Full text of Monthly Labor Review : July 1981, Volume 104, Number 7

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
DO

.S. Department of Labor
Uiobu of Labor Statistics


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

In this issue:
International youth unem ploym ent

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department
of Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D.C. 20212.
Phone: (202) 523-1327.
Subscription price per year—
$18 domestic; $22.50 foreign.
Single copy $2.50.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-0818) and other Government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office,
an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changes) to:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402

Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that the
publication of this periodical is necessary in the
transaction of the public business required by
law of this Department. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget
through October 31, 1982. Second-class
postage paid at Riverdale, MD.,
and at additional mailing offices.

Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
Region I — Boston: Wendell D. Macdonald
1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center,
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6761
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II — New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt
1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N Y. 10036
Phone: (212) 944-3121
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III — Philadelphia: Alvin I. Margulls
3535 Market Street
P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Phone: (215) 596 -11 54
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV — Atlanta: Donald M. Cruse
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30367
Phone: (404) 881 -44 18
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V — Chicago: William E Rice
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 3 5 3 -18 80
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI — Dallas: Bryan Richey
Second Floor, 555 Griffin Square Building, Dallas, Tex. 75202
Phone: (214) 767-6971
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Regions VII and VIII — Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2481
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming

July Issue:
Cover design by
Richard L. Mathews,
Division of Audio-Visual Communications.


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

Regions IX and X — San Francisco: D. Bruce Hanchett
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017,
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556 -46 78
IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
JULY 1981
VOLUME 104, NUMBER 7

l ib r a r y

Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor

m *7 «»

Constance Sorrentino

3

Youth unemployment: an international perspective
The employment outlook for young people in nine industrialized nations worsened in
wake of the 1974-75 recession; Japanese and West Germans have best prospects

L. D. Tanner, M. Converse

16

The 1978-80 pay guidelines: meeting the need for flexibility
Any anti-inflation program which caps wages must recognize the special needs
of individual firms, lest it penalize certain industries or groups of workers

F. Porter, R. L. Keller

22

Public and private pay levels in large labor markets
City government workers in major localities earn less than private industry counterparts
but enjoy comparable benefits; clerical staff have gained ground on Federal employees

REPORTS

Herbert S. Parnes
Anne McDougall Young
Saul D. Hoffman
Cari Barsky
William A. Brown


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

27
31
34
37
40

Inflation and retirement: recent longitudinal findings
Labor force activity among students, graduates, and dropouts in 1980
On-the-job training: differences by race and sex
Occupational wage variations in wood household furniture plants
British collective bargaining: a decade of reformation
DEPAR TM EN TS

2
27
31
34
40
44
45
50
57

Labor month in review
Communications
Special labor force reports—summaries
Research summaries
Foreign labor developments
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics

Labor M onth
In Review
NEW BENCHMARKS. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics has revised its establish­
ment survey estimates of employment to
reflect the most recent complete employ­
ment counts (or benchmarks) for March
1980. These revisions affect the employ­
ment series from March 1979 to the cur­
rent month. Estimates of hours, earn­
ings, and labor turnover, which are
weighted by the employment estimates,
also may be revised as a result of the new
benchmarks.
Estimates vs. benchmarks. The March

1980 benchmark for total nonagricu ltu ral em ploym ent was 90.3
million—63,000 below the correspon­
ding sample-based estimate, a difference
of 0.1 percent. Of the eight major in­
dustry divisions, only construction was
revised by more than 1 percent.
A primary reason for differences be­
tween estimates and benchmarks is
the limitation of any sample in represen­
ting a universe. A certain amount of er­
ror is to be expected from samplederived estimates. Annual benchmark
revisions remove the effect of sampling
errors from the all-employee estimates.
A second reason arises from errors in
adjusting for the entry of new firms. In
the establishment survey, monthly
employment estimates are projected
from the estimates of the previous
month, based on changes indicated by
the firms responding to the survey. It is
difficult to include reports from newly
formed businesses in a timely manner.
This type of omission may be a source of
error in the estimates for industries
characterized by the formation of
numerous new firms. However, bias ad­
justment factors are used to correct for
this underrepresentation of business
births and for other biases in the
estimates.
A third cause arises from im­
provements in the quality of the bench­
mark data. For example, this recent
2 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

revision marked the first time that data
derived from unemployment insurance
records were used to derive estimates for
State and local government employ­
ment. Use of this new source of data
resulted in a large revision in the employ­
ment estimates for State and local
government.
A fourth reason for differences be­
tween estimates and benchmarks is the
procedure used to keep the industrial
classification of establishments up to
date. An establishment is classified by
industry according to its major activity.
If its output changes so that what was
once a secondary product or activity
becomes a primary one, the establish­
ment is reclassified. These changes are
introduced into the employment
estimates at the time of the benchmark
adjustment.

seasonal adjustment factors has had very
little impact on the employment series.
However, the latest addition of 12
months of experience caused a notable
smoothing of the over-the-month
changes in 1980 and 1981. The arima
methodology contributed to this change,
but not to a significant extent.
The reference base period for the in­
dexes of aggregate weekly hours, ag­
gregate weekly payrolls, and the Hourly
Earnings Index was converted from
1967 = 100 to 1977 = 100. Statistical
indexes are rebased every 10 years to in­
sure that the makeup of the index ap­
proximates the current structure of the
economy and to facilitate comprehen­
sion of rates of change by using
more recent base periods. All of the
above-mentioned indexes have been
recalculated to the date of their origin.

Other revisions. As usual, all seasonally
adjusted series were revised after incor­
porating the changes in the unadjusted
levels caused by the benchmark revision
and the addition of the most recent year
of data. An improved seasonal adjust­
ment methodology—the x-n arima
(Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving
Average) program—has been used for
the first time in seasonally adjusting the
establishment-based series.
In past years, the updating of the

A full discussion of the current bench­
mark revision is contained in “ bls
Establishment Estimates Revised to
March 1980 Benchmarks,” by Carol M.
Utter and John B. Farrell in the July
1981 Employment and Earnings. Revis­
ed data for major industry groupings
will appear in the August 1981 Monthly
Labor Review. Revised historical data
down to specific industry levels will ap­
pear in an August 1981 supplement to
Employment and Earnings.

Blue Pencil Awards

The Monthly Labor Review’s special issue on immigration (October 1980)
won first place among one-color technical magazines in the 1981 Blue Pencil
Publications Contest of the National Association of Government Com­
municators. The Association’s judges commented that the magazine was
“ cost effective” and “ meets the needs of audience.”
Another Bureau of Labor Statistics publication, the Occupational Outlook
Quarterly, Fall 1980, won second place among two- and three-color general
magazines.
More than 650 publications of 60 Federal, State, and local government
organizations were entered in the contest.

V .)
\? \? \

Youth unemployment:
an international perspective
The employment situation fo r young people
worsened in industrialized nations
in the wake o f the 1974—75 recession;
Japanese and German youth continue
to have the most favorable job prospects
C o n s t a n c e So r r e n t i n o

The slow recovery from the 1974-75 recession has been
accompanied by unusually high levels of unemployment
among young people in industrial nations. Countries
with previously low youth unemployment rates have en­
countered serious problems since the mid-1970’s.1 By
1979, persons under 25 years of age in 6 of 9 countries
studied experienced unemployment rates of around 12
percent or more, while corresponding jobless rates for
adults ranged from 2 to 6 percent. Even in the three
countries maintaining relatively low youth unemploy­
ment (West Germany, Sweden, and Japan), recent teen­
age jobless rates were 2 to 5 times the adult levels.
Several factors help to explain the past and current
international disparities in youth unemployment. Char­
acteristics often associated with low youth unemploy­
ment include decreases in the youth labor force, low
levels of labor force activity by students, widespread use
of apprenticeship training, and relatively less emphasis
on open career options and job mobility. For the high
youth unemployment countries, particularly the United
States and Canada, parallel factors can also be singled
out: rapid growth in the youth labor force, a sizable

C o nstance S orrentino is an econom ist in the Division of Foreign La­
bor Statistics and T rade, Bureau of L abor Statistics.


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

student labor force, and an emphasis on general educa­
tion and extended schooling rather than on the struc­
turing of the early work years by such devices as
apprenticeship.
This article examines the comparative labor market
experience of youth in the United States and eight other
developed countries — five Western European countries,
Canada, Japan, and Australia — over the last two de­
cades. The analysis focuses upon unemployment levels
and rates. However, it should be recognized that there
are many other forms of underutilization; unemploy­
ment figures reveal a significant part, but not the entire
labor market situation for youth.
The data have been adjusted, insofar as possible, to
U.S. concepts of unemployment. However, some impor­
tant qualifications must be expressed regarding these
data and their international comparability.

Data comparability
Differences in definition of labor force and unemploy­
ment weaken the validity of comparisons among
countries unless steps are taken to ensure statistical
comparability. For many years, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics has published unemployment data adjusted to
U.S. concepts for selected countries. The same methods
used to adjust the overall unemployment rates have
3

16624

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Youth Unemployment
been applied to the foreign data for youth and adult age
groups.2
The adjusted data described in this article, although
not perfectly comparable, provide a reasonable basis for
international analyses, and yield a better picture of
youth unemployment than the unadjusted data fre­
quently cited. All adjusted figures are based on labor
force surveys. Thus, there is a common base in statisti­
cal method. Lower age limits have been adjusted to the
age at which compulsory schooling ends so that the
data for all countries relate to persons who are free to
enter the labor market on a full-time basis; these ages
vary from 14 to 16 in the countries studied. Adjust­
ments have been made wherever possible to include or
exclude certain categories of persons for greater confor­
mity with U.S. definitions. For example, military per­
sonnel have been excluded so that all data relate to the
civilian labor force.
Differences in the statistical treatment of students
were found to have only a small impact on strict data
comparability. However, differences in reference periods
should be kept in mind when making intercountry com­
parisons, particularly with regard to France and Ger­
many, and to the data on the registered unemployed for
Great Britain. Data for these three countries do not re­
late to the full year. It is likely that the spring survey
data for France and Germany are understated relative
to annual average data for the other countries.
It is difficult to properly interpret the British regis­
tered unemployed data for July, which have been shown
in this article along with annual British survey data be­
cause they are more current than the survey data and
also permit more detailed age breakdowns for youth.
Registration data show the number of persons regis­
tered with an employment or careers office who had no
job and were available for work on the day of the
count. Registration is required in order to collect unem­
ployment insurance benefits.
British registration data generally understate unem­
ployment because they do not include unregistered
jobseekers, a large number of whom are young people.
On the other hand, the July figures are not representa­
tive of annual averages for Great Britain because July is
a peak month for youth unemployment. Since 1975,
registration data by age for months other than July
have been published, and they reveal youth unemploy­
ment rates several percentage points lower than the July
figures.
Although not internationally comparable, the British
registration data do give some idea of the relative levels
of teenage and young aduii unemployment in Great
Britain. Also, during recent years of high unemploy­
ment, young persons have had a higher propensity to
register as unemployed, so that the post-1975 British
registration data probably do not understate youth un­
Digitized 4for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

employment to any great extent.
The data for Italy present a special problem, as the
necessary statistics were not available to adjust them to
U.S. concepts. But because Italy has had a severe and
unique youth unemployment problem, the country was
included in this analysis. These unadjusted data should
be viewed with caution, but they are roughly suggestive
of the dimensions of Italian youth unemployment.
Youth unemployment rates for Italy would probably be
a few percentage points lower if it were possible to ad­
just them fully to a U.S. basis, but they would still be
extremely high by international standards.

International trends
In most industrial countries, jobless rates for young
people historically have been higher than those for their
elders. However, the degree of difficulty for youth has
varied widely, both among countries and over time
within countries. Relatively high levels of unemploy­
ment have occurred in the United States and Canada
throughout the post-World War II period. For most of
the other countries, the problems of youth in the labor
market arose much later. In Germany and Japan, the
recent increase in youth joblessness marks a significant
departure from the past. Deterioration of the job situa­
tion for young persons began in the mid- or late-1960’s
in Great Britain, France, and Sweden, and even earlier
in Italy. Thus, although cyclical factors are largely re­
sponsible for the very high levels of youth unemploy­
ment from 1974 onward, the roots of the problem go
beyond the last economic downturn.
Table 1 presents unemployment data by age group
for selected years between 1960 and 1979. Except for It­
aly, the data have been adjusted so that they approxi­
mate U.S. concepts. As mentioned above, British data
are shown on an adjusted as well as on an unadjusted
(registered unemployed) basis.
During the early 1960’s, youth unemployment rates
as well as overall jobless rates were quite low in Aus­
tralia, Japan, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Swe­
den. For example, teenage unemployment rates ranged
from 0.3 percent in Germany to 4 percent in France.
Young adults’ rates varied less widely, from 0.4 percent
in Germany to 2.7 percent in Great Britain. The statis­
tics for the United States, Canada, and Italy were in
marked contrast: The North American countries had
teenage unemployment rates in the 13- to 15-percent
range, and Italy’s rate was over 9 percent. Thus, Italy’s
moderate overall unemployment rate masked a severe
youth unemployment problem. Jobless rates for young
adults were also relatively high in these three countries.
In the late 1960's, youth unemployment rates began
to climb in France, Germany, and Great Britain, and to
a much lesser degree, in Sweden and Australia. By
1970, French and German teenagers had much higher

jobless rates than during the early 1960’s, although the
German rate was only 1.4 percent. Young adult rates in
France had also climbed but they remained very low in
Germany. Data adjusted separately for teenagers and
young adults were not available for Great Britain in the
1970’s; however, registrations data indicate a sizable in­
crease in unemployment for both groups. In all three
countries, overall unemployment in 1970 was somewhat

Table 1.

higher than during the early 1960’s. In contrast, the
United States and Canada actually had lower national
jobless rates in 1970 than in 1960, but slightly higher
teenage unemployment rates. Youth unemployment in
North America remained much higher than in Western
Europe, Australia, and Japan over the decade, and Ital­
ian youth joblessness approached that of the United
States and Canada. Japan was the only country which

Unemployment rates for nine industrial countries by age, selected years, 1960-79
Unemployment rates '

Country and date

United States:
1960 ....................
1970 ....................
1974 ....................
1975 ....................
1976 ....................
1977 ....................
1978 ....................
1979 ....................
Canada:
1960
1970
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

All working
ages

Unemployment rates

Under age 25
Total

Teenagers2 Age 20 24

Age 25 and
over

Country and date

All working
ages

Under age 25
Total

Teenagers2 Age 20 24

4.9
5.6
8.5
7.7
7.0
6.0
5.8

11.2
11.0
11.8
16.1
14.7
13.6
12.2
11.7

14.7
15.2
16.0
19.9
19.0
17.7
16.3
16.1

8.7
8.2
9.0
13.6
12.0
10.9
9.5
9.0

4.4
3.3
3.6
6.0
5.5
4.9
4.0
3.9

Germany:5
April 1963
April 1970
April 1974
May 1975
May 1976
April 1977
April 1978
April 1979

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

.3
.5
1.2
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.0
2.7

.3
1.0
1.8
4.5
4.9
5.0
4.5
3.9

.3
1.4
1.9
4.7
5.1
5.0
4.6
4.1

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

7.0
5.7
5.3
6.9
7.1
8.1
8.4
7.5

11.1
10.0
9.3
12.0
12.7
14.4
14.5
13.0

13.5
13.9
11.6
14.9
15.7
17.5
17.9
16.1

9.3
7.5
7.6
9.9
10.5
12.2
12.2
10.8

5.8
4.2
3.9
5.0
5.1
5.8
6.1
5.4

Great Britain:
Adjusted data:
April 1961 .............
1971 ......................
1974 ......................
1975 ......................
1976 ......................
1977 ......................
1978 ......................

1.9
3.9
3.1
4.6
6.0
6.4
6.3

2.4
6.1
5.7
9.3
12.7
13.5
13.7

2.1
( 6)
( 6)
( 6)
( 6)
( 6)
( 6)

Australia:3
1964
1967
1970
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

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

1.4
1.9
1.7
2.7
4.9
4.8
5.6
6.3
6.2

2.7
3.0
2.7
4.9
9.7
10.0
12 0
12.6
13.0

3.7
3.6
3.8
6.6
13.9
14.4
17.4
17.3
18.1

1.6
25
1.8
36
6.4
6.6
7.5
8,8
8.8

.9
15
1.3
19
3.2
29
3.3
39
3.7

Japan:
1960
1970
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

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

1.7
1.2
1.4
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.3
2.1

2.1
2.0
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.7
3.8
3.6

2.2
2.0
2.6
3.7
4.1
4.8
4.7
4.9

2.0
2.0
23
2.9
3.0
3.5
3.6
3.3

1.5
9
12
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.9

30
23
41
4.9
55
5.4
60
5.8
5.8
5.3
5.3
49
53

45
38
92
9.6
130
10.6
147
11.4
13.9
10.6
10.1
86
12 3

France:4
March 1963 .........
March 1970 .........
March 1974 .........
April 1975 ...........
March 1976 .........
March 1977 .........
October 1977 . . . .
March 1978 .........
October 1 9 7 8 . . . .
March 1979 .........

1.4
2.5
2.8
3.8
4.5
4.9
5.1
4.9
6.1
5.7

2.8
4.8
6.2
8.4
10.8
11.9
13.1
11.8
15.3
14.2

4.0
7.0
9.8
12.7
17.0
18.7
21.8
19.0
25.8
22.7

1.8
3.7
4.8
6.9
8.6
9.6
9.1
9.6
10.8
11.4

1.1
20
2.1
2.8
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.6
4.0
4.1

Italy:9
1964 ......................
1970 ......................
1974 ......................
1975 ......................
1976 ......................
197710 .
197810

2.8
3.2
2.9
3.4
3.7
46
50

Sweden:
1962
1970
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

1.5
1.5
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.1

5.5

1Unless otherwise indicated, data have been adjusted to U.S. concepts.
2 Includes 16- to 19-year-olds in United States, France, Great Britain (1974 onward), and
Sweden; 15- to 19-year-olds in Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, and Great Britain (prior to
1974); and 14- to 19-year-olds in Italy.
3There is a discontinuity between the 1964 figures and those for later years, and between
the 1977 figures and those for later years.
4 French unemployment rates for March or April are usually slightly below the annual aver­
age; October figures are generally slightly above the annual average. Unemployment rates for
1963 are understated in relation to later data.
5German unemployment rates for April or May are usually slightly lower than the annual av­
erage.
6 Data not available.
7 Statistics on the registered unemployed are shown for Great Britain because survey data


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

Registered unemployed:7
July 1971
July 1974
July 1975
January 19768 . . .
July 1976
January 1977 . . . .
July 1977
January 1978 . . . .
July 1978 .............
October 1978 . . . .
January 1979 . . . .
July 1979

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

Age 25 and
over

.4
.6
1.7
4.4
4.7
5.0
4.4
3.7

.3
.4
1.1
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.5

2.7
( 6)
( 6)
( 6)
( 6)
( 6)
( 6)

1.7
3.3
2.5
3.6
4.5
4.8
4.6

53
45
120
11.6
20 1
12.9
23 2
13.9
22.1
13.8
11.9
94
19.1

40
33
73
8.2
80
9.0
89
9.6
8.2
8.4
8.9
81
7.6

26
20
29
3.9
38
4.2
40
4.4
4.0
4.0
4.2
40
3.7

7.3
10.2
11.2
12.9
14.6
17 7
194

9.1
12.3
14.3
16.8
19.2
22 9
25 2

5.4
8.8
9.1
10.4
11.7
14 3
15 8

1.5
1.5
1.2
1.5
1.6
19
20

2.7
2.9
4.5
3.8
3.8
4.4
5.6
5.1

3.3
4.3
6.8
5.6
5.5
6.7
8.2
7.5

2.0
2.2
3.2
2.8
2.8
3.2
4.3
3.8

1.2
1.3
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.5

adjusted to U.S. concepts for 1979 onward are not available. Unemployment rates based on
the registered unemployed were calculated using the civilian labor force as the denominator
(official British figures use the wage and salary labor force as the denominator).
8 From 1976 onward, data exclude adult students (that is, those age 18 and over) registered
as unemployed during school vacations.
9 Data for Italy could not be adjusted to U.S. concepts by age; unadjusted figures are shown.
The adjusted overall rates for 1976 and prior years were very close to the unadjusted rates
(for example, the rate of 3.7 percent in 1976 became 3.6 percent on a U.S. basis). Flowever,
the rates for 1977 onward diverge to a greater extent (in 1978, the unadjusted rate was 5 per­
cent, the adjusted rate, 3.7 percent).
10 Based on data from revised Italian survey; not entirely comparable with previous survey
data.

5

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Youth Unemployment
did not record a rise in teenage unemployment between
1960 and 1970.
Unemployment rates for young adults did not neces­
sarily follow the teenage pattern. In the United States
and Canada, jobless rates for 20- to 24-year-olds de­
clined between 1960 to 1970. In the other countries in
which teenage unemployment grew, the rates for young
adults also rose, but only France and Italy had sharper
increases for young adults than for teenagers.
The 1974-75 recession brought marked increases in
unemployment to all countries studied except Sweden,
where a high level of employment was maintained
through considerable expansion of labor market training
and public works programs. By 1975, U.S. teenage un­
employment peaked at nearly 20 percent, the highest
rate among the nations studied. Italian and Canadian
teenage rates were next highest, in the 15-17 percent
range. Australian, French, and British teenagers had
rates of unemployment above 10 percent for the first
time during the postwar period. German teenagers
reached a jobless high of 4.7 percent in 1975, two and
one-half times the level of the previous year. Japanese
teenage unemployment also rose, but at 3.7 percent was
still the lowest among the industrial countries. Unem­
ployment rates for young adults also surged upward
during the recession, but the United States, Canada,
and Italy were the only countries in which they ap­
proached or exceeded 10 percent.
During 1976-79, youth unemployment rates declined
somewhat in the United States, leveled off in Germany
and Great Britain, and continued rising in the other
countries. By 1977 or 1978, youth unemployment rates
and teenage rates were higher in Canada, Australia,
France, Great Britain, and Italy than in the United
States. Rates for young adults were also higher, except
in Australia. These recent developments marked a dra­
matic change from the years before 1976, during which
the U.S. youth unemployment rate was generally the
highest among the countries compared.
Youth share o f unemployment. There are wide interna­
tional variations in the share of total unemployment
borne by youth. Table 2 shows the percent distribution
of unemployment and labor force by age in each of the
countries studied for selected years since 1960.
Throughout the period, Italy has had the highest pro­
portion of unemployment in the youth age groups, yet
one of the lowest proportions of young people in the la­
bor force. In 1978, for example, two-thirds of the Ital­
ian unemployed, but only about one-sixth of the labor
force were under 25. Australia was the only other coun­
try where more than half of the unemployed were under
25. In most years since 1964, Australia’s youth share of

Digitized 6for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the labor force was less than half the proportion of
youth among the unemployed.
Youth shares of unemployment were also relatively
high in North America in the late 1970’s — close to half
of all unemployment, while young people constituted
only about a quarter of the labor force. In France,
Great Britain, and Sweden, two-fifths of the unem­
ployed but less than one-fifth of the labor force were
youth.
Japan had, by far, the smallest youth component
among the unemployed at the end of the 1970’s. Per­
sons under 25 made up only slightly more than onefifth of Japanese unemployment and about one-eighth of
the work force. The proportion of German youth among
the unemployed was also relatively low — 28 percent in
1979, when German youth made up 20 percent of the la­
bor force. Germany and Japan were the countries in
which the youth share of unemployment most closely ap­
proximated its share of the labor force. In almost all the
other countries, youth unemployment shares were at
least double their labor force representation.
Except in Japan, youth have borne a growing share
of unemployment since 1960. Canada, the United
States, and Great Britain had the sharpest increases. In
North America, the biggest jump came between 1960
and 1970. In Great Britain, the largest increase oc­
curred after 1970. The proportion of North American
youth in the labor force has also risen significantly since
1960, although not as rapidly as youth unemployment.
In Great Britain, however, the rise in the youth compo­
nent of unemployment occurred despite a decline in the
youth labor force share.
The youth share of unemployment dropped in Aus­
tralia from 52 percent in 1964 to 44 percent in 1970.
However, it rose sharply during the recession, peaking
at 57 percent in 1977. Throughout 1964-79, the youth
share of the labor force held steady around 27 percent.
France, Germany, and Italy had growing youth compo­
nents of unemployment between the early 1960’s and
1970. The French and Italian youth proportions have
continued to rise slowly, but the German proportion,
after a sharp increase in 1975, has since leveled off. Ger­
many has had a virtually stable youth component in the
labor force (around 20 percent) throughout the period.
France and Italy have had slowly declining proportions
of young people in the labor force.
The trends for teenagers and young adults diverged
in several countries over the last two decades. In Aus­
tralia, France, and Italy, the teenage proportion of un­
employment declined, while that for young adults rose.
Sweden has had a relatively steady unemployment share
for teenagers, but an increase for young adults. In Ja­
pan, the teenage share dropped sharply, while the

young adult proportion rose rapidly between 1960 and
1970, and then fell below the 1960 level by 1979.
Youth-adult ratios. Youth unemployment rates are, of
course, affected by the overall job situation in each
country. Therefore, comparative ratios of youth to adult
unemployment rates are presented in table 3. Such ra­
tios may also be affected by the general level of unem­
ployment, but they more accurately reflect the relative
problems of youth unemployment. For all years studied,
Italy had the widest youth-adult differential. The Unit­
ed States also ranked relatively high until recent years.
The narrowest gaps between youth and adult unem­
ployment were found in Germany, Japan, and, until
1975, Great Britain.
In most of Western Europe and in Australia, the
Table 2.

youth-to-adult unemployment rate differential has been
widening recently. Between 1970 and 1979, the ratio
grew from 2.4 to 3.5 in France, and from 2.2 to 3.4 in
Sweden. For France and Sweden, the teenage-to-adult
ratio widened from about 3.5 to 5. Italy had the highest
youth-adult ratio throughout this period; by 1978, it
was 9.7, or more than three times the U.S. level. And
teenage unemployment rates in Italy were more than 12
times the rates for adults in 1978, up from 8 in 1970.
Great Britain had very low differentials between
youths and adults prior to 1975. In 1975, the ratio rose
to 2.6 on a survey basis (U.S. concepts) and to over 3
on a registration basis. By 1978, the ratio on the survey
basis had risen to 3. Canadian, German, and Japanese
youth-adult ratios remained relatively low and stable in
the 1970’s, but were higher than during the 1960’s. Ca-

Percent distribution of unemployment and labor force in nine industrial countries by age, selected years, I960 79
Unemployment
Under age 25

Country and date

Labor force
Under age 25

Total

Teenagers1

Age 20 24

Age 25 and
over

Total

United States:
1960 ...............................................
1970 .......................................................
1974 ...................................................
1975 ...................................................
1976 ........................................................
1977 .................................................
1978 ..............................................
1979 ........................................

34
48
51
46
46
47
49
49

18
27
28
22
23
24
26
26

15
21
23
23
23
23
24
23

66
52
49
54
54
53
51
51

17
22
24
24
24
24
24
24

Canada:
1960
1970
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

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

35
45
47
47
48
48
46
47

18
25
25
25
25
24
24
24

16
20
22
22
23
24
23
23

65
55
53
53
52
52
53
53

Australia:2
1964
1967
1970
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

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

52
43
44
47
52
55
57
54
56

38
25
27
28
33
35
37
33
35

14
18
17
20
19
20
20
21
21

Japan:
1960
1970
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

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

29
37
30
25
22
25
22
21

13
10
7
6
6
6
6
6

34
37
39
39
41
41
39
40

22
17
17
16
16
16
15
15

France:
March 1963 ...........................
March 1970 ........................
March 1974 ...................................
April 1975 ......................................
March 1976 ...............
March 1977 ..........................................
March 1978 ...............................................
March 1979 .................................

