
95.6
97.4
98.7
92.8
162.7
165.3
104.5
98.7
99.7
110.0
109.4
104.0
105.6
103.4
109.7
105.8
154.5
103.0
172.4
156.8
100.7
108.9
97.5
101.7
97.5
104.3
162.6
165.0
104.2
96.8
99.1
109.9
111.5
103.4
105.8
103.1
110.2
106.2
153.5
102.3
167.9
155.7
99.5
109.3
98.1
101.4
97.7
102.9
160.2
162.4
102.3
94.9
95.6
109.3
108.3
102.2
104.7
99.8
109.7
106.6
149.9
100.1
165.0
150.0
97.1
109.1
94.0
97.9
91.9
99.8
161.9
162.9
102.4
94.4
92.2
111.1
109.4
102.2
105.9
101.9
109.5
107.7
151.3
101.4
162.4
151.2
99.2
110.6
96.8
97.3
92.6
98.1
165.7
166.0
104.4
96.4
96.9
113.2
112.0
102.7
107.5
105.0
110.7
108.2
154.9
103.7
167.0
157.5
101.0
111.5
100.2
100.1
95.7
99.8
166.3
167.3
105.2
97.3
97.0
114.2
111.7
104.2
108.7
107.2
111.6
1088
154.7
103.3
167.8
154.1
101.6
111.7
98.2
101.1
96.8
100.5
105.5
107.2
107.3
106.7
105.6
108.4
109.5
103.3
104.2
104.4
104.4
103.5
107.8
108.9
HOUSING
Continued
Fuel and other utilities— Continued
92
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
23.
[1 9 6 7 =
C o n tin u e d — C o n s u m e r P ric e In d e x — U.S. c ity a v e ra g e
1 0 0 u n le s s o th e r w is e s p e c ifie d ]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1980
1979
1980
1979
Apr.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Apparel commodities less footwear— Continued
Infants'and toddlers’ ....................................................................................
Other apparel commodities ........................................................................
Sewing materials and notions (12/77 - 100) ..................................
Jewelry and luggage (12/77 - 100) ................................................
220.7
166.8
101.9
110.4
226.3
177.8
100.8
121.0
227.1
180.9
102.4
123.1
224.9
184.4
103.2
126.1
226.6
191.4
106.3
131.2
231.4
199.9
107.1
138.6
234.3
201.9
107.9
140.1
222.0
167.8
99.0
112.8
228.7
179.8
99.7
123.8
230.5
182.9
100.8
126.2
229.1
185.5
101.2
128.4
232.7
191.8
105.7
132.3
237.3
197.8
107.2
137.3
241.1
198.5
106.9
138.1
Footw ear.................................................................................................................
Men's (12/77 - 100) .................................................................................
Boys' and girls' (12/77 - 100) .................................................................
Womens' (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) .............................................................................
174.2
110.8
108.9
108.0
183.8
117.7
114.0
113.9
184.3
117.3
115.8
113.8
183.7
117.8
117.3
111.6
184.6
118.3
117.9
112.1
187.0
119.0
119.5
114.2
188.3
119.7
119.5
115.6
174.2
111.1
109.3
107.3
183.2
119.1
114.5
111.2
183.8
119.4
114.7
111.8
183.3
119.3
116.9
109.4
183.9
119.4
118.0
109.5
186.3
120.9
119.5
110.9
188.1
122.4
119.5
112.6
Apparel services
Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 1 0 0 )..............
Other apparel services (12/77 - 100) ............................................................
201.8
117.6
110.4
214.2
126.3
114.7
216.6
127.1
117.0
220.7
129.3
119.6
222.9
130.6
120.7
225.9
132.5
122.1
230.0
135.5
123.3
201.1
117.5
110.1
212.0
125.7
113.3
213.4
126.6
113.7
216.9
129.0
115.1
219.8
130.6
116.9
223.5
132.3
119.6
226.0
134.1
120.4
TRANSPORTATION ...........................................................................................
202.9
224.9
227.7
233.5
239.6
243.7
246.8
203.7
225.7
228.3
234.1
240.2
244.3
247.7
P riv a te ...................................................................................................................
203.2
225.0
227.5
233.5
239.8
244.0
247.0
203.7
225.7
228.2
234.1
240.4
244.6
248.0
New cars ..............................................................................................................
Used c a r s ..............................................................................................................
Gaso'ine .................................................................................................................
Automobile maintenance and re p a ir...................................................................
Bodywork (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ..........................................................................
Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous
mechanical repair (12/77 - 100) .........................................................
Maintenance and servicing (12/77 - 100) .............................................
Power plant repair (12/77 - 100) ............................................................
Other private transportation ...............................................................................
Other private transportation commodities ................................................
Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 - 100) ...................
Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) .............................
Tires ................................................................................................
Other parts and equipment (12/77 = 100) .............................
Other private transportation services.........................................................
Automobile insurance ..........................................................................
Automobile finance charges (12/77 = 100) ....................................
Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100) . . .
State registration ..........................................................................
Drivers' license (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Vehicle inspection (12/77 = 100) .............................................
Other vehicle related fees (12/77 - 100) ...............................
164.3
200.0
234.7
238.2
113.3
170.6
198.4
306.9
250.8
121.6
171.7
198.2
313.9
252.6
123.3
173.9
197.2
334.6
255.1
125.0
175.3
195.3
357.6
258.2
126.5
175.0
195.2
370.9
260.9
127.3
177.0
196.7
374.7
264.1
129.1
163.9
200.0
235.4
238.7
114.4
170.9
198.4
308.3
251.1
121.7
171.7
198.3
315.6
253.4
123.1
174.1
197.2
335.9
256.2
124.3
175.4
195.3
359.0
259.2
126.1
175.4
195.2
372.7
261.7
127.2
177.7
196.8
376.3
264.3
128.4
113.8
113.5
112.3
194.8
170.2
109.4
110.1
151.2
111.7
203.3
224.7
114.1
105.6
144.0
104.5
112.0
110.9
120.1
118.4
118.5
205.5
183.4
117.4
118.7
161.5
123.0
213.4
233.9
124.6
108.3
144.1
104.5
115.6
117.1
120.6
119.2
119.2
207.5
185.6
118.1
120.3
163.8
124.4
215.3
235.3
127.2
108.5
144.1
104.5
117.5
117.6
121.8
120.2
120.4
209.8
188.4
120.9
121.9
165.8
126.6
217.6
237.1
129.9
109.1
144.2
104.7
117.5
118.8
123.2
121.3
122.5
212.6
191.2
123.9
123.5
168.5
127.3
220.4
240.2
132.1
109.8
145.2
104.8
119.0
119.6
124.1
123.1
123.5
216.5
192.7
126.4
124.3
170.1
127.2
225.0
244.0
137.4
110.8
145.3
104.7
119.7
122.0
126.1
124.7
124.4
221.3
194.1
129.8
124.8
171.2
127.1
230.6
245.2
148.6
111.5
146.4
104.7
119.7
122.7
114.8
113.0
112.6
195.5
171.4
107.3
111.3
153.1
112.6
203.8
224.7
113.5
106.4
143.9
104.3
112.8
114.8
120.8
118.2
118.6
206.3
183.9
118.1
119.0
163.0
121.5
214.3
233.9
124.1
108.9
144.0
104.2
116.5
121.3
121.8
119.3
119.6
208.4
186.4
119.3
120.6
165.7
122.4
216.3
235.2
126.5
109.2
144.0
104.2
118.3
122.2
123.6
120.4
120.9
210.6
188.0
122.4
121.4
166.3
124.0
218.7
236.8
129.4
109.8
144.1
104.5
118.3
123.8
124.8
121.3
123.1
213.6
191.7
124.0
123.9
170.6
125.0
221.5
239.7
131.3
110.9
145.3
104.5
119.7
125.4
126.1
122.8
124.0
217.1
193.2
126.1
124.7
172.5
124.4
225.7
243.8
135.2
111.6
145.5
104.4
120.2
127.0
127.4
124.2
124.6
223.1
195.8
129.1
126.2
174.9
125.1
232.6
244.9
147.8
112.2
146.5
104.4
120.3
127.8
APPAREL AND UPKEEP— Continued
Apparel commodities— Continued
P u b lic.....................................................................................................................
192.6
216.5
223.0
226.8
229.5
232.1
235.9
193.6
214.0
219.1
221.9
223.9
226.1
229.7
Airline fa r e ..............................................................................................................
Intercity bus ‘are ..................................................................................................
Intracity mass transit ...........................................................................................
Taxi fare .................................................................................................................
Intercity train fa r e ..................................................................................................
192.5
249.2
187.8
215.0
205.0
232.1
279.8
195.6
237.0
231.0
245.5
282.2
196.4
238.5
236.3
251.1
284.7
198.5
243.1
237.2
255.4
288.5
199.7
244.0
237.2
259.9
290.7
200.8
245.6
237.2
264.3
291.5
2030
256.4
237.3
192.1
248.5
187.9
220.7
205.0
232.4
279.9
195.1
242.4
232.1
245.8
282.3
195.7
243.9
236.6
251.0
284.8
196.7
248.9
237.1
255.2
288.2
197.6
249.3
237.0
259.3
290.2
198.6
251.2
237.1
263.9
291.0
200.8
261.6
237.2
MEDICAL CARE
235.1
248.0
250.7
253.9
257.9
260.2
262.0
235.2
249.1
251.7
254.9
258.7
260.9
263.1
151.6
157.8
159.2
160.5
162.1
163.5
164.9
152.5
158.5
159.9
161.0
162.7
164.4
166.0
147.4
116.8
118.3
112.3
148.8
118.2
119.7
113.0
150.7
119.8
121.0
114.2
152.0
120.1
122.2
114.7
153.5
120.4
122.7
115.9
124.8
119.0
127.8
120.1
129.6
121.3
131.3
122.6
Medical care commodities
description drugs ................................................................................................
Anti-infective drugs (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ............................................................
Tranquillizers and sedatives (12/77 = 1 0 0 ).............................................
Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ................................................
Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and
prescription and supplies (12/77 = 100) .............................................
Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 - 100) ....................................
Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and
respiratory agents (12/77 - 1 0 0 ).........................................................
Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 = 100) ........................
Eyeglasses (12/77 - 100) ........................................................................
Internal and respiratory over-the-counter drugs ......................................
Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 = 1 0 0 ).........
140.0
110.2
112.6
107.5
145.5
113.9
117.1
111.0
146.4
114.6
118.4
111.4
147.9
115.8
119.9
112.4
149.8
117.2
121.3
113.4
150.9
117.9
122.2
113.3
152.2
118.5
122.9
114.2
140.8
111.0
113.1
108.5
146.2
115.5
116.9
111.6
117.3
111.2
123.2
116.8
123.8
117.8
126.0
1188
128.7
119.7
130.0
120.5
131.3
121.4
117.3
112.0
122.6
117.5
123.1
118.2
108.5
111.9
112.1
112.6
113.7
115.5
117.1
109.6
112.8
113.7
114.2
115.2
116.5
118.5
108.8
106.2
168.1
107.6
113.4
110.9
175.4
111.8
114.6
110.9
177.9
113.1
115.3
111.5
179.1
113.8
116.3
112.9
180.4
114.6
117.3
114.1
182.2
115.1
118.4
115.0
184.4
115.3
109.6
106.5
169.4
108.7
114,0
110.4
176.6
112.7
115.1
110.5
178.5
114.2
115.6
111.4
179.0
115.0
116.6
112.6
180.8
115.6
118.0
114.5
183.0
116.1
119.2
115.3
185.4
116.3
Medical care services
253.1
267.6
270.7
274.4
279.0
281.5
283.4
252.9
268.8
271.8
275.6
279.8
282.2
284.5
Professional services ...........................................................................................
Physicians’ services......................................................................................
Dental s e rv ic e s .............................................................................................
Other professional services (12/77 - 1 0 0 ).............................................
222.9
239.1
211.4
1094
233.0
250.8
220.7
112.8
235.9
252.5
224.5
115.1
238.9
256.0
227.4
116.6
242.9
260.2
231.5
118.1
245.3
262.3
234.1
119.5
248.2
264.8
237.2
121.7
224.2
240.0
213.7
109.1
235.9
255.5
222.7
112.2
238.3
256.5
226.1
114.8
241.7
260.3
229.5
115.9
245.5
264.1
233.4
117.4
247.8
266.2
235.7
119.3
251.2
269.7
238.9
121.1
Other medical care s e rv ic e s ...............................................................................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 1 0 0 )...............................
Hospital ro o m .........................................................................................
Other hospital and medical care services .........................................
2896
115.2
362.4
114.5
309.5
122.6
385.1
122.0
312.8
123.8
3894
122.9
317.4
125.6
395.3
124.7
322.7
127.8
403.4
126.5
325.3
128.8
405.8
127.8
325.8
129.7
408.0
128.8
287.8
114.3
360.2
113.4
309.3
121.8
383.6
120.8
313.0
123.2
388.7
122.1
317.3
124.9
393.9
123.8
322.1
126.8
398.8
125.9
324.4
127.7
401.2
126.9
325.3
128.6
403.6
128.0
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
93
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
C o n tin u e d — C o n s u m e r P ric e In d e x — U .S. c ity a v e ra g e
[1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 unless otherw ise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
Apr.
Nov.
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
Dec.
Jan.
Feb,
1979
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
1980
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
ENTERTAINMENT................................................................................................
186.5
192.8
193.4
195.3
197.8
200.6
202.5
185.5
192.0
r 192.3
193.9
196.2
199.5
201.3
Entertainment commodities
187,4
194.0
195.2
197.6
200.4
203.4
205.7
185.7
191.3
192.4
194.2
196.9
200.3
202.8
Reading materials (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................................................
Newspapers ...................................................................................................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 1 0 0 )..................................
109.5
211.5
111.7
114.5
222.4
116.0
115.1
223.5
116.8
116.7
226.8
118.1
117.4
227.7
119.2
119.4
232.4
120.8
120.1
234.8
120.8
109.2
211.1
111.6
114.2
222.2
115.8
114.8
223.3
116.6
116.2
226.4
117.8
117.0
227.3
118.9
119.1
232.0
120.7
119.7
234.3
120.6
Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 )................................................
Sport vehicles (12/77 = 100) ...................................................................
Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................
Bicycles ..........................................................................................................
Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100) .............................
108.6
110.1
105.3
158.0
105.7
111.7
112.2
112.9
107.5
167.1
111.0
113.8
117.2
118.7
109.5
177.2
112.9
118.7
120.6
111.3
178.6
113.1
105.4
105.7
102.9
157.2
104.1
106.1
167.4
110.2
107.7
105.8
106.3
167.0
111.3
108.6
107.6
170.5
111.8
115.9
117.4
108.3
174.5
112.4
106.9
107.8
167.1
110.3
106.4
170.5
111.9
110.8
109.1
107.8
174.9
112.6
112.4
110.8
109.3
177.8
113.4
114.1
113.0
110.5
179.8
114.0
Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ).................................
Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 100) .............................
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ).............................
Pet supplies and expense (12/77 = 100) ................................................
107.6
108 6
106.5
106.8
111.2
110.5
109.9
113.5
112.1
111.2
109.7
115.5
113.2
112.1
110.8
116.8
115.1
114.1
114.1
117.6
116.9
115.7
118.2
118.2
118.4
117.3
120.1
119.2
107.7
108.4
106.2
107.5
111.2
109.8
109.6
114.6
111.8
109.9
110.1
116.1
112.6
110.9
111.2
116.7
114.3
112.3
114.2
117.9
116.4
114.9
116.9
119.0
118.0
116.5
118.9
120.0
Entertainment services ....................................................................................
185.4
191.5
191.1
192.5
194.5
197.0
198.5
186.1
194.3
r 193.0
194.4
196.0
199.1
199.9
Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................................
Admissions (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ..................................................................................
Other entertainment services (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ..................................................
109.5
112.8
107.6
113.8
116.1
110.0
113.8
116.6
108.6
114.6
117.9
109.1
116.0
118.3
111.4
117.5
119.1
113.2
119.0
118.7
114.8
109.4
112.8
108.4
115.2
117.3
112.0
r 115.0
117.8
109.0
115.6
119.4
109.3
116.3
119.7
111.8
118.8
120.0
113.9
119.3
120.1
115.1
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES......................................................................
193.2
202.9
204,0
206.3
208.1
208.9
209.8
193.1
202.0
203.0
206.0
207.7
208.3
209.2
Tobacco products
186.1
191.5
192.1
196.7
198.1
198.4
198.8
186.1
191.4
192.1
197.1
198.3
198.6
198.9
C ig a re tte s...............................................................................................................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ..............
188.6
109.5
194.0
112.8
194.7
113.2
199.7
113.9
200.9
115.6
201.2
116.3
201.4
117.6
188.8
108.8
194.1
112.4
194.8
112.7
200.3
113.4
201.3
114.8
201.6
115.7
201.6
117.2
Personal care
................................................................................................
192.7
200.9
203.0
204.2
206.5
208.1
209.7
192.3
200.5
202.3
204.4
206.6
207.7
209.5
Toilet goods and personal care appliances.......................................................
Products for the hair, hairpieces and wigs (12/77 - 1 0 0 )......................
Dental and shaving products (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...........................................
Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure
and eye makeup implements (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100)
185.8
106.4
110.6
193.1
112.2
115.6
195.8
113.0
117.3
196.4
114.2
117.8
198.6
116.1
118.6
200.2
116.6
119.2
201 8
117.9
120.5
186.2
105.3
109.7
192.4
111.4
113.9
194.5
112.4
114.7
196.2
114.0
115.3
198.3
114.9
116.8
199.6
114.9
118.4
201.8
117.9
119.3
107.6
107.5
111.4
109.9
113.0
112.1
112.9
112.1
114.2
112.9
115.1
114.7
115.7
115.4
108.5
109.7
110.2
112.3
112.1
113.1
112.9
114.0
114.0
115.6
114.8
116.6
115.2
117.2
Personal care se rvic e s.........................................................................................
Beauty parlor services for w om e n..............................................................
Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) . . . .
199.4
201.1
111.1
208.5
210.3
116.1
210.0
212.1
116.8
211.6
213.3
118.1
214.2
216.1
119.3
215.7
217.9
119.7
217.2
218.6
121.7
198.5
200.8
110.0
208.6
210.2
116.3
210.2
212.0
117.1
212.7
214.2
118.8
215.0
216.6
120.0
215.8
217.8
120.1
217.2
218.6
121.5
Personal and educational expenses
208.4
224.2
224.6
226.3
228.0
228.3
228.7
208.8
224.4
224.8
226.2
227.8
228.2
228.7
School books and su p p lie s..................................................................................
Personal and educational services......................................................................
Tuition and other school fees .....................................................................
College tuition (12/77 = 100) ............................................................
Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100) ........................
Personal expenses (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................
191.6
212.8
108.7
108.9
107.5
111.0
202.3
229.6
118.1
117.3
120.9
116.3
202.5
229.9
118.1
117.3
120.9
117.3
206.0
231.4
118.3
117.6
120.9
120.1
206.5
233.3
118.5
117.8
120.9
124.4
206.9
233.6
118.6
117.9
120.9
125.0
207.1
234.0
118.6
117.9
120.9
126.1
194.2
212.8
108.6
108.9
107.4
111.1
205.9
229.3
118.2
117.3
120.7
115.5
206.0
229.7
118.2
117.3
120.7
116.3
209.8
230.6
118.4
117.6
120.7
117.7
210.4
232.5
118.6
117.8
120.7
121.4
210.7
232.9
118.7
117.9
120.7
122.1
210.9
233.4
118.7
117.9
120.7
123.3
232.5
260.5
205.8
265.4
302.9
296.0
220.5
280.6
309.7
302.1
223.5
282.2
329.9
310.5
225.0
284.7
352.5
316.7
227.9
287.6
365.5
326.3
230.9
292.0
369.3
335.2
233.4
295.7
233.0
260.5
206.2
266.0
304.3
295.8
220.3
281.3
311.4
301.6
223.0
283.4
331.3
310.0
224.4
286.0
353.8
316.2
227.2
288.7
367.2
325.6
230.2
292.0
370.8
335.2
232.6
295.1
Special indexes:
Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other p ro d u c ts ..............................................
Insurance and finance .........................................................................................
Utilities and public transportation........................................................................
Housekeeping and home maintenance services ..............................................
94
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24. C o n s u m e r P ric e In d e x fo r A ll U rb an C o n s u m e rs : C ro s s c la s s ific a tio n o f re g io n a n d p o p u la tio n s iz e c la s s b y e x p e n d itu re
c a te g o r y a n d c o m m o d ity an d s e rv ic e g ro u p
[D ecem ber 1977 = 1 0 0 ]
Size class A
(1.25 million or more)
Size class B
(385,000 -1.25 0 million)
Size class C
(75,000 - 385,000)
Size class D
(75,000 or less)
Category and group
1979
Dec.
1980
Feb.
1979
Apr.
Dec.
1980
Feb.
1979
Apr.
Dec.
1980
1980
1979
Feb.
Apr.
Dec.
Feb.
Apr.
Northeast
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ..................................................................................................................................
Food and beverages .....................................................................................................
Housing ..........................................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep .....................................................................................................
Transportation.................................................................................................................
Medical c a r e ...................................................................................................................
Entertainment .................................................................................................................
Other goods and services ...........................................................................................
119.0
120.6
119.8
108.9
123.7
117.3
111.5
112.7
122.1
122.1
122.9
109.5
129.9
120.6
114.4
114.4
125.0
124.5
126.1
112.5
133.8
122.4
116.7
114.7
122.2
121.9
123.7
109.0
127.6
120.0
113.5
114.3
125.6
124.3
126.7
107.1
135.0
121.6
115.7
116.5
129.0
127.1
130.0
111.1
140.8
122.4
117.9
117.5
125.7
123.2
132.1
1,8.5
127.0
118.9
109.8
116.3
129.1
126.0
135.5
107.3
133.1
121.3
112.2
119.2
132.7
128.8
140.2
112.7
136.2
122.5
115.7
119.6
121.8
121.2
123.2
109.8
127.3
119.0
115.1
113.1
124.2
123.4
124.8
106.8
133.5
121.4
118.9
114.8
127.4
125.2
127.9
113.0
138.1
122.7
121.5
116.0
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
C om m odities..........................................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages .....................................................................
Services ..................................................................................................................................
120.5
120.4
117.2
124.1
125.3
119.5
126.5
127.8
122.9
123.7
124.6
119.9
127.5
129.1
122.5
130.8
132.5
126.3
125.1
126.0
126.6
128.5
129.7
129.9
131.6
132.9
134.5
122.5
123.2
120.7
125.6
126.6
122.2
128.0
129.3
126.5
North Central
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ..................................................................................................................................
Food and beverages .....................................................................................................
Housing ..........................................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep .....................................................................................................
Transportation.................................................................................................................
Medical c a r e ...................................................................................................................
Entertainment .................................................................................................................
Other goods and services ...........................................................................................
126.3
123.2
133.1
105.6
127.9
119.6
113.9
113.6
129.6
124.9
136.7
105.2
133.5
123.2
116.9
115.4
133.2
126.8
141.1
109.2
138.1
125.3
118.9
116.2
124.6
120.2
129.3
110.9
127.5
119.3
111.0
117.7
127.2
122.6
131.5
107.1
133.4
122.2
111.5
119.4
130.9
124.9
135.8
111.2
137.6
125.0
114.0
121.5
123.7
123.4
125.9
109.0
129.1
119.7
114.4
114.0
126.4
124.8
127.6
109.0
135.8
124.5
116.2
115.5
128.9
127.0
130.4
110.7
139.3
125.7
118.7
116.7
123.0
124.8
123.6
111.9
127.3
121.8
113.8
116.1
125.8
126.9
125.9
110.4
132.6
126.8
115.9
119.1
128.7
128.9
129.1
113.6
137.4
127.4
116.1
119.8
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
C om m odities..........................................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ......................................................................
Services ..................................................................................................................................
125.4
126.4
127.7
128.1
129.6
131.8
130.9
132.8
136.6
122.5
123.5
128.0
124.5
125.2
131.6
127.9
129.2
135.6
123.7
123.6
124.1
125.9
126.4
127.1
128.1
128.5
130.3
122.5
121.6
123.8
124.3
123.1
128.2
126.0
124.8
132.9
South
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items .................................................................................................................................
Food and beverages .....................................................................................................
Housing ..........................................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep .....................................................................................................
Transportation.................................................................................................................
Medical c a r e ...................................................................................................................
Entertainment .................................................................................................................
Other goods and services ...........................................................................................
123.1
123.5
125.0
112.2
127.6
117.7
109.5
115.8
127.1
125.0
129.1
112.5
135.7
119.7
114.5
118.5
130.7
126.4
133.9
116.4
139.7
121.9
115.7
119.3
124.6
122.9
128.4
110.3
127.8
118.3
113.9
115.1
128.0
124.4
131.9
109.6
134.7
121.6
115.4
117.7
131.7
127.0
136.7
112.9
138.4
123.3
119.8
118.1
14.3
123.9
128.4
105.7
126.4
120.7
113.8
115.5
127.9
126.0
131.8
105.5
133.7
124.8
115.9
117.5
131.3
127.8
136.6
108.2
137.2
126.4
118.3
118.8
122.5
122.5
123.9
104.8
126.3
124.9
119.4
118.3
125.9
124.0
127.7
100.9
133.1
129.0
121.6
121.5
128.3
126.2
129.7
104.7
136.5
131.2
124.4
121.9
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities ..........................................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages .....................................................................
Services ..................................................................................................................................
122.6
122.2
123.8
126.7
127.5
127.7
129.3
130.6
132.6
123.1
123.2
126.8
125.9
126.6
131.1
129.0
129.8
135.8
122.7
122.2
126.7
126.4
126.5
130.2
128.7
129.1
135.3
121.9
121.6
123.5
124.7
125.0
127.7
127.2
127.7
129.8
West
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ..................................................................................................................................
Food and beverages .....................................................................................................
Housing ..........................................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep .....................................................................................................
Transportation.................................................................................................................
Medical c a r e ...................................................................................................................
Entertainment .................................................................................................................
Other goods and services ...........................................................................................
124.8
123.4
127.0
110.0
129.9
121.9
111.1
115.5
129.6
124.2
132.9
113.6
137.4
125.6
113.5
119.2
132.8
126.5
136.3
115.7
141.2
128.8
117.8
121.2
126.6
125.8
130.2
111.5
128.8
121.3
115.9
116.5
130.6
126.9
134.6
112.4
135.8
124.8
118.6
120.3
134.1
128.8
139.1
115.8
139.2
126.9
123.1
121.5
124.5
122.9
127.8
104.4
129.0
119.9
114.9
113.6
128.1
123.8
131.0
104.2
137.1
124.6
117.8
116.3
131.4
125.7
134.8
107.7
141.2
126.7
121.0
117.7
124.3
123.7
125.4
114.9
128.2
122.7
119.2
116.4
127.1
125.7
127.1
114.7
134.8
126.2
123.6
119.7
130.4
128.0
129.7
121.8
139.6
128.9
127.5
122.5
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
C om m odities..........................................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverage ........................................................................
Services ..................................................................................................................................
123.1
123.0
126.9
127.0
128.1
133.2
129.5
130.8
137.2
125.3
125.1
128.4
128.8
129.6
133.0
131.5
132.7
137.7
123.6
123.8
125.9
126.7
127.8
130.0
129.0
130.4
134.8
123.0
122.7
126.3
126.7
127.2
127.6
129.8
130.6
131.2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
95
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
25.
C o n s u m e r P ric e In d e x — U .S. c ity a v e ra g e , an d s e le c te d a re a s
[1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 unless otherw ise specified]
All Urban Consumers
A rea1
U.S. city average2 ..........................................................................
Anchorage, Alaska (10/67=100) ................................................
Atlanta, Ga..........................................................................................
Baltimore, Md.....................................................................................
Boston, Mass......................................................................................
Buffalo, N.Y.........................................................................................
Chicago, III.-Northwestern Ind..........................................................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.....................................................................
Cleveland, O h io ...............................................................................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex........................................................................
Denver-Boulder, Colo.......................................................................
Detroit, Mich.......................................................................................
Honolulu, Hawaii .............................................................................
Houston, Tex......................................................................................
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas ..............................................................
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif......................................
Miami, Fla. (11/77=100) ..............................................................
Milwaukee, Wis..................................................................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis.......................................................
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J...................................................
Northeast, Pa. (S cran ton)..............................................................
1979
1980
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
211.5
227.5
229.9
233.2
236.4
239.8
242.5
211.8
227.6
230.0
233.3
236.5
239.9
242.6
235.3
208.3
213.7
206.7
206.6
208.7
234.4
227.3
225.9
233.4
228.4
231.3
224.2
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif..........................................................
Seattle-Everett, Wash.......................................................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va.................................................................
208.8
221.3
220.0
222.4
232.7
237.2
232.6
223.7
229.2
236.6
225.7
247.8
226.1
224.4
227.2
230.2
'The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire portion of the Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1970 Census of Population, except that the Standard
Consolidated Area is used for New York and Chicago.
241.3
231.1
235.5
231.2
229.0
234.6
207.2
240.1
208.1
247.3
251.4
216.1
211.4
248.2
227.4
260.8
243.8
244.6
213.3
200.0
227.7
211.0
208.8
244.3
233.1
216.0
208.1
237.4
240.9
209.1
212.3
220.7
225.6
235.6
227.8
225.8
120.5
232.5
220.7
221.1
223.8
243.5
2 Average of 85 cities.
209.3
224.6
229.7
233.3
235.2
249.7
244.1
240.9
236.4
235.0
225.5
225.8
228.0
248.4
249.6
242.4
243.9
248.0
228.4
257.3
242.2
247.8
128.8
247.8
239.6
227.7
231.6
235.9
230.8
231.3
235.1
245.7
232.4
237.9
242.2
251.7
238.5
255.6
240.0
233.8
233.0
239.8
259.4
239.9
221.3
251.9
236.6
240.0
243.5
233.5
251.0
229.0
225.5
226.7
232.5
124.9
240.8
234.8
222.4
236.7
226.3
244.8
243.8
238.8
229.9
241.0
250.9
232.2
215.5
246.0
232.4
229.9
239.3
243.9
234.2
227.9
233.2
233.3
230.8
220.2
233.5
234.5
226.9
248.6
253.6
238.1
258.3
240.7
236.0
231.9
233.7
127.7
242.7
237.9
228.0
244.6
232.7
254.0
227.6
225.4
242.9
215.9
227.0
227.9
222.5
255.2
240.4
220.9
255.9
238.7
237.6
123.3
236.4
234.0
222.9
235.5
247.8
243.5
241.7
247.3
233.2
214.8
248.7
233.7
228.0
119.4
229.8
215.9
208.3
230.3
239.5
211.8
245.0
234.2
227.9
232.5
234.1
245.9
213.2
200.7
228.1
211.5
207.8
230.3
221.2
215.1
211.0
223.5
218.2
223.3
227.2
222.7
207.7
212.0
96
1979
Apr.
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.........................................................................
Pittsburgh, Pa.....................................................................................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.......................................................................
St. Louis, Mo.-lll.................................................................................
San Diego, Calif.................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
242.8
24.1.3
239.2
26.
P ro d u c e r P ric e In d e x e s , b y s ta g e o f p ro c e s s in g
[1967 = 100]
Annual
1980
1979
Commodity grouping
1978
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan. ’
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Finished g o o d s .................................................................................
194.6
212.7
213.7
216.2
217.3
220.7
224.2
226.3
228.1
232.4
235.4
238.2
240.0
241.0
Finished consumer g o o d s .......................................................
Finished consumer foods ..................................................
Crude ...............................................................................
P'ocessed ........................................................................
Other nondurable g o o d s .....................................................
Durable g o o d s .....................................................................
192.6
206.7
215.5
204.1
195.4
165.8
211.6
226.6
226.7
224.4
217.1
179.5
212.7
223.6
227.1
221.3
221.7
180.4
215.6
224.9
224.9
222.8
227.1
181.6
217.5
223.5
231.7
220.7
233.4
1816
221.7
228.1
214.0
227.0
'239.0
182.9
224.7
226.7
215.5
225.5
243.3
189.0
227.1
230.5
228.1
228.6
245.5
190.0
229.1
232.1
227.9
230.3
247.9
191.8
233.5
231.4
226.0
229.7
254.7
199.1
237.3
231.6
220.0
230.4
263.0
200.7
240.6
233.0
230.8
231.0
270.8
199.7
241.6
228.7
222.2
227.1
276.5
200.3
242.8
230.0
227.7
228.1
279.1
199.7
Capital e q u ip m e n t...................................................................
199.1
215.1
215.8
217.2
216.5
217.8
222.8
223.9
225.3
229.3
230.3
231.8
235.8
236.0
215.5
238.2
240.3
244.6
247.5
251.0
255.0
256.3
258.7
265.9
271.1
273.2
274.5
275.8
261.8
255.4
254.9
295.1
228.0
FINISHED GOODS
INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS
Intermediate materials, supplies, and com ponents.....................
Materials and components for m anufacturing......................
Materials for food m anufacturing......................................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing ..........................
Materials for durable manufacturing..................................
Components for manufacturing .........................................
208.3
202.3
195.8
237.2
189.1
230.9
222.5
216.7
267.2
204.5
232.1
222.3
218.1
268.9
205.3
236.0
226.7
222.5
273.3
207.7
238.0
225.1
225.3
275.2
209.3
240.7
228.9
227.6
278.8
211.3
244.3
225.5
231.4
284.7
213.2
245.5
227.8
233.4
284.6
214.8
247.8
230.4
235.3
287.8
216.3
255.5
226.0
241.1
303.7
219.2
259.2
245.1
243.3
305.9
222.7
259.0
239.8
246.6
301.1
225.2
259.7
238.7
251.8
296.2
227.4
Materials and components for construction ........................
224.4
245.2
245.6
247.4
249.2
252.5
254.7
254.0
253.7
257.7
261.6
265.1
265.3
265.3
Processed fuels and lubricants.............................................
Manufacturing indu stries.....................................................
Nonmanufacturing ind u strie s.............................................
296.4
270.4
320.0
336.8
287.4
385.5
349.5
293.8
404.9
364.8
304.0
425.5
384.6
311.2
458.8
'399.4
317.2
483.0
410.6
322.5
500.6
416.5
325.2
510.0
424.6
332.2
519.1
444.0
340.5
550.3
464.3
352.2
579.7
481.1
357.4
608.9
486.7
358.4
619.5
488.3
363.6
617.0
Containers ...............................................................................
212.5
234.5
234.9
235.4
237.6
237.9
242.6
243.8
247.1
250.9
250.8
253.3
262.5
263.7
S u p p lie s....................................................................................
Manufacturing indu stries.....................................................
Nonmanufacturing ind u strie s.............................................
Manufactured animal feeds ...........................................
Other supplies .................................................................