Age 20 24

Age 25 and
over

7
9
10
10
9
9
10
9

10
13
14
15
15
15
15
15

83
78
76
76
76
76
76
76

22
25
27
27
27
27
27
27

9
10
12
12
11
11
11
11

12
15
15
16
16
16
16
16

78
75
73
73
73
73
73
73

49
57
57
53
48
45
43
46
44

27
27
27
26
26
26
27
27
27

14
13
12
11
12
11
12
12
12

13
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15

73
73
73
74
74
74
73
73
73

16
27
22
19
17
18
16
15

69
63
70
73
75
76
78
79

23
22
17
15
14
13
13
13

10
6
4
3
3
3
3
3

13
16
13
12
11
11
10
10

77
78
83
85
86
87
87
87

13
20
22
23
24
25
24
24

66
63
61
61
59
59
61
60

18
20
18
17
17
17
16
16

8
6
5
5
4
4
4
4

10
13
13
13
13
13
12
12

82
80
82
83
83
83
84
84

Teenagers

'

See footnotes at end of table.


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

7

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Youth Unemployment

Table 2. Continued
years, 1960 79

Percent distribution of unemployment and labor force in nine industrial countries by age, selected
Unemployment
Under age 25

Country and date

Labor force
Under age 25

Total

Teenagers1

Age 20 24

Age 25 and
over

Total

Teenagers1

Age 20 24

Age 25 and
over

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

22
34
26
30
31
31
30
28

7
22
12
15
15
13
13
13

15
12
14
16
16
17
16
15

78
67
74
70
69
69
70
72

21
19
18
20
20
19
20
20

9
8
8
9
9
9
9
9

12
10
11
11
11
11
11
11

79
81
82
80
80
81
80
80

Great Britain:
Adjusted data:
April 1961 ..............................................................................
1971 .......................................................................................
1974 .......................................................................................
1975 .......................................................................................
1976 .......................................................................................
1977 .......................................................................................
1978 .......................................................................................

28
32
32
35
38
38
41

13
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)

15
( 3)
( 3)
<3)
( 3)
<3)
( 3)

72
68
68
65
62
62
59

21
21
17
17
18
18
19

11
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)

10
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)
<3)
( 3)
( 3)

79
79
83
83
82
82
81

Registered unemployed:4
July 1971................................................................................
July 1974 ................................................................................
July 1975 ................................................................................
July 19765 ...........................................................................
July 1977 ................................................................................
July 1978 ................................................................................
July 1979 ................................................................................

31
30
42
44
46
45
44

15
14
22
28
29
29
28

16
16
19
16
16
16
16

69
70
58
56
54
55
56

21
18
19
19
19
19
19

8
7
8
8
8
8
8

12
11
11
11
11
11
11

79
81
81
81
81
81
81

Italy:6
1964 .......................................................................................
1970 .......................................................................................
1974 .......................................................................................
1975 .......................................................................................
1976 .......................................................................................
19777 ....................................................................................
1978 ....................................................................................

56
61
65
64
64
66
66

36
30
33
32
32
34
33

21
31
32
31
32
32
33

44
39
35
36
36
34
34

21
19
17
17
16
17
17

11
8
7
6
6
7
7

10
11
10
10
10
10
10

79
81
83
83
84
83
83

Sweden:
1962
1970
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

33
34
38
39
39
40
40
40

20
17
20
21
21
21
20
20

13
17
18
18
18
19
20
19

68
66
62
61
61
60
60
60

18
18
17
17
17
16
16
16

9
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

9
12
11
11
11
11
11
11

82
82
83
83
83
84
84
84

Germany:
April 1963
April 1970
April 1974
May 1975
May 1976
April 1977
April 1978
April 1979

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

'Includes 16- to 19-year-olds in United States, France, Great Britain (1974 onward), and
Sweden; 15- to 19-year-olds in Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, and Great Britain (prior to
1974); and 14- to 19-year-olds in Italy.
2There is a discontinuity between the 1964 figures and those for later years, and between
the 1977 figures and those for later years.
3 Data not available.
4 Statistics on the registered unemployed are shown for Great Britain because survey data

nadian youth had jobless rates twice those of adults in
1960; during the 1970’s, youth rates were around two
and one-half times those for adults. German data for
April 1963 indicate no difference between youth and
adult unemployment rates; this was true throughout the
1960’s in Germany, except during the 1967-68 reces­
sion. By 1970, however, German youth rates were more
than twice as high as adult jobless rates. The German
youth-adult ratio subsequently fell back under 2 during
1974-79. Although the overall youth-adult differential
has held fairly steady in Japan over the past two de­
cades, the teenage-to-adult ratio has been edging up­
ward.
Australian young people had a jobless rate three
times that of adults in 1964 and twice that of adults in
Digitized 8for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

adjusted to U.S. concepts for 1979 onward are not available.
5 From 1976 onward, data exclude adult students (that is, those age 18 and over) registered
as unemployed during school vacations.
6 Data could not be adjusted to U.S. concepts by age; unadjusted data are shown.
7 Based on data from revised Italian survey; not entirely comparable with previous survey
data.

1970. During 1974-77, the differential widened. The
teenage-to-adult ratio was around 4 in 1964, but rose to
about 5 in 1976-77. This differential narrowed some­
what in 1978, but edged upward again in 1979.
In the United States, in contrast to Western Europe,
Canada, and Australia, the gap between youth and
adult unemployment narrowed between 1970 and 1977.
Americans under 25 had unemployment rates 3.3 times
those for adults in 1970 and 1974. During 1975-77, the
differential narrowed, but the ratio rose to about 3 in
1978-79, still lower than in the early 1970’s. The same
general pattern was also true for ratios of teenage-toadult unemployment. In the United States, the youthadult differential tends to fluctuate in a countercyclical
m anner— in recessions, adult unemployment rates rise

more sharply than youth rates, but adult rates also fall
more rapidly in economic recoveries. Teenagers may de­
cide to prolong their schooling when job prospects are
poor, but when opportunities increase, a sizable group
of 16- and 17-year-olds leave school in response.3
Other form s o f underutilization. As with other groups,
the unemployment rate does not capture the full range
of labor market difficulties experienced by young peo­
ple. Unemployment statistics measure numbers of per­
sons not working but actively seeking work. A more
comprehensive analysis would include comparative data,
presently sketchy or lacking in most countries, on invol­
untary part-time work, discouraged workers, skill
mismatches, and other forms of underutilization. Indica­
tions are that young people have sustained a heavy im­
pact in many of these areas. For example, French,
Swedish, and American labor force surveys show large
numbers of discouraged workers who are teenagers or
young adults. These are persons who indicate that they
would be seeking work if they believed they could find
a job. German estimates of the “silent reserve" or pool
of discouraged workers also include a significant num­
ber of young people. Reportedly, many German girls
age 15 to 17 who cannot find work simply decide to
stay at home and help in the household.4
Furthermore, there is evidence that a considerable
number of would-be school leavers in several countries
have postponed their entry into the labor market in re­
cent years.5 Their extra schooling was a thinly disguised
form of unemployment, as they would have preferred to
be in the labor market. Finally, unemployment rates do
not measure the recession-induced outflow of foreign
workers from such countries as France and Germany; a
large proportion of these migrants are in the younger
age groups.

Some explanatory factors
A number of factors underlie international differences
in youth unemployment rates. Differences in supply and
demand trends in the youth labor market are impor­
tant. Other aspects to consider are the student labor
force, use of apprenticeship systems and counseling and
placement services, institutionalized youth wage differ­
entials, and unemployment among minority groups.
The supply side. The United States and Canada have ex­
perienced rapid increases in the youth labor force—
both teenagers and young adults— since the early
1960’s. The European countries and Japan, in contrast,
have had declining teenage work forces and decreases or
only small increases for persons 20 to 24 years of age.
Table 4 presents growth rates of the teenage and
young adult labor force for the period 1960 to 1979.
The number of teenagers in the U.S. and Canadian

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

work forces grew at an annual rate of 3.6 to 4 percent.
Australian teenagers were the only others with a rising
trend over this period. A very sharp decline occurred
for teenagers in Japan, Italy, and France, with lesser
rates of decrease in Great Britain and Sweden, and vir­
tually no change in Germany. The young adult work
force increased more rapidly or declined more slowly
than the teenage labor force in all countries stud­
ied except Germany. In three countries with shrinking
teenage labor forces (France, Great Britain, and Swe­
den), the young adult labor force showed an upward
trend. Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan had
overall declines in the labor force under age 25 during
1960-79.
There were some dramatic changes in labor force
trends in the 1970’s. The growth rates of the youth la­
bor force in North American countries moderated in
the latter part of the decade. For instance, the U.S.
teenage labor force grew at an annual rate of 4 percent
during the 1960-75 period, but growth tapered off
thereafter, and in 1979, the teenage labor force de­
creased. Great Britain and Italy have experienced a re­
versal, with the youth labor force rising during 1975-79
after many years of decline. Growth of the Australian
teenage labor force accelerated during the same period.

Table 3. Ratios of youth to adult unemployment rates in
nine countries, selected years, 1960-79
Country

1960

1970

2.5
1.9
2 3.0
1.4
4 2.5
6 1.0

3.3
2.4
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.5

3.3
24
2.6
2.1
3.0
1.6

2.7
2.4
3.0
1.9
3.0
1.8

2.7
2.5
3.4
1.8
3.3
1.9

2.8
2.5
3.6
2.1
3.4
1.9

3.1
2.4
3.2
1.9
3.3
1.7

7 1.4
<9)

81.8
8 1.7
6.8
2.2

2.3
1.9
9.3
3.0

2.6
3.2
8.6
3.2

2.8
3.4
9.1
3.2

2.8
3.7
9.3
3.4

3.0
3.5
9.7
3.5

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

Ratio of youth to adult unemployment1
United S tates...............
C anada........................
Australia ......................
Japan ...........................
France3 ......................
Germany6 ....................
Great Britain:
Adjusted to U.S.
concepts...........
Registrations10 . ..
Italy1 0 ...........................
Sweden........................

24.9
"2 .3

3.0
2.4
3.5
1.9
3.5
1.6

( 9)
3.3

( 9)
3.4

Ratio of teenage to adult unemployment12
United S tates...............
C anada........................
Australia ......................
Japan ...........................
France3 ......................
Germany6 ....................
Great Britain:
Adjusted to U.S.
concepts...........
Registrations10 . . .
Italy1 0 ...........................
Sweden........................

3.3
2.3
1.5
43.6
61.0

4.6
3.3
2.9
2.2
3.5
3.5

4.4
3.0
3.5
2.2
4.7
1.7

3.3
3.0
4.3
2.3
4.5

71.2
( 9)
2 6.1
"2 .8

( 9)
8 2.0
8.2
3.3

( 9)
2.3

24.1

11.9
4.5

1.9

3.5
3.1
5.0
2.3
5.2
2.0

3.6
3.0
5.3
2.7
5.3
1.9

( 9)
4.1
11.2
4.7

( 9)
5.3
12.0
4.6

5.8

5.5

12.1
5.2

12.6

<9)

4.1
2.9
4.4
2.4
5.3
1.8

4.1
3.0
4.9
2.6

( 9)

( 9)
5.2
( 9)
5.0

5.1

5.5
1.6

1Ratio of unemployment rate for persons under 25 to rate for persons 25 and over.
2 Data relate to 1964.
3 Data relate to March or April of each year.
4 March 1963 data.
5 Data relate to April or May of each year.
6 April 1963 data.
'April 1961 data.
8 Data relate to 1971.
9 Data not available.
10 Not adjusted to U.S. concepts. British data relate to July.
” Data relate to 1962.
12 Ratio of teenage unemployment rate to rate for persons 25 and over.

9

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Youth Unemployment

United States . . . .
Canada ...................
A u s tr a lia ................
Japan .....................
France ..................
G e rm a n y ................
Great Britain . . . .
Italy (1978) ..........
Sweden ..................

A ll
y o u th

Teenagers

Young
a d u lts

24
27
27
13
16
20
19
17
16

9
11
12
3
4
9
8
7
6

15
16
15
10
12
11
11
10
11

Canada and Australia had the highest proportions of
young people in their work forces, with the United
States ranking next. Japan, France, and Sweden had
substantially lower proportions. The international dif­
ferences were particularly wide for teenagers, who have
much higher unemployment rates than young adults.
The United States and Canada, then, were under un­
usual pressure from relatively large and fast-growing

Digitized10for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 4. Percent change in the youth labor force in nine
countries by age group, selected periods, 1960 79

United States . ,
Canada...........
Australia .........
Japan .............
France ...........
G erm any.........
Great Britain . .
Italy4 ...............
Sweden...........

1960
79
4.1
4.2
’ 2.4
2.1
2.3
2 .4
3 .1
5 1.8
e.1

1960
75
4.5
4.6
2.6
1.7
.8
.8
.6
2.5
.1

1975
79
2.7
2.9
2.1
3.7
- 1.1
.9
1.4
51.9
.3

Teenagers
1960
79
3.6
4.0
’ 1.4
5.8
2 3.4

20
3 1.4
5 3.4
6 1.9

1960
75
4.1
4.5
1.0
6.5
3.2
.1
2.2
4.4
2.2

Age 20 to 24

1975
79
2.0
2.2
25
3.0
3.8
.3
1.3

CD

Under age 25
Country

IV)

A declining trend for teenagers in the 1960’s was halted
in Germany and Sweden in the first half of the 1970’s,
but resumed in the latter half. In Japan, the teenage de­
crease became even more pronounced between 1970 and
1976.
Germany and Italy have had recent turnarounds in
labor force trends for young adults. For both countries,
the earlier declining trend has been supplanted by a ris­
ing trend since about 1975. In Japan, the young adult
labor force grew during the 1960’s, but declined during
the 1970’s.
Trends in birth rates, population, and participation
rates underlie international differences in youth labor
forces.*1Rapid growth of the youth population combined
with sharply rising participation rates to bring about
large increases in the teenage and young adult labor
forces in North America. Australia’s rapid youth popu­
lation growth, in contrast, was not fully translated into
labor force growth because teenage participation rates
fell. In France, the decline in activity rates for teenagers
was so large that it completely overrode the rapid youth
population growth of the 1960's. The drop in participa­
tion rates for teens in the other countries, coupled with
slower population growth for this age group, resulted in
a pronounced decrease in the teenage labor force from
1960 to at least the mid-1970’s. Declines in activity
rates for young adults were not nearly as great as they
were for teens; therefore, the young adult labor forces
did not fall as fast, or even increased (France, Great
Britain, Sweden), while teenage work forces shrank.
There are also large differences among nations in the
relative size of the youth labor force. The following tab­
ulation shows the precentage of the labor force ac­
counted for by youth in 1979 for each of the countries
studied:

.5

1960
79
4,4
4,4
! 3.5
.3
22.2
2 .7
3.9
5 .5
61.5

1960
75

1975
79

4.8
4.7
4.1

3.2
3.3

.6

3.8
.1
2.1
1.4
51.9
.8

3.0
1.5
.8
- 1.0
1.8

1.7

1Initial year 1964.
2 Initial year 1963.
3 Initial year 1961.
4 Not adjusted to U.S. concepts and not adjusted for break in series related to new labor
force survey instituted in 1977.
5 Data end in 1978.
6 Initial year 1962.

teenage and young adult labor forces, which contributed
to higher rates of both overall and youth unemployment.
Although labor force growth rates in North America
have not been as rapid since 1975 as previously, they are
still high in comparison with the other industrial
countries. For the most part, other countries did not
have to deal with increasing numbers of young entrants
to the labor market until recently, if at all.
Demand factors. During the 1960’s, tight labor markets
and strong economic growth in most of Europe, and in
Australia and Japan fostered high demand for young
workers. Fabor shortages gave many young people op­
portunities to choose among jobs and to enter the occu­
pational hierarchy at higher levels than would have
been possible in less favorable times. In Japan, Great
Britain, and Germany, employers recruited young peo­
ple straight from school and provided training for many
of them. New entrants were eagerly sought and employ­
ers were willing to take youngsters without occupation­
al skills or previous work experience. However, favor­
able employment conditions for youth abroad changed
during the 1970’s as structural problems were intensi­
fied by deep recession.
Even during the 1960’s, the recruitment of youth as
discussed above was less common in France and Italy,
and even less visible in the United States where employ­
ers exhibited little active interest in hiring teenagers.7 In­
deed, recent studies show that two-thirds to four-fifths
of U.S. employers are reluctant to hire people under age
21 for regular, full-time jobs.*
Long-run structural changes in the labor market have
adversely affected the demand for young workers in
most of the countries studied. For example, the shift
out of agriculture and the decline of self-employment or
small family businesses have greatly reduced family em-

ployment opportunities for youth. The decline in agri­
cultural employment has been going on for decades.
Currently, the United States and Great Britain have the
smallest proportions of the labor force engaged in agri­
culture; Japan and Italy have the largest.1’
The change in skill requirements in industrial econo­
mies has further affected the demand for young
workers. Specifically, a decline in the relative impor­
tance of unskilled jobs, in which many youth find their
first employment, has taken place in the course of in­
dustrialization. There are many low-skilled jobs in the
rapidly growing service sector that may replace lost
openings in the industrial sector, but service industries
are also affected to some extent by changes which re­
duce demand for the unskilled. A 1974 British study
found that it was becoming more difficult to place
unqualified, untrained young people who normally en­
tered jobs below craft level.10Job opportunities for such
young persons were shrinking, a trend largely masked
in Great Britain in times of high growth, but all too ap­
parent during the more recent high unemployment
years.
Growing rigidities in the labor market have also ad­
versely affected employment prospects for young people.
During the 1970’s, there was considerable strengthening
in job security provisions for adult workers in Western
Europe and Japan. An O E C D study of job security ar­
rangements in France, Germany, and Great Britain in­
dicates that management prerogatives in dismissing
labor have been substantially curtailed." This trend be­
gan during the late 1960’s, but accelerated considerably
during the 1974-75 recession. A 1976 study by the Ger­
man Federal Labor Institute corroborated the O E C D
study, attributing higher youth unemployment in Ger­
many partly to regulations protecting the jobs of senior
employees.12
Swedish and Italian labor market experts have also
spoken of the adverse effects of protective legislation on
new entrants.13 The problem is viewed as particularly
acute in Italy where employers reportedly avoid hiring
new workers to the maximum extent possible, because it
is virtually impossible to discharge an employee.
The student labor force. The working student is very
much an American phenomenon. No other country has
so large a proportion of persons both in school and in
the labor force during the school year. The frequent
entries and exits of students characteristic of the U.S.
labor market do not occur to any significant extent in
Western Europe and Japan. Canada also has substantial
student labor force activity. There is growing student
participation in the work force in Australia, but it is
still small compared with the United States and Can­
ada.
Information on the school enrollment and labor force

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

status of the population age 16 to 34 in the United
States is collected annually in the October supplement
to the Census Bureau's monthly labor force survey.
Data for October, which is close to the beginning of a
new school year, may not be fully representative of all
the school months. Students are not explicity identified
in the U.S. survey during the rest of the year, although
young people 16 to 21 years old reporting school as
their major activity are tabulated by labor force status
each month. For students in the labor force, these
monthly data substantially underreport school enroll­
ment because many part-time students may report work
as their major activity.
The monthly data on young persons age 16 to 21 in­
dicate much higher unemployment rates for those
whose major activity is school. In 1979, such persons
had an unemployment rate of 18.1 percent. For others
in the same age group, the jobless rate was 12.7 per­
cent. The higher rate for students may reflect their lim­
ited availability with respect to hours of work and time
limitations on their job-hunting efforts because of the
constraints of classroom schedules.
The October surveys indicate a paradoxical impact of
student labor force activity on U.S. youth unemploy­
ment rates: Student unemployment tends to increase
overall youth jobless rates but to decrease the separate
rates for teenagers and young adults. The following tab­
ulation of unemployment rates for October 1979 illus­
trates this point:
Age

i 6 to 24 years . . .
16 to 19 years .
20 to 24 years .

A ll y o u th

In school

N ot in school

11.4
15.9
8.8

13.0
15.2
8.6

10.8
16.7
8.8

Neither the October surveys nor the monthly “major
activity” data record the effect of student unemploy­
ment during summer vacations. An unemployment rate
for students encompassing the summer vacation period
would probably be higher than the rate during the
school term. During the summer, the job market be­
comes flooded with youthful applicants.
When their vacation period unemployment and in­
school unemployment are combined, students in the
U.S. labor force do pull the annual youth unemploy­
ment rate upward somewhat. In other countries, where
relatively fewer young people are in school and the sea­
sonal influx of students into the labor force during the
vacations is smaller, youth unemployment rates are not
subject to as much upward pressure from the student
work force. In addition, school vacation workseeking is
not even recorded in a few of the other countries be­
cause of the timing of their surveys (France, Germany).
The high degree of student labor force activity in the
United States also exaggerates the proportion of youth
in the unemployment total relative to countries with lit11

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Youth Unemployment
tie student participation in the labor force. If data for
teenagers who were both in school and in the labor
force in October 1979 were excluded, the U.S. teenage
labor force participation rate would fall from 56 to 26
percent— almost the same as in France and Italy.
Italy has had special labor market problems associat­
ed with new university graduates. The number of stu­
dents in Italian universities rose by over 50 percent
between 1969 and 1972 alone, while the university-age
population grew by only 3 percent. The rise in the entry
rate was facilitated by the university reform of 1969
which opened all university departments to any success­
ful secondary school graduate. The claim has been
made in Italy that during recent years one important
function of the university has been to provide a form of
“ parking” for the young in search of employment.14
Thus, unemployment after secondary school is delayed,
only to be faced later on. Many youthful unemployed
Italians are graduates from the terribly overcrowded
universities which have failed to cope with the large in­
flux of students since 1969.
Apprenticeship and form al training programs. European
educational institutions channel masses of young people
into training for narrow vocational specialties, while
American youth are still continuing general education.
The European system’s emphasis on early apprentice­
ship and vocational training tends to put young people
into stable work-training relationships that discourage
mobility. The frequent job changes and spells of unem­
ployment characteristic of young persons in the United
States are not found to as great an extent abroad.15
In most European countries, apprenticeship and vo­
cational education are widespread. Vocational education
programs predominate in France and Sweden; appren­
ticeship is the principal type of industrial training for
youth in Great Britain and Germany and is widely used
elsewhere. In Japan, training within firms usually marks
the beginning of lifelong employment.
Apprenticeship programs provide both a smooth
transition from school to work and employment securi­
ty for young workers. The key to the German perfor­
mance in keeping youth unemployment comparatively
low has been that country’s strong apprenticeship sys­
tem. For a large proportion of German young people,
this training constitutes the upper secondary level of
school. On the other hand, Italy, with its high rate of
youth unemployment, does not have a well developed
system of vocational training institutions.
Table 5 shows an international comparison of the ex­
tent of apprenticeship in 1974 and 1977. Germany led
by far in the ratio of apprentices to civilian employ­
ment, over 5 percent. Italy ranked second, with about 3
percent of civilian employment in apprenticeships, but
this high ratio should be discounted both because train­
Digitized 12
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 5. Apprentices as a percent of total civilian
employment in eight countries, 1974 and 1977
Country
United S tates..............................................................
Canada.......................................................................
Australia .....................................................................
France .......................................................................
G erm any.....................................................................
Great Britain ..............................................................
Italy ...........................................................................
Sweden2 ............. .......................................................

1974

1977

.34
.76
2.29
.73
5.18
1.87
3.60
.02

.29
.99
2.05
.93
5.70
(’ )
3.42
.03

1Data not available.
2 Proportion covers only those designated to receive government subsidies under the 1959
law on apprentices. The unknown number of unsubsidized apprentices would raise Swedish
proportion.
S o urce : Beatrice G. Reubens, A pp re ntice sh ip in F o re ign Countries, R & D Monograph
77 (U S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1980), p. 12.

ing in many cases is unsatisfactory or nonexistent and
because dropout rates are extremely high (70 percent).16
Australia and Great Britain had about 2 percent of ci­
vilian employment in apprenticeships, and France and
Canada had about 1 percent. The United States had a
lower ratio than any other country except Sweden. Swe­
den has a small, legally recognized apprenticeship sec­
tor, subsidized by the government, but an unknown
number of unsubsidized apprentices are trained through
company programs, and these are not included in the
data in table 5.
Apprenticeship in North America has never acquired
the scope that it has in Europe. A young person in
North America can attain skilled status without com­
pleting apprenticeship training. This is not the case in
Europe. Furthermore, apprentices in North America
tend to be older than their European counterparts. The
average age of a Canadian apprentice is 23, and an
American, 25. By these ages many Europeans are al­
ready fully qualified journeymen, having begun their ap­
prenticeships at age 16 or 17. The use of veterans’ bene­
fits to fund apprenticeship in the United States has been
a significant factor in the higher average age of appren­
tices.
In response to rapid increases in youth unemploy­
ment, several foreign countries instituted government
subsidies to firms which took on new apprentices. Much
of this financial aid dates from 1975 or later. Germany
offered tax cuts and other subsidies to employers to en­
courage the hiring of apprentices and also introduced a
financial penalty for not doing so. A law passed in Sep­
tember 1976 provided that a payroll tax of up to 0.25
percent be levied on employers in any year that the to­
tal supply of apprenticeship places was not at least 12.5
percent above the total number of young people seeking
places.17 New apprenticeship contracts in Germany rose
markedly from 1976 through 1979, following several
years of little change. However, there were still a num­
ber of unsatisfied applicants for apprenticeship places
20,200 in 1979.

Guidance and counseling. Several European countries
and Japan have developed strong systems of services for
youth which, like apprenticeship systems, help smooth
the transition from school to work. These services pro­
vide extensive information, guidance, placement, induc­
tion, and followup activities. According to one expert,
the countries that seem to have the most effective tran­
sition systems are Germany, Japan, and Sweden.18These
countries offer a comprehensive set of services which are
conducive to the prearrangement of jobs, so that there
is little initial unemployment for a majority of school
leavers. Of course, a favorable economic climate also
encourages prearrangement. Without jobs, the best
guidance and counseling programs would be futile.
The public employment service in Japan reportedly
has an extensive role in the youth labor m arket.|g It
conducts guidance programs and provides information
to the education authorities, who in turn give vocational
orientation in the schools. The employment service esti­
mates the number of school leavers who will be seeking
jobs each March. It then informs employers of the po­
tential supply of workers from various educational lev­
els, collects job offers from employers, and escorts
students in groups to recruiting employers. Under nor­
mal economic conditions, most Japanese have pre­
arranged jobs before school ends. There is also an ex­
tensive post-employment guidance and vocational ad­
justment system conducted by the employment service.
Several unusual factors allow the Japanese system to
work as well as it does: The chronic shortage of young
workers, the high value placed on young workers by
hiring firms, and a tradition of conformity among em­
ployers permit the public employment service a high de­
gree of control over the placement of youths in their
first jobs.
The United States, Canada, and Italy rely on educa­
tional institutions to supply transition services. Because
of this, these countries have had difficulty providing a
comprehensive, integrated program. One researcher has
concluded that an array of countries according to the
difficulty of transition from school to work might place
the United States and Italy at the top.20There are fewer
prearranged jobs and more unemployment among new
entrants in Italy and the United States than in the other
European countries and in Japan. It has been said that
few American students are exposed to occupational or
labor market information and that many counselors and
teachers suffer from the same lack of knowledge.21
Youth minimum wage. Legislated wage differentials for
young workers are used on a very limited basis in the
United States. The Fair Labor Standards Act contains
provisions for subminimum wages for students and
learners, but these provisions have not been used to any
significant extent. In contrast, differentials between

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

youth and adult wages are common in Western Europe,
Canada, and Japan. Some countries legislate lower minimums for teenagers, and others permit collective
bargaining agreements to provide differential wages for
young workers. Still other countries use both mecha­
nisms.22
It has been argued that wage differentials between
teenagers and adults tend to facilitate the employment
of youth. One 1970 study concluded: “The evidence
from abroad indicates that low wages for youth are an
inducement to employers to seek young workers eager­
ly. The relatively low youth unemployment rates abroad
. . . are partially a reflection of the fact of low wages for
youth.” 23
This study pointed out that low wages for youth
abroad do not exist separately from extensive appren­
ticeship programs in such countries as Germany and
Great Britain, and from the lifetime employment system
in Japan under which high wages in later years with the
firm offset low youth wages. Also, the experience of for­
eign countries having institutions different from those in
the United States has limited application for American
teenagers, who are much more likely to be looking for
part-time rather than permanent jobs.
Recent evidence indicates that the relative costs of
employing young workers have changed abroad. De­
spite youth minimums, the actual postwar trend in
earnings has favored youth over other age groups.
Thus, there has been a narrowing of the actual wage
differential between youth and adult workers. For in­
stance, a recent British study reveals that pay for young
people has risen considerably in relation to that of
adults. Average hourly earnings of male manual work­
ers under 21 as a percent of adult male earnings were
45 percent in 1948; 48 percent in 1960; 52 percent in
1970; and 62 percent in 1977.24
Minority group unemployment. The United States has
had exceptionally high levels of unemployment for
black youth. In 1978, black teenagers had an unemploy­
ment rate about two and one-half times that for white
teenagers. Furthermore, this racial disparity in unem­
ployment experience has been worsening since the
mid-1960’s.25 The special labor market problems of
American black and other minority youth are un­
matched in Europe, Australia, or Japan, and help to ex­
plain the relatively high youth unemployment in the
United States.
Other countries do have minority youth employment
problems, often arising from religious and cultural,
rather than racial, differences. For example, nations
which admitted large numbers of foreign workers on a
temporary basis during the labor-short 1960’s found
that many of these workers settled in the host country,
and married locally or brought wives and children from
13

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Youth Unemployment
home. Children of these immigrants faced a less favor­
able economic climate than their parents, and their edu­
cational and social differences often proved to be
disadvantages in the labor market. However, these and
other minority unemployment problems abroad have
less impact in the aggregate, because minority groups in
other countries are not as large proportionately as in
the United States.
For example, comparative statistics for Sweden and
the United States provide some insight into the diferences in the impact of minority unemployment on
youth joblessness. Children of foreign workers in Swe­
den, frequently more poorly educated, and not speaking
Swedish, have an unemployment rate much higher than
native youth. The foreign-born accounted for 8.8 per­
cent of total teenage unemployment and 5.7 percent of
the teenage labor force in Sweden during the second
quarter of 1979. By contrast, in the United States,
blacks and other minorities accounted for 24 percent of
total teenage unemployment and 11 percent of the labor
force in 1978. The contrast between the two nations is
also marked for young adults. Immigrants made up 8.3
percent of the young adults unemployed in Sweden and
6.4 percent of the labor force. The corresponding figures
for U.S. blacks and other minorities were 29 percent
and 14 percent, respectively.
Minority group unemployment is also a problem in
Great Britain, particularly among young Asians and
West Indians. A special survey conducted in 1977-78

revealed unemployment rates of over 11 percent for
those of minority ethnic origin born in the United
Kingdom and over 7 percent for those of white ethnic
origin.26 Yet, in terms of total unemployment, the prob­
lem of minorities in Great Britain is much smaller than
in the United States. In 1977-78, British minority
groups accounted for 4.4 percent of total unemploy­
ment. In the United States, minorities make up almost
25 percent.
W h i l e c e r t a i n of the countries studied have been
able to keep youth unemployment rates relatively low,
all recorded rising rates during the 1970’s. Economic
growth in industrialized nations dropped precipitously
in 1974 and 1975 and moved upward slowly thereafter.
At the same time, the number of young persons in the
labor force began to increase in several countries after
many years of decline. The turnaround in demographic
trends during a period of slow growth contributed to
higher youth unemployment. Another factor in a num­
ber of countries has been the strengthening of employ­
ment protection legislation to the point where it
reportedly adversely affects youth job opportunities. Fi­
nally, the narrowing of wage differentials between
youths and adults has put youth at a cost disadvantage.
In short, over the last decade, conditions in other
countries which had contributed to low youth unem­
ployment in the past began to change in a way adverse
to youth employment opportunities.
□

FOOTNOTES

' F o r this study, the term s “ y o u th " and “ young people” refer to the
broad category of persons under 25 years of age. T his group is divid­
ed between “ young a d u lts” — the 20- to 24-year-old group — and
“ teenagers” — those under 20 years of age. (The lower age limit for
teenagers varies from 14 to 16 am ong the countries studied.) “ A d u lts”
describes persons 25 and over.

" F or further discussion and charts on birth rate trends, see G o r­
don, Y o u th E d u c a tio n , pp. 17-20. See also Beatrice G. R eubens and
others, T h e Y o u th L a b o r F orce 1 9 4 5 - 1 9 9 5 : A C ro s s-n a tio n a l A n a ly s is
(M ontclair, N .J., A llanheld, O sm un and Co., 1981), Ch. 2.

See I n 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
(Bureau of L abor Statistics, 1978), A ppendix C, for a description of
the m ethods used to derive com parable unem ploym ent and labor
force d ata by age. The appendix to Y ou th U n e m p lo y m e n t: A n I n te r n a ­
tio n a l P ersp ective, Bulletin 2098 (Bureau of L abor Statistics, forthcom ­
ing) will present a detailed discussion of the im portant issues relating
to international com parability of youth statistics.

' 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 r e sid e n t (W ashington,
U.S. G overnm ent Printing Office, 1978), p. 75; Y o u th U n e m p lo y m e n t
a n d M in im u m W ages, Bulletin 1657 (Bureau of L abor Statistics,
1970), pp. 128-31 and 183; and N orm an Bowers, “Y oung and m ar­
ginal: an overview of youth unem ploym ent,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,
O ctober 1979, pp. 4-5.

M arcia Freedm an, “T he Y outh L abor M arket,” in F ro m S c h o o l to
W o rk : I m p r o v in g th e T ra n sitio n , a collection of policy papers prepared
for the N ational Com m ission for M anpow er Policy (W ashington, U.S.
G overnm ent Printing Office, 1976), p. 24.

U n e m p lo y m e n t, pp. 23-26.

4 M argaret S. G o rd o n , Y ou th E d u c a tio n a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t P r o b ­
le m s: A n I n te r n a tio n a l P e rsp e c tiv e (Berkeley, Calif., C arnegie Council
on Policy Studies in H igher E ducation, 1979), p. 55.
O rganization for E conom ic C ooperation and D evelopm ent, A u s tr a ­
lia: T ra n sitio n f r o m S c h o o l to W o rk o r F u r th e r S tu d y , O E C D Reviews
of N ational Policies for E ducation (Paris, O E C D , 1977), p. 47; In ter­
national L abour Office, S o m e G ro w in g E m p lo y m e n t P r o b le m s in E u ­
ro p e (G eneva, ILO , 1974), p. 48; K laus von D ohnanyi, E d u c a tio n a n d
Y ou th E m p lo y m e n t in th e F e d e r a l R e p u b lic o f G e r m a n y (Berkeley,
Calif., Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in H igher E ducation,
1978), p. 38; an d “ C onsidering E m ploym ent: U nem ployed (Part
tw o),” M a in ic h i (Japanese new spaper), Dec. 3, 1977, p. 7.

Digitized for
14 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Beatrice G. Reubens, “ Foreign and A m erican Experience with the
Y outh T ran sitio n ,” in F ro m S c h o o l to W o rk , p. 274.

F o r further data and discussion, see I n te r n a tio n a l C o m p a riso n s o f
" U n q u a lifie d , U n tra in e d , a n d U n e m p lo y e d , R eport of a W orking
P arty set up by the N ational Y outh Em ploym ent Council (L ondon,
H er M ajesty’s Stationery Office, 1974), p. 1.
11 John G ennard,
O E C D , 1979).

Job

S e c u r ity

and

I n d u s tr ia l

R e la tio n s

(Paris,

Study quoted in von D ohnanyi, E d u c a tio n a n d Y o u th E m p lo y m e n t
in G e rm a n y , p. 34.

’ R eubens, “ Foreign and A m erican Experience with the Y outh
T ran sitio n ,” p. 287; and O rganization for Econom ic C ooperation and
D evelopm ent, R e v ie w o f th e L a b o r M a r k e t S itu a tio n in L e s s I n d u s tr ia l­
iz e d M e m b e r C o u n tr ie s (Paris, O E C D , 1978), unpublished.
14 International L abour Office, S o m e G ro w in g E m p lo y m e n t P r o b le m s
in E u ro p e (G eneva, ILO, 1974), p. 48.
Beatrice G. Reubens, “ Foreign E xperience,” in R e p o r t o f C o n g res-

sional Budget O ffic e Conference on the T eenage U nem ploym ent P ro b ­
lem: W hat A re the O ptions? (W ashington, U.S. G overnm ent Printing
Office, 1976), p. 55.

form ational and C ounselor N eeds in the T ransition Process,” in F ro m
S c h o o l to W o rk , p. 193.

Beatrice G. R eubens, A p p re n tic e s h ip in F oreign C o u n trie s, R and
D M onograph 77 (U.S. D epartm ent of L abor, E m ploym ent and
T raining A dm in istratio n, 1980), p. 11.

of L abor Statistics, 1970), Ch. 6.

7 R eubens, A p p re n tic e s h ip in F oreign C o u n trie s, p. 58.
Beatrice G. R eubens, F ro m L e a r n in g to E a rn in g : A T r a n s n a tio n a l
C o m p a riso n o f T ra n sitio n S ervices, R and D M onograph 63 (U.S. D e­
p artm en t of L abor, E m ploym ent and T raining A dm inistration, 1979),
pp. 11-14; and R eubens, “ Foreign and A m erican E xperience,” p. 291.
1 R eubens, F ro m L e a r n in g to E a rn in g , p. 13.
"" R eubens, “ Foreign and A m erican E xperience,” p. 283.
Ben Burdetsky, “ T roubled T ransition: F rom School to W ork,”
W o rk life, N ovem ber 1976, p. 2. See also Seym our L. W olfbein, “ In ­


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

Y o u th U n e m p lo y m e n t a n d M in im u m W ages, Bulletin 1657 (Bureau

T hom as W. G avett, “Y outh unem ploym ent
wages,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , M arch 1970, p. 9.

and

m inim um

4 “T he Y oung and O ut of W ork,” D e p a r tm e n t o f E m p lo y m e n t G a ­
z e tte , A ugust 1978, p. 908.

“ See Bowers, “Y oung and m arginal: an overview of youth em ploy­
m en t,” pp. 5-7; and C urtis L. G ilroy, “ Black and w hite
unem ploym ent: the dynam ics of the differential,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e ­
view , F ebruary 1974, pp. 38-47.
" A nn Barber, “ E thnic Origin and the L abor F orce,” D e p a r tm e n t o f
E m p lo y m e n t G a ze tte , A ugust 1980, pp. 841-48.

The role of part-time work
Organized labor in every industrial country views part-time work
with concern. There is no question that the proliferation of part-time
jobs has a negative impact on full-time employment. In many cases
these jobs represent a downgrading of jobs that once were full time.
(There are exceptions, such as retail trade, where this pattern has long
been part of the nature of the business.) Part-time work also tends to
undermine labor standards and depress wage levels.
On the other hand, there is certainly a place for permanent parttime work, and there are benefits to be derived for workers who truly
perfer working part time, or must do so. Such employees include stu­
dents, elderly people, the physically handicapped, parents with small
children, and persons with other special needs.
Sweden has moved forward rapidly in this area through both na­
tional legislation and collective bargaining. Part-time workers receive
full medical benefits under the Swedish health security program and
full credit toward retirement. Unions are working to raise pay rates
for part-timers so that in some cases it is hard to distinguish between
part-time and short-time jobs. This is in considerable contrast to the
United States, where some part-time workers have no fringe benefits
and the vast majority have their medical insurance and pension bene­
fits reduced or prorated.
“Innovation in Working
Patterns.” Transatlantic
Perspectives, January 1981, p. 28.

15

The 1978-80 pay guidelines:
meeting the need for flexibility
Any anti-inflation program which caps wages
must include provisions
fo r the special needs o f individual firms,
lest economic hardship fa ll disproportionately
on certain industries or worker groups
L

u c r e t ia

D

ew ey

Tanner

and

M

ary

Converse

On October 25, 1978, President Carter announced a
program of voluntary pay and price guidelines designed
to dampen inflationary expectations. Responsibility for
administering the guidelines was given to the Council
on Wage and Price Stability, an organization estab­
lished by Congress in 1974 to monitor developments in
the economy. Recognizing that strict adherence to rigid
standards for pay increases might not always be possi­
ble or equitable, the council created a system to review
companies’ requests for relief (“pay exceptions”) from
the guidelines. This article describes the administration
of the standard and analyses the types and numbers of
pay exception requests submitted to the council during
the 2 years of the anti-inflation program.

A general framework
As originally designed, the pay standard allowed a
simple 7-percent average annual adjustment encom­
passing all wage and benefit increases negotiated under
a collective bargaining agreement or granted under a
pay plan. Parties negotiating multi-year contracts dur­
ing the program were permitted to allocate the com­
pound annual average standard of 7 percent unequally
over the contract term, so long as the increase in any
L ucretia Dewey T anner, form erly A ssistant D irector for the Office of
Pay M onitoring, Council on W age and Price Stability, is now an
econom ist with the Federal M ediation and C onciliation Service. M ary
Converse, form erly an econom ist with the Office of Pay M onitoring, is
now C o o rd in ato r of Reference and R esearch for the A ssociation of
Flight A tten d an ts, a f l -c i o .

Digitized for
16 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

year did not exceed 8 percent. Thus, a 3-year pact
might provide compensation increases of 8 percent the
first year, 7 percent the second, and 6 percent the third,
for a compounded total of 21.5 percent over the life of
the agreement. And, if subsequent changes in employee
mix as a result of turnover reduced the actual annual
pay raise below the level anticipated at the beginning of
the year, companies were permitted to carry over the
unused portion of the increase into the second program
year. The first-year standard was in effect from October
1, 1978, through September 30, 1979, and evolved over
that period from a general guideline into a precise and
rigid set of computations and procedures for monitoring
pay increases and for reviewing exceptions.
Cooperating employers were required to distinguish
three types of “employee units” within their organiza­
tions: all management employees, generally defined as
those exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act; each
group of employees subject to a collective bargaining
contract; and all other employees. The average increase
for each separate employee unit had to be in compliance
with the standard, although individual workers within a
unit could receive more or less than the guideline
amount. For example, a company employing a number
of engineers — professionals in high demand — within a
larger unit might find it difficult to retain these workers
and recruit others without offering them a substantial
pay increase. If the unit’s other workers were granted at
least the guideline increase, the entire unit would be in
noncompliance with the standard. Thus, the employer

might choose to grant raises below the standard to oth­
er workers in the unit to offset the increase for engi­
neers. (In practice, such differential increases often
strained firms’ internal pay structures, and employers
were permitted instead to request pay exceptions for
targeted subgroups within a unit.)
The average wage rate for the employee unit, com­
bined with the cost of benefits, constituted the pay-rate
base for calculation of the 7-percent increase. Federally
mandated payroll taxes for social security, workers’
compensation, and unemployment insurance were ex­
cluded from the definition of pay. And, increased costs
of health insurance were not charged against the stan­
dard if new benefits were not added or existing benefits
improved. As additional refinements were made, the
council outlined them in special publications, or in the
form of “Questions and Answers” which appeared in
the Federal Register over the program’s duration.
As the first year drew to a close, the Carter Adminis­
tration established an 18-member Pay Advisory Com­
mittee, composed of representatives of labor,
management, and the general public, which was to
make recommendations for the second year of the pro­
gram. While the committee deliberated, the council is­
sued interim standards which loosened the 7-percent
standard, beginning October 1, 1979, for those employ­
ees not covered by automatic cost-of-living adjustments
( c o l a ’s ). This interim standard of 8 percent was in ef­
fect until March 13, 1980, when the second-year stan­
d ard — a pay increase range of 7.5 to 9.5 percent made
retroactive to October 1, 1979— was announced. The
second-year pay standard was allowed to lapse, and the
formal pay and price program was officially terminated
by President Reagan’s Executive Order issued on Janu­
ary 29, 1981.

The exceptions policy
Of course, few exceptions to a wage guideline are re­
quired when the standard adopted is close to the size of
the increases that would otherwise be granted. By con­
trast, a strict standard produces a sizable volume of re­
quests from employers with special problems. As the in­
flation rate edged upward, the first-year standard
became even stricter than had initially been envisioned,
and the unexpectedly large numbers of incoming re­
quests for exceptions were viewed with greater sympa­
thy.
On the other hand, the more liberal second-year
standard generated fewer submissions. The council re­
ceived almost 700 exception requests during the first
year and 360 in the second; most of the second-year
cases arose during the October 1979-March 1980 inter­
im period when the stricter 7-percent standard (8 per­
cent for units without automatic C O L A protection) was
still in place.

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

Over the life of the guidelines program, exception re­
quests affected about 2 million employees. While sub­
missions covered as few as two individuals and as many
as 150,000, about 65 percent were for fewer than 1,000
people, mostly in employee units of 100 to 500 workers.
About two-thirds of all submissions were for nonunion
employees.
Criteria for exceptions were adopted in part from the
Economic Stabilization Program of the early 1970’s
which had, in turn, borrowed from the experience of
previous control periods. For example, both programs
included exceptions to maintain pre-existing wage and
benefit relationships between employee units (tandem).
“Essential employees” of the Economic Stabilization
Program became the “acute labor shortage” category
under the voluntary standards, and the catch-all excep­
tion— gross inequity or severe hardship — was common
to both. But unlike the earlier program, which limited
the amount of the increase available under any type of
exception to 1.5 percent above the 5.5-percent pay stan­
dard, the 1978-80 program imposed no limit to the ad­
ditional amount that could be requested or granted.
Exception requests were reviewed on a case-by-case
basis and assigned to one of the 18 labor economists or
analysts in the council’s Office of Pay Monitoring. Each
staff member determined the adequacy of the support­
ing data supplied by the company and was responsible
for the initial decision to approve or deny the request.
In many situations, council staff met with firm represen­
tatives to discuss specific problems and offer suggestions
for developing the data required to meet criteria for one
of the exceptions.
To ensure consistency and efficiency in council excep­
tion procedures, certain rules were established. Because
the council could not examine every pay decision, it
limited requests for exceptions to situations affecting at
least 100 people in a company having at least 1,000 em­
ployees, or to collective bargaining agreements covering
at least 1,000 workers regardless of the number of
workers employed by each signatory firm.
A show of “good cause” for an employee unit of any
size was also sufficient for the council to issue a deci­
sion. Good cause could mean that a company and
union had reached a labor contract contingent on the
council’s approval, or that a company was required to
demonstrate compliance in order to bid on a Federal
contract of $5 million or more. While many submissions
were eligible for council consideration on both grounds,
almost three-fourths were eligible because they met the
size requirement. Another 16 percent were from parties
to contingent labor contracts, and 6 percent sought ap­
proval in order for firms to bid on government con­
tracts. The remaining cases were eligible on miscel­
laneous grounds, including the need to demonstrate to a
public utility rate commission that labor cost increases
17

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • 1978-80 Pay Guidelines
had council approval, or as a prior defense to the coun­
cil’s issuing a notice of probable noncompliance.
Over the life of the guidelines program, notices of
probable noncompliance (termed “notices of inquiry”
during the second program year) were issued in 65 situ­
ations in which there was reason to believe that in­
creases being paid exceeded the standard. The council
was able to discover some of these situations from the
p a y -1 reports on wages and salaries submitted periodi­
cally by large firms; other notices were issued on the
basis of informal reports of possible noncompliance
from secondary sources.
Initially the council self-imposed a 20-day turnaround
from receipt of an exception request to the date a deci­
sion was issued. This quick response was difficult to
achieve for many cases, particularly those requiring ad­
ditional information. Although it later revised its sched­
ule, the council was able to average a reasonably quick
response time of about 40 days, although some submis­
sions took considerably longer.

Types of exceptions
Four exception categories were outlined under the
first-year pay standards: tandem compensation relation­
ships between employee units; productivity increases re­
sulting from union work rule changes; acute labor
shortage; and gross inequity or undue hardship, which
might represent any number of circumstances. The sec­
ond-year program modified these categories by (1) add­
ing a catchup category for employee units without costof-living protection, and (2) broadening the definition of
tandem relationships and permitting companies to selfadminister the tandem exception. In 2 years more than
a thousand cases were submitted to the council for ap­
proval. Table 1 shows the distribution of these cases by
type of exception justification.
Gross inequity exceptions. More than 40 percent of the
cases in each of the 2 years were reviewed as gross ineq­
uity exceptions. Many of these were originally submit­
ted as other exception types, but ultimately were
considered on the basis of gross inequity if the informa­
tion provided did not strictly meet the requirements of
the original category. To qualify for a gross inequity ex­

Table 1.

Cases by type of exception
First year

Second year

Total

Exception type
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
T o ta .........................

684

100.0

358

100.0

1,042

100.0

Gross inequity ....................
Labor shortage....................
Tandem ...............................
Non-COLA catchup ...........
Productivity ........................

299
148
177
35
25

43.7
21.6
25.9
5.1
3.7

169
71
19
86
13

47.2
19.8
5.3
24.0
3.6

468
219
196
121
38

44.9
21.0
18.8
11.6
3.6


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

ception, a company was required to provide evidence
that compliance with the pay standard was manifestly
unfair to the affected employees, or so threatened the
firm’s financial viability as to create a hardship.
Although employers often cited a combination of rea­
sons for a gross inequity exception, the most frequently
mentioned were wage compression or other disruptions
of internal pay practices requiring additional increases
to restore traditional differentials between employee
groups. Of all gross inequity submissions, almost onethird of the first-year cases and more than two-fifths of
second-year requests included such justifications. A
common type of compression involved the disappear­
ance of traditional differentials between first-line super­
visors and the persons they supervised. This situation
often arose because nonsupervisory employees had wage
protection under an automatic cost-of-living provision
and received payment for overtime work, but their su­
pervisors did not.
Another frequent claim was disruption of pay rela­
tionships in an area labor market or deviation from an
established industry pattern. Other circumstances sup­
porting a gross inequity exception included a high pro­
portion of workers in an employee unit earning less
than the first-year low-wage exemption of $4 per hour,
increasing turnover rates, and productivity improve­
ments. A number of requests originally submitted as
acute labor shortage or tandem exceptions failed to
meet the strict criteria established for these categories,
but were reviewed as gross inequities when the combi­
nation of circumstances contributed to a hardship situa­
tion. The following tabulation shows the distribution of
gross inequity exception requests according to the
grounds specified:
Grounds
Disruption of pay practices or
internal compression .....................
Follows area wage pattern ...................
“Near” acute labor s h o r ta g e ................
“Near” ta n d e m ........................................
Follows industry wage p a tte r n .............
O th e r ..........................................................

Percent of requests'
37
30
24
20
15
17

Acute labor shortage. The next largest group of requests
sought acute labor shortage exceptions, which permitted
increases above the standard when it was necessary for
companies to attract and retain employees in specific
job categories. In such cases, the council expected the
company to document the problem, and asked for evi­
dence showing that there had been unusual increases in
the proportion of vacancies in the designated jobs and
in the time required to fill those vacancies during the
preceding quarter, compared to the experience of the
past 2 years. Companies were also expected to demon­
strate that pay rates for entry level employees in these

job categories had risen abnormally over the past 2
years. (An additional requirement that the local em­
ployment service agency certify that an acute labor
shortage existed was informally dropped during the first
year; the procedure proved to be cumbersome and the
employment agencies were not primary clearing houses
for highly skilled and professional jobs.) Companies un­
able to provide the necessary data were sometimes
asked to submit the request as a gross inequity claim if
additional evidence of hardship could be documented.
The labor shortage exception category usually in­
volved highly skilled professional or technical personnel
in short supply either nationally or in specific local mar­
kets. For example, more than half of all acute labor
shortage requests were for computer specialists, engi­
neers, and registered nurses. The number of requests for
employees working in California and Texas far exceeded
those submitted from other States, and accounted for
more than one-third of all acute labor shortage cases.
This reflects the expansion of the electronics, aerospace,
and scientific instrument industries in California and the
growth of oil and gas exploration in Texas. Almost all
exceptions on behalf of registered nurses were submitted
by hospitals in California and Arizona.
Tandem exceptions. Follower units justified tandem ex­
ceptions on several grounds. The most frequent was the
assertion that the leader unit operated under a collective
bargaining contract signed before the October 25, 1978,
announcement of the pay standard; because the leader’s
contract was thus exempt from the guidelines, the fol­
lower unit which traditionally received the same in­
creases should also be eligible for exclusion. Another
reason commonly cited was that, although the leader’s
cents-per-hour pay increase was in conformance with
the standard, this same amount would raise the follow­
er’s percentage increase above the standard because its
base pay rate was lower. Similarly, because a leader
with a multi-year contract or pay plan could exclude
portions of COLA payments for compliance purposes, a
follower without COLA protection was required to docu­
ment a tandem relationship before implementing the
same increases. Finally, collective bargaining contracts
were permitted to “front load” the first year of an
agreement— that is, to negotiate a first-year increase 1
percent above the standard if the increases over the life
of the agreement compounded to the standard; thus, a
follower unit might request the same ability to front
load.
The nearly 200 tandem exception requests were sub­
mitted primarily during the first program year, because
the second-year standard was changed both to broaden
the definition and to permit self-administration. During
the first year the council imposed a narrow definition of
tandem, requiring that past pay increases of the two

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

employee units, the leader and the follower, had been
equal in value and directly related in timing over the
previous 6 years. In addition, the council initially
adopted a very rigid rule that the amounts of increase,
either in cents per hour or percent, be exactly equal in
the two units over the 6-year preguideline period; how­
ever, this rule was later modified to permit some minor
deviation. If a precise tandem could not be demonstrat­
ed, but the past pay increases of one unit had closely
followed the pattern established by another, the case
might be termed a “near” tandem and be reviewed for a
gross inequity exception.
Tandem exception requests most frequently involved
follower units of nonunion, nonmanagement employees
seeking approval to implement pay increases in tandem
to a unionized leader unit within the same company.
Nonunion units accounted for 57 percent of all tandem
followers, while unionized followers accounted for the
balance.
Forty-five separate unions were identified as leader
units in tandem pay relationships. The Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers Union (A F L -C io ) predominated as a
tandem leader. Three other major leaders were the Inter­
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (A F L -C io ),
the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (Ind.), and the Interna­
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware­
housemen and Helpers of America (Ind.). Although col­
lective bargaining units accounted for the vast majority
of the leaders, nonunion units at both the management
and nonmanagement levels were also occasionally cited
as tandem leaders.
One-half of the tandem cases proposed implementing
a complete tandem, adopting all the wage and benefit
improvements of the leader unit; nearly one-third of the
followers sought to tandem only the wage portion of
the package, as shown below:
Types o f tandem requests

Percent o f requests1

Full tandem ........................................