196.9
183.6
204.0
200.2
201.9
213.7
201.5
220.3
214.6
218.3
216.1
202.7
223.2
226.2
219.2
219.6
204.2
227.8
241.3
221.5
219.6
208.6
225.4
220.8
223.1
221.2
209.4
227.5
224.0
224.9
224.9
212.2
231.7
228.9
228.9
226.4
213.7
233.3
226.9
231.2
229.2
216.3
236.1
230.4
233.9
232.5
220.9
238.7
224.4
238.3
238.3
222.0
247.0
223.3
248.6
239.9
223.3
248.7
219.1
251.6
240.7
226.8
248.1
207.1
253.5
240.8
228.4
247.5
210.6
251.9
Crude materials for further processing.........................................
240.1
282.3
283.0
287.1
281.7
288.3
289.5
290.8
296.2
296.8
308.3
303.3
296.9
300.7
Foodstuffs and feed stuffs.......................................................
215.3
251.9
248.2
254.1
243.7
248.7
247.5
246.4
249.7
243.0
252.6
245.9
235.5
242.4
Nonfood m a te ria ls...................................................................
286.7
339.6
348.7
349.3
353.6
363.1
368.9
374.9
384.2
398.9
413.9
412.2
413.5
410.4
Nonfood materials except fu e l...........................................
Manufacturing industries ................................................
C onstruction.....................................................................
2354
240.8
185.7
276.6
284.7
204.5
286.6
295.9
205.4
285.2
294.0
207.2
286.1
2949
208.6
293.3
302.8
209.9
298.1
307 8
212.6
304.6
314.9
2148
311.6
322.5
216.6
330.1
342.1
226.0
341.5
354.7
228.3
339.4
352.1
229.7
336.9
349.0
232.4
329.2
340.2
232.9
Crude f u e l.............................................................................
Manufacturing industries ................................................
Nonmanufacturing industries .........................................
463.7
481.9
459.6
556.8
593.8
538.8
563.1
601.3
544.3
570.7
610.4
550.7
586.2
629.2
563.6
604.0
651.8
577.8
612.9
662.5
585.5
617.4
667.8
589.3
634.5
688.3
603.9
636.3
690.3
605.7
663.5
724.4
627.7
663.3
723.5
627.9
677.4
740.8
639.8
690.4
756.7
650.6
Finished goods excluding fo o d s .....................................................
Finished consumer goods excluding fo o d s ..........................
188.9
183.7
206.3
202.1
208.5
205.2
211.4
2084
213.2
212.3
216.2
216.3
221.3
220.6
222.8
223.1
224.6
225.3
230.5
232.3
234.3
237.8
237.4
242.0
241.2
245.5
242.0
246.8
Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components, excluding intermediate
materials for food manufacturing
and manufactured animal feeds ...........................................
216.4
238.8
241.3
245.4
249.0
252.5
256.8
258.1
260.5
268.4
273.2
275.7
277.4
278.0
Intermediate foods and feeds .......................................................
201.0
219.3
223.0
231.0
223.1
226.6
226.0
226.9
229.8
224.8
237.1
232.3
227.5
239.7
Crude materials for further processing
excluding crude foodstuffs and
feedstuffs, plant and animal fibers,
oilseeds, and leaf tobacco .....................................................
3166
379.2
389.5
391.7
3969
408.6
417.0
424.1
435.0
452.9
468.8
468.4
469.4
464.6
CRUDE MATERIALS
SPECIAL GROUPINGS
' Data for January 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
97
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
27 .
[1 9 6 7 =
P ro d u c e r P ric e In d e x e s , b y c o m m o d ity g ro u p in g s
1 0 0 u n le s s o th e r w is e s p e c ifie d ]
Annual
Code
1979
Commodity group and subgroup
1978 *
May
June
July
Aug.
S ept
1980
O ct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.1
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
All commodities ......................................................................................
All commodities (1957 - 59 = 100) .....................................................
20 9 .3
2 3 2 .0
2 3 3 .5
2 3 6 .9
2 3 8 .3
24 2 .0
2 4 5 .6
2 4 7 .2
249.7
25 4 .9
259.8
261.5
262.3
263.7
222.1
245.7
247.7
251.4
2 5 2 .8
256.7
26 0 .6
262.3
267.3
r27 0 .2
27 5 .6
277.5
278.3
279.7
Farm products and processed foods and fe e d s .............................
co m m o d ities ..........................................................................
206.6
230.8
2 2 9 .0
232.2
2 2 7 .5
2 3 1 .8
23 0 .6
232.3
2 3 4 .6
23 1 .9
23 6 .9
23 4 .9
229.2
233.9
209.4
2 3 1 .6
2 3 4 .0
237.5
2 4 0 .6
2 4 4 .2
24 9 .0
250.6
253.1
26 0 .6
265.4
268.2
270.7
271.2
21 2 .5
I n d u s tr ia l
FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
01
F a rm p ro d u c ts
........................................................................................................
245.4
242.8
246.8
2 3 8 .5
2 4 1 .0
23 9 .6
24 0 .2
242.5
236.4
242.3
239.3
2 2 8 .9
2 3 3 .6
0 1 -1
F re s h a n d d rie d fru its an d ve g e ta b le s
216.5
228.2
22 6 .4
226.7
2 4 1 .7
2 0 8 .3
2 1 8 .0
21 6 .5
210.7
2 1 9 .0
220.5
21 8 .3
2 2 3 .0
2 4 3 .8
0 1 -2
G r a in s ......................................................................................................................
182.5
210.3
21 8 .7
247.4
229.1
224.4
2 2 9 .0
22 6 .6
227.9
2 1 4 .6
223.3
21 7 .9
210.8
2 1 9 .0
0 1 -3
L iv e s to c k
.............................................................................................................
220.1
280.7
2 6 4 .0
2 5 6 .0
2 4 0 .2
256.4
2 5 1 .7
248.3
25 2 .5
2 4 7 .8
257.2
25 1 .8
230.5
0 1 -4
Live p o u l t r y ...........................................................................................................
199.8
2 1 6 .3
182.9
183.8
171.9
173.5
162.0
195.5
194.7
195.2
184.6
180.1
171.9
171.3
0 1 -5
P la n t an d a n im a l f i b e r s .....................................................................................
193.4
2 0 7 .6
2 1 9 .5
2 0 7 .6
207.9
2 1 1 .3
2 1 2 .9
2 1 5 .4
22 2 .0
2 3 9 .0
2 6 9 .5
254.9
26 6 .9
2 7 2 .7
0 1 -6
F lu id m ilk
.......................................................
.............................................................................................................
2 1 9 .7
2 4 2 .0
2 4 3 .8
24 7 .6
2 5 0 .0
2 5 8 .5
260.8
262.5
26 4 .0
262.3
263.8
263.1
26 5 .4
233.3
265.4
0 1 -7
E g g s ........................................................................................................................
158.6
163.8
170.7
167.6
166.8
175.4
155.9
178.7
198.4
165.6
150.4
184.2
153.3
145.7
0 1 -8
H ay, ha y s e e d s , a n d o ils e e d s
.......................................................................
215.8
240.7
2 5 8 .4
260.1
25 1 .9
240.9
2 3 5 .6
2 2 9 .8
230.3
218.1
224.7
2 1 5 .9
205.1
2 0 6 .7
0 1 -9
O th e r fa rm p ro d u c ts
.......................................................................................
274.9
264.1
2 8 1 .0
3 1 1 .9
31 0 .8
3 1 5 .9
3 1 3 .6
3 1 8 .3
319.4
301.1
304.7
3 1 1 .5
304.8
3 1 1 .0
02
P ro c e s s e d fo o d s a n d f e e d s ...............................................................................
2 0 2 .6
22 2 .0
2 2 0 .6
2 2 3 .3
220.5
22 5 .8
227.1
2 2 9 .3
228.5
233.1
23 1 .5
2 2 8 .5
0 2 -1
C e re a l a n d b a k e ry p r o d u c t s ..........................................................................
190.3
204.9
20 6 .3
21 2 .4
21 6 .0
21 8 .7
2 1 9 .8
2 2 2 .5
2 2 3 .6
225.4
229.7
23 1 .3
2 3 1 .5
23 3 .5
0 2 -2
M e a ts, p o u ltry , a n d fish
217.1
250.4
24 1 .4
237.7
2 2 5 .5
23 9 .9
234.2
2 3 9 .3
242.8
239.6
239.5
239.2
2 2 6 .0
22 4 .8
0 2 -3
..................................................................................
2 2 4 .8
233.1
D a iry p r o d u c t s .....................................................................................................
188.4
207.9
208.4
2 0 9 .0
2 1 5 .2
21 8 .3
218.1
2 1 9 .3
219.9
2 2 1 .0
22 1 .2
22 3 .3
227.8
22 8 .9
0 2 -4
P ro c e s s e d fru its an d v e g e t a b le s ..................................................................
20 2 .6
221.4
221.5
2 2 3 .6
2 2 4 .6
225.1
22 3 .4
2 2 2 .4
2 2 2 .6
2 2 2 .9
223.1
22 3 .6
224.5
22 5 .2
0 2 -5
S u g a r an d c o n fe c tio n e ry
...............................................................................
197.8
2 0 7 .6
211.1
21 5 .7
218.3
2 1 7 .2
21 8 .9
2 2 2 .9
234.4
2 3 5 .0
287.1
26 3 .6
27 4 .8
327.4
0 2 -6
Beverages and beverage m a te ria ls ............................................................
200.0
205.3
208.5
214.1
21 6 .5
217.9
218.9
2 2 1 .2
2 2 1 .6
2 2 4 .0
224.7
22 6 .0
22 7 .9
231.4
0 2 -7
F a ts a n d o i l s ........................................................................................................
225.3
2 4 1 .8
2 4 3 .6
..................................................................
199.0
2 2 0 .2
211.1
212.7
2 1 7 .6
2 1 9 .0
220.8
222.2
223.1
225.4
223.5
2 2 4 .7
225.1
2 2 3 .2
..........................................................................
197.4
2 1 0 .8
2 2 0 .5
234.9
21 6 .2
2 1 9 .2
22 4 .0
22 2 .4
2 2 4 .9
2 1 9 .7
219.8
2 1 6 .8
205.4
207.3
167.2
168.4
181.5
0 2 -8
M is c e lla n e o u s p ro c e s s e d fo o d s
0 2 -9
M a n u fa c tu re d a n im a l fe e d s
25 3 .2
2 5 1 .7
253.3
24 6 .0
2 4 1 .9
2 3 5 .6
225.1
2 2 5 .9
222.4
21 4 .7
212.1
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
03
.............................................................................
159.8
169.3
170.5
171.3
172.0
172.8
173.1
175.2
176.5
178.9
180.6
0 3 -1
S y n th e tic fib e rs (1 2 /7 5 = 1 0 0 ) ....................................................................
109.6
117.4
118.5
119.5
120.6
123.6
124.7
124.2
124.7
127.0
127.1
129.4
130.7
0 3 -2
P ro c e s s e d y a m s a n d th re a d s (1 2 /7 5 = 100)
......................................
102.4
107.8
108.6
109.5
110.6
111.7
112.1
112.5
112.7
114.6
117.3
118.9
122.1
123.5
0 3 -3
G ra y fa b ric s ( 1 2 /7 5 =
1 0 0 ) ..........................................................................
118.6
124.7
125.4
128.3
128.7
128.7
129.7
130.7
132.3
132.7
131.7
133.7
136.1
135.3
115.2
0 3 -4
T e x tile p ro d u c ts an d a p p a re l
Finished fa b ric s ( 1 2 /7 5 = 100)
103.8
107.0
108.2
109.0
109.1
108.9
109.7
109.9
110.5
110.8
113,1
114.5
0 3 -8 1
A p p a r e l...................................................................................................................
152.4
159.8
160.2
160.3
161.4
161.6
162.2
163.1
162.6
165.5
167.3
168.3
169.1
169.7
0 3 -8 2
T e x tile h o u s e fu m is h in g s ..................................................................................
178.6
188.0
189.3
189.9
190.5
193.9
196.3
196.5
197.1
199.0
20 0 .0
20 1 .2
2 0 1 .6
20 2 .6
04
H ides, s kins, le a th e r, an d re la te d p ro d u c ts
.................................................
107.6
2 0 0 .0
269.6
26 8 .0
26 1 .9
2 5 7 .9
251.1
2 5 3 .9
24 8 .9
249.2
2 5 5 .7
2 5 1 .0
246.8
2 4 3 .6
240.7
0 4 -1
H id e s an d s k i n s ...................................................................................................
360.5
66 6 .9
6 1 1 .0
566.5
5 1 1 .9
465.3
478.8
44 7 .6
443.9
468.8
404.8
348.7
3 2 8 .6
289.7
0 4 -2
L e a th e r ...................................................................................................................
238.6
429.4
4 1 4 .6
38 5 .2
3 6 5 .9
3 3 0 .0
3 4 3 .6
319.8
324.8
3 4 7 .6
31 1 .0
297.6
0 4 -3
F o o tw e a r
.............................................................................................................
183.0
21 6 .3
221.1
221.8
225.4
2 2 6 .9
227.5
227.9
22 7 .9
229.1
228.1
2 3 1 .8
23 1 .9
231.9
0 4 -4
O th e r le a th e r an d re la te d p r o d u c t s ............................................................
177.0
209.1
2 1 2 .3
212.1
21 0 .9
210.1
209.7
208.4
20 8 .0
213.1
21 4 .9
2 1 7 .9
21 6 .3
2 1 7 .5
05
340.3
290.4
.........................................................
3 2 2 .5
37 7 .6
393.7
4 1 1 .8
432.8
454.8
468.5
4 7 6 .9
4 8 7 .9
50 8 .0
566.3
5 7 1 .9
0 5 -1
C o a l ........................................................................................................................
4 3 0 .0
450.8
4 5 2 .0
4 5 2 .5
45 4 .2
452.5
4 5 4 .6
455.1
458.6
459.3
458.7
460.7
463.3
464.8
0 5 -2
C oke
411.8
4 3 0 .6
43 0 .6
4 3 0 .6
43 0 .6
43 0 .6
4 3 1 .2
431.2
4 3 1 .2
43 0 .6
43 0 .6
4 3 0 .6
430.6
4 3 0 .6
F u e ls an d re la te d p ro d u c ts a n d p o w e r
......................................................................................................................
533.0
5 5 3 .5
0 5 -3
G as fu e ls 2 ...........................................................................................................
572.4
603.4
6 3 7 .0
662.4
730.2
744.8
0 5 -4
E le c tric p o w e r .....................................................................................................
2 5 0 .6
2 6 5 .9
26 9 .9
274.8
2 7 8 .8
28 0 .5
283.5
2 8 1 .9
2 8 7 .0
290.5
299.5
305.7
310.4
31 6 .4
0 5 -6 1
C ru d e p e tro le u m 3 .............................................................................................
300.1
3 3 5 .7
356.4
3 7 0 .6
3 8 5 .7
422.1
43 6 .7
450.4
470.8
5 1 3 .6
515.1
522.8
5 3 3 .9
540.1
68 0 .6
0 5 -7
06
0 6 -1
0 6 -2 1
428.7
507.2
52 2 .3
548.4
6 1 9 .9
677.5
719.8
720.3
P e tro le u m p ro d u c ts , re fin e d 4 .......................................................................
32 1 .0
4 0 0 .0
42 3 .6
44 9 .8
4 8 2 .8
513.7
53 3 .7
545.4
555.2
5 8 3 .3
620.3
65 7 .9
677.3
C h e m ic a ls a n d a llie d p r o d u c t s ..........................................................................
198.8
2 1 8 .0
2 1 9 .2
22 5 .0
228.5
2 3 0 .8
23 4 .2
2 3 6 .0
2 3 8 .2
2 4 6 .0
2 4 7 .6
25 1 .6
258.1
261.1
Industrial c h e m ic a ls 5 ........................................................................................
22 5 .6
2 5 5 .6
2 5 9 .3
270.4
277.1
2 8 0 .0
285.7
28 8 .4
292.3
302.9
306.7
310.7
316.8
324.8
P re o a re d p a in t .....................................................................................................
0 6 -2 2
P aint m a te ria ls
0 6 -3
D ru g s an d p h a rm a c e u tic a ls
0 6 -4
F a ts an d oils, in e d ib le
0 6 -5
A g ric u ltu ra l c h e m ic a ls an d ch e m ic a l p ro d u c ts
192.3
2 0 1 .3
201.3
205.3
20 5 .3
2 0 6 .0
206.7
209.4
210.7
223.3
223.3
2 2 3 .3
23 1 .5
236.8
2 1 2 .7
236.1
239.5
2 4 6 .7
24 7 .9
2 5 2 .0
2 5 3 .6
25 6 .6
256.8
2 5 9 .9
2 6 2 .7
2 6 6 .2
271.1
2 7 2 .9
..........................................................................
148.1
157.7
159.0
159.2
159.6
161.0
162.8
163.0
164.4
166.5
167.7
168.9
172.8
171.8
.....................................................................................
315.8
41 8 .3
374.1
3 8 1 .6
3 7 6 .4
37 9 .9
366.9
344.3
327.1
32 5 .6
3 0 2 .2
2 9 9 .9
298.2
2 9 4 .7
.............................................................................................
......................................
198.4
2 1 0 .0
2 0 9 .2
2 1 1 .2
2 1 5 .3
219.4
22 4 .3
2 2 9 .5
23 2 .9
24 1 .9
2 4 2 .8
2 5 6 .0
258.3
0 6 -6
P la s tic re sin s an d m a te ria ls
..........................................................................