50

Partial tandem:
W ages...........................................
Health and welfare .....................
Vacation, or holiday, or both . . .
P ension........................................
Other ..........................................

31
9
8
8
6

The council’s treatment of the tandem exception was
one of the first issues reviewed by the Pay Advisory
Committee, which recommended changes to liberalize
the category. The committee advised that this exception
be applied when pay-rate changes in an employee unit
had been linked regularly to a survey of pay-rate chang­
es in an identified labor market. Additionally, it
recommended that “substantially equivalent over a peri19

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • 1978-80 Pay Guidelines
od of years” be substituted for the stringent “exactly
equal” requirement, and furthermore, that the leaderfollower relationship need not be in the same company,
industry, or geographical area. It also proposed that
tandem exceptions be self-administered by firms, as long
as the council was notified of such action. After the
council adopted these principles only a few companies
submitted tandem requests.
Productivity work rule changes. This exception permitted
employees under collective bargaining contracts to
boost productivity by modifying work rules in exchange
for pay increases not exceeding the value of resulting
cost reductions. Thirty-eight exception requests fell into
this category. Other submissions which included some
productivity-improving changes but which primarily
documented an exception on other grounds were re­
viewed as gross inequities. Most typical of the work
rule changes submitted were those which adjusted rest
periods and holidays to permit continuous plant opera­
tion without penalty to the company; reduced or elimi­
nated occupational classifications to allow greater flex­
ibility of job assignments; and placed restrictions on
job-bidding procedures to stabilize work assignments
and to lower training costs. Savings were projected over
the coming year, but the council made no provision to
verify the savings at the conclusion of the period.
Non-COLA catchup. This category was initiated during
the interim period (October 1979-March 1980) and for­
malized as an exception during the second program
year. Its purpose was to remedy inequities that devel­
oped between employee units covered by automatic
cost-of-living adjustments and those without such pro­
tection. Even before the second-year establishment of
the catchup, however, the council reviewed some 35
first-year cases as gross inequities on this basis.
Because the pay standard allowed cost-of-living for­
mulas tied to the CPI to be costed at a projected infla­
tion rate much lower than the actual CPI increase, units
with COLA provisions could receive pay increases above
the guidelines and above those for units without such
protection. During the first program year, COLA clauses
were costed prospectively, assuming a 6-percent annual
rise in the CPI; any amount generated by increases
above 6 percent could be excluded for purposes of com­
pliance. The second-year guidelines assumed 7.5-percent
CPI growth. But employee units without automatic
COLA provisions were fully charged for general wage in­
creases, even if part of their pay raise was designated a
“cost of living” increase but was not based on a prede­
termined formula.
The catchup category was designed to restore histori­
cal relationships between COLA and non-COLA units,
where they had existed within a company or an area.
Digitized20
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Virtually all non-COLA catchup requests sought relief on
these grounds.

Exception decisions
The council approved almost 90 percent of the sub­
missions and granted partial approval in another 5 per­
cent of all cases not closed administratively or
withdrawn. Requests were denied in 66 situations repre­
senting the remaining 7 percent. The council closed 159
incoming requests, or 15 percent of all cases, without is­
suing a decision, usually because the unit consisted of
fewer than 100 people. In these situations, the company
was told it could self-administer the exception and ad­
vised to retain documentation of the action. Occasional­
ly the staff advised a company that the council would
not approve a request and suggested that the proposed
pay increase be reduced and resubmitted, or that the
submission be withdrawn, because the increase was not
adequately substantiated. Employers had the right to
appeal a council decision and did so in 30 of the 66 de­
nials. Twenty of the appeals were able to demonstrate
their cause and the council reversed its decision, three
were again denied, two were partially approved, and
five were withdrawn or administratively closed. As table
2 shows, the council approved about the same propor­
tion of cases in both program years. Partial approvals,
however, rose from 2.5 percent of all cases in the first
year to almost 9 percent in the second, and denials de­
clined from 8.5 percent to slightly more than 2 percent.

Increases requested and granted
Data on the exception amounts requested and
granted and the number of employees involved within
individual units were available for 503 requests— 294 in
the first year and 209 in the second. The amounts of the
exceptions varied considerably, from less than 1 percent
to more than 20 percent on a per-case basis. A useful
measure of the aggregate impact of pay exceptions
weights the excepted pay increases by the number of
employees affected. This method shows that first-year
increases requested averaged 2.1 percent over the 7-per­
cent standard for those employees directly affected, and
1.5 percent when this amount was spread over the en­
tire employee unit. (See table 3.)

Table 2.

Exception cases by decision
First year

Second year

Total

Decision
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total

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

684

100.0

358

100.0

1,042

100.0

Approved ...........................
Partially approved .............
Denied ...............................
Administratively closed or
withdrawn ......................

505
17
58

73.8
2.5
8.5

264
31
8

73.7
8.7
2.2

769
48
66

73.8
4.6
6.3

104

15.2

55

15.3

159

15.3

Table 3. Weighted average above-standard increases
requested and granted in pay exception cases, and
numbers of employees and cases involved
Pay exception cases

First year

Second year

Percent requested:
For u n it..........................................................
For affected employees...............................

1.5
2.1

2.7
3.1

Percent granted:
To unit ..........................................................
To affected employees ...............................

1.1
1.5

2.4
2.8

Number of employees:
In u n its ..........................................................
In affected g ro u p s........................................

840,913
584,685

905,868
748,768

Number of cases .................................................

294

209

In some instances, amounts granted were less than
amounts requested. If, for example, the information
submitted indicated that a lesser increase would suffice
to restore a unit’s historical position, the council deter­
mined that the full amount would not be required.
Thus, the average first-year exception amount granted
was 1.5 percent for the employees who would directly
receive the compensation increases, and about 1 percent
when the money was distributed over the entire unit.
Second-year requests and amounts granted in excess
of the standard were not only larger absolutely than
those for the first year, but were also placed on top of a
more generous 9.5-percent pay standard. Second-year
amounts granted averaged 2.8 percent for affected em­
ployees and 2.4 percent for the entire unit, while
amounts requested averaged 3 percent and 2.7 percent,
respectively.
Submissions based on non-COLA catchup requested
and were granted the largest percentage amounts for en­
tire employee units in both program years. Acute labor
shortage exceptions, however, accounted for the highest
increases requested and granted for specific employees.
Information concerning the increase amounts ap­
proved apparently overstates the impact of exceptions
on increases actually paid to employees, because compa­
nies did not always implement the full amount of an ap­


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

proved exception. The council attempted to determine if
and how much of the approved increases were actually
paid. This was done by checking, when possible, infor­
mation submitted by companies on the PA Y -1 forms.
During the first program year, the council requested all
companies with 10,000 or more employees to provide
on these forms complete data on the average hourly
cost of wages and benefits, both on a prospective basis
and after actual increases were implemented. In the sec­
ond year the reporting threshold was dropped to in­
clude companies with 5,000 or more workers. Thus,
while company data are not available for each excep­
tion, the PA Y -1 forms do indicate that companies which
were granted exceptions did not always find it necessary
to implement the full amount requested, or that as a re­
sult of unexpected turnover and changes in the compo­
sition of the unit, the percentage impact of increases
actually granted was smaller than anticipated.
A L T H O U G H T H E g e n e r a l philosophy of those adminis­
tering and monitoring the 1978-80 voluntary pay guide­
lines was in keeping with the original anti-inflation
objective, it soon became clear that some companies
needed relief from what became an absolute standard.
Thus, procedures for granting exceptions were devel­
oped. While the council received more requests for such
exceptions than anticipated— about 1,000 cases cover­
ing 2 million workers— this number represented a small
fraction of the pay decisions made throughout the entire
economy over the same period. Companies seeking ex­
ceptions were generally large corporations which had
pledged their support of the program and wished to
avoid the adverse publicity given noncompliers; firms
under price scrutiny; or bidders on large government
contracts that required full compliance.
□

---------- F O O T N O T E ----------1Because cases m ight appear under m ore than one category, total
m ay exceed 100 percent.

21

Public and private pay levels:
a comparison in large labor markets
City government workers in major localities
earn less than private industry counterparts,
but they enjoy comparable leave benefits;
since 1975, clerical sta ff in both sectors
have gained ground on Federal employees
F

e l ic e

Po

rter and

R

ic h a r d

L. K

eller

Local government workers in 27 of the Nation’s largest
cities' generally fared less well than those in private in­
dustry during the late 1970’s, as fiscal constraints tight­
ened municipal purse strings. Despite losing ground to
the private sector (and to Federal blue-collar employ­
ees), clerical workers in city governments increased their
pay advantage over Federal Government clericals whose
pay raises in recent years have been “capped” by Presi­
dential decisions. Paralleling patterns in private indus­
try, the highest paying city governments typically were
in the North Central States and in the West and the
lowest paying were in the South.
These findings are based on an analysis of municipal
government wage surveys, conducted by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics between the summer of 1974 and fall of
1980, in cities with approximately 500,000 inhabitants
or more at the time of the 1970 census.2 The surveys
covered selected occupations in all functions of each
city, except schools and hospitals. However, some func­
tions such as local transit and utilities may be integral
parts of one municipal government but handled sepa­
rately (for example, by private industry) in another.
Limitations on comparing data presented in this article
include: varying workweeks among city governments;
consolidation of city occupational titles; the paucity of
city government data for some occupations; differences
in the geographic coverage of private industry data,
Felice P orter and R ichard L. Keller are econom ists in the Division of
O ccupational W age S tructures, Bureau of L abor Statistics.

Digitized22for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

which pertain to Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas rather than just to cities; differences in the indus­
trial composition of private industry occupational data;
and subtle variations in occupational duties and respon­
sibilities among city governments, private industry, and
Federal installations. Notwithstanding the limitations of
the data, these surveys provide a base for occupational
wage comparisons among city governments and among
three components of local labor m arkets— private in­
dustry, the Federal Government, and city government.3

Pay trends
During 1975-80, nearly all city governments studied
showed a change in their pay relationships to private in­
dustry for clerical or skilled maintenance workers, or
both. Over the period, a 4-percent average pay advan­
tage for clerical workers in city governments over their
private industry counterparts slipped to a 2-percent dis­
advantage; and for skilled maintenance workers, an av­
erage 7-percent advantage turned into a 3-percent
disadvantage. Whereas 13 city governments paid clerical
employees at least 3 percent more than private industry
in 1975, only eight did so in 1980. For skilled mainte­
nance workers, the number of city governments provid­
ing pay advantages over the private sector remained at
nine, but they were not necessarily the same govern­
ments in both years; the size of the advantages dropped
sharply over the period — by 8 percent or m ore— in
each of the seven city governments maintaining advan­
tages between 1975 and 1980. (See table 1.)

While falling behind private industry, the clerical staff
in city governments showed an improved pay picture in
relation to their Federal Government counterparts.
Their average pay advantage grew from 8 percent in
1975 to 13 percent by 1980; 11 cities recorded at least a
3-percent increase in their pay relationships to the Fed­
eral sector, while only four showed a decline of similar
magnitude. This contrasts with the experience of city
maintenance workers who saw a 6-percent pay advan­
tage over their Federal counterparts turn into a 3-per­
cent disadvantage; maintenance workers in 19 cities
recorded a deterioration in their pay position. Largely
influencing these inverse trends are the varied wage
movements of two different Federal pay systems— the
nationwide General Schedule ( g s ) covering white-collar
employees, and the Federal Wage System ( f w s ) for
blue-collar and service workers which is based on pre­
vailing rates in selected local industries. The latter sys­
tem showed a larger average increase (45 percent) than
did the former (38 percent) during 1975-80.

forces of local labor markets, needs and complexities of
the cities, tax structures and financial resources, and the
economic power of individual bargaining units. More­
over, within the same city these factors can produce rel­
atively high pay for some groups but not for others.
For example, Chicago ranked among the three highestpaying city governments studied for the skilled mainte­
nance, sanitation, and janitorial groups; 6th for public
safety; and 21st for clerical workers.
Municipal/private comparisons. Pay levels for the clerical
and skilled maintenance groups tended to be lower in

Table 1. Municipal government salaries compared with
those in private industry and the Federal Government,
selected cities, fiscal 1975 and 1980


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

Skilled maintenance
Municipal salaries as
a percent of:

City
Private
industry

1980 pay comparisons
Municipal governments. Three of the twenty-seven city
governments studied during October 1979-September
1980 emerged as pay leaders among the five occupation­
al groupings shown in table 2. Detroit led in three cate­
gories— clerical, public safety, and janitorial; Cleveland
had the highest pay for skilled maintenance; and San
Francisco, for sanitation workers. At the bottom of the
array, New Orleans was lowest-paying for clerical and
skilled maintenance workers; Baltimore, for public safe­
ty; Jacksonville, for sanitation; and San Antonio, for
janitorial. However, it should be noted that rankings of
individual cities commonly change from year to year,
reflecting, in part, variation in the timing and duration
of pay adjustments. For example, Philadelphia public
safety workers received a 10.265-percent pay increase in
fiscal 1979, but none in fiscal 1980. As a result, their re­
lationship to public safety workers in the other cities
went from a 4-percent advantage to a 6-percent disad­
vantage over the year and their ranking among cities
dropped from 10th to 1 6 /18th.
Although rankings of specific cities fluctuated over
time, the highest-paying city governments were invari­
ably in the North Central or West and the lowest-pay­
ing were in the South— a pattern also commonly found
in BLS wage surveys of private industry. However, with­
in broad regions pay relationships among city govern­
ments tended to vary considerably. This was especially
evident in the North Central States, where, for example,
the average pay spread for public safety workers was 58
percent between the highest-paying (Detroit) and low­
est-paying (Indianapolis) cities studied.
It should be noted that intercity relationships reflect
differences in several wage determinants, such as pay
administration approaches and procedures, competitive

Clerical
Municipal salaries as
a percent of:
Federal
Government

Private
industry

Federal
Government

1975

1980

1975

1980

1975

1980

1975

1980

All-cities average1 . . . .

104

98

108

113

107

97

106

97

Northeast:
Boston..................
New Y o rk .............
Philadelphia .........
Pittsburgh.............

106
102
127
105

94

104
115
128
113

100

( 2)

( 2)

94
153
95
109

83
138
82
93

84
138
97
113

124
88
96

89
90

94
89

South:
A tla nta..................
Baltim ore.............
Dallas ..................
Houston...............
Jacksonville .........
Memphis .............
New Orleans . . . .
San A n tonio.........
Washington, D.C. .

116
105

138
114

76

82
73
88
100
74

( 3)

103
91

113
110
106
127
92

99
80

89
71
93
89
75

94
74
93
85

99
85
( 3)
95

103
78
83
98

124
73
( 3)
96

103
71
85
103

100

103
64
71
101

95
95
125
( 3)
86
91
126
112

88
100
112
123
99
83
119
109

109
103
120
( 3)
81
94
131
116

106
122
122
166
102
98
131
118

132
182
101
( 3)
66
77
129
88

122
163
87
113
63
69
110
91

144
174
95
( 3)
66
78
134
91

127
171
85
125
69
70
114
85

99
116
95
106
113
109

94
103
( 4)
98
100
120

99
124
100
108
128
121

108
124
121
107
129
139

110
138
97
99
141
96

99
125

99
143
93
103
145
100

96
118
99
96
109
99

118
106

105
94

96
87
99
96
94

100
89
( 3)
86

North Central:
C hicago...............
Cleveland.............
Columbus.............
Detroit ..................
Indianapolis .........
Kansas City .........
Milwaukee ...........
St. Louis...............
West:
Denver ..................
Los Angeles.........
Phoenix ...............
San Diego ...........
San Francisco . ..
S eattle..................

105
104
( 3)

( 3)

n

94
105
96

<3)

100
78
124
70
( 3)

1An unweighted average of pay relatives for cities published for both 1974-75 and 197980. This included 24 observations for the municipal/Federal comparison of maintenance
workers; 23 observations each for the municipal/Federal comparison of clericals and
municipal/private industry comparison of maintenance workers; and 22 observations for the
municipal/private industry comparison of clerical workers.
2 Municipal government data were not comparable to BLS definitions.
3 Municipal Government Wage Survey was not conducted.
4 Area Wage Survey was not conducted.
N ote : Wherever possible, the municipal government to private industry comparisons re­
late to survey reference months October 1979 through September 1980 (the Federal gov­
ernment's fiscal year 1980); however, for three cities — Chicago, Houston, and Milwaukee —
1979 relationships (June for Chicago, September for Houston, and July for Milwaukee) were
used because the information necessary to adjust the private industry pay levels to the mu­
nicipal government survey reference months was not available at the time this article was
completed. See “ NOTE” to table 2 for more information on the method used for such ad­
justments. No adjustments were made to compensate for differences in standard work­
weeks among sectors. Pay relatives of individual occupations making up the two broad
occupational groups are available upon request.

23

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Public and Private Pay Levels
city governments than in private industry. As shown in
table 1, city government salaries for clerical workers
were at least 3 percent below the private industry aver­
age for 12 areas, within 3 percent for 5 areas, and at
least 3 percent above for 8 areas. For skilled main­
tenance workers, the corresponding pay relationships fa­
vored private industry in 17 comparisons and city gov­
ernments in nine comparisons.
For specific occupations, city government to private
industry pay relationships often varied widely within
the same locality. For example, St. Louis’ clerical group
was paid 9 percent above comparable workers in private
industry, but differences for individual occupations
ranged from an 8-percent disadvantage for the city’s ex­

Table 2. Comparisons of municipal government pay
levels in 27 cities, five occupational groups, October
1979 September 1980

perienced key entry (keypunch) operators to a 31-percent advantage for lower-level accounting clerks. Simi­
larly, Washington’s maintenance electricians were paid
10 percent less than workers in the private sector but its
maintenance painters enjoyed a 25-percent edge over
their private sector counterparts. In part, such disparate
relationships reflect differences in occupational pay
structures between private industry establishments and
city governments. For example, the average pay advan­
tage held by electricians over painters in Washington,
D.C. private firms employing both was 14 percent; the
corresponding wage spread in city government was 2
percent. Survey averages within the private sector high­
light an even bigger difference: Maintenance elec­
tricians, primarily found in manufacturing industries,
averaged 41 percent more than painters, who were
employed chiefly in relatively low-paying nonmanufac­
turing fil ms in the Washington area.4

[27 city average =100]

City

Clerical

Skilled
maintenance

Public
safety

Northeast:
Boston ........................
New Y o rk ....................
Philadelphia ...............
Pittsburgh....................

(’ )
115
101

76
126
82
99

103
108
94
94

South:
Atlanta ........................
Baltimore ....................
Dallas...........................
Houston ......................
Jacksonville ...............
Memphis......................
New Orleans...............
San Antonio ...............
Washington, D.C...........

98
93
92
107
82
94
69
77
91

86
69
85
98
76
102
60
63
107

85
81
102
113
91
87
82
90
110

North Central:
Chicago ......................
Cleveland....................
Columbus....................
Detroit ........................
Indianapolis..................
Kansas City ...............
Milwaukee ..................
St. Lo u is......................

90
104
105
144
87
83
112
98

132
184
85
138
68
73
121
86

West:
Denver ........................
Los Angeles ...............
Phoenix ......................
San Diego ..................
San Francisco.............
S e a ttle ........................

96
114
106
99
114
123

98
130
98
93
127
110

91

Sanitation Janitorial

115
92
128

95
99
110
96

85
85
76
104
70
72

74
98
79
89
77
89

82
122

73
105

112
95
93
133
84
94
101
86

139
95
102
116
80
83
108
92

123
101
112
151
95
82
125
89

106
129
101
101
113
120

118
115
97
101
153

102
103
107
98
112
119

1Not comparable with BLS definitions.
Average pay is expressed as percents of averages for 27 municipal governments
combined. The two sets of annual surveys conducted between September 1978 and Octo­
ber 1980 provide benchmarks which may be adjusted to correspond with the survey refer­
ence months of municipal governments studied. This involves calculating a percentage wage
change for the cities between mid-1979 and mid-1980. Average pay was assumed to
change uniformly each month over the total period studied. For a detailed description of this
method, see A re a W age S urveys, M e tro p o lita n A re a s, U n ite d S ta te s a n d R e g io n a l S um m a­
rie s , 1977, Bulletin 1950-77 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1980).
Also removed were the effects of intercity differences in employment composition within
the multijob groups, and the effect of some individual job averages being unavailable for one
or more of the cities. Relative pay levels for the clerical group were based on weekly pay,
public safety on monthly pay, and skilled maintenance, sanitation, and janitorial on hourly
pay. However, no adjustments were made for differences in standard workweeks when cal­
culating the weekly and monthly pay relatives for the clerical and public safety groups. If
such differences had been taken into account, a number of the pay relatives would have
changed somewhat. For example, pay relatives in Boston would have been 100 for clerical
and 113 for public safety employees.
Dashes indicate function is not performed by municipal government or wage data are not
convertible to an hourly basis.
N ote :

24 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Municipal/Federal comparisons. Although generally be­
low private industry, city government pay levels for
clerical workers typically were above Federal Govern­
ment scales. As a group, municipal clerical employees in
19 of 26 cities permitting comparison averaged at least
3 percent more than their Federal counterparts (the
spread was 20 percent or more in 10 cities); in contrast,
a Federal pay edge of at least 3 percent was reported in
three southern cities— Jacksonville, New Orleans, and
San Antonio. (See table 1.)
As was found for private industry comparisons, mu­
nicipal government to Federal pay relationships varied
widely among the different clerical occupations within
the same locality; the spread between the most and the
least favorable of these occupational pay relationships
commonly exceeded 25 percent.
Similarly, broad differences for individual clerical oc­
cupations also existed among localities. For example,
Detroit paid 80 percent above the average Federal sala­
ry for routine copy typists and Seattle paid 46 percent
above, while San Antonio and Kansas City paid 10 and
11 percent below. Such diverse relationships reflect sev­
eral factors, including differences in salary levels and
salary plans among municipal governments, as well as
how their workers are distributed among rate range
steps that are prevalent in clerical salary plans.
Llnlike their clerical coworkers, skilled maintenance
employees of city governments typically were at a pay
disadvantage to their Federal counterparts. For a com­
posite of three maintenance trades (carpenters, electri­
cians, and painters), 15 city governments paid 4 to 36
percent below Federal Wage System averages reported
for installations in or near the cities. However, eight
others were above Federal levels, by 3 to 71 percent.
Their pay advantages primarily reflected the practice
within some city governments of setting pay for mainte-

nance crafts in relation to local construction rates—
typically among the highest blue-collar rates in an area.5
Indications are that these ties have loosened, sharply
dropping advantages for municipal maintenance work­
ers in these cities. (See table 1.)

Table 3. Paid holiday and vacation provisions of
nonuniformed workers in 27 city governments, fiscal 1980

City

Annual
paid
holidays

Annual days of paid vacation after specified
years of service
1 year

5 years 10 years 15 years 20 years

Supplementary benefits
Although the pay position of city government work­
ers has slipped in recent years, their benefit packages
still compare favorably with those of other workers. A
brief comparison of some of the major benefit areas fol­
lows.6
Paid holiday provisions in large city governments were
somewhat more liberal than in the private or Federal
Government sectors. During 1979-80, an average of 11
holidays a year was paid nonuniformed workers in the
27 city governments studied, compared with 9.5 days in
the local private sector and 9 days throughout the Fed­
eral Government. Eighteen of twenty-seven city govern­
ments provided at least one more paid holiday than the
corresponding private industry average, and 21 city
governments exceeded the Federal Government provi­
sion. With the exception of Chicago, holiday provisions
in city governments studied were the same for whitecollar as for trades/labor employees (blue-collar and
service workers). (See table 3.)
As indicated in the table, holiday provisions varied
widely among the 27 city governments, from 8 days in
Dallas to 14.5 days in Detroit. Southern cities, typically
the lowest-paying, had fewer holidays than the all-city
government average; however, their holiday provisions
compared favorably with private industry in that re­
gion. Elsewhere, no consistent pattern linking pay levels
and holiday provisions was evident.
Paid vacation provisions were similar for workers in city
governments and the private sector; both were some­
what less liberal than Federal Government vacation
plans. Table 3 shows that typical vacation provisions in
city governments were 2 weeks after 1 year of service; 3
weeks after 5 or 10 years; and 4 weeks after 15 years.
The more liberal Federal plan, as reflected in the Wash­
ington, D.C. figures, calls for 4 weeks of paid vacation
after 3 years, and 5 weeks after 15 years.
City governments varied widely in terms of amount
of vacation offered and service requirements. After 15
years of serivce, for example, three cities studied — Co­
lumbus, New York, and W ashington— provided at least
5 weeks of vacation; eight other cities provided only 3
weeks after 15 years, all except one (San Antonio)
granting a 4th week or more by the workers’ 25th year
of service. No direct correlation was found between city
pay levels and vacation provisions or between city holi­
day and vacation provisions.

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

25
years '

All-city average2

10.9

11.2

13.0

16.3

19.1

21.2

22.3

Northeast:
B o ston.........
New York . . .
Philadelphia .
Pittsburgh . . .

13
11
14
13

10
15
10
10

15
20
10
15

20
25
15
15

20
27
20
20

25
27
20
25

25
27
20
25

9
10
8
10.5
10
10
10
10

10
12
10
10

10
12
10
10

10
15
15
15

15
21
15
20

15
24
20
22

20
24
20
22

10
13
13

10
21
13

15
21
13

20
21
15

22
21
15

25
21
15

South:
A tla nta.........
Baltimore . . .
Dallas .........
Houston . . . .
Jacksonville .
Memphis . . .
New Orleans
San Antonio .
Washington,
D.C .........

10

13

20

20

26

26

26

North Central:
Chicago . . . .
Cleveland . . .
Columbus . . .
Detroit .........
Indianapolis .
Kansas City .
Milwaukee ..
St. Louis . . . .

123
11
9
14.5
12
9
10
14

10
10
16
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
16
10
10
10
10
15

15
15
23
17
15
15
15
15

20
20
26
20
20
15
15
20

20
20
28
20
20
20
20
25

20
25
30
20
20
20
25
25

West:
Denver .........
Los Angeles .
Phoenix . . . .
San Diego ..
San Francisco
S e attle.........

9
11.5
11.5
9
12
11

15
10
12
10
10
12

15
15
12
10
15
15

18
15
15
15
15
16

18
15
15
15
20
18

18
20
18
20
20
20

18
20
21
20
20
25

1Provisions were the same or virtually the same after longer periods of service.
2 An unweighted average of the city data shown.
3 Chicago was the only city studied where paid holiday provisions varied substantially be­
tween white collar and trades/labor employees; the former group received 12 days and the
latter group, 7 days a year.
N ote : Personal leave, sick leave, and other types of paid leave arrangements (for exam­
ple, funeral leave) were not included in the data shown here. Dashes indicate that paid vaca­
tion provisions for Jacksonville were not separable from sick leave.