199.8
22 8 .5
230.1
2 4 4 .5
250.1
25 2 .0
2 6 0 .0
261.4
2 6 2 .5
270.4
271.1
2 7 3 .9
2 8 5 .6
287.8
0 6 -7
O th e r c h e m ic a ls a n d a llie d p r o d u c t s .........................................................
181.8
188.9
190.5
191.8
194.4
195.8
197.0
198.8
2 0 1 .4
209.4
2 1 1 .0
2 1 4 .5
2 2 3 .3
2 2 5 .0
07
R u b b e r an d p la s tic p ro d u c ts
.............................................................................
174.8
190.8
193.1
198.8
200.7
2 1 4 .6
215.1
0 7 -1
R u b b e r an d ru b b e r p r o d u c t s ..........................................................................
185.3
2 0 2 .6
204.8
209.5
2 1 4 .6
217.1
2 2 0 .3
22 3 .7
224.3
226.1
23 2 .2
23 2 .3
2 3 4 .6
23 5 .3
C ru d e ru b b e r
.....................................................................................................
187.2
2 1 4 .2
22 2 .0
226.1
2 3 3 .0
232.2
2 3 6 .5
23 7 .2
24 0 .2
2 5 2 .7
263.1
25 4 .9
2 6 3 .8
26 3 .0
0 7 -1 2
T ire s a n d t u b e s ..................................................................................................
179.2
197.3
198.9
20 6 .2
2 1 1 .6
2 1 5 .0
2 1 8 .3
223.1
223.1
225.1
2 3 1 .2
2 3 1 .2
2 3 1 .3
2 3 1 .8
0 7 -1 3
M is c e lla n e o u s ru b b e r p r o d u c t s ....................................................................
189.6
2 0 2 .6
203.5
205.4
209.4
2 1 1 .9
2 1 4 .7
217.1
21 7 .7
2 1 5 .9
2 2 0 .4
22 3 .4
2 2 5 .9
2 2 7 .5
0 7 -2
P la s tic p ro d u c ts ( 6 /7 8 = 100)
109.5
111.0
111.2
112.2
113.0
114.0
114.3
115.2
116.3
116.5
118.6
119.5
119.6
302.8
2 9 9 .8
300.1
30 4 .7
3 0 9 .7
308.8
2 9 8 .9
290.1
2 9 0 .0
294.8
29 5 .7
2 7 5 .2
2 7 1 .6
35 5 .0
36 5 .3
....................................................................
L u m b e r a n d w o o d p r o d u c t s ...............................................................................
2 7 6 .0
195.5
20 3 .0
20 4 .9
2 5 8 .3
0 7 -1 1
08
2 0 5 .9
2 0 7 .8
21 0 .9
2 1 2 .7
0 8 -1
L u m b e r ...................................................................................................................
3 7 0 .3
3 5 5 .6
34 0 .6
310.1
3 0 1 .3
0 8 -2
M illw o rk
2 3 5 .4
26 1 .6
258.9
2 5 2 .5
24 9 .6
2 5 0 .9
2 5 5 .6
252.3
250.3
254.1
2 5 8 .0
264.7
25 6 .6
2 5 0 .9
0 8 -3
P l y w o o d .............................................................................................
2 3 5 .6
249.3
2 3 8 .6
2 4 9 .7
25 4 .3
25 7 .9
2 5 4 .0
242.2
2 3 7 .9
23 8 .2
243.7
24 0 .0
21 9 .2
2 2 9 .9
0 8 -4
O th e r w o o d p r o d u c t s ........................................................................................
2 1 1 .8
238.4
23 8 .5
2 3 7 .6
2 3 7 .4
23 8 .0
2 3 7 .7
2 3 9 .9
2 4 0 .5
24 2 .2
24 3 .4
243.1
24 1 .7
2 4 0 .7
................................................................................................................
S e e fo o tn o te s a t e n d o f ta b le .
98
.................................................................
133.5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
322.4
354.8
354.8
3 7 3 .9
339.5
336.3
3 4 1 .5
27.
C o n tin u e d — P ro d u c e r P ric e In d e x e s , b y c o m m o d ity g ro u p in g s
[1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 unless otherw ise specified]
Annual
Code
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
1980
1979
Com m odity group and subgroup
1978
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan. '
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Continued
09
0 9 -1
0 9-1 1
0 9 -1 2
0 9 -1 3
0 9 -1 4
0 9 -1 5
0 9 -2
Pulp, paper, and allied p ro d u cts..............................................................
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper and board . . .
W ood p u lp ................................................................................................
Wastepaper ...........................................................................................
Paper .......................................................................................................
Paperboard .........................................................
Converted paper and paperboard products ......................................
Building paper and b o a r d ......................................................................
195.6
195.6
266.5
191.2
206.1
179.6
185.6
187,4
216.2
217.2
306.9
206.2
227.2
199.2
207.0
183.3
216.6
217.8
308.3
207.2
227.5
199.8
207.6
180.8
218.3
219.6
320.3
207.9
228.2
201.7
209.0
178.0
2222
223.6
320.6
206.6
229.5
206.4
214.4
179.1
223,0
224.3
320.6
206.7
230.3
209.6
214.6
182.6
227.5
229.0
337.5
206.7
238.7
211.3
217.3
183.5
229.5
231.1
338.0
220.0
241.8
212.8
219.0
183.6
231.7
233.4
338.0
221.2
242.7
215.4
221.9
184.6
237.4
239.2
356,6
2229
245.5
221.8
227.7
186.2
238.9
240.5
358.5
223.2
247.5
223.4
228.7
191.1
241.6
243.1
359.0
224,9
250.5
225.9
231.3
198.7
246.5
248.0
386.8
242.5
253.6
230.2
234.6
201.3
248.9
250.3
388.0
226 1
256.5
239.2
236.1
206.8
10
1 0 -1
1 0 -1 3
1 0 -2
1 0 -3
1 0 -4
1 0 -5
1 0 -6
1 0 -7
1 0 -8
Metals and metal products ......................................................................
ron and stee. .........................................................................................
Steel mill p rod ucts..................................................................................
Nonferrous m e ta ls ..................................................................................
Metal containers ....................................................................................
H a rd w a re ................................................................................................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittin g s .....................................................
Heating equipm ent..................................................................................
Fabricated structural metal p ro d u c ts ..................................................
Miscellaneous metal products..............................................................
227.1
253.6
254.5
207.8
243.4
200.4
199.1
174.4
226.4
212.0
256.2
279.5
276.7
258.2
268.5
216.9
213.8
185.7
247.0
228.5
258.2
283.2
277.3
259.7
267.3
217.1
217.0
185.2
248.2
230.1
260.8
286.8
284.6
262.3
267.2
218.5
219.6
186.0
250.5
231.8
261.8
286.1
284.7
263.1
268.4
220.1
222.4
188.1
252.2
235.6
263.7
285.5
284.8
269.3
268.7
221.5
223.0
191.3
253.7
236.7
269.6
289.2
288.3
283.1
279.9
224.0
223.5
192.2
256.3
238.5
271.1
292.0
2888
284.1
280.9
225.5
225.4
193.1
256.7
238.6
273.6
2928
289.3
291.9
280.9
226.2
226.5
195.6
257.7
239.1
284.6
297.4
2936
3263
283.3
2282
232.8
199.5
2589
240.6
288.6
300.2
294.2
336.5
283.3
229.4
236.6
199.9
259.5
242.5
286.3
301.6
295.6
320.9
287.8
2305
242.4
2020
262.9
245,1
284,6
307.0
304.1
298.9
301.1
236.9
243.7
204.2
268.2
247.1
281.9
304,7
305.5
289.8
302.7
238.2
247.4
204.0
269.4
247.7
11
1 1 -1
1 1 -2
1 1 -3
1 1 -4
1 1 -6
1 1 -7
1 1 -9
Machinery and equipment ........................................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipm ent................................................
Construction machinery and equipm ent.............................................
Metalworking machinery and equipment ...........................................
General purpose machinery and equipm ent......................................
Special industry machinery and equipment ......................................
Electrical machinery and equipment ..................................................
Miscellaneous m a ch in e ry......................................................................
196.1
213.1
232.9
217.0
216.6
223.0
164.9
194.7
211.4
228.3
253.7
237.6
234.0
245.1
176.5
207.1
212.4
229.4
254.0
239.1
235.1
246.1
177.6
207.4
214.8
231.2
257.0
241.4
237.1
249.8
179.9
209.7
216.0
233.3
258.5
243.5
238.3
251.0
181.2
209.7
217.7
237.4
258.9
246.4
240.2
251 2
182.5
212.0
220.0
240.0
263.9
249.6
242.8
2538
184.3
213.6
221.3
243.4
265.4
252.2
244.2
254.9
184.9
214.9
223.4
244.2
268.8
254.6
247.6
256.1
186.6
216.3
2276
248.4
276.0
258.9
251.0
260.6
190.6
2203
2297
249.1
277.5
261.3
252.0
262.9
194.2
2208
231.9
250.4
278.4
264.1
255.7
265.6
195.9
222.7
235.8
252.8
282.9
269.9
260.0
271.9
198.7
226.8
237.0
254.9
284.2
272.6
262.3
273.1
199.2
226.9
12
1 2 -1
1 2 -2
1 2 -3
1 2 -4
1 2 -5
1 2 -6
Furniture and household durables ..........................................................
Household furniture ...............................................................................
Commercial fu rn itu re .............................................................................
Floor c o ve rin g s ......................................................................................
Household appliances ..........................................................................
Home electronic equipment .................................................................
Other household durable goods .........................................................
160.4
173.5
201.5
141.6
153.0
90.2
203.1
169.6
184.8
221 9
146.0
159.3
92.4
219.5
170.2
185.3
221.8
146.5
160.0
92.8
2206
170.7
185.8
222.7
149.1
161.1
90.2
223.7
171.5
186.2
222.7
150.0
162.2
90.2
226.6
172.7
188.5
222.7
150.4
162.7
90.3
231.0
175.1
190.1
223.3
152.1
163.2
90.3
245.6
176.4
193.0
223.3
152.8
164.5
90.3
248.2
177.9
194.8
225.1
152.9
165.3
90.5
254.4
183.4
197.4
226.9
159.0
166.5
91.0
287.4
183.4
196.5
230.1
159.4
168.7
88.7
284.2
184.6
196.9
232.8
160.7
169.7
88.8
287.6
183.1
198.9
233.5
161.7
170.2
88.9
266.8
184.1
2003
233.8
163.6
172.1
89.1
265.2
13
13-11
1 3 -2
1 3 -3
1 3 -4
1 3 -5
1 3 -6
1 3 -7
1 3 -8
1 3 -9
Nonmetallic mineral p ro d u cts...................................................................
Flat glass ................................................................................................
Concrete ingredients .............................................................................
Concrete p rod ucts..................................................................................
Structural clay products excluding refractories.................................
Refractories ...........................................................................................
Asphalt roofing ......................................................................................
Gypsum products ..................................................................................
Glass containers ....................................................................................
Other nonmetallic m ine rals...................................................................
222.8
172.8
217.7
214.0
197.2
216.5
292.0
229.1
244.4
275.6
245.6
183.1
242.5
241.6
215.7
228.5
317.9
248.8
265.2
303.0
246.9
184.0
243.3
243.7
2165
2326
323.0
251.3
265.2
302.0
249.5
184.1
245.1
245.2
2203
240.8
328.4
251.8
265.2
310.5
249.9
184.1
245.9
246.3
222.3
241.7
325.9
252.3
265.2
309.9
254.6
184.5
246.7
248.7
223.7
242.4
333.0
254.9
265.2
336.0
256.2
184.7
248.3
250.1
221 1
244.6
337.5
255.3
265.2
341.2
257.4
185.4
249.6
250.6
221.8
247.4
347.4
256.2
265.2
342.2
259.6
186.4
251.0
253.2
226.7
248.0
346.5
255.0
274.2
342.2
2684
191.0
2650
265.4
2296
248.5
356.6
255.4
274.3
351.8
272.6
190.9
265.2
266.2
231.1
251.9
372.3
262.2
274.6
374.3
276.1
191.4
266.0
268.6
231.5
254.8
387.6
267.6
274,6
386.9
282.8
191.4
270.5
273.0
234.4
262.6
404.7
264.0
294.6
399.5
282.9
191.4
271.1
275.0
229.5
265.2
398.2
256.5
294.6
399.5
14
14-1
1 4 -4
Transportation equipment (12/68 - 1 0 0 ) .............................................
Motor vehicles and equipment ............................................................
Railroad equipment ...............................................................................
173.5
176.0
252.8
187.2
189.8
271.6
187.5
190.1
274.7
188.4
190.8
280.6
185.9
187.8
280.9
186.6
188.6
281 6
194.2
197.1
286.3
194.8
197.4
2882
195.6
198.2
289.0
198.7
200.7
297.5
198.1
199.9
299.3
198.8
200.8
301.3
202.6
204.9
303.9
201.1
203.1
304.6
15
15-1
1 5 -2
1 5 -3
1 5 -4
15-51
1 5 -9
Miscellaneous p ro d u c ts .............................................................................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, am m unition.................................
Tobacco products ..................................................................................
N otio ns.....................................................................................................
Photographic equipment and supplies ................................................
Mobile homes (12/74 - 1 0 0 )..............................................................
Other miscellaneous products ............................................................
184.3
163.2
198.5
182.0
145 7
126.4
210.6
203.3
174.3
214.4
190 6
150.6
137.2
250.6
205.2
174.7
214.4
190.6
151.6
137.9
255.8
207.0
176.9
214.8
192.0
152.0
138,2
261.4
208 9
177.6
221.3
191.9
152.2
139.5
261.4
213.1
179.8
221.9
191.9
154.3
140.7
272.5
218.9
181.1
222.1
195.7
157.4
142,9
288.3
221.4
181.2
222.2
195.8
161.2
144.0
293.3
227.4
183.0
226.6
196.8
164.3
144.1
308.8
242.9
190.9
236.6
203.1
165.9
144.7
351 6
261.8
193.2
236.9
203.2
218.7
146.0
375.3
2562
194.2
237.1
2072
219.4
146.6
352.3
252.2
195.3
237.6
2168
212.6
148.9
339.2
250.9
196.4
244.6
217.0
200.0
149.9
339.1
'D a ta for January 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2 Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3 Includes only domestic production,
4 Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month.
5 Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
99
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
28.
P ro d u c e r P ric e In d e x e s , fo r s p e c ia l c o m m o d ity g ro u p in g s
[1 9 6 7 =
1 0 0 u n le s s o th e r w is e s p e c ifie d ]
Annual
1979
Commodity grouping
1980
1978
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept
O ct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.'
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
208.4
206.4
206.7
197.2
108.8
106.3
158.9
230.1
226.4
227.5
216.0
112.8
112.5
167.7
232.0
223.8
224.7
217.0
113.5
112.7
168.3
235.4
225.4
226.4
219.0
114.0
114.1
168.5
237.5
224.7
224.8
220.3
115.1
113.0
170.8
241.4
228.5
230.8
222.0
115.8
112.7
170.8
245.3
226.9
228.9
225.9
116.4
113.3
171.2
247.0
230.0
231.8
226.9
117.0
114.6
171.6
249.5
232.2
234.2
228.5
117.2
115.3
172.9
255.7
231.2
233.3
234.7
118.9
119.2
175.3
260.5
235.7
238.5
237.5
119.4
119.6
177.8
262.6
234.7
236.8
238.4
121.1
119.9
181.8
264.3
231.7
234.0
239.9
122.1
120.7
182.0
265.4
237.4
239.0
239.9
123.1
121.5
182.8
All commodities less farm p ro d u c ts ....................................
All fo o d s ...........................................................................................
Processed foods ..........................................................................
Industrial commodities less fuels ..................................................
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 100) ......................
Hosiery ..............................................................................................
Underwear and n ig h tw e a r..............................................................
Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber
and manmade fibers and yarns ................................................
Pharmaceutical preparations ..........................................................
Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork and
other wood products ...................................................................
Special metals and metal products ..............................................
Fabricated metal p rod ucts..............................................................
Copper and copper pro d u cts..........................................................
Machinery and motive p ro d u c ts .....................................................
190.5
140.6
207.6
150.1
209.5
151.7
215.0
151.7
218.6
152.0
220.9
153.6
224.3
155.6
226.3
155.4
228.7
156.9
236.3
159.2
238.2
160.4
242.1
161.7
248.4
165.9
251.6
164.7
298.3
209.6
216.2
155.6
190.4
325.1
232.4
234.6
199.0
205.3
321.7
233.7
235.7
193.0
206.0
325.3
235.5
237.4
191.9
207.7
333.9
234.9
239.8
197.1
207.2
341.0
236.4
241.1
200.5
208.5
337.3
243.4
244.0
212.2
213.4
323.3
244.5
244.6
213.8
214.3
310.8
246.3
245.3
217.1
215.9
308.6
253.7
247.2
227.7
219.7
314.0
255.7
248.3
258.2
220.6
312.2
254.8
251.3
240.9
222.2
284.5
255.6
256.0
224.7
226.1
281.7
253.4
257.0
212.3
226.1
Machinery and equipment, except electrical ...............................
Agricultural machinery, including tractors ....................................
Metalworking machinery .................................................................
Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 = 100) . . . .
Total tra c to rs ....................................................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment less p a r ts ........................
Farm and garden tractors less parts ...........................................
Agricultural machinery excluding tractors less p a rts ...................
Industrial valves ...............................................................................
Industrial fittings ...............................................................................