Health, insurance, and retirement coverage is available to
virtually all employees in large labor markets. However,
the provisions of these plans vary greatly. To cite exam­
ples, life and health coverage are usually provided to
city government and private industry workers without
cost to them; this contrasts with Federal workers who
contribute 25 to 50 percent of the total cost of their
plans. In the retirement benefit area, monthly annuity
benefits under the most generous city government pen­
sion plans were more than double those paid under the
least generous plan. Compared with municipal plans
studied, the Federal Government’s normal retirement
benefits program falls slightly below average; it yields
46 percent of pension base earnings after 25 years of
service and age 60, and 56 percent after 30 years and
age 55, while the municipal plans studied commonly
yield 50 percent for 25 years and 60 6ercent following
30 years of service (with comparable ages). Many addi­
tional factors must be considered when fully evaluating
25

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Public and Private Pay Levels
private and public benefit plans, including dollar
amounts and types of benefits covered by health and in

surance plans, as well as pension base formulas, benefit
options, and cost-of-living adjustments to annuities. □

F O O T N O T E S ----------

However, in 1974-75, d ata were available for only 24 cities; those
excluded were Dallas, D etroit, and San A ntonio.
See also Stephen H. Perloff, “ C om paring m unicipal salaries with
industry and Federal pay,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , O ctober 1971, pp.
46-50; and C harles Field V and R ichard L. Keller, “ How salaries of
large cities com pare with in d ustry and Federal pay,” M o n th ly L a b o r
R e v ie w , N ovem ber 1976, pp. 23-28. Twenty-seven cities fell within
scope of these surveys (including A tlan ta with slightly less than
500,000 inhabitants). A lthough cities of 500,000 inhabitants or m ore
are only 1 in 700 m unicipalities, they accounted for 43 percent of the
$31.7 billion spent on salaries and wages by the nearly 19,000 city
governm ents in fiscal 1979. See C ity G o v e r n m e n t F in a n ces in 1 9 7 8 - 7 9
Series G F 79, No. 4 (W ashington, Bureau of the Census, 1980).
Private in d u stry d ata in this article are from the BLS annual wage
survey program conducted in 70 m etropolitan areas. In each area,
d ata are obtained from representative establishm ents within six broad
ind u stry divisions: m anufacturing; tran sp o rtatio n , com m unications,
and o th er public utilities; wholesale trade; retail trade; finance, insur­
ance, and real estate; and selected services. M ajor groups excluded
from these studies are governm ent operations and the construction
and m ining industries. Small establishm ents, defined as those with
fewer than 100 w orkers in the 13 largest m etropolitan areas and those
with fewer than 50 w orkers elsewhere, are excluded from area wage
surveys. D ata for Federal w orkers refer to pay under the nationw ide
G eneral Schedule (GS) for w hite-collar em ployees and the localized
Federal W age System (FW S) for blue-collar em ployees.
N ine clerical an d three m aintenance occupations, each equating to a
single grade in either the GS or FW S, m ade up the tw o broad occu­
pational groups com pared within the labor m arkets studied. As a cri­
terion for inclusion in the broad groups, the following jo b s produced

26 for FRASER
Digitized
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

publishable d ata for at least half of the city governm ents studied:
C le r ic a l — accounting clerks A and B, key entry operators A and B,
m essengers, general and senior stenographers, and typists A and B;
M a in te n a n c e — carpenters, electricians, and painters. T hree additional
occupational groups were added in the analysis of pay levels am ong
city governm ents: J a n ito r ia l — janitors, porters, and cleaners; P u b lic
S a f e t y — firefighters, police officers, and police sergeants; and S a n ita ­
tio n — refuse collectors and refuse truckdrivers.
4 See A re a W a g e S u rv e y : W a sh in g to n , D .C .-M d .-V a . A re a , M a rc h
1 9 8 0 , Bulletin 3000-4 (Bureau of L abor Statistics, 1980), pp. 11 and
13; and M u n ic ip a l G o v e r n m e n t W a g e S u rv e ys: W a sh in g to n , D .C ., O c to ­
b e r 1979, Regional R eport 45 (Bureau of L abor Statistics, 1980), p. 9.
An exam ination of the B ureau’s quarterly reports on basic union
rates for building trades w orkers in M unicipal G overnm ent W age Sur­
vey cities verifies this analysis. F or each of the eight cities tying pay
to prevailing construction rates, the differential between m aintenance
w orkers in city governm ents and sim ilar craftw orkers in unionized
building trades was relatively sm all, topping out at about 25 percent;
for the o ther 19 cities, the typical spread was at least 50 percent, with
only one city — W ash in g to n — as low as 25 percent. C om parisons
were based on union wage rates in effect within 2 m o nths of the refer­
ence date for each 1979-80 city governm ent survey.
" F or detailed accounts on em ployee benefits and other em ployee
practices, see individual reports for the m unicipal governm ents stu d ­
ied; copies are available from BLS regional offices. These reports p ro ­
vide inform ation on unionization; pay plans and salary structures;
frequency of wage paym ent; scheduled workweeks; prem ium pay prac­
tices for overtim e and shift differentials; and paid leave and health in­
surance, and retirem ent plans.

Communications
Inflation and early retirement:
recent longitudinal findings

H

erbert

S. P a r n e s

The long-run decline in the extent of work activity by
middle aged and older men is well known. Between
1948 and 1979, the labor force participation rate of men
65 and older dropped from 47 to 20 percent and among
men 55 to 64 from 90 to 73 percent.1 The persistent
trend toward earlier retirement, together with prospec­
tive increases in the proportion of older persons in the
population, poses financial problems for the social secu­
rity system and has generated fears that society will be
unable or unwilling to bear an increasing burden of
adult dependency.2
It is not clear, however, whether the trend toward
earlier retirement will continue. Obviously it can be
halted or reversed by policy measures such as an in­
crease in the normal retirement age under the Social Se­
curity Act. Although this has been suggested, it may be
politically difficult to implement.3 Keeping older men in
the labor force was one of the arguments made in favor
of the 1978 amendments to the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, which raised the minimum m andato­
ry retirement age from 65 to 70. But the effect of this
change, alone, is likely to be minimal.4 However, it is
possible that retirement decisions will be modified even
in the absence of legislative changes, by economic cir­
cumstance. Some observers have asserted that continua­
tion of high inflation will tend to discourage retirement,5
because although social security benefits are fully tied to
the Consumer Price Index (C P I), private pension plans
almost invariably are not.
The results of a 1978 Louis Harris poll have fre­
quently been cited in this context. The survey found
that 49 percent of a national sample of employees in-

H erbert S. P arnes is a professor of industrial relations and hum an re­
sources at R utgers University. A ssisted by Lawrence Less, he re­
searched this study at O hio State University C enter for H um an
R esource Research, under contract with the E m ploym ent and T rain ­
ing A d m inistration, U.S. D epartm ent of Labor.


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

tended to continue working beyond the normal retire­
ment age; that among those age 50 to 64, 48 percent
expressed a desire to work beyond age 65; and that 46
percent of a national sample of retirees would prefer to
be working.6 In testifying before the Select Committee
on Aging of the House of Representatives, Harris con­
cluded that the trend toward earlier retirement ap­
peared to be reversing,7 with “more people postponing
retirement.”
Data that have recently become available from the
1978 National Longitudinal Survey of Middle Aged and
Older Men ( n l s ) 8 shed some light on this issue. Specif­
ically, we are able to observe the changes that occurred
between 1976 and 1978 in the retirement status and ex­
pectations of a representative national sample of men
who were between the ages of 57 and 64 in 1978 and in
the attitudes toward work and retirement of a represen­
tative national sample of retirees who in 1978 ranged
between age 57 and 71. The story told by these data is
quite different from that conveyed by the Harris survey,
although the N LS survey was taken at about the same
time.

NLS findings, 1966-76
As a backdrop against which to interpret the 1978
data, it is useful to review briefly the relevant findings
from the surveys of the same sample of men between
1966 and 1976. During that time, the labor force partic­
ipation rate of the 3,458 sample members, who by 1976
were 55 to 69 years of age, had dropped from 96 to 63
percent.9 Moreover, among men who had not yet
reached 65, the proportion who were already retired or
who expected to retire before 65 grew from about 26
percent in 1966 to 38 percent in 1971, and to 51 per­
cent in 1976.10 By 1976, 1,600 members of the sample
were retired, in the sense of having reported in one of
the six surveys conducted during the 10-year period
that they had “already stopped working at a regular
job.” Of these, only 3 percent, or 5 percent in the case
of those age 65 to 69, had been unwillingly removed
from jobs by mandatory retirement plans; 51 percent
had retired because of failing health; and 46 percent had
freely chosen to retire.11
Less than 20 percent of the total group of retirees
were employed at the time of the 1976 survey, primarily
27

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Communications
part time. Of those not in the labor market, less than 2
percent explained their absence by the belief that they
could not find work. Only 3 percent said unconditional­
ly that they would accept job offers in their local areas,
while 85 percent indicated categorically that they would
not, 44 percent because of health, the remainder be­
cause they simply did not choose to work.
Although family income of the retirees in 1975 aver­
aged 40 percent below the preretirement level in con­
stant purchasing power, large majorities were reason­
ably satisfied with their lot. Four-fifths reported in 1976
that their preretirement expectations had been fulfilled
or exceeded. About three-fourths claimed that they
would retire at the same or an earlier age if they had
the decision to make again. A majority said that they
were “very happy” with their lives, and only a tenth ad­
mitted to being “somewhat” or “very” unhappy. Ex­
cluding those who retired for health reasons, the
remainder expressed as much satisfaction with various
facets of their lives as men with the same amount of ed­
ucation who had continued to work.
On this basis, it seems that raising or eliminating the
mandatory retirement age, however desirable, will have
no substantial effect on labor force participation rates of
older workers. It also seems that there is unlikely to be
a reversal of the trend toward early retirement unless
there are changes in institutional arrangements that en­
courage retirement prior to age 65. However, there is
some uncertainty on this point if current high rates of
inflation persist.12

The 1978 survey
When the N LS sample was interviewed for the eighth
time in 1978, the original sample of 5,020 men had
shrunk to 3,219. More than half of the 36-percent attri­

Table 1. Retirement expectations in 1976 and 1978 of
men under age 65 in 1978, and attitude toward retirement
of employed men covered under mandatory retirement
plans, 1976 and 1978
[In percent]

Characteristic

1976

1978

Expected age of retirement
Number surveyed.....................................................
Already retired .................................................
Under 65 ..........................................................
65 .....................................................................
Over 65 ............................................................
N e ver................................................................
Don't k n o w ........................................................

1,954
20
31
25
4
10
10

1,954
34
21
18
4
10
12

229
26
16
51
6

229
17
19
58
6

Attitude
Number surveyed.....................................................
Would like to work beyond mandatory age . . .
Expect to retire at mandatory a g e ....................
Expect to retire before mandatory age ...........
Don’t k n o w ........................................................

S ource : National Longitudinal Surveys. Tabulation of responses of the identical group of
men interviewed in 1976 and 1978.

Digitized 28
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

tion rate, 20 percent of the total, was attributable to
death. Of the 1,367 who reported in 1976 that they
were retired,13 1,217 were reinterviewed two years later.
There were 470 additional retirements during the 2-year
interval. Thus, we are able to ascertain what changes, if
any, occurred in labor market participation and atti­
tudes of an identical group of men who were retired in
both years, and to compare their 1978 responses with
those of the group newly retired between 1976 and
1978. It is also possible to compare the retirement sta­
tus and expectations of identical samples of men in
1976 and 1978.
Trend in early retirement. Is fear of inflation likely to
choke early retirement? Members of the N LS sample are
asked in each survey at what age they expect to retire
from a regular job. Of the 1,954 members of the sample
who were under age 65 in 1978, the proportion already
retired or expecting to do so continued to rise between
1976 and 1978, from 51 percent to 55 percent (table 1).
Because corresponding increases over the 5-year periods
1966-71 and 1971-76 were 12 and 13 percentage
points, the 4-point increase over the 1976-78 period is
not far below the trend line. Although not shown here,
the pattern for both black men and white men, and for
three age categories of men were similar.14
Even more pronounced is the trend evidenced by the
229 respondents who in both 1976 and 1978 were
employed in jobs covered by mandatory retirement
plans. They were asked in each survey whether they
would work beyond the mandatory retirement age if
they could. In 1976, 26 percent of the men expressed
the desire to work longer, while about half expected to
retire before the mandatory retirement age. The remain­
der either expected to retire at the mandatory age, 16
percent, or were uncertain about what they would do, 6
percent. By 1978, only 17 percent said they would like
to work longer than the age of mandatory retirement, a
decrease of 9 percentage points, while 58 percent
expected to retire before that age, an increase of 7 per­
centage points.
Labor market activity o f retirees. Between 1976 and
1978, there was no change in the labor force participa­
tion rate of the approximately 1,200 men who retired
during 1966-76 and who were reinterviewed in 1978.
About 10 percent were in the labor force at the times of
each of the two surveys.15 Among the 1976-78 retirees
who were reinterviewed in 1978, 13 percent were in the
labor force.
Nor was there any substantial change in the degree of
interest in work (table 2). About 83 percent of the 1976
retirees who were out of the labor force had said cate­
gorically that they would not accept a job offer in the
area, and the proportion was identical in 1978. Howev-

Table 2. Reaction to hypothetical job offer in 1976 and
1978 by 1976 retirees and in 1978 by 1976- 78 retirees
[In percent]

Reaction

Number surveyed ........................
Would definitely a cce p t.........
Might accept ........................
Would not accept: health . . . .
Would not accept: other . . . .

1976 retirees

1976 78 retirees

1976

1978

1978

1,098
3
14
40
43

1,098
’6
11
40
43

445
5
20
33
42

' Includes 4 percent who were either working or seeking work at the time of the 1978
survey.
S o urce : National Longitudinal Surveys. The 1976 retirees are respondents who reported
in that year that they had already retired from a regular job and who were not in the labor
force in 1976. In 1976-78 retirees are men who reported retiring between 1976 and 1978
and who were not in the labor force in 1978.

er, whereas only 3 percent of the group had said in
1976 that they would definitely take such a job, by
1978 the proportion who responded in this way or who
were actually in the labor force had grown to 6 percent,
a 3-percentage-point increase. Among the newly retired,
the proportion responding affirmatively to the job-offer
question was 5 percent, and respondents who would
definitely turn it down was only 75 percent, 8 percent­
age points lower than among the 1976 retirees.
Retiree evaluation o f retirement. There was very little
change between 1976 and 1978 in the retirees’ percep­
tion of retirement relative to their a priori expectations
(table 3). However, the slight change that occurred was
in the direction of greater disappointment. The propor­
tion of the 1,102 retirees interviewed in both years who
said that retirement did not meet their expectations
grew from 19 to 23 percent, and the proportion who
evaluated their experience as much better than they had
expected shrank from 13 to 11 percent. On the other
hand, the number whose experience exceeded their ex­
pectations grew by one percentage point. In both years,
3 in 4 of the retirees reported that their retirement expe­
rience was at least as good as they had anticipated.
There was, nevertheless, a substantial shift in the re­
tirees’ evaluation of their standard of living between
1976 and 1978. The proportion reporting themselves as
“very happy” with this aspect of their lives dropped
from 50 percent to 36 percent. Almost all of the de­
grease reflected a shift from “very” to “somewhat” hap­
py. The proportion expressing unhappiness with their
economic situation grew only slightly, from 13 to 15
percent.

Conclusions
This evidence does not provide a definitive indication
of the potential effects of continuing high rates of infla­
tion on retirement decisions. The 15-percent rise in the
C PI over the 2-year period, while substantial compared
with the average for the post World War II period, was

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

only about half as great as the rise over the two subse­
quent years. Nevertheless, even by 1976 the term “dou­
ble-digit inflation” had leaped into the vocabularies of
Americans after the C PI rose 11 percent between 1973
and 1974. A man contemplating retirement would have
had to be almost completely insensitive to his environ­
ment not to be concerned about the implications of ris­
ing prices.
In any case, the conclusions drawn from the widely
cited Harris poll of 1978 are not confirmed by the N LS
data. Philip Rones has recently advanced several possi­
ble explanations for the results of the Harris poll, in­
cluding the possibility that inflation had by 1978
created greater interest in working among retirees than
had existed as recently as 4 or 5 years earlier.16 The
present data make this explanation suspect. The trend
toward earlier retirement that had been discernible in
the longitudinal data between 1966 and 1976 continued
without interruption between 1976 and 1978. Moreover,
men who had been retired in 1976 showed only slightly
more interest in postretirement jobs in 1978 than they
had in 1976. And even the more recent retirees, those
who had retired between 1976 and 1978, were only
slightly more likely to be working, 13 percent versus 10
percent. Retirees were not unmindful of the impact of
rising prices, but the chief manifestation of their con­
cern was in the expression of less satisfaction with their
economic circumstances. Our evidence is basically con­
sistent with that reported by James N. Morgan on the
basis of the 1979 wave of the Panel Survey of Income
Dynamics. He reported that “even the few who said
that inflation had affected their retirement ideas were in­
dicating that it affected their feelings rather than their
actions or plans.” 17
Wisdom requires ending on a note of caution. It is
easier to describe the past than to predict the future.

Table 3. The 1976 retirees’ evaluation of retirement
relative to expectations and satisfaction with standard of
living, 1976 and 1978
[In percent]

Evaluation

1976

1978

1,102
13
9
59
13
6

1,102
11
12
53
16
7

1,102
50
38
10
3

1,102
36
50
11
4

Expectation
Number surveyed...........................
Much better ...........................
Somewhat better ..................
About same ...........................
Somewhat worse ..................
Much worse ...........................

Degree of satisfaction
Number surveyed...........................
Very happy.............................
Somewhat happy ..................
Somewhat unhappy...............
Very unhappy........................

S ource : National Longitudinal Surveys. Tabulations of responses of the identical group
of retirees in 1976 and 1978.

29

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Communications

Table 4. Average civilian labor force participation rates
of nien age 55 64 and age 65 and older, by race, JanuarySeptember, 1979 and 1980
[In percent]

Age and race

January September
1979

January September
1980

73.1
20.2

72.5
19.2

73.7
20.2

73.4
19.4

67.1
19.4

62.9
17.6

All men
55 64 ............................................
65 and over ....................................

White
55-64 ............................................
65 and over ....................................

Black and other
55 64 ............................................
65 and over ....................................

See H arold Sheppard and Sara Rix, T h e G ra y in g o f W o rk in g A m e r i­
ca n s: T h e C o m in g C risis o f R e tir e m e n t A g e P o lic y (New Y ork, The
Free Press, 1977), chapters 1 and 2.
A recent version of this proposal was m ade by the 1979 A dvisory
Council on Social Security, which recom m ended legislation that
would raise the norm al retirem ent age by tw o m onths annually com ­
m encing in the year 2000 and ending in 2018, at which tim e it would
stand at 68. The m inim um age for actuarially reduced benefits would
rise from 62 to 65. A sim ilar proposal has been m ade m ore recently
by the P resident’s C om m ission on Pension Policy. See A dvisory
Council on Social Security, S o c ia l S e c u r ity F in a n c in g a n d B e n efits
(W ashington, Social Security A dm inistration, 1980).
4 See H erbert S. Parnes and G ilbert N estel, “The R etirem ent Expe­
rience,” in Parnes et al., W o rk a n d R e tir e m e n t D a ta : a L o n g itu d in a l
S tu d y o f M e n (C am bridge, M IT Press, 1981), C hapter 6.
' See, for exam ple, J.W . W alker, “ Will Early R etirem ent R etire E ar­
ly?” P e r so n n e l Ja n u ary -F eb ru ary 1976, pp. 33-39.
"T he H arris report is reproduced in its entirety in A m e r ic a n A tti­
to w a r d P en sio n s a n d R e tir e m e n t, hearing before the Select
C om m ittee on Aging, H ouse of R epresentatives, 96th Congress, First
session, Feb. 28, 1979, pp. 12, 80-81.
tu d e s

S ource :

Calculated from data in E m p lo ym e n t a n d E arnin g s, February-October, 1979,

1980.

A m e r ic a n A ttitu d e s , p. 11.

Moreover, in this case, the past is already 2 years old.
The results of the 1980 and 1981 surveys of the N LS
sample will be awaited eagerly, for they contain even
richer materials on post-retirement attitudes. Neverthe­
less, it is worth noting that even through 1980 there
was no evidence in official labor force statistics of a re­
versal of the trend that has characterized the past de­
cade (table 4). During the first three quarters of 1980,
the labor force participation rate of men age 65 and
over was 19.2 percent, 1 percentage point lower than in
the corresponding period of 1979. For men age 55 to 64
the participation rate dropped 0.6 point, to 72.5. The
decreases were considerably more pronounced among
black men, 4.2 percentage points among those age 55 to
64 and 1.8 percentage points among those 65 and
older.
□

" F or a detailed description of the N ational L ongitudinal Surveys,
see T h e N a tio n a l L o n g itu d in a l S u rv e y s H a n d b o o k (C olum bus, O hio
State University, C enter for H um an Resource R esearch, 1980).
' See H erbert S. Parnes, Lawrence Less, and G ilbert Nestel, W o rk
a n d R e tir e m e n t D a ta : N a tio n a l L o n g itu d in a l S u r v e y s o f M id d le - A g e d
a n d O ld e r M e n (C olum bus, O hio State University, C enter for H um an
Resource R esearch, 1980), p. 48.
W o rk a n d R e tir e m e n t D a ta , p. 138.

“T he R etirem ent Experience,” pp. 204-05.
“T he R etirem ent E xperience,” p. 269.
1 This num ber is sm aller than that of the 1,600 N LS respondents
who retired during 1966-76 because it excludes those who had rep o rt­
ed them selves retired in a previous survey but not in the 1976 survey.
14 Race and age breakdow ns were originally obtained in all tab u la­
tions. N one of them are show n since there were no exceptions to the
generalizations yielded by the aggregated data.
The rate for 1976 differs from that reported in the 1966-76 NLS
findings because the d a ta here exclude m en who had earlier reported
them selves retired but who did not so report them selves in the 1976
survey. See footnote 13.
" See Philip L. Rones, “The retirem ent decision: a question of op­
portunity?” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , N ovem ber 1980, p. 16.

---------- F O O T N O T E S ----------D ata are from the 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 re si­
d e n t (W ashington, G overnm ent P rinting Office, 1980), table A -2.

Digitized for
30FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

17 See Jam es N. M organ, “ A ntecedents and Consequences of R etire­
m en t,” prelim inary draft of C hapter 7 in F ive T h o u s a n d A m e ric a n
F a m ilies, Vol. 9 (A nn A rbor, University of M ichigan, Survey R e­
search C enter, 1980).

Special
Labor Force
Reports—Summaries
Labor force activity among students,
graduates, and dropouts in 1980

A n ne M cD ougall Young

The number of young people in the population and the
labor force was virtually unchanged over the year end­
ing in October 1980. After two decades of annual in­
creases, the total of youths age 16 to 24 had leveled off,
as most members of the post-World War II baby boom
had already reached age 25. More than 24 million were
either working or looking for work— 47.5 percent in
school and 81.8 percent out of school. (See table 1.)
Reflecting the sluggish economy, unemployment
among young men and women was generally higher in
October 1980 than a year earlier, with a particularly
large increase among high school dropouts.1The jobless
rate for dropouts was 25.3 percent, 6 percentage points
higher than in October 1979 and equal to the previous
high reached in 1975. The increase was larger for men
than for women and was particularly sharp for blacks.
The unemployment rate for black dropouts was about
44 percent in October 1980, up from 32 percent a year
earlier.
For youths who were no longer in school but who
had at least a high school education, the effects of the
economic slowdown were mixed. The year-to-year in­
crease in unemployment rates among graduates was
generally smaller than among dropouts and affected
only men. The unemployment rate of college graduates
showed no significant change. Altogether, unemployed
out-of-school youths numbered 2.4 million in October
1980, accounting for almost one third of all jobless per­
sons. In addition, nearly 1 million students were
looking for a job, a number not significantly different
from that of a year earlier.

Recent high school graduates and dropouts
Nearly half of the June 1980 high school graduates
were enrolled in college as of October, the same propor­
tion as in 1979. A higher proportion of female than
A nne M cD ougall Young is an econom ist in the Office of C urrent Em ­
ploym ent Analysis, Bureau of L abor Statistics.


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

male graduates was enrolled— a reversal of the usual
pattern. (See table 2.) The proportion of blacks enrolled
was 43 percent, the third year of decline in their college
attendance.
For those in college, labor force participation and un­
employment rates were about the same as a year earlier.
For those who had not gone on to college, labor force
participation rates were also about the same as in 1979,
but the male unemployment rate was much higher than
a year earlier, 19.0 percent compared to 13.8 percent.
The female unemployment rate was about the same as a
year earlier.
About 740,000 young people, 16 to 24, dropped out
of high school during the year. Half were 16 or 17. Al­
most 6 of 10 were men, who were especially affected by
the recession. Their unemployment rate was 30.5 per­
cent compared with 18.7 percent a year earlier. The ma­
jority of dropouts were in the labor force but their
participation rate was substantially lower than that of
high school graduates not in college (64 percent versus
85 percent) and their unemployment rate much higher
(31.6 percent versus 18.0 percent).

Hours of work
School enrollment status remains a major determi­
nant of the number of hours young people work.2 Usu­
ally, high school students and full-time college students
work only part time— on average less than 20 hours
per week— to fit their classroom schedules. This was
true of the average weekly hours of students employed
in nonagricultural industries in October 1980:
Men

High school ..............................................
College, full t i m e ......................................
College, part time ...................................

15.8
19.7
36.3

Women

14.1
17.4
34.0

Some of the difference between the hours worked by
men and women was due to the large proportion of
male students at the upper end of the age scale in both
high school and college. For example, 62 percent of the
male, full-time college students were 20 to 24 years old,
compared with 53 percent of the women. Part-time col­
lege students (those taking fewer than 12 semester
hours of classes) were generally older than the full-time
students; almost 80 percent were 20 to 24 compared
with 57 percent of the full-time students. One in 5 was
31

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Special Labor Force Reports— Summaries

Table 1. Employment status of persons 16 to 24 years old, by school enrollment status, educational attainment, sex and
race, 1979 and 1980
[Numbers in thousands]

Civilian labor force

Characteristics

Civilian
noninstitutional
population

Labor force
participation rate

Number

Unemployed
Employed

Unemployment
rate

Number

1979

1980

1979

1980

1979

1980

1979

1980

1979

1980

1979

1980

36,131

36,143

24,340

24,266

67.4

67.1

21,556

20,897

2,785

3,368

11.5

13.9

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

15,262

15,363

7,341

7,298

48.1

47.5

6,392

6,302

949

996

12.9

13.6

16 to 19 ye a rs.....................................................
20 to 24 ye a rs.....................................................

10,972
4,290

10,917
4,446

4,883
2,458

4,760
2,538

44.5
57.3

43.6
57.1

4,143
2,249

3,970
2,332

739
210

790
206

15.1
8.5

16.6
8.1

Men .....................................................................
W om en.................................................................

7,861
7,402

7,798
7,566

3,802
3,539

3,731
3,568

48.4
47.8

47.8
47.2

3,295
3,093

3,173
3,130

506
445

557
441

13.3
12.6

14.9
12.4

White ...................................................................
Black ...................................................................

12,921
2,006

13,011
1,979

6,594
622

6,576
572

51.0
31.0

50.5
28.9

5,868
409

5,786
389

726
213

791
184

11.0
34.2

12.0
32.2

Elementary and high school ...........................
Men .....................................................................
Women .................................................................

7,971
4,233
3,738

7,894
4,102
3,792

3,628
1,985
1,643

3,401
1,836
1,565

45.6
47.0
44.0

43.1
44.8
41.3

3,021
1,668
1,353

2,755
1,470
1,285

607
317
290

643
364
279

16.7
16.0
17.7

18.9
19.8
17.9

White ...................................................................
Black ...................................................................
Hispanic origin .....................................................

6,556
1,266
483

6,469
1,261
559

3,268
319
143

3,058
284
179

49.8
25.1
29.6

47.3
22.5
32.0

2,811
177
107

2,546
168
137

458
143
37

511
115
43

14.0
44.8
25.8

16.7
40.5
24.0

C o lle ge............................................................
Men .....................................................................
W om en................................................................

7,291
3,628
3,663

7,470
3,697
3,773

3,711
1,816
1,895

3,897
1,895
2,002

50.9
50.1
51.7

52.2
51.3
53.1

3,368
1,629
1,739

3,541
1,701
1,840

345
189
156

353
192
161

9.3
10.4
8.2

9.1
10.1
8.0

Full-time students ...............................................
Part-time students ...............................................

6,079
1,213

6,237
1,233

2,608
1,103

2,786
1,111

42.9
90.9

44.7
90.1

2,315
1,053

2,496
1,045

293
50

291
62

11.2
4.5

10.4
5.6

White ...................................................................
Black ...................................................................
Hispanic origin.....................................................

6,365
741
311

6,543
719
326

3,327
302
150

3,518
287
187

52.3
40.8
48.2

53.8
39.9
57.4

3,057
234
134

3,238
220
163

269
68
17

278
67
24

8.1
22.5
11.3

7.9
23.3
12.8

Total, 16 to 24 years old ........................

ENROLLED

NOT ENROLLED
Total ........................................................

20,869

20,780

16,999

16,968

81.5

81.8

15,1 §4

14,595

1,836

2,372

10.8

14.0

High school dropouts ......................................
Men .....................................................................
W om en................................................................

5,263
2,650
2,614

5,084
2,672
2,412

3,512
2,248
1,264

3,430
2,242
1,188

66.7
84.8
48.4

67.5
83.9
49.3

2,845
1,892
953

2,563
1,715
848

667
356
311

867
527
340

19.0
15.8
24.6

25.3
23.5
28.6

16 to 19 y e a rs.....................................................
20 to 24 ye a rs.....................................................

2,085
3,178

1,993
3,093

1,344
2,168

1,279
2,148

64.5
68.2

64.2
69.4

1,036
1,809

907
1,655

308
359

372
493

22.9
16.6

29.1
23.0

White ...................................................................
Black ...................................................................
Hispanic origin.....................................................

4,167
988
758

4,065
910
885

2,873
565
521

2,859
513
592

68.9
57.2
68.7

70.3
56.4
66.9

2,402
386
437

2,239
287
489

471
179
84

621
226
103

16.4
31.7
16.1

21.7
44.1
17.4

High school graduates ....................................
Men .....................................................................
W om en................................................................

15,604
7,197
8,407

15,695
7,245
8,450

13,488
6,863
6,625

13,541
6,868
6,673

86.4
95.4
78.8

86.3
94.8
79.0

12,322
6,359
5,962

12,033
6,029
6,004

1,166
504
663

1,508
839
669

8.6
7.3
10.0

11.1
12.2
10.0

White ...................................................................
Black ...................................................................
Hispanic origin .....................................................

13,653
1,675
691

13,598
1,821
748

11,940
1,325
573

11,895
1,438
606

87.5
79.1
82.9

87.5
79.0
81.0

11,050
1,068
512

10,751
1,093
548

890
257
61

1,144
345
58

7.6
19.4
10.6

9.6
24.0
9.7

High school, no college ......................................
College, 1 to 3 y e a rs ..........................................
College graduates...............................................

11,094
3,017
1,493

11,318
2,947
1,430

9,382
2,683
1,423

9,541
2,635
1,362

84.6
88.9
95.2

84.3
89.4
95.2

8,460
2,509
1,352

8,347
2,403
1,282

922
174
71

1,194
232
80

9.8
6.4
5.0

12.5
8.8
5.9

N ote :

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

married, compared to 1 in 16 full-time students. The
largest number of part-time students was enrolled in
evening classes in business and management, which
make up the bulk of courses offered in “off” hours by
educational institutions.
Having left school behind, at least for the moment,
most male high school graduates were working full
time. Half worked 35 to 40 hours and a third worked

32
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

41 hours or more, the same proportions as among men
25 and over. (See table 3.) On the other hand, the fe­
male graduates worked somewhat longer hours than
older women, with relatively more of the younger wom­
en working a standard work week of 35 to 40 hours.
This was probably because younger women are, on av­
erage, less encumbered by family responsibilities than
older women. A high school diploma also gave these

women an advantage over some of the older women in
the work force, 20 percent of whom had not completed
high school.3
The high school dropouts who had full-time jobs
were about as likely as graduates to work a standard
workweek. However, the remaining dropouts were less
likely to work overtime (41 hours or more) and more
likely to work part time. The difference was greater
among women— 45 percent of the dropouts worked 35
hours or less compared to 29 percent of the graduates.
Much of the variation in working hours can be traced
to the large proportion of employed dropouts who were
16 or 17 years old— 11 percent of the men and 12 per­
cent of the women. Less than 1 percent of the employed

Table 3. Hours worked in nonagricultural industries by
persons 16 to 24 years old not enrolled in school, and by
persons 25 years and over, by sex, October 1980
[Numbers in thousands]

Persons 16 to 24 not enrolled in school
Total

Hours worked:

Women

Men

Women

Number......................................
Percent......................................

7,059
100.0

6,538
100.0

5,536
100.0

5,747
100.0

Hours worked:
41 or more ...............................
35 to 40 ....................................
Under 3 5 ....................................
For economic reasons .........
For other reasons..................

31.0
51.7
17.2
7.7
9.6

13.2
56.2
30.6
9.3
21.3

32.5
51.8
15.8
6.3
9.5

14.0
57.4
28.6
7.9
20.7

Persons at work1:

Persons 16 to 24 not
enrolled n school

Table 2. School enrollment and labor force status of
1980 high school graduates and 1979-80 school dropouts
16 to 24 years old, by sex and race, October 1980

Characteristic

Total, 1980 high
school gradu­
ates .............

Civilian labor force

Number

Labor
force
participa­
tion rate

Total, 25 years and over

High school dropouts
Men

Women

Number......................................
Percent ......................................

1,523
100.0

791
100.0

41,114
100.00

29,618
100.00

Hours worked:
41 or more ...............................
35 to 40 ....................................
Under 3 5 ....................................
For economic reasons .........
For other reasons..................

25.5
51.7
228
12.8
10.0

7.3
47.4
45.1
19.1
25.9

35.7
49.4
14.8
2.7
12.1

14.7
50.7
34.8
4.7
30.1

[Numbers in thousands]

Civilian
noninstitutional
population

High school graduates

Men

Men

Women

Persons at work1:

Unemployed
Employed

Number Unemploy­
ment rate

3,089

1,992

64.5

1,657

335

16.8

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

1,500
1,589

1,027
965

68.5
60.7

842
815

185
150

18.0
15.5

W hite.........
B la ck.........
Hispanic
origin . . .

2,678
354

1,778
184

66.4
52.0

1,526
106

252
78

14.2
42.4

65

15

18.8

1Does not include employed persons who were sick or on vacation.

129

80

62.0

Enrolled In
college .........

1,524

662

43.4

579

83

12.5

M en...........
• Women . . .

701
823

311
351

44.4
42.6

262
317

49
34

15.8
9.7

1,396

557

39.9

481

76

13.6

Full-time
students .
Part-time
students .

128

105

82.0

98

7

6.7

1,339
151

606
40

45.3
26.5

529
36

77
4

12.7
(’ )

68

30

(’ )

24

6

Not enrolled in
college .........

1,565

1,330

85.0

1,078

252

18.9

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

799
766

716
614

89.6
80.2

580
498

136
116

19.0
18.9

W hite.........
B la ck.........
Hispanic
origin . . .

1,339
203

1,172
144

87.5
70.9

997
70

175
74

14.9
51.4

61

50

(’ )

41

9

739

471

63.7

322

149

31.6

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

422
317

305
166

72.3
52.4

212
110

93
56

30.5
33.7

W hite.........
B la ck.........
Hispanic
origin . . .

580
146

392
73

67.6
50.0

286
33

106
40

27.0
C)

91

60

65.9

43

17

W hite.........
B lack.........
Hispanic
origin . . .

Total, 1979-80
school drop­
outs 2 ...........

C)

(’ )

n

' Percent not shown where base is less than 75,000.
2Persons who dropped out of school between October 1979 and October 1980. In addi­
tion, 76,000 persons 14 and 15 years old dropped out of school.


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

graduates were that young. Some young dropouts were
at a disadvantage in competing for certain full-time jobs
that are restricted by law to persons over age 18, such
as those involving motor vehicle operation and some
construction occupations.4 Their difficulty in the labor
market was also reflected in the greater proportion of
dropouts than graduates who worked fewer than 35
hours because they could not get full-time work.
□
----------F O O T N O T E S ---------1T his report is based prim arily on supplem entary questions in the
O ctober 1980 C urrent Population Survey, conducted and tabulated
for the Bureau of L abor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census. M ost
d ata relate to persons 16 to 24 years of age in the civilian noninstitutional population in the calendar week ending O ctober 18,
1980.
Sam pling variability m ay be relatively large in cases where the
num bers are sm all. Small estim ates, or sm all differences between esti­
m ates, should be interpreted with caution.
The m ost recent report in this series was published in the M o n th ly
L a b o r R ev ie w , Septem ber 1980, pp. 44-47, and reprinted as Special
L abor Force R eport 241.
T he im portance of school enrollm ent in the labor force activity of
youth has been recognized in the planned revision of the C urrent P op­
ulation Survey. As of 1983, the survey will include inform ation on
school enrollm ent each m onth instead of once a year in O ctober.
U npublished data on educational attainm ent of the labor force
from the M arch 1980 supplem ent to the C urrent P opulation Survey.
4 F air L abor S tandards Act of 1938, as am ended (29 U.S.C. 201, et
seq.).

33

Research
Summaries

On-the-job training:
differences by race and sex

S a u l D. H o f f m a n

Wages of blacks and women are still substantially lower
than those for white men. The latest figures for the
third quarter of 1980 showed that for full-time wageand-salary workers, median weekly earnings for black
men were about 75 percent of those for white men; the
corresponding figures were 63 percent for white women
and 58 percent for black women. Careful studies of dif­
ferences in earnings by race and sex suggest that a
sizable portion of the observed differences— perhaps
half or more— are unexplained by underlying race/sex
differences in the average level of apparent worker skills
such as education and work experience.1The indirect —
and unproven— implication of this is that labor market
discrimination is still prevalent. We also know that the
jobs which women and blacks hold are worse in other
ways as well— lower occupational status, less desirable
working conditions, and greater vulnerability to cyclical
unemployment.
But what about the skills and training that workers
receive on the job? Are the jobs of women and blacks
worse in that regard also? Do their jobs provide them
with less opportunity for on-the-job training? A recent
national survey suggests that the answer to this is yes,
and that, for young black men especially, the amount of
training provided on the job is quite limited.
Virtually all labor economists agree that on-the-job
training is an important determinant of individual earn­
ings and especially of the growth of earnings over the
life cycle. It is commonplace now for economists to
view a job as both a source of current income and as a
place to learn new work skills or improve old ones— to
acquire on-the-job training. Indeed, it appears that most
of the skills actually used on the job are learned there,
not in school. Those acquired skills lead to higher fu-

Saul D. Hoffm an is an assistant professor of econom ics at the U niver­
sity of Delaware, N ew ark, Delaware.

34


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

f

no Oil

I \0

a

ture earnings by increasing and enhancing an individu­
al’s work skills and productivity. The continued
acquisition of work skills on-the-job plays a central role
in both the human capital model and even in labor
market models which emphasize market segmentation,
discrimination, and the role of institutional forces.
Information about the amount of skills and training
provided on the job is also important for accurate
race/sex wage comparisons. For example, if the jobs
held by women and blacks offered fewer opportunities
for skill acquisition and improvement, then current av­
erage wage differences by race and sex would understate
the “true” differences.2 In that event, we might expect
future race/sex earnings differences to grow as average
skill levels diverged over the life cycle. Precisely the op­
posite interpretation would be appropriate if blacks,
women, or both were receiving greater training opportu­
nities.
In spite of its acknowledged importance, relatively lit­
tle of an empirical nature is known about the acqui­
sition of training by individuals or about possible
race/sex differences in amounts of training. There is
some information, but it is all indirect, usually inferred
from cross-sectional earnings regressions. Thus, for in­
stance, virtually all studies of earnings differences by
race, sex, or both find that the earnings of blacks and
women tend to grow less rapidly with each additional
year of work experience. A widely accepted explanation
for this — that of the human capital model— interprets
work experience as a proxy for investment in training
and then concludes that the lower earnings growth per
year of experience indicates that, on average, the jobs
held by women and blacks provide less on-the-job
training. This reasoning is logically consistent, but it is
also completely circular. The problem is that the pro­
cess of acquiring training cannot be observed, but is
only “revealed” to have occurred ex post by a subse­
quent growth in individual earnings. This reasoning, by
construction, precludes situations in which investment
takes place but earnings do not grow and those in
which earnings grow in the absence of skill acquisition.
Thus it ignores the possibility that blacks, women, or
both receive smaller rewards for the skills they do ac­
quire.3
Some direct evidence on race/sex training differences

is available in recent data provided by the Panel Study
of Income Dynamics. This is a national longitudinal
survey of the economic status of more than 5,000 fami­
lies which has been conducted annually since 1968. In
the study’s 1976 interviews, questions relating to onthe-job training were included as part of an attempt to
develop an extensive data base for the analysis of race
and sex earnings differences. Household heads (arbi­
trarily taken to be the husband) and, for the first time,
their wives were interviewed. The couples’ answers pro­
vide information, when weighted, on a representative
national survey of more than 3,100 working men (about
30 percent black) and approximately 2,100 working
women (35 percent black) between the ages of 18 and
64.
Developing an objective, quantitative measure of the
amount of on-the-job training provided by a job and re­
ceived by a worker is not a simple matter. The human
capital model, which has given the most theoretical at­
tention to investment in training, measures the amount
of training by the fraction of worktime devoted to
learning and improving skills rather than working; thus,
for example, one might spend 80 percent of the day
working and 20 percent learning. This approach is use­
ful theoretically, but it is not easily amenable to mea­
surement— imagine trying to divide your workday into
working and learning components. (It is usually as­
sumed that you cannot do both simultaneously.) What
the Panel Study researchers did in order to develop a
measure of training was ask individuals about the
length of time— how many months or years— it would
take “the average new person to become fully trained
and qualified” on their job. (The question asked about
the “average new person” rather than “you” to mini­
mize reported differences in training time because of ex­
periences or skills unique to that individual.)
The answers to this question can be used to develop
two measures of training. One is how many months or
years it takes to become fully trained and qualified, the
idea being that jobs with longer training periods pro­
vide more skills and training. Implicitly, this assumes
that the “quality” or “intensity” of training does not
vary among jobs, so that a 1-year training period repre­
sents exactly twice as much as that given in 6 months.
While this measure of training clearly has flaws, it cer­
tainly seems preferable to the circular measure of usual
training. The other training measure is whether or not
an individual is currently receiving training— whether
his or her job tenure is greater than or less than the re­
ported length of the training period.
Whatever its possible problems are, the reported
training periods seem to make sense. If we look at the
average training time for various occupational groups
the answers are generally consistent with conventional
notions of occupational status and skill requirements.

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

(See table 1.) The average training period for all jobs
was about a year and 8 months, but it ranged from
nearly 3 years for professional and technical workers
and managers down to approximately 6 to 9 months for
the bottom of the blue-collar distribution. Skilled bluecollar workers (foremen and craftsworkers) reported an
average training period of more than 2-1/2 years, com­
pared with about 9 months for secretaries and clerical
help. There are really no anomalous results in the table.
We can look at the question we originally asked: In
addition to carrying lower wages and a higher probabil­
ity of unemployment, do the jobs of blacks and women
provide less on-the-job training? The answer, according
to the Panel Study data, is yes. The average training pe­
riod for white men is 2.25 years, while that for white
women and for black men and black women is less than
1 year.4 And as table 2 shows, the same order of differ­
ence— more than 2 to 1 persists even when white men
are compared with blacks and women within the same
age group or educational category. Thus, the lower
training periods are not explained by race/sex diff­
erences in age or educational attainment.
The same race/sex pattern exists when we examine
the other training variable (see table 3). While more
than a quarter of white men were currently receiving
training on their jobs (that is, their training period
exceeded their job tenure), the corresponding figure was
about 14 percent for white women and less than 9 per-

Table 1.

Average length of training period by occupation

Occupation

Physicians, dentists...............
Other medical........................
Accountants...........................
Teachers, primary and
secondary ...........................
Teachers, c o lle g e ..................
Engineers, architects,
chemists.............................
Technicians ...........................
Public advisors......................
Judges, lawyers ....................
Other professional ...............

Unweighted
number of
observations

Weighted
percent of
observations

Average length
of training
(in years)

13
63
56

0.4
1.5
1.3

5.21
1.95
2.40

199
50

4.6
1.3

2.57
3.29

92
113
79
22
35

2.8
2.7
1.7
0.5
0.8

2.89
1.96
2.09
2.51
2.32

Managers, not self-employed .
Managers, self-employed . . . .

422
126

11.3
3.0

2.76
2.14

Secretaries.............................
Other clerical ........................
Sales workers ......................

198
644
238

4.3
12.2
5.6

.80
.81
1.40

Foremen ...............................
Other craftsworkers .............
Police, firefighters..................
Armed fo rc e s ........................

95
580
54
78

2.4
11.3
1.1
1.2

3.13
2.54
2.25
1.52

Transport equipment operatives
Other operatives....................

222
762

3.2
12.0

.52
.71

Unskilled laborers, nonfarm ..
Farm laborers........................

204
56

2.1
0.6

.63
.65

Private household workers . . .
Other service w orkers...........

73
662

0.6

9.9

.52
.60

Farm ers.................................

78

1.9

2.86

35

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Research Summaries
cent for both black men and black women. Again, these
race/sex differences remain even within age and educa­
tional groups. The differences between black and white
men are especially large for workers between the ages of
18 and 35. Among white men, about 35 percent in this
age group were receiving training compared with less
than 10 percent for blacks.
Finally, the lower amounts of training for blacks and
women do not appear to be because they hold low-wage
jobs more often than white men. If we compare workers
within the same hourly wage rate bracket, large differ­
ences in the percentages receiving training remain.
Nearly a quarter of the white men in low-wage jobs
(less than $4 per hour) were still receiving training,
compared with 11 percent for white women and only
about 5 to 6 percent for black men and women.
What do these findings tell us about the prospects for
narrowing race/sex earnings differences? First, they sug­
gest that current variations in earnings understate the
true differences: blacks and women receive less training
on their jobs than white men and a smaller percentage
are currently receiving training. Assuming this training
usually translates into higher future earnings, then we
may expect the earnings gap to widen as these individu­
als become older.5 Second, there is some evidence that
the low-wage jobs held by white men are very dissimilar
from those of blacks and women. Many of these jobs
for white men also provide training, so the low wage is
probably only temporary; for the other groups, the pro­
portion of low-wage workers receiving training is much
less, suggesting a more permanent low-wage condition.
Finally, the results imply that young black men contin­
ue to lag behind their white counterparts — the training
differential was extremely large for this age group.
One thing this study does not tell us is why blacks
and women tend to receive less training. We could, of

Table 2. Average length of training period by age and
education
Age and education
(in years)

Men
White

Women
Black

White

Black

2.25

.99

.94

.81

25 ........................
.............................
.............
.............
........................

1.28
1.95
2.52
2.65
2.69

.50
.70
1.09
1.64
1.13

.59
.96
1 06
.96
1.08

.45
62
.82
1.05
1.30

Education:
0 to 5 .............................
6 to 8 .............................
9 to 11 ......................
12; High school d iplom a.............
High school plus nonacademic training . .
Some college ...............
Bachelor of A rts ...............
Advanced degree ......................

1.65
1.77
1.82
1.81
2.28
2.33
2.79
3.20

.61
.78
.43
1.31
1.01
.93

.41
.34
70
.94
.95
1.50
2.86

.32
.38
.90
.52
.78
2.58

Total .................................
Age:
Less than
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64

N ote :

Dashes indicate less than 25 observations.

Digitized36
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 3. Proportion of workers receiving on-the-job
training by age, education, and hourly earnings
Men

Item

Total

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

Women

White

Black

White

Black

.258

019

141

.088

Age (in years):
Less than 25 ..........................
25 to 3 4 ......................
35 to 4 4 ........................
45 to 5 4 .............
55 to 6 4 ...............

353
.349
.230
.176
.135

.074
.103
.073
.113
.079

.189
.167
.135
.109
084

.094
.101
.063
.131
.011

Education (in years):
0 to 5 ...........................
6 to 8 ......................
9 to 1 1 ......................
High school graduate ....................
High school plus nonacademic training . . .
Some college..................
Bachelor of A r t s ...........
Advanced degree ..........................

.145
.079
.232
.191
.254
.312
.363
.335

.059
.024
.079
086
102
.141

.103
.051
.099
.152
.177
222
.276

012
.006
.165
.058
.163
.253

Hourly earnings:
Less than $2.00 ..................
$2.00 to $2.99 .............................
$3.00 to $3.99 ...........
$4.00 to $5.99 .........
$6.00 to $7.99 .........
More than $8.0 0 ..................

.220
.226
.287
.240
.266
.272

.107
.055
.049
.072
110
.239

.115
.115
.114
.170
.159
.207

.021
.058
.090
.105
.180

N ote :

Dashes indicate less than 25 observations.

course, use the training differential as yet another exam­
ple of labor market discrimination, but that does not re­
ally provide much explanation or insight. Economists
still know very little about the ways in which different
people wind up in different jobs — some with high
wages or extensive training, some with less of both —
and even less about the reasons.
□
FOOTNOTES
' F or an analysis along these lines, see C orcoran and D uncan,
"W ork H istory, L abor F orce A ttachm ent, and Earnings Differences
Between Races and Sexes," J o u r n a l o j H u m a n R eso u rces, W inter
1979, pp. 3-20.

E dw ard Lazear has recently provided some em pirical evidence on
this, arguing that the current narrow ing of observed b lack /w h ite earn ­
ings differences for men reflects growing differences in current on-thejo b training. F or m ore on this, see Edw ard Lazear, "T he N arrow ing
of Black-W hite W age Differentials is Illusory," T h e A m e ric a n E co ­
n o m ic R ev ie w , Septem ber 1979, pp. 553-63.
A nother exam ple of the first situation is acquisition of jo b skills
with declining m arket value, while the latter could reflect increasing
dem and for a p articular skill.
It is tem pting to try to explain these differences as being the result
of different perceptions, rather than different situations — for exam ple,
white men are self-aggrandizing while wom en and blacks tend to
dow ngrade them selves and their jobs. However, this explanation is
doubtful because the results were reversed when sam ple m em bers
were asked another question about w hether they were learning things
which could lead to a future jo b or prom otion.
The predicted widening of the earnings gap for these individuals
does not necessarily m ean that aggregate b lack /w h ite earnings dif­
ferences will also increase. Changes in aggregate earnings differences
over tim e are affected not only by these “ w ithin-cohort" earnings
changes, but also by differences in the incom e standing of older w ork­
ers who retire from the labor force relative to the incom e standing of
younger w orkers who enter the labor force.

Occupational wage variation in
wood household furniture plants
C a r l Ba r s k y

In the manufacture of wood household furniture, firms
producing upholstered furniture paid higher wages than
those making nonupholstered products.1The pay advan­
tage— $4.78 an hour compared with $4.22— stems pri­
marily from differences in the occupational staffing
patterns between the two industries, rather than differ­
ences in pay levels for similar types of work.
The survey, conducted in June 1979, is the Bureau of
Labor Statistics' first occupational wage study of uphol­
stered furniture factories and a resurvey of the other
wood furniture plants.2 Among the similarities found,
both industries were primarily in nonmetropolitan
areas, were located in all parts of the country but chief­
ly in the Southeast, and, for the most part, consisted of
nonunion, single-plant firms. Many plants, in fact, manCarl Barsky is an econom ist in the Division of O ccupational W age
S tructures, Bureau of L abor Statistics.

ufactured both types of furniture.
In both industries, pay levels were usually higher in
metropolitan areas than in smaller communities, in
plants of 100 workers or more than in smaller plants,
and in union firms than in nonunion firms. Regionally,
the highest average earnings usually were found in the
Pacific States and the lowest in the South. (See table 1.)
There were also some important differences between
the two industries. Plants making nonupholstered furni­
ture had, on the average, larger work forces than the
other establishments— 136 workers compared with 112
workers. Upholstered furniture plants, on the other
hand, had a higher proportion of workers in skilled or
incentive-paid occupations— two factors which can con­
tribute to higher wages.
To isolate the effects of certain wage-determining
characteristics, multiple regression equations were devel­
oped for all production workers and for a number of
representative occupations studied separately in the two
industries.2 Included as variables in the analysis were es­
tablishment size and community size, unionization, type
of furniture manufactured, and region. Also included as
variables were sex and method of wage payment for se­
lected occupations.

Table 1. Average hourly earnings in factories making upholstered and other wood household furniture, United States and
selected regions, June 1979
United S tates1
Characteristic

Middle Atlantic

Border States

Uphol­
stered

Other

Uphol­
stered

Other

$4.49
4.71
4.11

$3.89
3.99
3.70

$5.38
5.61
5.08

$4.66
4.89
4.33

$5.82
5.90
5.87

$5.61
5.73
4.63

4.43
4.51

3.99
3.83

5.07
5.47

4.77
4.62

5.82

5.61

3.60

4.39

3.59

4.29
4.55

3.75
3.91

4.72
5.55

4.50
4.71

5.77
5.89

6.15
5.19

4.18

3.90
3.56

4.52

3.76
3.92

5.60
4.79

4.71
4.60

6.67
4.95

6.77
3.84

3.65
3.68

4.57
4.34

3.97
3.59

4.87
4.18

5.15

6.37
5.23

3.78
4.54
4.24
3.34
3.50
3.42
3.37
3.26
3.82

4.49
4.87
5.46
4.12
5.34
4.41
3.85
4.02
3.52
3.41
3.61
3.72
4.67
4.75
7.02

3.86
4.77
4.21
5.19
4.74
3.50
3.55
3.94
3.58
3.57
3.99
4.66
4.27

Other

$5.08
5.30
4.55

$4.54
4.69
3.93

$4.19
• 4.41
3.80

$3.60

4.51
3.99

5.23

4.36
4.95

3.90

4.71
4.81

4.57
4.14

4.93
5.18

4.28
4.70

5.46
4.56

4.83
3.96

4.83
5.52

4.90
4.19

4.82
4.54

4.49
3.82

4.71
4.87
5.54
4.41
5.83
4.72
4.05
4.18
357
3.61
3.65
4.25
4.88
4.82
6.88

4.33
4.17
4.91
4.69
5.58
5.25
3.66
4.02
4.08
3.76
3.97
4.15
4.35
4.84
6.23

$4.78
5.01
4.38

$4.22
4.41
3.84

Size of community:
Metropolitan a re a s ..........................................
Nonmetropolitan a re a s ....................................

5.01
4.61

Size of establishment:
20-99 w orkers.................................................
100 workers or more ......................................
Labor-management contract coverage:
Establishment with majority of workers
covered ........................................................
None or minority of workers covered.............