Abrasive grinding w h e e ls.................................................................
Construction materials ...................................................................
214.3
216.3
228.8
179.1
228.7
212.7
216.1
216.7
2323
232.7
208.1
228.3
231.8
232.1
254.3
195.7
247.7
228.1
230.5
233.6
255.0
259.3
221.6
250.3
232.6
233.8
256.8
195.8
248.2
229.5
231.8
235.7
255.8
260.4
222.8
250.3
235.1
235.8
260.1
202.2
251.2
231.4
233.9
237.6
257.0
260.8
222.8
252.3
236.2
238.4
261.7
204.2
253.8
233.7
237.6
239.2
258.2
262.3
224.6
254.3
238.2
243.6
265.6
206.5
256.0
238.4
244.1
243.5
260.1
264.3
224.6
256.6
240.8
246.3
269.5
208.5
261.2
241.0
247.6
245.4
261.8
272.6
239.0
258.5
242.5
250.8
272.7
208.8
262.5
244.9
250.5
251.3
263.1
276.8
239.0
256.7
244.8
251.5
276.0
211.2
266.2
245.8
251.1
252.0
266.1
276.8
239.0
255.4
249.1
256.1
281.9
213.1
273.0
250.0
256.0
256.4
271.0
276.8
239.0
259.3
250.4
256.0
284.8
215.6
273.5
250.4
256.7
255.6
272.2
280.4
244.0
262.2
252.9
257.7
288.1
216.8
274.3
252.1
258.8
257.0
276.1
282.8
244.0
264.6
257.5
259.7
294.3
223.9
278.4
254.2
261.0
259.0
283.5
289.9
258.4
262.1
259.0
261.7
296.8
227.0
280.0
256.1
262.0
261.7
286.6
291.5
261.3
261.4
1 Data for January 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
29.
[1 9 6 7 =
P ro d u c e r P ric e In d e x e s , b y d u ra b ility o f p ro d u c t
100]
Annual
1979
Commodity grouping
1980
1978
May
June
July
Aug.
S ept
O ct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.'
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Total durable goods ......................................................................
Total nondurable g o o d s.................................................................
204.9
211.9
224.7
236.9
225.8
238.8
227.6
243.7
228.0
245.8
230.1
251.1
234.6
253.7
235.3
256.2
237.0
259.3
243.8
263.2
246.4
270.0
246.6
273.1
247.2
274.0
246.4
277.3
Total m anufactures........................................................................
D u ra b le ....................................................................................
Nondurable .............................................................................
204.2
204.7
203.0
225.0
223.8
225.6
226.5
224.6
227.8
229.8
226.6
232.5
231.7
227.2
235.9
235.2
229.4
241.0
239.0
234.0
244.0
240.6
234.6
246.6
242.6
236.2
249.0
248.4
242.9
253.9
252.7
245.0
260.7
254.8
245.2
264.7
256.5
246.2
267.3
257.8
245.9
270.3
Total raw or slightly processed goods ......................................
D u ra b le ....................................................................................
Nondurable .............................................................................
234.6
209.6
235.6
268.2
262.9
267.6
269.7
272.8
268.5
274.3
265.4
274.0
272.1
259.8
272.0
276.9
255.7
277.5
278.7
259.2
279.2
281.0
265.8
281.2
285.9
267.8
286.3
287.6
282.8
286.9
295.9
305.2
294.2
295.6
302.5
294.0
290.4
286.0
289.7
292.7
262.2
294.0
1 Data for January 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
30.
[1 9 6 7 =
1972
SIC
code
P ro d u c e r P ric e In d e x e s fo r th e o u tp u t o f s e le c te d S IC in d u s trie s
1 0 0 u n le s s o th e r w is e s p e c ifie d ]
Annual
1979
Industry description
1980
1978
May
June
July
Aug.
S ept
O ct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan .1
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
121.9
126.6
430.2
358.2
194.6
111.8
131.9
237.5
451.3
427.2
216.0
125.4
136.0
277.0
452.5
444.1
217.0
125.5
136.0
270.8
453.1
457.5
219.3
125.5
138.8
245.8
454.8
476.0
220.1
125.5
138.1
252.1
452.9
508.4
221.0
125.5
140.2
275.0
455.1
522.1
224.0
126.7
140.2
252.1
455.5
533.9
224.7
124.2
142.0
300.0
458.9
551.3
225.6
129.3
142.0
308.3
459.2
582.7
238.8
136.6
147.3
335.4
458.7
597.4
242.1
128.5
147.3
330.0
460.7
600.6
243.6
123.4
152.6
337.5
462.9
612.3
248.4
136.6
152.6
337.5
464.4
620.2
249.4
136.6
216.7
215.2
192.5
205.2
259.2
227.7
203.5
225.3
249.1
217.1
177.8
225.3
243.8
214.7
178.4
227.5
229.3
203.4
169.6
237.9
247.2
211.7
'171.2
240.6
238.9
211.9
163.1
240.1
241.5
213.4
188.3
241.7
243.9
220.0
188.5
243.1
240.8
211.9
186.1
241.8
240.1
207.4
178.2
242.8
238.9
209.1
173.5
243.4
225.6
197.7
164.5
252.8
227.4
194.7
164.7
253.7
MINING
1011
1092
1211
1311
1442
1455
Iron ores (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ..........................................................
Mercury ores (12/75 = 1 0 0 )..................................................
Bituminous coal and lignite .....................................................
Crude petroleum and natural g a s ...........................................
Construction sand and gravel ................................................
Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 = 100) .........................................
2011
2013
2016
2021
Meat packing plants .................................................................
Sausages and other prepared meats ....................................
Poultry dressing plants ............................................................
Creamery b u tte r........................................................................
MANUFACTURING
See footnotes at end of table.
100
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30.
C o n tin u e d — P ro d u c e r P ric e In d e x e s fo r th e o u tp u t o f s e le c te d S IC in d u s trie s
[1967 = 100 unless otherw ise specified]
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
Annual
average
1978
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
J a n .1
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
1979
1980
2022
2024
2033
2034
2041
2044
2048
2061
2063
2067
MANUFACTURING - C ontinued
Cheese natural and processed (12/72 = 1 0 0 ) ...................
Ice cream and frozen desserts (12/72 = 100) .................
Canned fruits and vege tables................................................
Dehydrated food products (12/73 = 1 0 0 )..........................
Flour mills (12/71 = 1 0 0 ) .....................................................
Rice m illin g .................................................................
Prepared foods, n.e.c. (12/75 = 1 0 0 )..................................
Raw cane sugar ......................................................................
Beet sugar .............................................................................
Chewing gum ........................................................................
169.6
154.8
193.2
131.3
147.0
207.6
107.3
190.7
188.5
218.0
185.2
171.0
207.2
182.1
166.7
206.8
115.2
195.6
199.7
242.2
185.6
171.5
207.5
181.0
174.6
206.8
118.9
207.0
199.7
242.2
186.3
171.5
209.9
182.0
190.9
206.8
128.1
209.0
202.0
242.9
195.4
175.0
210.5
180.7
176.9
218.7
119.4
216.8
199.4
242.9
200.8
176.1
212.0
170.0
183.5
223.5
120.9
216.7
200.0
242.9
196.8
177.5
212.9
158.2
184.2
227.3
123.6
224.3
204.7
242.9
193.6
179.9
212.2
156.2
184.4
231.8
124.3
223.3
210.6
262.3
193.9
180.1
212.2
157.3
184.1
218.1
125.0
248.4
223.2
262.3
195.4
180.9
213.4
157.6
181.7
217.5
122.0
260.5
224.6
262.3
194.6
181.5
213.5
159.0
183.6
233.0
122.9
374.9
290.6
262.3
197.4
185.0
214.8
156.4
182.6
258.0
121.8
276.0
303.1
281.9
203.6
191.4
216.3
157.5
175.9
260.4
116.8
320.2
295.4
281.9
203.6
192.1
217.4
156.4
183.3
254.5
117.2
456.1
338.0
282.0
2074
2075
2077
2083
2085
2091
2092
2095
2098
2111
Cottonseed oil m ills .................................................................
Soybean oil m ills ......................................................................
Animal and marine fats and oils ...........................................
Malt ...................................................................
Distilled liquor, except brandy (12/75 = 100) ...................
Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 = 100) ......................
Fresh or frozen packaged fish ..............................................
Roasted coffee (12/72 = 1 0 0 ).............................................
Macaroni and spaghetti ..........................................................
C igare ttes...................................................................
183.1
225.6
287.9
181.5
106.7
136.4
303.8
262.3
176.9
204.6
192.5
237.7
363.8
190.8
113.6
140.9
3824
231.7
186.6
221.4
210.4
251.1
335.3
201.4
113.6
142.1
397.6
244.2
188.6
221.4
224.5
262.8
352.0
201.4
113.6
148.5
403.7
271.0
203.5
221.5
214.1
250.0
321.4
201.4
115.7
148.2
391.5
279.2
210.4
228.9
217.9
248.6
333.8
214.9
117.1
154.0
389.2
279.2
210.4
229.1
214.9
244.7
333.7
214.9
117.1
154.3
400.1
280.0
210.4
229.2
204.7
242.4
315.2
228.2
118.1
155.6
391.4
287.5
221.5
229.2
205.6
241.9
300.7
228.2
118.1
159.8
388.4
287.5
227.7
234.3
182.4
235.1
298.1
244.1
118.6
160.9
389.7
281.3
227.7
245.8
184.3
226.2
292.6
244.1
118.7
164.0
386.6
273.9
227.7
245.9
170.4
219.3
297.3
244.1
118.7
165.7
392.6
274.0
227.7
245.9
154.8
212.6
274.0
244.1
118.7
170.2
371.5
273.9
230.5
246.1
150.5
212.5
263.0
244.1
118.9
173.2
361.6
273.9
230.5
254.2
2121
2131
2211
2221
2251
2254
2257
2261
2262
2271
Cigars ....................................................................................
Chewing and smoking to b a c c o ..............................................
Weaving mills, cotton (12/72 = 100) ..................................
Weaving mills, synthetic (12/77 = 100) .............................
Women's hosiery, except socks (12/75 = 1 0 0 ).................
Knit underwear mills ..............................................................
Circular knit fabric mills (6/76 = 1 0 0 )..................................
Finishing plants, cotton (6/76 = 100) ..................................
Finishing plants, synthetics, silk (6/76 = 100) ...................
Woven carpets and rugs (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) .............................
141.4
222.0
181.1
109.0
91.5
164.1
985
111.0
101.4
114.7
145.4
245.9
192.7
113.6
97.3
173.1
94.1
120.8
106.3
116.7
145.3
245.9
194.3
114.1
97.6
173.3
95.8
120.9
107.0
117.1
149.8
246.4
196.1
116.2
99.6
172.9
96.1
122.5
107.5
( 2)
150.1
246.4
196.5
116.3
98.1
174.0
96.4
123.2
108.2
(2)
150.1
255.8
198.7
116.2
97.5
174.0
96.2
124.0
108.3
(2)
149.8
260.4
201.1
116.8
98.2
174.3
96.9
126.1
109.3
(2)
150.4
260.8
201.6
117.3
100.3
174.6
98.4
126.3
109.7
(2)
150.4
260.8
201.9
117.2
100.2
178.3
98.6
126.6
109.8
(2)
151.2
260.9
204.4
118.1
103.3
182.5
99.3
128.7
110.3
(2)
151.6
265.1
206.5
117.8
103.6
184.5
100.0
129.5
109.3
(2)
151.8
267.3
209.1
119.6
103.7
186.2
103.1
131.7
110.3
(2)
152.7
274.3
210.9
122.4
104.4
186.4
103.6
131.9
111.3
( 2)
152.7
274.6
211.6
121.8
105.4
187.1
104.1
133.2
112.1
( 2)
2272
2281
2282
2284
2298
2311
2321
2322
2323
2327
Tufted carpets and ru g s ...........................................
Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 = 1 0 0 ) ...............................
Throwing and winding mills (6/76 = 100) .................
Thread mills (6/76 = 1 0 0 ).....................................................
Cordage and twine (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .................................
Men’s and boys' suits and c o a ts ...............................
Men’s and boys’ shirts and nightwear ........................
Men's and boys' u nde rw ear......................................
Men's and boys' neckwear (12/75 = 100) ............
Men’s and boys’ separate tro u s e rs ...............................
125.3
167.4
99.2
114.6
99.3
194.3
180.8
180.6
102.3
152.7
127.7
174.5
106.3
120.4
102.8
204.2
192.4
188.7
103.4
162.3
128.1
175.7
107.5
120.4
105.4
204.5
193.5
188.7
103.4
162.5
127.6
177.5
108.5
120.5
105.4
205.8
194.7
188.7
103.4
162.5
128.6
177.4
109.7
128.1
113.5
206.5
195.9
190.0
110.9
162.7
129.0
179.4
111.2
128.1
115.1
206.5
196.0
190.0
110.9
162.7
129.8
181.2
110.4
128.4
114.9
206.6
196.1
190.0
110.9
162.9
130.1
183.0
109.6
128.4
114.9
206.8
196.6
190.0
110.9
163.4
130.1
183.7
109.2
128.6
114.9
206.7
196.3
194.0
110.9
163.5
134.7
188.0
110.1
128.7
115.0
209.0
197.7
199.8
112.4
164.2
135.2
197.4
108.8
129.2
117.2
209.6
196.6
202.2
112.4
174.3
137.5
199.3
111.3
129.3
118.5
209.7
197.3
204.0
112.4
174.4
135.9
203.8
114.8
133.9
123.6
205.7
202.9
204.2
106.3
174.8
138.7
204.5
116.3
142.2
123.8
207.0
203.5
204.3
106.3
174.9
2328
2331
2335
2341
2342
2361
2381
2394
2396
2421
Men's and boys’ work clothing ...............................
Women’s and misses' blouses and waists (6/78 = 100) .
Women's and misses’ dresses (12/77 = 1 0 0 ).................
Women’s and children’s underwear (12/72 = 100) .
Brassieres and allied garments (12/75 = 100) .................
Children’s dresses and blouses (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .................
Fabric dress and work g lo v e s ......................................
Canvas and related products (12/77 = 100) . . .
Automotive and apparel trimmings (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............
Sawmills and planing mills (12/71 = 1 0 0 )...................
195.2
(2)
100.7
132.1
111.7
(2)
214.4
99.6
106.3
228.9
206.5
100.3
105,9
143.3
116.2
106.7
243.9
105.9
107.1
251.6
209.0
100.5
105.9
143.3
117.5
102.1
243.9
106.9
114.3
250.9
208.9
102.6
106.4
144.2
117.5
102.4
245.4
108.4
114.3
251.3
210.7
102.7
108.3
145.3
117.8
102.4
245.4
111.0
114.3
259.1
210.9
102.8
108.3
145.3
117.8
103.7
245.4
111.4
114.3
265.6
213.4
103.0
108.7
146.7
117.8
105.7
245.4
112.3
114.3
262.2
219.1
105.9
108.8
147,4
117.8
105.7
246.9
112.1
114.3
250.2
219.6
106.8
108.8
147.7
118.8
105.6
246.9
120.1
114.3
237.9
225.1
107.1
112.9
149.4
119.7
105.3
257.7
122.1
114.3
234.8
234.1
107.2
113.9
150.1
123.0
105.3
261.7
122.8
114.3
239.6
235.4
107.2
113.9
152.4
124.9
106.0
264.8
123.4
122.3
239.1
240.9
107.6
113.9
152.4
125.4
106.0
267.5
123.4
122.3
215.7
241.7
107.7
113.9
153.2
125.4
106.0
271.1
123.4
122.3
209.3
2436
2439
2448
2451
2492
2511
2512
2515
2521
2611
Softwood veneer and plywood (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) . . . .
Structural wood members, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ............
Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 1 0 0 ).....................
Mobile homes (12/74 = 1 0 0 )....................................
Particleboard (12/75 = 100) ......................
Wood household furniture (12/71 = 100) ............
Upholstered household furniture (12/71 = 1 0 0 ) . . . .
Mattresses and bedsprings.............................................
Wood office fu rn itu re ..................................................
Pulp mills (12/73 = 1 0 0 )..................................................
150.1
136.2
149 4
126.5
159.7
152.4
143.1
156.3
194.4
178 5
151.1
150.1
166.7
137.3
141.6
164.6
149.2
163.2
214.3
195.2
140.7
150.0
167.0
138.0
137.4
164.0
149.4
164.1
214.2
196.6
148.1
150.0
166.9
138.2
134.3
164.5
150.0
164.5
216.8
205.4
153.4
149.9
166.8
139 6
134.7
164.6
150.2
165.8
216.8
205.7
156.0
150.8
167.9
140.7
138.5
168.0
151.6
165.8
216.8
205.8
153.1
158.2
167.9
143.0
139.5
169.3
151.8
168.9
217.6
213.5
142.9
158.2
171.0
144.0
136.8
172.3
153.8
172.3
217.6
213.9
138.9
158.2
170.5
144.1
134.5
174.5
155.7
172.3
221.9
213.9
138.5
158.2
169.8
144.8
136.9
177.5
155.9
169.9
226.2
225.2
143.9
158.2
167.0
146.1
149.0
177.4
156.6
169.7
233.7
227.0
139.8
158.3
166.3
146.7
158.9
177.6
156.6
169.7
233.8
227.4
121.4
158.2
164.6
149.0
161.9
179.7
158.7
171.5
233.9
244.9
129.6
152.1
162.8
150.0
167.3
180.8
158.9
174.8
233.9
246.0
2621
2631
2647
2654
2655
2812
2821
2822
2824
2873
Paper mills, except building (12/74 = 1 0 0 ) ........................