All production workers ........................................
Men ................................................................
W om en............................................................

Pacific

Great Lakes

Other

Other

Other

Southeast
Uphol­
stered

Uphol­
stered

Uphol­
stered

Uphol­
stered

Selected occupations
Assemblers, complete furniture pieces (case
goods)..............................................................
Assemblers, chairs .............................................
Assemblers, upholstery frames, final frame
assemblies .....................................................
Cushion-stuffing-machine operators....................
Cutters, electric k n ife ..........................................
Cut-off-saw operators ........................................
Maintenance electricians ....................................
Maintenance workers, general utility ..................
Off-bearers, m achine..........................................
Packers, furniture ...............................................
Router operators, feed only ...............................
Rubbers, furniture, h a n d ......................................
Sanders, furniture, h a n d ......................................
Sanders, furniture, machine, b e lt........................
Sewing-machine operators, all-round..................
Tenoner operators, set up and operate .............
Upholsterers, in sid e .............................................

5.10

5.07
4.55
5.05
4.23
5.10
4.75
3.98

3.57

4.16
3.34
4.32
'

4.53
5.56
4.23
4.02
5.03
4.59
4.17
4.77

4.63

4.03
3.62

4.27
4.08

4.15

6.09
5.74

11ncludes data for regions In addition to those shown separately.
Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late

5.46

5.90
4.74
5.55
5.67
5.02
4.77
5.65
5.05
4.29
5.88
5.13
7.06

4.17
4.37
6.01
5.51
4.36
4.59
4.54
4.49
4.56
4.78
3.86
5.12

b./3
6.26
7.06
4.98
5.98
5.48
4.91
b.b/
3.71
5.14
6.21

6.61
7.79
7.66
3.83
5.18
4.85
4.16
4.39
4.26
6.72

7.56

shifts. Dashes indicate that no data were reported or that data did not meet publication criteria.

N ote :


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

37

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Research Summaries

Table 2.

Net earnings differentials among production workers of wood household furniture plants, June 1979
Occupation

All production workers ...........................................................................

Metropolitan
areas

Large plants

Union plants

Upholstered
furniture

Pacific region

Incentive
workers

1$0.05

1$0.04

$0.48

$0.54

$1.34

( 2)

M2
.53
1 .28
1.07
'.07
.71
.21
’ .14
1 - .09

-.37
’ .19
1 - .20
’ - .29
.33
.94
.64
1.26
1 - .04

.58
1.24
1 - .08
.44
.42
.74
.36
.67
M3

’ .54
’ -.12
’ .16
-.40
.23
’ .47
’ .02
’ .18
’ - .09

1.95
1.20
2.52
2.33
.23
’ .37
.55
1.37
1.03

Selected occupations
Assemblers, complete furniture pieces, case goods (nonupholstered)......................
Cut-off-saw operators..................................................................................................
Electricians, maintenance ...........................................................................................
Maintenance workers, general utility ...................................................................
Off-bearers, machine ................................................................................
Router operators, feed only ....................................................................................
Sanders, furniture, machine, b e lt ..........................................................
Sewing-machine operators, all-round (upholstered)...................................................
Jpholsterers, inside ....................................................................................................
1Not statistically significant at a 99-percent confidence level.

The regression coefficients presented in table 2 are es­
timates of the differentials associated with the char­
acteristic or variable. For example, the table shows that
when all other measured characteristics are held con­
stant, union furniture plants pay, on average, 48 cents
an hour more than nonunion plants.
The only characteristics typically showing a statisti­
cally significant relationship to higher wages among the
occupations examined were unionization, location in the
Pacific States, and incentive method of pay. Higher pay
in upholstered furniture plants seemed to result primari­
ly from the greater proportion of high-paying occupa­
tions than in the other industry. Only one of the nine
occupations in table 2— machine off-bearers-— showed a
significant positive differential associated with the prod­
uct variable, upholstered furniture.
Although unionization was significantly related to
higher wages, there were exceptions, including two of
the highest paying jobs— inside upholsterers and main­
tenance electricians. Other BLS wage studies also show
that workers in union firms usually earn more than
those in nonunion firms, but differences are less distinct
among higher paid (higher skilled) workers.
Pay differentials calculated through multiple regres­
sion techniques are, for the most part, smaller than dif­
ferentials found through simple cross-tabulations. This
is to be expected because simple cross-tabulations do
not isolate the individual effects of wage determinants
that are often found in common— such as unionization
and location in metropolitan areas.
A comprehensive survey report including data on oc­
cupational earnings and selected employee benefits ( b l s
Bulletin 2087) is available from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Washington, D.C. 20212, or any of its region­
al offices.
Q
---------- F O O T N O T E S ----------See S ta n d a r d I n d u s tr ia l C la ssifica tio n M anual, upholstered furni­
ture, industry 2512, n o nupholstered furniture, industries 2511, 2517,
and 2435.

Digitized 38
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

$0.93
1.21
1.52
.79
.79
1.49
.91
1.01
2.00

Not applicable.

F or an account of a N ovem ber 1974 survey of nonupholstered fur­
niture, see Carl Barsky, “ Pay relationship in the furniture in d u stry ,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , April 1976, pp. 46-47.
See M artin E. Personick and A lbert E. Schwenk, “ A nalyzing earn ­
ings differentials in Industry W age Surveys,” M o n th ly L a b o r R eview ,
June 1974, pp. 56-59, for an explanation of regression techniques
used in industry wage surveys.

Local-transit workers’ union wages
advance 8.8 percent during 1978-79
Average union wage rates for local-transit operating
employees in large cities increased 8.8 percent between
July 1, 1978, and July 1, 1979. It was the industry’s
third largest annual gain during the 1970’s.1 The aver­
age increase was 9.0 percent for operators of surface
cars and buses during the survey period, and 7.4 per­
cent for elevated and subway equipment operators.
During the last 5 years, increases have been larger for
bus operators than for subway operators, narrowing the
average wage-rate difference between the two groups
from 11 percent in 1974 to less than 1 percent on July
1, 1979.
Slightly more than nine-tenths of local-transit operat­
ing employees received wage rate increases during the
year ending July 1, 1979. Nearly one-eighth received be­
tween 4 and 6 percent; one-fourth, between 6 and 8 per­
cent; slightly more than one-fifth, between 8 and 10
percent; and about one-third, at least 10 percent.
Union wage rates for local-transit operating employ­
ees averaged $8.17 per hour on July 1, 1979: for opera­
tors of surface cars and buses, about seven-eighths of
employees covered by the survey, the average was
$8.16, and for operators of elevated and subway equip­
ment, $8.21. However, of the nine cities permitting
comparison, wage rates for surface car and bus opera­
tors, and elevated arid subway equipment operators,
were the same in five: Atlanta, Cleveland, Newark,
Philadelphia, and Washington; D.C. Wage rates were

Table 1.

Average wage rates of local-transit operating employees in selected cities, July 1, 1978-July 1, 1979
City and region 1

Average
hourly ra te 2

Change from July 1,1978
Cents
per hour

Percent

All c itie s .............................................

$8.17

66

8.8

New England.................................................
Boston, Mass. ( I I ) ......................................
New Bedford, Mass. (IV )...........................
New Haven, Conn. (IV ).............................
Providence, R.l. (IV) .................................
Stamford, Conn. (IV ).................................

8.42
9.29
6.69
7.10
732
7.30

79
82
81
72
77
74

10.4
9.7
13.8
11.3
11.8
11.3

Middle Atlantic...............................................
Albany, N.Y. (IV) ......................................
Buffalo, N.Y. (Ill)........................................
New York, N.Y. (I) ....................................
Newark, N.J. (Ill) ’ ......................................
Philadelphia, Pa. ( I) ....................................
Pittsburgh, Pa. (II)......................................
Rochester, N.Y. (Ill) .................................
Scranton, Pa. (IV )......................................

7.91
6.97
7.33
7.86
8.45
7.56
9.01
7.90
6.70

54
65
51
51
39
49
94
71
70

7.4
103
75
69
48
70
11.6
9.9
11.7

City and regio n1

Great Lakes........................................................
Akron, Ohio (III) .............................................
Chicago, III. (I) ...............................................

Detroit, Mich. (I) ............................................
Flint, Mich. ( IV ) ...............................................
Grand Rapids, Mich, ( IV ) ...............................
Hammond, Ind. (IV )........................................

Rockford III (IV)

Omaha, Nebr. ( Ill) ..........................................
Border States ...............................................
Baltimore, Md. (II)......................................
Louisville, Ky. ( I ll) ......................................
Norfolk, Va. (Ill) ........................................
Washington, D.C. (II).................................

8.57
8.75
7.41
7.52
9.22

94
108
65
63
108

123
14.1
9.6
91
13.2

Southeast.....................................................
Atlanta, Ga. (Ill) ........................................
Chattanooga, Tenn. (IV) ...........................
Jacksonville, Fla. ( II) .................................
Memphis, Tenn. (II)....................................
Miami, Fla. ( I ll) ..........................................
Nashville-Davidson, Tenn. (Ill) ..................
St. Petersburg, Fla. (IV) ...........................

7.22
8.28
7.01
7.24
7.83
7.15
7.33
4.39

61
85
45
62
74

9.2
11.4
6.9
94
10.4

42
20

6.1
4.8

Southwest.....................................................
Fort Worth, Tex. ( I ll) .................................
Houston, Tex. (I) ......................................
New Orleans, La. (II) ...............................
San Antonio, Tex. (II) ...............................

6.82
5.75
7.62
6.52
6.45

47
40

81
7.5

50
51

8.3
86

Phoenix, Ariz. (II)............................................
Salt Lake City, Utah (IV) ...............................
Pacific................................................................
Honolulu, HI. (ill)'.

Riverside, Calif. (IV) ......................................

'The regions used in this study include: N e w E n g la n d Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; M id d le A tla n tic - New Jersey, New York, and
Pennsylvania; B o rd e r S ta te s - Delaware, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, Virginia,
and West Virginia; S o u th e a s t- Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Tennessee; S o u th w e st Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas; G re a t
L a ke s
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin; M id d le W e st Iowa, Kan­
sas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota; M o u n ta in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; P a c ific Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Ore­
gon, and Washington. Population size of city is shown In parentheses as follows: group l =
1,000,000 or more; group 11=500,000 to 1,000,000; group 111= 250,000 to 500,000; and group
IV = 100,000 to 250,000.

higher for bus operators in three cities: Boston, Chica­
go, and New York, and higher for subway operators in
only one, San Francisco.
Local transit operating employees in the Great Lakes
region recorded the highest average hourly rate, $8.99,
and those in the Southwest, the lowest, $6.82 (table 1).
Union contracts commonly provide for pay differ­
entials by length of service. Rate averages in table 1 are
based largely on the highest rate of the pay structure as
reported in each labor-management agreement within
an individual city of the survey.2 To develop averages,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics weighted the rates at or
near the top of the progression by the number of localtransit operating employees at those rates, about 67,100
total. Distribution of wage rates developed by the
study, and year-to-year wage changes also relate only to
union members at those rates. For national and regional
wage averages, the 62 cities studied were appropriately

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

Seattle Wash (II)
Spokane, Wash. (IV ) ......................................

Average
hourly ra te 2

$8.99
6.60
10.14
7 46
8 47
7 38
8.31
6.01
6.59
7.51
7 04
8 13
8 79
8 18
7 51

Change from July 1, 1978
Cents
per hour
92
56
122
58
85
67
40

Percent

59
69
26
60
102
58
69

11.4
9.3
13.7
84
11 2
100
5.1
—
9.8
10.1
38
80
13 1
76
10 1

22

40

7 71
8 20
6.24
8 64
4 85

50

11 5

6 89
8 30
7.27
6.11

61
82
68
49

97
11 0
10.3
8.7

8.39
7 44
7 58
8 20
8 61
9 25
8.61
7 71
9 53
8 00
8 13
919
7.82

53
83

6.8
126

43
52
95
52

56
64
11 4
6.4

65
8
138
85
81

73
10
20 4
102
11.6

—

2 Wage rates used to calculate these averages represent those available and payable only
on July 1,1979, and do not include later increases retroactive to that date or before. Such ret­
roactive increases are included In the wage rates reported in the following year’s survey. Aver­
ages were developed by weighting the top rate of length-of-service progressions that ended at
3 years or less for each occupation in each contract by the number of union members at that
rate on the survey date. In seven cities where progressions extended beyond 3 years, all con­
tract-stipulated rates, and associated union membership, at steps of 3 years or beyond were In­
cluded in the averages.
N ote : Variations in the size of annual increases from survey to survey may reflect, In part,
timing of negotiations. Dashes indicate no change in rate or a revised wage progression.

weighted to reflect union rates of local transit operating
employees, in each city with a population of 100,000 or
more.
A comprehensive report, Union Wages and Benefits:
Local-Transit Operating Employees, 1979, BLS Bulletin
2074, is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20402.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S -------------1 H igher increases were reported during 1973-74 (11.5 percent) and
1974-75 (11.3 percent). Union wage rates included in the BLS su r­
veys are the straight-tim e hourly rates agreed upon through collective
bargaining between em ployers and unions. T hey do not include em ­
ployer paym ents for vacations, holidays, or o ther purposes. Thus,
they m ay not represent actual am ounts earned by employees.
A single top rate was used whenever the progression ended at 3
years or less, in 55 out of 62 cities. F or progressions extending be­
yond 3 years, contract-stipulated rates and associated union m em ber­
ship, at steps of 3 years or beyond, were included.

39

Foreign Labor
Developments

British collective bargaining:
a decade of reformation
W i l l i a m A. B r o w n

During the 1970’s, two of the most distinctive features
of British industrial relations were called into question.
One was the informal way in which much bargaining
was conducted— few written agreements and little sense
of management strategy— and the other, the tradition
of “voluntarism” under which collective bargaining was
largely dissociated from the law. Management and
unions, with the vacillating intervention of government,
have been reorganizing themselves in the most radical
period of change since World War I.
Before describing and accounting for the transforma­
tion, it is necessary to say something about its economic
setting. Table 1 summarizes a number of relevant indi­
cators for the 1960’s and 1970’s and shows a compari­
son with the economic situation in the United States.
Both British and American economies have experienced
a slower rate of productivity growth than their interna­
tional competitors, and both have seen the rate fall over
the period. For Britain, a high dependence upon inter­
national trade has made this particularly serious. Cou­
pled with a much faster acceleration in price inflation
than in the United States, the consequences would have
been even more distasteful had it not been for the rapid
development of North Sea oil. But, while helping to
balance the foreign trade account, this has proved a
mixed blessing. By strengthening sterling as an interna­
tional currency it has weakened Britain’s competitive
position further and the country enters the 1980’s with
its manufacturing industry in deep trouble. Unemploy­
ment, which has risen steadily during the 1970’s, will
undoubtedly climb much further.
By the end of the 1960’s, British industrial relations
were in acute need of reform. More damaging than the
high level of strikes in certain industries was the generWilliam A. Brown is a professor and director of the Industrial Rela­
tions Research U nit at the University of W arwick, Coventry, G reat
Britain.

40 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ally inefficient use of manpower throughout the econo­
my. A Royal Commission under Lord Donovan argued
in 1968 that the problem was essentially an inappropri­
ate bargaining structure and that the solution lay with
employers themselves. They should face the fact that
their multiemployer bargaining arrangements might be
ineffective and, if so, they should set about concluding
single-employer agreements.

Development of the dual bargaining structure
Employers acted accordingly. By 1978, over twothirds of employees in manufacturing depended princi­
pally upon single-employer arrangements for their pay.
Some of the larger multiemployer agreements, such as
those for engineering and chemicals, have been altered
so that their pay rates only affect the low-paying firms.
In these cases, the role of the employers’ association has
moved from one of negotiating with unions toward ad­
vising member employers and dealing with government
on their behalf. But this has not been a total transfor­
mation. The bargaining structure of the British private
sector, increasingly taking a form that would be familiar
to Americans, is a dual structure, with multiemployer
agreements in industries where ease of entry is greater
(such as in construction, clothing, road haulage and ca­
tering) and with single-employer arrangements predomi­
nating in industries where large firms rule. And Britain,
like America but in sharp contrast with continental Eu­
ropean countries, is a country of giant firms. About half
of all British employees in the private manufacturing in­
dustry work for organizations with more than 20,000
employees. (Indeed, one of the most interesting ques­
tions for the future of the British bargaining structure is
how far these giant organizations centralize their
bargaining arrangements. Some show great reluctance
to allow the bargaining unit to extend beyond the indi­
vidual factory or, at most, the product division. But in
a crowded little country with an interventionist govern­
ment, the pressures for centralization are considerable.)
The professionalism of industrial relations manage­
ment has increased rapidly along with these changes in
bargaining structure. Ten years ago it was unusual for a
board of management to have a director whose sole re­
sponsibility was for personnel and industrial relations

matters, but it is now normal. In the majority of
workplaces, grievance procedures which were often ad
hoc and ambiguous have been replaced by written pro­
cedures. One of the most important areas of reform has
been payment systems. Payment-by-results or incentive
wage systems continue to be popular, but they are less
often the highly fragmented piecework schemes that
used to cause so much difficulty, and there is much wid­
er use of work study to back them up. Of particular im­
portance has been the rapid spread in the use of job
evaluation techniques in establishing the internal pay
structures of bargaining units. Almost one-fourth of the
manufacturing work force was covered at the end of the
1960’s and well over a half is covered now. The combi­
nation of single-employer bargaining and better regulat­
ed payment systems has greatly improved the control
that negotiators have over earnings. Whether or not
their pay deals are considered inflationary, they at least
arise from deliberate negotiation rather than aimless
wage “drift.”
Managers report that a major factor bringing about
this increased professionalism has been the great in­
crease in governmental intervention during the decade.
Statutory incomes policies and the creation of legal lia­
bilities for a diversity of matters (including unfair dis­
missal, sexual discrimination and health and safety)
have forced employers to create specialized industrial
relations functions. In addition, American-owned firms
in Britain have undoubtedly had a catalytic effect in
speeding change among the British through their prefer­
ence for single-employer bargaining and their use of
such techniques as job evaluation and productivity
bargaining.
It was noted earlier that many of the major employ­
ers’ associations have ceased to function primarily as
pay negotiators and instead are used by their members
as advisers and lobbyists. The one employer organiza­
tion that has grown substantially in stature during the
1970’s is the Confederation of British Industry. This
umbrella body has fought some effective battles for its
members to modify government action, most notably in
neutralizing the Labour government’s proposals to cre­
ate statutory worker directors.
However, the confederation is still very weak by com­
parison with its European counterparts and the sources
of its weakness are to be found back in the 19th centu­
ry. By comparison with other countries, industrializa­
tion in Britain came early and it came slowly. The
union movement that the first British factory owners
had to deal with had a craft rather than a Marxist tra­
dition. It was more concerned with regulating jobs at
the place of work than with transforming the society
outside. Elsewhere in Europe, a more rapid industrial­
ization and a more radical challenge forced employers
into firm coalitions aimed at preserving their preroga­

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

tives at the workplace. They achieved this through
strong industry-wide agreements. The importance of
employer solidarity and discipline has never been appre­
ciated to the same extent in Britain. Probably the single
most important question for the future of British indus­
trial relations is whether this will change.
Compared to American employers, British employers,
with few major exceptions, have not sought to avoid
collective bargaining. It is unusual for an employer to
take active steps to exclude trade unions, and both
Conservative and Labour governments have frowned
upon such actions. Thus, the response to the upsurge of
trade union activity at the workplace that came with
full employment was not to resist but to negotiate. The
shop stewards, who were elected representatives of the
workers, had developed from the craft traditions of the
union movement. At first, management’s dealings with
them were often somewhat furtive but, with the encour­
agement of the Donovan Commission and the develop­
ment of single-employer bargaining, they have come to
play a more formal role. In much of manufacturing in­
dustry, and elsewhere, stewards have become the princi­
pal negotiators for unions. Their procedural position
has been assured, they are entitled to hold meetings on
working time and they are given substantial administra­
tive support by management.

Union growth accelerates
This support for shop stewards has encouraged the
rapid growth in trade union membership which, as table
1 shows, is in contrast to the American experience.
There has been a widespread change in employer atti­
tudes to the union shop (in Britain called “closed” shop).
Until the 1970’s, the closed shop was largely enforced
by the unions. Now it is increasingly being administered
by management, primarily because recent legislation
makes the employer vulnerable if someone refuses to
join a trade union. The closed shop spread rapidly dur­
ing the 1970’s and now covers about a half of all trade
unionists (one-fourth of all employees). Also important
in terms of union security has been the spread of dues
checkoff arrangements. From being rather unusual at
the start of the decade, these arrangements probably
now cover three-fourths of union members.
In other respects, however, employers’ involvement in
union administration has raised major problems for the
unions themselves. The typical shop steward is responsi­
ble for about 40 union members and the discharge of
his duties takes a small part of his working week. But,
especially where work forces are greater than 500 em­
ployees, it has become normal for there to be at least
one senior shop steward who, although elected by the
work force, is paid by management to attend to trade
union duties full time. The number of such posts has
roughly quadrupled over the decade, and they far out41

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Foreign Labor Developments
number the full-time officials who are employed directly
by the trade unions. The problems raised by this devel­
opment have been primarily constitutional. Everyday
working relationships between full-time shop stewards
and full-time union-employed officials are generally very
good; their jobs are complementary. But it has often
proved difficult for unions to alter their constitutions in
order to involve these key negotiators in policymaking.
Although there is still a long way to go, British
unions have progressed considerably towards adapting
their manner of government to be more appropriate to
less industry-wide bargaining and more State interven­
tion. Shop stewards and lay activists have been brought
into decisionmaking up to the national executive level.
Although their coverage is haphazard and often
overlapping, the number of unions has been greatly re­
duced, with the largest 20 containing over three-fourths
of all trade union members. Their umbrella organiza­
tion, the Trades Union Congress which covers 90 per­
cent of all unionists, has gained authority during the
1970’s. A major triumph of the congress was in
defeating legislation— in this case Prime Minister Ed­
ward Heath’s Industrial Relations Act. During 1975
and 1976, the congress designed and effectively ran the
most successful post-War British incomes policy, the
Social Contract, in return for a number of legislative
concessions such as improved provisions for maternity
leave.

Government treads lightly
The government has also played a crucial part in the
transformation of British collective bargaining although
it has not done so readily. Whatever their political com­
plexion, successive governments have gone to strenuous
lengths to avoid being caught up in the maelstrom.
(Two prime ministers, Heath in 1974 and James
Callaghan in 1979, found public sector strikes to be
their political downfall.) And yet governments have, for
three distinct reasons, been unable to avoid getting in­
volved. They have been involved, first, as employers
themselves, second as legislators, and third, as regula­
tors of the economy.
The public sector in Britain is large by American
standards, although not by European standards. It cov­
ers, for example, the energy, transport, education,
health, aircraft, and water industries; in all about 30
percent of the work force, virtually all of whom are in
trade unions and covered by collective agreements. For
many decades the bargaining was conducted in a fairly
sedate way. The general rule was that the various parts
of the public sector kept their pay roughly in line with
each other and slightly behind private industry. With a
few exceptions (as in coal mining), the national union
officials were in control. But in the late 1960’s, efforts to
increase productivity led to the introduction of pay­
Digitized 42
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ment-by-results in many public services and utilities.
Coupled with the start of worldwide inflation, this led
to an upsurge of shop steward activity and an unprece­
dented willingness to take strike action. Nurses, sewage
men, pilots, civil servants, teachers, power station work­
ers and many others thought the unthinkable and dis­
rupted the public.
The immediate result in the early 1970’s was that pay
in the public sector surged ahead of that in private in­
dustry. To some extent the subsequent massive cuts in
public spending have brought pay more into line, but
the basic problem is unresolved. How can collective
bargaining proceed in the nonmarket sector when the
work force is strike-prone? Prime Minister Callaghan in­
novated a Commission on Pay Comparability which
used job evaluation techniques to link public sector pay
to that prevailing in the private sector. It brought a de­
gree of peace but has now been abolished by the cur­
rent Conservative government as being too inflationary.
It will probably be reintroduced under a different name
in the future. However, the Trade Union Congress and
governments are moving, albeit crabwise, towards a co­
herent policy for the public sector. As the effective
number of bargaining units within it diminishes, the
chance of more orderly collective bargaining increases.
Government was first drawn into major industrial re­
lations legislation by what was seen as a serious strike
problem in the 1960’s. As table 1 shows, the British
strike problem, though fewer in days lost than the Unit­
ed States, was characterized by a relatively large numTable 1. Economic indicators for the United Kingdom and
United States
1960-64
Indicator

1970-74

1965—69

1975 79

United United United United United United United United
Kingdom States Kingdom States Kingdom States Kingdom States

Productivity1 . . .

2.3

3.5

2.7

2.0

2.0

0.5

1.5

1.5

Cost of living2
(retail or
consumer price
indexes).........

3.2

1.2

4.3

3.4

9.6

6.1

15.6

8.1

Unemployment
(percent of to­
tal workforce) .

1.7

5.7

2.0

3.8

3.0

5.4

5.6

7.0

Trade unionism
(members as
percent of total
workforce) .. .

42.9

22.6

43.2

22.7

48.9

22.0

52.5

Strikes (number
per 100,000
employees) ..

10.8

5.7

10.0

6.9

12.7

7.2

10.4

6.2

Work days lost
(per 100 em­
ployees) .........

14

30

17

53

62

57

53

40

11ndicates average annual percent change of Gross Domestic Product per employee or
output per person in private sector.
2 Average annual percent change.
N ote : Data for United Kingdom are from Department of Government Gazette; data for
United States are from the S ta tis tic a l A b s tra c t o f th e U n ite d S ta tes.

ber of short strikes. At the start of this century, legisla­
tors had sought to keep industrial disputes out of the
courts by giving trade unions immunities from prosecu­
tion for the use of sanctions. Subsequently, bar­
gaining developed with little contact with the law. The
first big departure from this pattern came with the at­
tempt of the Conservative government in 1971, in
conscious imitation of the United States, to encourage
legally binding agreements and to discourage the closed
shop and unconstitutional strikes. This attempt, the In­
dustrial Relations Act, was largely a failure. Trade
unions refused to register under it, attempts to prose­
cute them were acutely embarrassing, and management
carried on much as before.
It would not be surprising if the following Labour
government had simply restored the status quo ante.
What was a further major departure from British tradi­
tion was that, besides doing this, the government also
introduced a varied mixture of fresh protections for
trade unions and employees. At the request of the Con­
gress, and in return for pay restraint, legislation was in­
troduced to encourage shop steward training, involve
workers in the monitoring of health and safety at work,
improve maternity leave, and to increase pay. The tradi­
tion of “voluntarism” , it seemed, was truly dead.
Unions which previously sought to achieve gains
through collective bargaining were turning to the legis­
lation they had previously shunned.
Consequently, it’s not surprising that with the return
of a Conservative British government in 1979 came an
attempt to roll back some of these gains. The Employ­
ment Act of 1980 reduces some statutory protections,
removes powers to force employers to recognize trade
unions, and encourages the use of ballots in trade
unions. Two provisions in the act are likely to draw the
anger of trade unions: one applies more stringent rules
to the introduction of a closed shop, the other seeks to
limit the number of pickets during a strike. But these
provisions have been drafted with a degree of caution
that will probably deny them much impact. However
much the electorate may demand action to reduce in­


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

dustrial unrest, governments are learning that their di­
rect involvement may create more problems than it
solves.
More than anything else, the rise in British strikes
during the 1970’s was caused by inflation. The inflation
may be worldwide in origin but the British system of
collective bargaining has proved itself a powerful ampli­
fier of that inflation. In a fragmented bargaining struc­
ture, strong unions tend to chase up prices simply by
seeking to preserve real incomes. At frequent intervals
during the last 15 years, British governments have inter­
vened in the bargaining process with recipes, threats,
and inducements. Success has usually been short-lived,
and the political price has been high. The arrival of
North Sea oil revenues has temporarily removed the
pressure from foreign creditors to embark on these
thankless interventions and Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher’s hopes have shifted to the use of a stringent
monetary policy. But the policy also brings imbalances
to Britain’s position in the world economy, and it is
questionable whether the accompanying high unemploy­
ment will reduce the desire of the employed to protect
their real incomes. The question is not whether there
will be further attempts at incomes policy but whether
such attempts will benefit from past experience.
The best grounds for optimism come from the evi­
dence outlined here on the reform of the British
bargaining structure. In both private and public sectors
bargaining units are becoming more clear-cut and pay
determination less diffuse. In its Social Contract policy,
the Trade Union Congress showed itself capable of
keeping the very diverse unions in its membership to a
remarkably strict policy. If the Confederation of British
Industry can develop similar unity of purpose and ac­
tion among employers, there is a chance for the coordi­
nation of pay bargaining necessary to prevent the
spiraling of wages. The deeply rooted British reverence
for free collective bargaining should not be confused
with a desire to keep it fragmented. The role of govern­
ment will increasingly become one of broker to some
form of centralized negotiation.
□

43

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.
N u m b er of

U n io n 1

In d u stry

E m p lo y er and lo ca tio n

w o rk ers

Beech Aircraft Corp. (Kansas & Colorado) ......................................................
Bethlehem Steel Corp., Shipbuilding Department (Massachusetts,
M aryland, and New Jersey)

Transportation equipment . . . .
Transportation equipment . . . .