Paperboard mills (12/74 = 100) ....................................
Sanitary paper prod ucts......................................
Sanitary food containers ..................................................
Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100) ..
Alkalies and chlorine (12/73 = 1 0 0 )............
Plastics materials and resins (6/76 = 1 0 0 ).................
Synthetic rubber ................................................
Organic fiber, noncellulosic..................................................
Nitrogenous fertilizers (12/75 = 100) .................................
115.7
106.4
251.4
1708
123.0
198.8
103.8
180.5
107.6
96.6
129.3
118.1
271.7
189.1
132.2
204.9
117.7
200.9
115.9
101.9
129.5
118.5
271.9
1891
134.0
206.3
118.6
206.6
117.4
101.4
130.2
119.7
276.4
189.6
136.6
209.5
124.9
214.2
118.6
102.8
131.0
121.9
285.9
189.6
136.6
212.2
127.8
2234
119.8
104.1
131.4
123.4
285.4
191.8
136.6
213.1
128.9
2238
123.5
106.1
135.1
125.4
286.3
195.8
138.5
214.1
132.9
225.7
123.6
108.0
136.5
126.3
288.4
198.2
138.5
216.7
133.8
228.0
123.2
111.7
136.8
127.6
290.9
199.9
142.3
217.3
134.1
230.4
122.6
113.5
139.0
131.3
295.8
202.6
143.2
220.4
138.5
240.9
124.1
114.3
140.0
132.3
303.8
202.6
143.2
224.9
139.3
243.2
124.8
119.4
142.7
134.1
311.6
207.3
143.3
227.1
140.6
243.8
127.1
122.2
145.1
137.0
312.2
212.9
145.7
234.0
145.4
255.7
128 8
1239
146.1
141.5
318.1
216.7
147.8
238.6
147.0
258.2
131.9
124.4
2874
2875
2892
2911
2951
2952
3011
Phosphatic fertilizers ...........................................
Fertilizers, mixing only ..................................................
Explosives ................................................
Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) ........................
Paving mixtures and blocks (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ........................
Asphalt felts and coatings (12/75) = 100) ........................
Tires and inner tubes (12/73 = 100) ...................
166.0
181.9
217.3
119.6
117.1
128.2
154.0
185.1
197.8
239.0
146.6
130.1
139.3
169.2
184.2
197.8
239.3
155.1
131.2
141.6
170.6
188 9
198.1
240.1
165.5
134.4
143.6
176.8
199.4
205.6
240.7
176.6
134.9
142.7
181.2
204.3
211.1
250.3
188.9
141.6
145.8
184.2
213.2
218.3
250.8
196.4
145.6
147.6
186.9
221.6
2270
251.7
201.0
145.6
152.2
191.2
223.4
227.1
252.5
204.8
145.7
151.9
191.4
229.2
233.2
2536
213.9
150.0
156.1
193.0
233.9
240.8
255.5
228.7
157.3
162.4
198.2
235.7
243.1
260.5
242.2
167.8
169.5
198.3
237.3
247 9
271.3
2504
172.6
176.5
198.8
2364
246.0
272.6
253.0
172.6
173.6
199.0
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
101
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
30.
C o n tin u e d — P ro d u c e r P ric e In d e x e s fo r th e o u tp u t o f s e le c te d S IC in d u s trie s
[ 1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 u n le s s o th e r w is e s p e c ifie d ]
Annual
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
3021
3031
3079
3111
3142
3143
3144
3171
3211
3221
Rubber and plastic footwear (12/71 - 100) ...........................................
Reclaimed rubber (12/73 - 100) ..............................................................
Miscellaneous plastic products (6/78 - 1 0 0 ) ...........................................
Leather tanning and finishing (12/77 - 100) ...........................................
House slippers (12/75 - 100) ...................................................................
Men's footwear, except athletic (12/75 - 100) ......................................
Women’s footwear, except athletic ............................................................
Women's handbags and purses (12/75 - 100) ......................................
Rat glass (12/71 - 100) .............................................................................
Glass containers ...........................................................................................
3241
3251
3253
3255
3259
3261
3262
3263
3269
3271
1980
1979
1978
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.1
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
158.7
154.3
119.1
122.5
127.1
164.1
111.4
142.7
244.3
169.5
167.6
109.0
201.3
138.5
152.8
192.2
131.7
150.8
265.2
169.6
169.1
110.7
195.8
142.0
155.4
195.4
131.8
151.8
265.2
171.0
169.2
111.4
181.8
135.0
155.4
198.7
131.8
151.9
265.2
173.4
169.2
112.3
172.9
135.0
158.2
201.5
131.8
151.9
265.2
173.4
177.7
113.1
155.2
135.0
160.1
201.6
131.8
152.3
265.2
173.5
178.8
114.3
161.9
135.8
160.4
202.3
131.8
152.6
265.2
173.5
179.2
114.6
150.8
135.9
160.3
204.0
131.8
153.3
265.2
173.5
179.5
115.8
153.5
135.9
160.3
204.0
131.8
153.9
274.2
173.5
179.7
116.6
164.3
143.5
160.3
205.6
131.9
157.6
274.3
173.8
177.9
116.8
160.8
146.7
157.9
206.4
131.9
157.4
274.5
173.8
182.7
118.7
146.7
146.7
158.4
213.5
132.1
157.9
274.5
173.8
183.7
120.1
140.8
146.8
158.4
213.8
132.1
157.9
294.5
173.8
184.3
120.3
137.9
146.8
158.4
213.8
140.8
157.9
294.5
Cement, hydraulic .........................................................................................
Brick and structural clay tile ........................................................................
Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 - 1 0 0 ) ................................................
Clay refractories ...........................................................................................
Structural clay products, n.e.c........................................................................
Vitreous plumbing fix tu re s .............................................................................
Vitreous china food utensils..........................................................................
Rne earthenware food utensils ...................................................................
Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100) .....................................................
Concrete block and brick .............................................................................
251.2
230.8
107.7
221.4
176.3
189.7
2688
228.1
122.2
202.0
283.2
258.3
113.0
234.6
186.8
204.6
290.6
237.1
129.2
232.6
283.7
259.7
113.0
236.9
187.8
206.4
290.6
236.4
129.0
232.7
285.4
261.0
120.2
246.5
188.2
210.1
297.5
238.8
131.0
232.7
285.4
263.3
120.2
246.7
192.1
212.4
297.5
238.8
131.0
235.7
285.4
265.9
120.2
247.1
192.1
213.1
298.0
246.0
133.3
237.8
285.4
261.3
120.2
251.0
192.8
214.5
298.0
246.0
133.3
240.0
285.5
261.3
120.2
252.9
192.3
215.7
305.4
248.4
135.5
240.0
286.2
262.7
130.3
2540
196.5
217.3
308.2
294.3
150.1
240.2
305.7
268.3
130.4
255.1
196.3
219.2
308.2
294.3
150.1
249.5
303.2
270.4
130.4
260.9
198.6
224.6
307.9
290.3
148.8
250.6
303.2
271.9
130.4
265.3
196.7
226.7
308.2
294.0
150.0
252.3
309.8
276.4
130.4
275.4
200.6
227.6
313.4
294.8
151.3
259.3
310.7
278.5
117.6
277.1
201.6
236.1
313.4
293.6
151.4
259.4
3273
3274
3275
3291
3297
3312
3313
3316
3317
3321
Ready-mixed concrete ..................................................................................
Lime (12/75 - 1 0 0 )......................................................................................
Gypsum prod ucts...........................................................................................
Abrasive products (12/71 - 1 0 0 ) ..............................................................
Nonclay refractories (12/74 - 100) ..........................................................
Blast furnaces and steel mills ......................................................................
Electrometallurgical products (12/75 - 1 0 0 ) ...........................................
Cold finishing of steel shapes ......................................................................
Steel pipes and tu b e s ....................................................................................
Gray iron foundries (12/68 - 100) ............................................................
217.6
129.5
229.5
172.3
133.6
262.3
94.8
241.0
255.2
233.5
245.2
139.8
249.4
185.1
140 5
285.3
111.7
2598
264.5
253.3
247.5
140.1
251.9
185.8
143.9
285.8
112.3
261.3
264.5
254.5
249.6
141.8
252.3
187.7
148.1
292.8
116.5
270.6
271.9
253.9
250.5
142.9
252.8
188.6
149.1
293.0
116.5
270.8
271.3
253.8
252.4
144.2
255.4
190.4
149.7
293.2
116.0
270.9
271.3
254.8
254.0
144.6
255.9
195.1
150.1
296.4
116.2
271.7
272.7
267.1
254.6
144.3
256.8
195.3
152.3
297.1
117.5
273.4
273.1
269.6
257.0
144.6
255.6
196.5
152.3
297.7
117.6
273.9
273.2
269.7
270.8
149.5
255.9
199.4
152.6
302.4
117.8
274.1
280.5
273.7
271.9
153.7
262.8
202.2
153.3
302.9
117.8
277.2
281.2
275.4
274.9
155.5
268.1
203.9
154.2
304.1
118.0
277.2
283.6
275.7
278.9
156.7
264.6
210.1
157.4
311.9
118.7
285.9
286.9
278.4
281.6
156.9
257.0
211.9
159.7
313.2
118.5
288.1
286.9
279.0
3333
3334
3351
3353
3354
3355
3411
3425
3431
3465
Primary z in c .....................................................................................................
Primary aluminum .........................................................................................
Copper rolling and d ra w in g ...........................................................................
Aluminum sheet plate and foil (12/75 - 100) .........................................
Aluminum extruded products (12/75 - 100) ...........................................
Aluminum rolling, drawing, n.e.c. (12/75 - 1 0 0 ).......................................
Metal cans .....................................................................................................
Hand saws and saw blades (12/72 - 1 0 0 ) ..............................................
Metal sanitary ware ......................................................................................
Automotive stampings (12/75 = 100) .......................................................
223.2
217.4
170.2
137.6
134.3
119.7
238.5
147.9
209.1
118.8
274.5
237.4
215.6
148.7
147.5
131.5
263.8
161.9
222.2
127.0
275.2
238.5
211.7
148.8
147.6
131.6
262.2
162.5
224.1
127.1
281.4
244.9
211.2
149.6
150.3
132.7
262.2
162.8
226.4
127.8
265.5
247.4
213.6
149.8
151.9
133.1
262.9
166.3
228.9
130.9
264.2
248.2
216.7
150.0
151.9
133.5
263.5
166.4
229.2
131.6
265.2
256.0
226.3
150.7
155.2
136.9
273.8
167.1
230.1
132.4
257.8
263.2
222.6
151.3
157.4
139.9
274.6
169.5
231.7
132.4
265.7
266.6
225.0
151.7
158.0
140.5
274.7
169.8
232.9
132.4
266.1
267.0
231.0
153.2
158.8
140.7
276.6
173.1
237.8
132.4
272.4
267.0
253.2
153.5
158.9
140.8
276.6
173.6
242.1
132.8
279.6
267.8
238.7
155.5
160.8
141.2
279.5
175.4
243.1
133.0
274.2
276.0
230.1
158.0
167.6
143.8
295.1
177.8
245.5
133.8
268.2
287.0
222.9
157.6
167.7
145.2
295.2
181.3
249.7
134.1
3482
3493
3494
3498
3519
3531
3532
3533
3534
3542
Small arms ammunition (12/75 - 1 0 0 ) .....................................................
Steel springs, except w ir e .............................................................................
Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 - 100) .....................................................
Fabricated pipe and fittin g s ...........................................................................
Internal combustion engines, n.e.c.................................................................
Construction machinery (12/76 - 1 0 0 ) .....................................................
Mining machinery (12/72 - 100) ..............................................................
Oilfield machinery and equipment ..............................................................
Elevators and moving stairways .................................................................
Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 - 1 0 0 )..................................
119.5
204.6
185.5
265.5
220.1
114.0
209.5
246.2
204.2
213.6
130.4
218.7
203.6
288.2
239.0
123.9
228.4
288.4
213.6
238.8
131.4
220.5
204.2
290.7
239.2
124.0
226.4
290.0
214.2
2406
134.0
221.6
205.3
294.8
242.3
125.6
231.2
292.0
215.4
244.6
134.0
222.1
206.2
294.8
245.7
126.3
231.5
293.3
214.6
245.1
134.0
222.8
207.5
294.9
251.8
126.5
232.7
296.8
219.1
247.9
133.2
223.7
210.4
297.3
254.2
128.9
233.1
300.5
219.4
249.8
133.6
224.1
212.5
297.4
254.9
129.4
235.4
302.8
220.6
253.7
143.2
225.6
214.3
297.4
254.9
130.9
236.4
309.1
220.9
256.7
143.2
226.1
216.9
301.7
260.5
134.6
245.8
314.2
225.6
266.1
147.9
226.5
218.8
301.8
260.5
135.3
244.2
315.9
225.4
259.2
147.3
228.4
221.3
303.5
264.2
135.8
244.8
319.0
228.8
271.2
146.3
228.9
227.3
306.8
269.2
138.0
254.1
329.5
232.6
276.1
147.1
228.9
229.1
306.9
270.2
138.7
256.2
332.9
234.1
275.7
3546
3552
3553
3576
3592
3612
3623
3631
3632
3633
Power driven hand tools (12/76 - 100) ...................................................
Textile machinery (12/69 - 100) ...............................................................
Woodworking machinery (12/72 - 100) ...................................................
Scales and balances, excluding labo ratory................................................
Carburetors, pistons, rings, valves (6/76 - 100) ....................................
T ransform ers...................................................................................................
Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 - 100) ..............................................
Household cooking equipment (12/75 - 100) .........................................
Household refrigerators, freezers (6/76 - 1 0 0 ) .......................................
Household laundry equipment (12/73 - 100) .........................................
111.1
179.9
168.1
179.7
128.2
158.3
178.1
114.8
109.6
141.0
117.8
191.7
183.2
192.8
138.6
168.0
191.5
120.7
111.9
147.0
118.7
192.6
184.5
193.7
138.7
168.5
191.9
120.9
112.6
147.2
119.2
195.0
185.9
194.8
139.2
167.9
193.5
122.0
113.6
148.8
120.2
197.5
187.7
195.4
139.6
167.6
194.1
123.4
114.3
149.9
120.4
198.2
190.0
195.4
140.7
168.4
195.1
124.3
115.1
150.6
122.0
199.3
192.6
195.7
142.8
171.2
196.9
124.4
115.1
150.9
122.8
200.6
192.7
199.5
145.1
170.4
198.6
125.9
115.7
152.3
124.4
200.6
192.9
201.0
145.3
171.6
200.3
126.3
116.3
153.5
126.3
202.6
201.2
204.2
147.5
172.9
201.3
128.7
117.0
154.0
126.5
205.2
202.0
201.9
147.6
176.1
202.6
129.1
118.0
156.5
127.3
207.0
205.5
204.1
148.5
177.4
205.3
129.3
118.2
158.2
128.6
212.5
212.7
205.1
152.5
180.0
207.3
129.6
119.0
159.0
130.4
213.0
212.5
208.2
152.8
181.7
209.8
132.5
119.0
159.7
3635
3636
3641
3644
3646
3648
3671
3674
3675
3676
Household vacuum c le a n e rs ........................................................................
Sewing machines (12/75 - 100) ...............................................................
Electric lamps ................................................................................................
Noncurrent-carrying wiring devices (12/72 - 1 0 0 ) ..................................
Commercial lighting fixtures (12/75 - 100) ..............................................
Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 - 1 0 0 )..................................................
Electron tubes receiving type ......................................................................
Semiconductors and related devices ..........................................................
Electronic capacitors (12/75 - 1 0 0 ) ..........................................................
Electronic resistors (12/75 - 100) ............................................................
135.5
111.2
214.7
185.8
112.7
114.6
200.9
85.3
111.5
118.3
141.2
121.1
229.8
202.6
126.8
124.0
211.3
84.7
120.1
123.2
141.5
121.1
229.7
203.0
127.4
124.6
226.4
84.7
122.1
123.2
141.6
121.8
240.8
203.3
127.9
127.6
226.5
84.2
126.7
124.0
141.7
122.2
244.3
207.7
127.9
128.2
226.6
84.3
129.3
124.6
141.9
122.2
242.7
209.1
130.5
128.5
227.2
84.7
134.1
125.2
144.5
122.6
244.8
210.5
131.4
129.6
227.2
85.1
133.9
126.6
144.7
122.6
238.7
211.9
131.6
129.8
227.4
85.6
135.8
126.7
145.8
122.6
240.8
215.0
131.9
130.5
227.7
86.4
138.0
127.3
146.1
122.6
248.5
212.9
133.4
133.0
229.1
86.8
147.7
127.4
149.6
128.6
252.2
217.5
134.8
133.2
229.4
88.0
149.1
128.8
149.9
128.6
251.8
217.5
136.6
134.5
229.5
88.9
149.0
131.8
150.2
128.6
252.4
219.7
138.4
138.6
253.9
89.7
155.6
131.9
149.2
128.6
252.3
220.3
138.9
139.4
254.3
90.7
156.4
132.8
3678
3692
3711
3942
3944
3955
3995
3996
Electronic connectors (12/75 - 100) .......................................................
Primary batteries, dry and wet ...................................................................
Motor vehicles and car bodies (12/75 - 100) .........................................
Dolls (12/75 - 100) ....................................................................................
Games, toys, and children's v e h ic le s ..........................................................
Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 - 1 0 0 )......................................
Burial caskets (6/76 - 1 0 0 )........................................................................
Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 - 100) ...........................................
118.9
162.0
115.9
103.2
172.3
105.1
113.0
116.3
126.6
172.1
124.6
109.3
182.3
120.2
121.7
123.7
126.9
172.7
124.8
109.3
183.1
116.7
121.7
124.5
133.4
172.8
125.1
111.8
183.5
117.1
123.3
128.3
134.1
172.8
122.1
112.6
184.4
118.3
123.8
128.3
137.6
172.8
122.5
112.6
185.1
118.7
124.8
128.3
138.9
173.1
130.2
112.9
186.2
123.1
123.1
131.0
140.7
173.1
130.1
112.9
186.3
125.2
124.8
134.1
142.1
174.1
130.4
113.0
186.6
125.2
124.8
134.1
145.1
174.2
132.7
122.7
198.7
126.2
128.3
138.6
144.9
176.5
131.4
123.7
202.0
128.1
128.3
138.7
145.1
176.6
131.6
123.9
202.0
128.3
128.3
138.7
147.3
176.8
135.0
126.0
202.6
131.5
128.1
143.2
146.8
176.4
133.2
126.7
203.5
133.3
130.0
143.3
1 Data for January 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2 Not available.
102
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PRODUCTIVITY DATA
P r o d u c t i v i t y d a t a are compiled by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics from establishment data and from estimates of com
pensation and output supplied by the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board.
payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers.
D e fin itio n s
ity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed.
The use of the term “man-hours” to identify the labor component
of productivity and costs, in tables 31 through 34, has been discontin
ued. Hours of all persons is now used to describe the labor input of
Output per all-employee hour is now used to describe labor productiv
Output is the constant dollar gross domestic product produced in a
given period. Indexes of output per hour of labor input, or labor pro
ductivity, measure the value of goods and services produced per hour
N o te s on th e d ata
of labor. Compensation per hour includes wages and salaries of em
ployees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private
In the private business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the
benefit plans. The data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and
basis for the output measure employed in the computation of output
supplementary payments for the self-employed, except for nonfi-
per hour is Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National
nancial corporations, in which there are no self-employed. Real com
Product. Computation of hours includes estimates of nonfarm and
farm proprietor hours.
pensation
per hour is compensation per hour adjusted by the
Output data are supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S.
Consumer Price Index for A ll Urban Consumers.
Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Boaid. Quarterly
Unit labor cost measures the labor compensation cost required to
manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor
produce one unit of output and is derived by dividing compensation
Statistics to annual estimates of output (gross product originating)
by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, in
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data
terest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by
are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
subtracting compensation of all persons from the current dollar gross
domestic product and dividing by output. In
these tables, Unit
nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments
Beginning with the September 1976 issue of the R eview, tables 3 1 34 were revised to reflect changeover to the new series— private busi
ness sector and nonfarm business sector— which differ from the
except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits and invento
previously published total private economy and nonfarm sector in
ry valuation adjustments per unit of output.
that output imputed for owner-occupied dwellings and the household
The implicit price deflator is derived by dividing the current dollar
estimate of gross product by the constant dollar estimate, making the
deflator, in effect, a price index for gross product of the sector reported.
31.
and institutions sectors, as well as the statistical discrepancy, are
omitted. For a detailed explanation, see J. R. Norsworthy and L. J.
Fulco, “ New sector definitions for productivity series,” M on th ly L a bor
Review, October 1976, pages 4 0 -4 2 .
In d e x e s o f p ro d u c tiv ity an d re la te d d a ta , s e le c te d y e a rs , 1 9 5 0 - 7 9
[1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 ]
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour .............................
Real compensation per h o u r ..........................
Unit labor c o s t ..............................................
Unit nonlabor payments ...............................
Implicit price deflator ...........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons .............................
Compensation per hour .........................................
Real compensation per h o u r ......................
Unit labor c o s t ...........................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..........................
Implicit price deflator ....................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ........................
Compensation per hour ...............................
Real compensation per h o u r ........................
Unit labor c o s t ....................................
Unit nonlabor payments .........................................
Implicit price deflator .........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons .............................
Compensation per hour .........................................
Real compensation per h o u r ..................................
Unit labor c o s t ................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ......................................
Implicit price deflator ..............................................
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
61.2
42.6
59.2
69.6
73.1
70.8
70.6
56.1
69.9
79.4
80.4
79.8
79.0
72.2
81.4
91.4
85.4
89.3
95.1
88.7
93.9
93.3
95.9
94.2
104.4
123.3
106.0
118.2
105.8
113.9
111.5
139.8
111.6
125.4
118.9
123.2
113.6
151.3
113.6
133.2
124.9
130.3
110.2
165.2
111.8
149.8
130.3
143.1
112.6
181.7
112.7
161.3
150.3
157.5
116.6
197.6
115.9
169.5
157.9
165.5
118.7
213.3
117.5
179.7
165.5
174.8
119.3
231.5
118.5
194.0
174.3
187.2
118.3
253.2
116.4
214.0
184.4
203.8
67.2
45.6
63.3
68.0
71.4
69.1
74.6
59.0
73.6
79.1
80.1
79.4
81.2
74.5
84.1
91.7
84.4
892
96.0
89.4
94.6
93.2
95.8
94.1
103.2
121.9
104.8
118.1
106.0
114.0
110.1
138.4
110.5
125.7
117.4
122.9
112.0
149.2
112.1
133.2
117.8
127.9
108.6
163.0
110.4
150.1
124.7
141.4
110.7
179.3
111.2
161.9
145.9
156.4
114.6
194.2
113.9
169.5
156.0
164.8
116.4
209.6
115.5
180.1
163.8
174.5
117.0
227.6
116.5
194.6
169.9
186.1
115.7
248.0
114.1
214.4
178.6
202.1
<’ )
(’ )
(’ )
( ')
<’ )
(’ )
(’ )
( ')
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’)
80.6
76.0
85.7
94.3
90.8
93.1
96.9
90.1
95.3
93.0
100.1
95.5
103.7
121.8
104.7
117.4
103.5
112.5
110.6
136.7
109.1
123.7
114.8
120.5
112.9
147.6
110.9
130.7
116.8
125.8
108.7
161.7
109.5
148.8
124.8
140.2
112.2
177.9
110.4
158.6
148.1
154.9
115.8
192.7
113.0
166.4
156.8
163.0
117.0
208.0
114.6
177.7
164.4
173.0
118.1
225.2
115.3
190.6
170.6
183.5
117.7
245.2
112.8
208.4
179.5
198.1
65.8
45.6
63.3
69.4
82.3
73.3
75.0
61.2
76.3
81.6
88.6
83.8
79.8
78.0
88.0
97.7
92.3
96.1
98.4
91.1
96.4
92.6
103.3
95.9
105.0
122.3
105.1
116.5
96.2
110.3
115.7
136.6
109.0
118.1
107.4
114.8
118.9
146.5
110.1
123.2
106.4
118.0
113.0
161.7
109.5
143.1
105.6
131.6
118.8
181.1
112.3
152.4
128.4
145.1
124.0
196.1
115.0
158.2
139.6
152.5
127.7
212.7
117.2
166.6
147.4
160.7
128.3
230.2
117.8
179.4
152.4
171.1
• 129.5
251.3
115.6
194.1
(’ )
(’ )
1 Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
103
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity
32.
A n n u al p e rc e n t c h a n g e in p ro d u c tiv ity a n d re la te d d a ta , 1 9 6 9 - 7 9
Annual rate
of change
Year
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ..
Compensation per h o u r ..............
Real compensation per hour
Unit labor c o s t...............................
Unit nonlabor pa ym e n ts..............
Implicit price d e fla to r...................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ..
Compensation per h o u r ..............
Real compensation per hour
Unit labor c o s t...............................
Unit nonlabor p a ym e n ts..............
Implicit price deflator ...................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees
Compensation per h o u r ..............
Real compensation per hour
Unit labor c o s t...............................
Unit nonlabor p a ym e n ts..............
Implicit price d e fla to r...................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ..
Compensation per h o u r ..............
Real compensation per hour
Unit labor c o s t...............................
Unit nonlabor paym e n ts..............
Implicit price d e fla to r...................
1950-79
1960-79
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
0.2
6.9
1.4
6.6
1.0
4.7
0.7
7.2
1.2
6.4
1.2
4.7
3.3
6.7
2.3
3.3
6.8
4.4
3.4
6.2
2.8
2.8
5.3
3.6
1.9
8.2
1.9
6.2
5.0
5.8
- 3 .0
9.2
- 1 .6
12.5
4.4
9.8
2.1
10.0
.8
7.7
15.3
10.1
3.5
8.8
2.8
5.0
5.1
5.0
1.8
8.0
1.4
6.0
4.8
5.6
0.5
8.5
0.8
8.0
5.3
7.1
- 0 .9
9.3
- 1 .7
10.3
5.8
8.9
2.5
5.9
2.5
3.3
3.0
3.2
2.1
6.9
2.0
4.7
4.2
4.5
-.2
6.4
1.0
6,7
,4
4.5
.2
6.8
.8
6.5
1.6
4.9
3.0
6.7
2.3
3.5
6.7
4.5
3.6
6.4
3.0
2.7
3.8
3.1
1.7
7.8
1.5
6.0
.3
4.1
-3 .1
9.2
- 1 .6
12.7
5.9
10.5
2.0
10.0
.8
7.9
17.0
10.6
3.5
8.3
2.4
4.7
6.9
5.4
1.5
7.9
1.4
6.3
5.0
5.9
.5
8.6
.9
8.0
3.7
6.6
-1 .1
r 8.9
-2 .1
10.2
5.1
8.6
2.1
5.6
2.2
3.4
2.9
3.3
1.9
6.7
1.7
4.7
4.0
4.5
,4
6.8
1.3
6.3
0
4.1
-.0
6.8
.8
6.8
.5
4.6
3.3
6.2
1.8
2.7
7.3
4.2
r 3.1
5.7
2.4
2.5
3.3
2.8
2.1
7.9
1.6
5.7
,1 .8
4.4
- 3 .7
9.6
- 1 .3
13.8
6.8
11.5
3.2
10.0
.8
6.6
18.7
10.5
3.2
8.3
2.4
4.9
5.8
5.2
1.1
7.9
1.4
6.8
4.9
6.1
1.0
8.3
.6
7.3
3.8
6.1
-.4
8.9
-2 .1
9.3
5.2
7.9
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
1.9
6.5
1.6
4.5
3.6
4.2
1.3
6.6
1.2
5.2
- 4 .4
2.3
- .1
7.1
1.1
7.2
- 3 .2
4.2
5.2
6.2
1.9
.9
9.2
3.1
4.8
5.2
1.8
.4
2.3
1.0
2.8
7.2
.9
4.3
- 1 .0
2.8
- 5 .0
10.4
-.5
16.1
-.7
11.5
5.1
12.0
2.6
6.6
21.6
10.2
4.4
8.3
2.4
3.8
8.8
5,
3.0
8.5
1.9
5.3
5.5
5.4
.5
8.2
.5
7.7
3.4
6.5
'0.9
9.2
- 1 .9
'8.2
(’ )
'2.5
5.5
2.1
2.9
r 2.5
2.6
2.5
6.5
1.6
'3.9
'2 .5
'3.5
(' )
1 Not available.
33.
In d e x e s o f p ro d u c tiv ity , h o u rly c o m p e n s a tio n , unit c o s ts , a n d p ric e s , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d
[1967 = 1 0 0 ]
_______________________________________________________________________________
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons .................................
Compensation per hour ..............................................
Real compensation per h o u r......................................
Unit nonlabor p a ym e n ts.............................................
Implicit price deflator ..................................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ..................................
Compensation per hour ..............................................
Real compensation per h o u r......................................
Unit nonlabor pa ym e n ts..............................................
Implicit price deflator ..................................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all e m p lo ye e s.............................
Compensation per hour ..............................................
Real compensation per h o u r......................................
Unit nonlabor c o s ts ..............................................
Implicit price deflator ..................................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour for all persons..................................
Compensation per h o u r ..............................................
Real compensation per h o u r......................................
Unit labor c o s t..............................................................
104
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Quarterly indexes
Annual
average
1980
19 79
1978
1977
1978
1979
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
119.3
231.5
118.5
194.0
174.3
187.2
118.3
253.2
116.4
214.0
184.4
203.8
119.6
215.6
117.8
180.2
167.9
176.0
119.0
218.8
117.9
183.9
168.5
178.6
118.5
224.5
118.8
189.4
164.8
180.9
119.1
228.8
118.3
192.1
173.9
1858
119.8
233.9
118.3
195.2
177.0
188.9
119.9
238.7
118.1
199.0
181.2
192.9
119.0
245.1
118.0
205.9
180.8
197.2
118.4
250.6
.7.1
211.7
183.6
202.0
118.0
256.0
115.9
217.0
185.5
206.1
117.9
260.6
114.3
221.1
188.2
209.7
' 117.6
'267.6
'112.9
' 227.5
'18 9 8
'214.5
117.0
227.6
116.5
194 6
169.9
186.1
115.7
248.0
114.1
214.4
178.6
202.1
116.9
211.5
115.6
181.0
167.1
176.2
116.4
215.1
115.9
184.8
165.9
178.3
116.1
220.9
116.9
190.2
161.1
180.2
116.7
225.0
116.3
192.8
169.1
184.7
117.5
229.8
116.2
195.6
173.0
187.8
117.7
234.7
116.1
199.4
176.0
191.4
116.8
240.5
115.8
206.0
174.3
195.1
115.5
245.1
114.6
212.2
177.6
200.3
115.1
250.2
113.3
217.3
180.4
204.7
115.4
255.9
112.3
221.8
182.5
208.4
' 114.9
' 262.2
' 110.6
'228.1
'185.5
'213.5
118.1
225.2
115.3
193.3
190.6
201.8
127.2
183.5
117.7
245.2
112.8
210.4
2084
216.6
127.8
198.1
117.7
209.9
114.7
182.4
178.4
194.8
130.9
174.7
116.9
213.2
114.9
186.3
182.3
198.7
122.2
176.8
116.9
218.9
115.8
190.8
187.3
201.5
107.1
178.3
118.1
222.8
115.2
191.6
188.7
200.8
129.2
182.3
118.7
227.3
115.0
194.0
191.5
201.6
132.7
184.9
119.0
231.7
114.6
196.8
194.8
203.1
138.7
188.2
118.4
237.9
114.6
202.3
201.0
206.5
130.3
191.6
117.5
242.5
113.3
208.0
206.4
213.2
129.2
196.3
117.4
247.6
112.1
213.2
210.8
220.5
127.5
200.4
117.3
252.6
110.8
218.0
215.3
226.1
124.0
204.0
p 117.1
p 258.9
p 109.2
p 224.6
p 221.1
p 235.4
p 118.6
p 208.8
128.3
230.2
117.8
179.4
'129.5
251.3
115.6
'194.1
128.9
214.8
117.4
166.7
128.3
218.3
117.6
'170.1
126.3
223.8
118.4
'177.2
127.8
227.3
117.5
177.9
129.5
232.0
117.4
179.1
129.9
237.2
117.3
' 182.7
128.7
243.2
117.1
r 189.0
'129.2
248.9
116.3
192.6
130.1
253.7
114.9
195.0
'129.6
259.0
113.6
199.8
'128.9
265.1
111.8
'205.8
34. P e rc e n t c h a n g e fro m p re c e d in g q u a rte r an d y e a r in p ro d u c tiv ity , h o u rly c o m p e n s a tio n , unit c o s ts , an d p ric e s ,
s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d a t an n u al ra te
[1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 ]
Quarterly percent change at annual rate
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ....................................
Real compensation per h o u r .............................
Unit labor c o s t .....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ....................................
Implicit price deflator .........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ....................................
Real compensation per h o u r .............................
Unit labor c o s t .....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ....................................
Implicit price deflator .........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ...................
Compensation per hour ....................................
Real compensation per h o u r .............................
Total unit costs ..................................................
Unit labor costs .............................................
Unit nonlabor c o s ts .........................................
Unit p ro fits ............................................................
Implicit price deflator .........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per our of all p e rs o n s ..........................
Compensation per hour ....................................
Real compensation per h o u r .............................
Unit labor c o s t .....................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Percent change from same quarter a year ago
III 1978
to
IV 1978
IV 1978
to
I 1979
1 1979
to
I1 1979
I1 1979
to
III 1979
III 1979
to
IV 1979
IV 1979
to
11980 p
IV 1977
to
IV 1978
1 1978
to
11979
II 1978
to
I11979
III 1978
to
III 1979
0.3
8.5
-.9
8.1
9.9
8.7
- 3 .0
11.1
- .1
14.6
- 1 .0
9.3
-2 .2
9.3
-3 .1
11.8
'6.6
10.1
- 1 .4
8.8
- 4 .0
10.3
4.2
8.3
- 0 .3
7.4
- 5 .4
7.8
'6.0
7.2
' - 0 .7
'11.2
'- 4 . 9
'1 2.0
'3.4
'9.3
0.8
9.1
.1
8.3
7.5
8.0
0.4
9.2
-.6
8.7
9.7
9.0
- 0 .6
9.5
- 1 .0
10.2
5.6
8.7
.8
8.8
8.0
7.3
7.8
- 3 .2
10.4
-.7
14.0
- 3 .9
8.1
-4 .1
7.9
- 4 .4
12.5
7.8
11.0
- 1 .4
8.5
- 4 .3
10.1
6.6
9.0
.7
9.4
- 3 .7
8.6
4.6
7.4
' - 1 .4
'1 0.2
'- 5 . 8
'11.8
'16.8
'10.3
1.1
9.1
.1
7.9
6.1
7.3
.5
8.9
-.9
8.3
8.2
8.3
1.1
8.1
- 1 .3
5.9
6.9
2.9
19.5
7.3
-2 .1
11.0
- .1
11.7
13.4
6.8
-22.1
7.6
- 2 .9
8.0
- 4 .3
11.8
11.2
13.5
- 3 .4
10.2
- 0 .2
8.6
- 4 .3
10.2
8.8
14.6
- 5 .3
8.6
- 0 .5
8.3
- 4 .6
9.3
8.9
10.6
10.4
7.3
p0.7
p 10.4
p 9.8
»12.7
p 11.1
p 17.3
p —16.3
p 9.8
1.8
8.7
-.2
5.6
6.8
2.2
13.6
6.4
'1 .0
9.3
'- . 2
'8.2
'- 3 . 6
10.4
'- . 7
'14.5
'1.8
9.8
- 2 .7
7.9
2.7
8.0
- 4 .8
5.2
- 1 .5
8.6
- 4 .4
10.3
' - 2 .3
9.8
-6 .1
'12.4
'1 .2
8.7
-.3
'7.4
-.6
IV 1978
to
IV 1979
1 1979
to
I 1980p
- 1 .6
9.4
- 2 .0
11.2
4.8
9.1
- 1 .7
'9.3
- 3 .2
11.1
3.9
8.7
' - 1 .2
'9.2
' - 4 .4
'10.5
'5 .0
'8 7
- 1 .0
9.0
- 1 .5
10.1
5.0
8.5
- 2 .0
8.9
- 2 .5
11.1
4.3
9.0
- 2 .0
9.0
- 3 .3
11.3
3.7
8.9
'- 1 5
•9.0
'- 4 . 5
'10.7
'6.5
'9.4
1.3
8.7
-1 .1
6.1
7.3
2.5
21.7
7.5
-.5
8.9
- 1 .6
8.6
9.4
6.2
0
7.7
- 1 .0
8.9
- 2 .5
9.9
10.1
9.4
- 3 .9
8.4
- 1 .4
9.0
- 3 .3
10.8
10.6
11.3
-1 0 .6
8.4
p -1 .1
p 8.8
p - 4 .7
"11.0
p 10.0
»14.0
p - 9 .0
p9.0
'1 .9
8.6
-1 .1
'6.6
'1.2
9.5
-1 .1
8.2
'0.4
9.3
-2 .1
8.9
'0.2
9.2
- 3 .2
'0.1
9.0
- 4 .5
'8.9
'9.4
105
LABOR-MANAGEMENT DATA
M a j o r c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g d a t a are obtained from
contracts on file at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, direct
contact with the parties, and from secondary sources. Addi
tional detail is published in C u rren t W age D evelo p m en ts, a
monthly periodical of the Bureau. Data on work stoppages
are based on confidential responses to questionnaires mailed
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to parties involved in work
stoppages. Stoppages initially come to the attention of the
Bureau from reports of Federal and State mediation agencies,
newspapers, and union and industry publications.
Definitions
Data on wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry agree
ments covering 1,000 workers or more. Data on wage and benefit
changes c o m b in e d apply only to those agreements covering 5,000
workers or more. First-year wage settlements refer to pay changes go
ing into effect within the first 12 months after the effective date of
35.
the agreement. Changes over the life of the agreement refer to total
agreed upon settlements (exclusive of potential cost-of-living escalator
adjustments) expressed at an average annual rate. Wage-rate changes
are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earnings, while wage
and benefit changes are expressed as a percent of total compensation.
Effective wage-rate adjustments going into effect in major
bargaining units measure changes actually placed into effect during the
reference period, whether the result of a newly negotiated increase, a
deferred increase negotiated in an earlier year, or as a result of a costof-living escalator adjustment. Average adjustments are affected by
workers receiving no adjustment, as well as by those receiving in
creases or decreases.
W ork stoppages include all known strikes or lockouts involving six
workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Data cover all
workers idle one shift or more in establishments directly involved in a
stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on
other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material or
service shortages.
W ag e and benefit se ttlem en ts in m ajor co llec tive bargaining units, 1975 to date
(In percent]
Quarterly average
Annual average
1975
1976
1977
1978
1980 p
1979
1978
Sector and measure
1979
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
1
Wage and benefit settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ...........................................
Annual rate over life of contract ..........................
11.4
8.1
8.5
6.6
9.6
6.2
8.3
6.3
9.0
6.6
7.2
5.9
6.1
5.2
2.8
5.3
10.5
7.8
9.0
6.1
8.5
6.0
8.6
6.4
Wage rate settlements, all Industries:
First-year settlements ...........................................
Annual rate over life of contract ..........................
10.2
7.8
8.4
6.4
7.8
5.8
7.6
6.4
7.4
6.0
7.5
6.4
7.4
5.9
5.7
6.6
8.9
7.2
6.8
5.1
6.3
5.3
7.8
6.3
Manufacturing:
First-year settlem ents....................................
Annual rate over life of contract ...................
9.8
8.0
8.9
6.0
8.4
5.5
8.3
6.6
6.9
5.4
8.4
7.2
9.5
7.4
8.7
7.7
9.7
8.1
6.3
4.7
5.6
4.2
7.0
5.6
Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction):
First-year settlem ents......................................
Annual rate over life of contract ...................
11.9
80
8.6
7.2
8.0
5.9
8.0
6.5
7.6
6.2
7.4
5.9
6.4
5.1
3.2
5.6
8.5
5.8
9.4
6.5
7.8
7.4
9.1
7.1
Construction:
First-year settlem ents......................................
Annual rate over life of contract ...................
8.0
7.5
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.5
6.2
8.8
8.3
7.0
7.2
8.4
7.1
9.7
8.2
8.7
8.3
9.7
8.5
7.5
7.6
9.6
9.3
106
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
37.
W o rk s to p p a g e s , 19 47 to d a te
Number of stoppages
Month and year
Beginning in
month or year
In effect
during month
Workers involved
Beginning in
month or year
(thousands)
Days idle
In effect
during month
(thousands)
Number
(thousands)
Percent of
estimated
working time
1947
1948
1949
1950
......................
......................
......................
......................
3.693
3,419
3,606
4,843
2,170
1.960
3,030
2,410
34.600
34.100
50.500
38,800
.30
.28
.44
.33
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
4,737
5,117
5,091
3,468
4,320
2,220
3,540
2,400
1,530
2,650
22.900
59.100
28.300
22.600
28,200
18
.48
.22
.18
.22
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
3,825
3,673
3.694
3,708
3,333
1,900
1,390
2,060
1,880
1,320
33.100
16.500
23.900
69,000
19.100
.24
.12
.18
.50
.14
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
3,367
3,614
3,362
3,655
3,963
1,450
1,230
941
1,640
1,550
16.300
18,600
16.100
22.900
23.300
.13
.11
.15
.15
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
......................
.....................
........................
........................
........................
4,405
4,595
5,045
5,700
5,716
1.960
2,870
2,649
2,481
3,305
25,400
42,100
49,018
42,869
66,414
.15
.25
.28
.24
.37
1971
......
1972 ........................
1973 ........................
1974 ........................
1975 ........................
5,138
5,010
5,353
6,074
5,031
3,280
1,714
2,251
2,778
1,746
47,589
27,066
27,948
47,991
31,237
.26
.15
.14
.24
.16
1976 ........................
1977 ........................
1978 ........................
5,648
5,506
4,230
2,420
2,040
1,623
37,859
35,822
36,922
.19
.17
.17
A p ril..........
M a y .........
June
512
556
536
426
132
137
5,126
3,682
2,989
.27
.19
.16
J u ly ..........
August . . .
September
471
463
464
168
119
135
3,001
3,152
2,319
.16
.15
October ..
November
December
443
257
134
230
91
42
2,968
2,720
1,976
.15
.15
.11
Januaryp .
February p
March p ..
A p ril.........
352
354
396
425
3,142
3,025
2,705
2,786
.18
.17
.14
.14
1979:
1980:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
441
590
631
663
207
114
123
116
292
332
310
231
.11
.1 3
107
How to order BLS publications
B U L L E T IN S A N D H A N D B O O K S
P E R IO D IC A L S
O rder fro m (and m a k e checks p a y a b le to) S u
p erin ten d en t o f D ocum ents, Washington, D.C.
20402. F or foreign subscriptions, a d d 2 5 percent.
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev iew . The oldest and most
authoritative government research journal in
economics and the social sciences. Current
statistics, analysis, developments in industrial
relations, court decisions, book reviews. $18
a year, single copy, $2.50.
E m p lo y m en t and E a rn in g s. A comprehensive
monthly report on employment, hours, earn
ings, and labor turnover by industry, area,
occupation, et cetera $22 a year, single copy
$2.75.
A popular
periodical designed to help high school stu
dents and guidance counselors assess career
opportunities. $6 for four issues, single copy
$1.75.
O cc u p a tio n a l O u tlo o k Q u a r te r ly .
A monthly re
port about collective bargaining settlements
and unilateral management decisions about
wages and benefits; statistical summaries.
$12 a year, single copy $1.35.
C u rren t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts.
A com
prehensive monthly report on price move
ments of both farm and industrial commodi
ties, by industry and stage of processing. $17
a year, single copy $2.25.
P ro d u cer P r ic e s and P r ic e In d e x e s .
A monthly periodical
featuring detailed data and charts on the
Consumer Price Index. $15 a year, single
copy $2.25.
C P I D e ta ile d R ep o rt.
PR E SS R ELEASES
The Bureau’s statistical series are made avail
able to news media through press releases is
sued in Washington. Many of the releases
also are available to the public upon request.
Write: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washing
ton, D.C. 20212.
R e g io n a l. Each of the Bureau’s eight regional
offices publishes reports and press releases
dealing with regional data. Single copies
available free from the issuing regional office.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A bou t 140 bulletins a n d h an dbooks p u blish ed each y e a r are f o r sale by regional
offices o f the Bureau o f L a b o r S tatistics (see inside fr o n t cover) a n d by the S u
perin ten den t o f D ocum ents. W ashington, D.C. 20402. M a k e checks paya b le to
the S uperintendent o f D ocum ents. A m on g the bulletins a n d handbooks currently
in p rin t are these:
O ccu p a tio n a l O u tlo o k H a n d b o o k , 1 9 7 8 - 7 9 E d itio n . Bulletin 1955. A
useful resource supplying valuable assistance to all persons seeking satis
fying and productive employment. $8, paperback; $11 hard cover.
B L S H a n d b o o k o f L ab or S ta t is t ic s 1 9 7 8 . Bulletin 2000. A 604-page vol
ume of historical data on the major BLS statistical series. $9.50.
H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s . Bulletin 1910. Brief technical account of each
major statistical program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. $3.50.
BLS M e a su r e s o f C o m p en sa tio n . Bulletin 1941. An introduction to the
various measures of employee compensation; describes each series, the
manner in which it is developed, its uses and limitations. $2.75.
O ccu p a tio n a l P r o je c tio n s and T ra in in g D a ta . Bulletin 20 2 0 . Presents
both general and detailed information on the relationship between occu
pational requirements and training needs. (Updates Bulletin 1918
published in 1976.) $3 .2 5 .
T e c h n o lo g ic a l C h an ge an d its L ab or Im p a ct in F iv e E n e r g y In d u stries.
Bulletin 2005. A 64-page study appraising major technological change
and discussing the impact of these changes on productivity and occupa
tions over the next 5 to 10 years. $2.40.
BLS P u b lic a tio n s , 1 9 7 2 - 7 7 . Bulletin 1990. A numerical listing and sub
ject index of bulletins and reports issued by the Bureau from 1972
through 1977, supplementing Bulletin 1749, covering 1886-1971. $1.80.
In te r n a tio n a l C o m p a riso n s o f U n e m p lo y m e n t. Bulletin 1979. Brings to
gether all of the Bureau’s work on international unemployment compari
sons. Describes the methods of adjusting foreign unemployment rates in
8 countries to U.S. concepts. $3.50.
In d e x e s fo r S e le c te d In d u str ie s, 1 9 7 9 E d itio n . Bulletin
2054. A 190-page report of indexes of output, employment, and employ
ee hours in selected industries from 1954 to 1978. This edition contains
measures for three industries previously not covered, as well as compo
nents of previously published measures in 10 industries. $5.50.
P r o d u c tiv ity
P r o file s o f O cc u p a tio n a l P a y : A C h a rtb o o k . Bulletin 2037. A graphic il
lustration of some of the factors that affect workers’ earnings. This threepart presentation looks at wage variations among and within occupations
and portrays characteristics of high- and low-paying urban areas and
manufacturing industries. $3.50.
REPORTS AND PAM PHLETS
Single copies available fr e e fro m the B L S regional offices or fro m the Bureau o f
L a b o r Statistics, U.S. D epartm en t o f L abor, Washington, D.C. 20212.
H o w th e G o v ern m en t M e a su r e s U n e m p lo y m e n t. Report 505. A concise
report providing a background for appraising developments in the area
of unemployment.
D ir e c to r y o f B L S S tu d ie s in In d u stria l R e la tio n s 1 9 6 0 - 7 8 . Report 550.
A listing of studies prepared by the Division of Industrial Relations as
part of the Bureau’s regular program of data collection and analysis in
the field of industrial relations.
☆ U .S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 0 -
311-406/41
C o m p a ris o n o f S ta te U n e m p lo y m e n t In su ra n c e
Law s, issued J a n u a ry 1 ,1 9 7 8 , s u m m a riz e s and
c o m p a re s s ig n ific a n t p ro v is io n s o f u n e m p lo y
m e n t in s u ra n c e law s o f th e 50 S tates, D is tric t of
C o lu m b ia , P u e rto R ico an d th e V irg in Islands.
T h e lo o s e le a f fo rm a t p e rm its pa g e s to be
re m o v e d a n d re p la c e d by p a g e s w ith c u rre n t
d a ta.
• Gives information on em ployer and employee
coverage, financing methods, benefit pay
ments, eligibility requirements, and adm inis
trative organization.
• In c lu d e s rules, reg u la tio n s , o p in io n s o f a tto r
neys g e n e ra l, o r c o u rt d e c is io n s th a t im p le
m e n t S ta te S tatu te s , w ith n o tes in d ic atin g
th e ir s o u rce .
• P ro vid es fa c tu a l in fo rm a tio n , by S ta te , in
Tables.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
• C o m p a re s th e law s o f fo u r S ta te s w h ic h p ro
v id e b e n e fits fo r u n e m p lo y m e n t d u e to n o n o c c u p a tio n a l d isa b ility.
• In clu d e s b rie f d e s c rip tio n o f u n e m p lo y m e n t
in su ra n ce p ro g ra m s fo r F e d e ra l c iv ilian e m
p lo yees an d e x -s e rv ic e m e n an d F e d e ra l tra in
ing a llo w a n c e s a n d re a d ju s tm e n t p ro g ra m s
a d m in is te re d by S ta te e m p lo y m e n t s ec u rity
a g en c ie s .
C o m p a ris o n o f S ta te U n e m p lo y m e n t In su ra n c e
Law s, issued J a n u a ry 1 ,1 9 7 8 , d is trib u te d fre e to
S ta te a g e n c ie s , is fo r sale by th e S u p e rin te n d e n t
o f D o c u m e n ts , U. S. G o v e rn m e n t P rin tin g O ffic e ,
W a s h in g to n , D. C. 2 0 4 0 2 . S u b s c rip tio n p ric e fo r
basic d o c u m e n t an d 5 revision s is $ 1 2 d o m e s tic
an d $ 1 5 fo re ig n . S e n d c o rre s p o n d e n c e on c ir
c u la tio n a n d s u b s c rip tio n m a tte rs (in c lu d in g
a d d re s s c h a n g e s ) to th e S u p e rin te n d e n t o f
D o c u m e n ts .
P ostage and Fees Paid
U.S. D e p artm e n t of L ab o r
Lab-441
U.S. D e p artm e n t of L ab o r
B ureau of L ab o r S tatistics
W ashin gton D.C. 2 02 1 2
O fficia l B usiness
SECOND CLASS MAIL
P e n a lty f o r p r iv a t e u s e , $ 3 0 0
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
I
»
«
~
i
a
i
:
4»
** Ï2
mm
r i «T
il|S li
il
S3 ìl
II K •?
m
1
§? ,
■■■!
4
» i - ì» ..
y
'r
m k
i
p
ir m
IM I
■M i
■j m »
« P ii
ili'
«il
.f'1 *f
ir li
r,— i
IB I
*« p §
1«#
1 Î
« e
«su
Ih #
1 n -rrr,
| nutiOo*:,
L“
r '?
g » #
*
•
... »•
V
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
**V*
iiM ti
W 'I
j»
j|5 K
__
«R '
B
ì!É
Si
«Tj
”
;
k\
4. * • * , « 1 1 « * » ’ *«
"PT % ^ l ^
-v<r
n
» » >
«
*
* *
*
* VT
'< V ■!;>
■;
«
«?
• *i O
*' t
V
. *f
'V
0
X »
^'
■
V
-. »«K*
ìk s i
III
ìi
§ ^ 'i '
15 ! ¡1
4.
■ il
« jlg
lì.Tìm
*«■ *»*
V
■1Ì
a ih S
J
L
i i i |
il K ìl
a ir K
u i l »1
p ■» «
<m»m> rnx*
«vu
ni 1
1 1
1 *r
«
8 *» * '
H
•
; -- /
ì
@FedFRASER