Machinists .................................................
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers . . .

6,500
5,000

Champion International Corp., Champion Papers Division (Canton, N.C.)
Colt Industries, Inc., Fairbanks Morse Engine Division (Beloit, Wis.) . . . .
Council of Hawaii Hotels Maui Hawaii Island (H a w a ii)................................

Paper . . . ......................................
Machinery ...................................
H o te l..............................................

Paperworkers ...........................................
Steelworkers ..............................................
Longshoremen’s Association ................

1,650
1,200
4,000

General Telephone Co. of F lo r id a .........................................................................

C om m unication...........................

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

7,700

Independent Restaurants & Taverns Agreement (California)- ......................

Restaurants

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

Hotel and Restaurant Employees . . . .

6,000

Leviton M anufacturing Co., Inc. (New Y o r k ) ...................................................

Electrical p ro d u c ts .....................

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

2,000

Maintenance Contractors Agreement (M assachusetts)2 ...................................
Mechanical Contractors D.C. Association, Inc. (District of Columbia,
M aryland, and Virginia)
M etropolitan Rigid Paper Box M anufacturers Association, Inc.
(New York, N.Y.)

Services ........................................
C o n stru c tio n ................................

Service Employees ...................................
Plumbers ...................................................

4,000
1,800

P a p e r ..............................................

Paperworkers

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

1,050

New Jersey Zinc Co. (Palmerton, P a . ) .................................................................

Primary metals ...........................

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

1,250

Nabisco, Inc. (In te rs ta te ).........................................................................................

Food products

Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco
Workers

2,700

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

. .

1,000

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

1,200

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers
William Powell Co. (Cincinnati, O h io ) .................................................................

Fabricated metal products

.. .

G o v ern m en t a c tiv ity

Illinois: Chicago Board of E d u c a tio n ...................................................................
Michigan: Warren Consolidated Schools, Teachers ........................................
Missouri: Department of Mental Health ...........................................................

E d u c a tio n ......................................
E d u c a tio n ......................................
H e a lt h ...........................................

Nebraska: Omaha Board of Education, T e a c h e rs ..............................................
Ohio: Cleveland Board of Education, T e a c h e r s ................................................

E d u c a tio n ......................................
E d u c a tio n ......................................

Pennsylvania State College, Faculty ...................................................................
W ashington: Spokane Public Schools, T e a c h e rs ................................................

E d u c a tio n ......................................
E d u c a tio n ......................................

'Affiliated with A FL -C IO except where noted as independent (Ind.)
’Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).


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

E m p lo y e e o r g a n iza tio n '

American Federation of Teachers . . . .
National Education Association (Ind.)
American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees
National Education Association (Ind.)
American Federation of Teachers . . . .
National Education Association (Ind.)
National Education Association (Ind.)
National Education Association (Ind.)

27,000
1,250
8,000
2,950
5,700
4,500
4,500
1,500

Developments in
Industrial Relations
Teamsters president dies
Teamsters President Frank E. Fitzsimmons died on
May 6, ending a 14-year reign as leader of the Nation’s
largest union. Fitzsimmons, age 73, had been suffering
from lung cancer since 1979. The union’s executive
board unanimously selected Teamsters Vice President
Roy L. Williams to serve the remainder of Fitzsim­
mons’ term. Later, at the union’s scheduled convention,
Williams was elected to a 5-year term.
Fitzsimmons gained the leadership of the 2.3-million
member union in 1967, when he was elected to the new
post of general vice president to conduct union affairs
while President James R. Hoffa served a prison sen­
tence. This “caretaker” arrangement ended on July 8,
1971, when delegates to the union convention elected
him to succeed Hoffa, who was still in prison.
Fitzsimmons then won a 5-year term as president at the
union’s 1976 convention. (Hoffa, who was released from
prison in December 1971, announced plans to seek the
presidency at the 1976 convention, but this possibility
ended with his disappearance in July 1975.)
Under Fitzsimmons, operation of the union was
decentralized, in contrast to the earlier years when all
major decisions were made by Hoffa. The Fitzsimmons
era did resemble that of Hoffa and his predecessor Dave
Beck in one respect, as some officials were involved in
legal disputes with the Federal Government over their
conduct of union affairs. In 1978, the Department of
Labor sued officials of the union to recover money lost
as a result of their alleged mismanagement of the Cen­
tral States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension
Fund. This civil suit was expanded in April 1981 to in­
clude nine more allegedly mismanaged loan transac­
tions.
President Reagan called the death of Fitzsimmons “a
sad moment not only for the millions of Teamsters
union members, but for our Nation as well” and de­
scribed him as “a hard bargainer who won the respect
of both business and political leaders.” A F L -C IO Presi-

“ D evelopm ents in Industrial R elations” is prepared by G eorge Ruben
an d o th er m em bers of the staff of the Division of T rends in Employee
C om pensation, Bureau of L abor Statistics, and is largely based on in­
form ation from secondary sources.


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

dent Lane K irkland.and Secretary-Treasurer Thomas
Donahue said, “We are saddened by the death . . . . He
cooperated with many of our affiliates on issues of mu­
tual concern . . . . ”
At the time of Fitzsimmons’ death, the Teamsters’
union was involved in efforts to enforce provisions of its
1979 agreement with the trucking industry, as some
companies were refusing to pay a 35-cent-an-hour de­
ferred wage increase and a 42-cent automatic cost-of-liv­
ing increase scheduled for April 1. The employers said
they could not afford the pay increases because the Mo­
tor Carrier Act of 1980, which deregulated the industry,
made it difficult to pass the cost to shippers.
In 1980, the Teamsters turned down Trucking Man­
agement Inc.’s request for national bargaining on cost
concessions the association said its members needed to
^compete effectively with nonunion firms. (See Monthly
Labor Review, November 1980, p. 51.) The parties’ cur­
rent contract expires on March 31, 1982.

Delegates pick Roy Williams to head Teamsters
The major item of business at the Teamsters’ 22nd
convention in Las Vegas, Nev., was the election of in­
terim president Roy Williams to a 5-year term as head
of the union. Williams easily defeated Peter Camarata, a
warehouse worker from Detroit and leader of the Team­
sters for a Democratic Union, a small dissident group.
The 2,200 delegates also raised salaries for union of­
ficers. The increase for Williams, who already was the
Nation’s highest paid labor leader, was 44 percent,
bringing his salary to $225,000 a year. Secretary-trea­
surer Ray Schoessling received a 60-percent increase, to
$ 200, 000 .
In other business, the delegates approved several con­
stitutional amendments that apparently gave the leaders
more control of the union. The amendments include (1)
a loyalty oath forbidding members from discussing,
without authorization, union business with non­
members; (2) a provision requiring seasonal and parttime workers to pay dues the entire year to -be “in good
standing” and eligible for office; (3) elimination of a re­
quirement that officers “shall as nearly as practicable be
uniformly distributed throughout the entire jurisdic­
tion” of the union; and (4) a change forbidding the elec-

45

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Developments in Industrial Relations
tion of business agents unless the existing local bylaws
already provide for their election.
The convention did not take up the issue of
reaffiliating with the AFL-CIO. Earlier this year, AFL-CIO
President Lane Kirkland had invited the Teamsters and
other unions to rejoin the federation.

Concessions at General Tire
Workers at the General Tire & Rubber Co. plant in
Logansport, Ind., have agreed to wage concessions in
an effort to avoid further production cutbacks. A com­
pany official said the concessions were necessary to “en­
able the company to be more competitive in seeking
new business” for the facility, which produces rubber
and metal bushings.
Under the settlement, the employees, who are repre­
sented by the United Rubber Workers, will not receive
a 25-cent-an-hour wage increase scheduled for July
1981, the existing agreement was extended 1 year (to
July 1983), and employees will no longer receive auto­
matic quarterly cost-of-living pay adjustments. They
will receive a 30-cent wage increase in July 1982. The
Supplemental Unemployment Benefits plan also was ter­
minated, except for insurance retention and separation
pay protections for laid off employees.
In 1980, the workers rejected a company request for
wage concessions. Shortly afterwards, the company de­
cided to move some production to other plants, result­
ing in the loss of 50 jobs. The Logansport plant
currently employs about 160 workers represented by the
union, down from 450 in 1978.

sues. Much of this opposition eased as these officers re­
tired.
The 1.2-million member UAW has been one of the
largest independent unions since 1968, when Walter
Reuther led the union out of the AFL-CIO because of
political and philosophical differences with George Meany, then president of the federation. AFL-CIO President
Lane Kirkland led off his first term of office by inviting
the UAW and other independent unions to join the fed­
eration.

Two service unions move toward merger
The Service Employees and the Retail, Wholesale,
and Department Store unions moved toward a merger,
as their executive boards agreed to submit the proposal
to conventions scheduled for early 1982. If approved,
the merged union would take the name of the Service
Employees and, with more than 900,000 members,
would be the fourth largest union in the AFL-CIO. Ser­
vice Employee’s President John Sweeney, would head
the new organization. Sweeney said the merger would
aid organizing efforts and improve geographic coverage,
particularly in the health care field, where the two
unions have been competing for the right to represent
the same workers. Presently, health care employees rep­
resented by the Service Employees are concentrated in
the Midwest and on the West Coast, while those repre­
sented by the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store
Union are concentrated along the East Coast. Alvin
Heaps, president of the 235,000-member Retail, Whole­
sale, and Department Store Union would be executive
vice president of the new organization.

California engineers accept $4 cut in benefits
UAW prepares to rejoin AFL-CIO

Members of the United Auto Workers have autho­
rized the union’s executive board to take the necessary
steps to reaffiliate with the AFL-CIO. UAW President
Douglas A. Fraser said the executive board would move
quickly to complete negotiations with the federation be­
cause labor unity “can only strengthen the trade union
movement at a time when it is under severe attack. . . .”
Reportedly, most of the conditions had already been
worked o u t— the final terms only had to be approved
by the union’s executive board and the federation’s ex­
ecutive council before a formal reaffiliation ceremony at
the AFL-Cio’s November convention.
Fraser had initiated reaffiliation discussions within
the UAW shortly after his election in 1977 but terminat­
ed them because of opposition from some officers and
rank-and-file members over financial and political is­

Digitized for
46FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

In Northern California, Local 3 of the Operating En­
gineers and some employers agreed to cuts in benefits to
counter the increasing inroads of nonunion construction
companies. The $4-an-hour cut — which was limited to
work on privately financed projects— applied to about
1,000 workers but negotiations were continuing for an
additional 9,000. The settlements with the individual
companies were in the form of “custom” agreements
modifying the master contract between the union and
the Associated General Contractors of California, which
expires in June 1983. Prior to the cost concession settle­
ments, the union members earned about $22.50 an
hour, including $6.98 in benefits.
The area covered by the bargaining ranges from
Bakersfield to the Oregon border, excluding the San
Francisco, San Jose, and Sacramento metropolitan
areas.

Sugar plantations settle early
In Hawaii, 14 sugar plantation companies and the In­
ternational Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s union
settled a year in advance of the scheduled 1982 expira­
tion date of their existing contract. The new contract
will expire in 1983.
The settlement for the 7,500 workers provided for a
10-percent wage increase on February 1, 1982. The
1980 agreement had provided for wage increases on
February 1 of 1982 and 1983 that raised pay rates to a
range of $6.09 to $8.62 an hour. The parties also nego­
tiated a 5-year pension agreement (expiring in 1986)
that provided for pensions to be determined on a com­
bination of years of service and pre-retirement earnings,
which the union said would result in larger benefits.
Previously, benefits were based only on length of ser­
vice.

Two automakers resume merit pay increases
Ford M otor Co. and General Motors Corp. an­
nounced a resumption of merit pay increases for
salaried employees in an effort to keep key employees
from leaving for better paying jobs in other industries.
Merit increases had been suspended in 1980 at both
companies as a result of operating losses. According to
a Ford official, a small percentage of the payroll will be
put into a pool to be distributed strictly on perfor­
mance.
Chrysler Corp., which eliminated merit raises in Sep­
tember 1979, said that its latest corporate restructuring
plan (see Monthly Labor Review, March 1981, p. 73)
virtually eliminates the possibility of a resumption of
merit raises for “the next 15 months or so.” However,
the corporation does grant salary increases to certain
“high potential” employees.

Hotel and motel employees reopen contract
About 25,000 workers were covered by a settlement
between the Hotel Association of New York City and
the eight unions which make up the New York Hotel
and Motel Trades Council. The bargaining was con­
ducted under a contract provision permitting the re­
opening of negotiations if, during the year ended June
1980, the percentage rise in the Bureau of Labor Statis­
tics Consumer Price Index for the New York CityNortheastern New Jersey area exceeded the total of the
specified wage increases received during the period. The
1981 settlement provided for wage and benefit improve­
ments and extended the existing contract by 3 years.
The initial wage increase, retroactive to January 1,
1981, was $5.50 a week for nontipped employees and
$3.80 for tipped employees. Further increases are $20,

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

$25, and $25.50 a week for nontipped employees on
June 1 of 1981, 1982, and 1983. Tipped employees re­
ceive increases of $13.75, $17.20, and $17.50 on the cor­
responding dates. The night shift differential was in­
creased to 40 cents an hour, from 30 cents, and there
also were additional pay adjustments for certain types
of workers. The contract is subject to a cost-of-living
reopening in 1984.
Benefit improvements included a $30-, $65-, and
$100-a-month increase in the $150 pension for employ­
ees who retire after June 1 of 1981, 1982, and 1983, re­
spectively.
Paid funeral leave and optical benefits were es­
tablished. The optical plan is financed by an existing
employer benefit cost obligation of $1.50 a month for
each worker.

Public employee settlements
The State of Illinois and the State, County and Mu­
nicipal Employees negotiated a 2-year contract to be­
come effective on the July 1, 1981, termination of their
existing contract. The accord, which covered 40,000
State employees, provided for an 8-percent increase in
salary scales on that date and an additional 8-percent
increase a year later. Salary scales previously ranged
from $9,360 to $50,000 a year.
In Minnesota, 2,700 Hennepin County employees ap­
proved a 2-year contract that provided for a 9-percent
salary increase in each year. It also called for additional
pay adjustments of 2.5 to 20 percent for 930 employees
and for improvements in benefits. The employees are
represented by the S tate/C ounty and Municipal Em­
ployees union.
A 5-month strike against the Ravenna, Ohio, public
school system ended when the school board approved a
settlement with the local unit of the National Education
Association. The walkout, possibly the longest in the
history of U.S. public schools, began in November and
centered on the teachers’ salary demands. Initially, more
than 200 teachers participated in the strike, but only
117 were still out at the time of the settlement. The
schools continued to operate during the strike, staffed
by nonstrikers, administrators, and substitute teachers.
The contract, which expires on August 1, 1982, pro­
vides for a 6-percent salary increase for the teachers,
contingent on the outcome of a special referendum on a
tax increase to meet the cost.
The Kansas City, Mo., School District and the local
affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers negoti­
ated a 7-percent salary increase for the 1981-82 school
year. School officials, who had been offering a 6-percent
increase just prior to the settlement, said that the cost
of the higher increase could lead to the furlough of 80
to 120 employees, in addition to an estimated 650 em47

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Developments in Industrial Relations
ployees already expected to be laid off. Other provisions
included an increase in length-of-service salary incre­
ments and in the District’s financing of health and den­
tal insurance.

Settlement reached in asbestos exposure case
Five asbestos companies have reached an out-of-court
settlement with workers who claimed damages because
of adverse health conditions resulting from exposure to
the mineral. The settlement was approved just before
the start of the trial of the 6-year-old case, which con­
solidated nine suits containing 680 claims of $2 million
each.
The claims were filed by employees of a former
Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., plant in Passaic, N.J. The
employees contended that they were poisoned while
making products from asbestos supplied by JohnsManville Corp., Asbestos Corp. of America, and three
Canadian Companies— Bell’s Asbestos Co., Asbestos
Corp., and Cassier Asbestos Ltd. Metropolitan Life In­
surance Co., which did studies of the effects of asbestos
in the 1930’s, also was a defendant.
Under the settlement, the companies established a
$9.4-million fund to be distributed to the 680 workers
in amounts to be decided later.
Although Raybestos-Manhattan was not a defendant
in the case, it faced other claims resulting from expo­
sure to asbestos. The company said that the number of
complaints was 5,375 in January 1981, up from 2,240 at
the end of 1979.

Employers cannot sue strikers, high court says
Employer rights to seek damages for violations of
collective bargaining agreements were further limited by
a Supreme Court ruling that individual union members
can not be sued for losses resulting from an illegal
strike, whether or not the strike was authorized by the
union. The case arose in 1976 when Complete Auto
Transit, Inc., and two other Flint, Mich., auto-transport
companies sued members of Teamsters Local 332 for
damages, contending that their 13-day wildcat strike vi­
olated a no-strike clause of the union’s collective
bargaining agreement with the companies. The employ­
ers did not seek damages from the local because it did
not authorize or condone the strike. The walkout result­
ed from a dispute among the employees over whether
the local was adequately representing them.
In the suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the East­
ern District of Michigan, the companies contended that
damages were available under Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1947, which specifies the
conditions under which employers can initiate suits for
violation of contracts. However, the District Court held
Digitized 48
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

that the act did not permit damages to be assessed
against individual employees; this ruling was affirmed
by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Justice Wil­
liam Brennan said that Section 301 specifically excludes
damages against individual workers for breach of a col­
lective bargaining agreement and that the legislative his­
tory of the act indicates “that Congress wanted to
shield individual employees, even though it might leave
the employer unable to recover for his losses.” He
interpreted the wording of Section 301 as “a deeply felt
Congressional reaction” against the Supreme Court’s
1915 Danbury Hatters ruling, in which many workers
lost their homes to satisfy damage claims resulting from
a nationwide union-directed boycott. Justice Lewis F.
Powell concurred in the majority interpretation of the
law, but expressed concern that the absence of remedies
set by Congress results in a “lawless vacuum.”
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice William
H. Rehnquist dissented, explaining that the Court’s rul­
ing means that employees are a “special privileged
class,” able to hold employers liable for breaches of
contract but immune from action for their own
breaches.
In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that individual
union officials cannot be held liable for damages result­
ing from a union strike in violation of a contract. In
1979, the court ruled that a union could not be sued for
damages for a wildcat strike it did not sanction.

Arbitration does not preclude Federal suit
The Supreme Court has ruled that submission of a
wage claim to arbitration does not preclude employees
from seeking redress under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. The issue arose when Arkansas-Best Freight Sys­
tems of Little Rock, Ark., turned down a request by
truck drivers that they be paid for time spent on man­
datory safety inspections performed before each trip.
The drivers then filed a grievance, citing a contract pro­
vision requiring Arkansas-Best to pay employees “for
all time worked by them in the service of the employ­
er.” A joint union-industry arbitration panel rejected
the claim, without explanation. Then, eight drivers filed
a suit in Federal District Court asserting that the time
was compensable under provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and that they were, therefore, entitled to
actual and liquidated damages, costs, and attorney’s
fees. The drivers also alleged that they had not been ad­
equately represented by the union and sought to have
the arbitration award set aside and to have proper com­
pensation awarded under terms of the labor contract.
The District Court addressed only the fair representa­
tion claim and rejected it. The Court of Appeals
concurred, and also held that the lower court was cor-

rect in not addressing the Fair Labor Standards Act
claim, concluding that the drivers’ voluntary submission
of the dispute to arbitration precluded them from seek­
ing statutory relief.
In reversing the Eighth Circuit decision, Justice
Brennan, writing for the majority, said:
“ Not all disputes between an employee and his employer
are suited for binding resolution in accordance with the
procedures established by collective bargaining. While
courts should defer to an arbitral decision where the em­
ployee’s claim is based on rights arising out of the collec­
tive-bargaining agreement, different considerations apply
where the employee’s claim is based on rights arising out of
a statute designed to provide minimum substantive guaran­
tees to individual workers.”

Brennan said similar considerations were the basis for
the Court’s 1974 decision in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., which held that arbitration does not prevent an
employee from bringing suit under the Civil Rights Act
of 1964.
In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger
and Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the ma­
jority decision that minimum wage provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act may not be waived through
the collective bargaining process and that the act cre­
ates a private cause of action to vindicate the right to a
minimum wage. However, they contended that the ma­
jority opinion ignored “a strong congressional policy fa­
voring grievance procedures and arbitration as a
method of resolving labor disputes.”

Supreme Court finds pension offset valid
Pensions can be reduced by the amount of any award
for an injury covered by a State workers’ compensation
law, according to the Supreme Court. The Court said
that the Congress approved such an offset in enacting
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(erisa ).


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

The case originated when General Motors Corp. and
Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. retirees in New Jersey filed
class action suits in a State court charging that the
companies violated a 1977 amendment to the New Jer­
sey Compensation Act when they reduced pensions
based on workers’ compensation awards. Subsequently,
the actions were shifted to the Federal District Court,
which held that the amendment to the State law was
valid; that Congress had not intended ERISA to pre­
empt such State laws; that the offsets were prohibited
by Section 203 of ERISA, which states that pension
plans “shall provide that an employee’s right to his
normal retirement benefits is nonforfeitable upon at­
tainment of normal retirement age;” and that a De­
partment of the Treasury regulation authorizing such
offsets was invalid. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the decisions, which led to the appeal to the
Supreme Court.
In the unanimous decision, written by Justice
Thurgood Marshall for the eight justices who partici­
pated, the Court said that the retirees’ arguments based
on Section 203 of ERISA ignored the fact that Congress
did not restrict the freedom of private parties to deter­
mine the composition of the pension benefits protected
by the section. The Court also decided that the act spe­
cifically limited the integration of pensions with social
security and railroad retirement benefits, which the
Court viewed as an indication that the Congress intend­
ed to permit the integration of pensions with workers’
compensation and other types of payments.
The Court also rejected the retirees’ contention that
ERISA’s provisions for preempting State or local laws
only applied to such laws when they directly regulate
pension plans. Justice Marshall said that the State’s
workers’ compensation act was subject to preemption
because ERISA “makes clear that even indirect State ac­
tion bearing on private pensions may encroach upon the
area of exclusive Federal concern.”
□

49

Book Reviews

Business versus government: a plea for comity
Business and Public Policy. Edited by John T. Dunlop.
Boston, Mass., Harvard University press, 1980.
118 pp. $6.95.
In 1980, the year of apparently modest economic
downturn, business publications, and the public press,
in general, have been filling many pages with questions
about where American business is heading, the quality
of its leadership, the degree of government contribu­
tions to the present state of affairs, and the amount of
increased government intervention or accelerated dereg­
ulation desired, presumably to make matters right.
Running below this surface turbulence is a condition
identified by editor John T. Dunlop, whose carefully re­
strained opening sentence in one of the seven prescient
essays presented here reads: “ It is probably not too
much to say that business executives and government
officials often do not get along.”
This slim volume is a prospectus and proposal by
Harvard University through its Business School, on one
hand, and its School of Government, on the other, to
evolve and shape new educational models for replacing
abrasive adversity with a more enlightened comity in
the relationships between officials of the public and the
private sectors. Appropriate staffs of professors and as­
sistants will be assigned to each of the two specialized
schools and from these separate bases will work togeth­
er in establishing research and case study material for
graduate and executive level work in the business —
public policy area.
The essays which comprise this book, two by
businessmen, Irving Shapiro and George Shultz, three
by faculty of the Business School, and two by the edi­
tor, develop a history of business versus government,
some viewpoints of how matters stand today, and a dis­
cussion of efforts needed to get a project of this magni­
tude under way. The opening faculty contribution
points out that government regulation of business, start­
ing in the latter part of the 19th century, developed
from the appeals of small businessmen who felt threat­
ened by rate discriminations in which the dominant rail­
roads of the day favored large shippers over the small
50 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

and similar practices in which large entities bid to over­
run the little business operator.
Regulation by government aimed at maintaining fair
competitive practices, however, did not provoke the ire
of business nearly as much as the comparatively recent
growth of socially inspired regulation which sought
benefits for the public at large. A cleaner environment,
consumer protection, equality in employment, protec­
tion against workplace accidents and illnesses, plus the
expansion of economic aid to the aged and the poor,
have been viewed by large segments of business as par­
ticularly burdensome, and, in an economic sense, as
counterproductive to normal business health and
growth, and, thus, the national well-being.
Materially reducing the level of government subsidy
to various public claimants, or the amount of regulation
against the undesirable effects which often accompany
some industrial activities, is not viewed as likely by the
Harvard faculty people writing here. Business and gov­
ernment leaders, they feel, must therefore continue to
confront such issues. However, with increased learning
and knowledge, the leaders can move in the direction of
improved mutual understanding, and thus more benefi­
cial joint problem solving. The professors seem to agree
with Irving Shapiro, who says, “ . . . . the basic lesson
to learn is that government and business operate in dif­
ferent environments. What makes a convincing case in
one of them may seem almost irrelevant in the other.”
The main thrust of this book, the establishment of
separated, but cooperating, learning centers for the de­
velopment of a more realistic business and public poli­
cy, does not add claims of guaranteed solutions to the
business-government dichotomy. Rather, it looks to a
period of search and trial, a search and trial based on
the solid foundations of these two schools, and further
aided by the presence of representative business and
government students in each of their graduate level pro­
grams. First among the topics to be explored are the
decision-making processes in each realm — government
policy and business actions— and how each of these is
perceived and acted upon by the other. Also under con­
sideration in curricular development, among numerous
other areas of research, are possible adaptations that
may make effective use of the existing hundreds of advi-

sory committees, many of which are now acting, ac­
cording to the faculty writers, as window dressing to
the government.
This is an important book because it presents in very
readable style an important idea. Again quoting from
Shapiro of Du Pont: “What the Nation needs from
business and government is an understanding that nei­
ther one of those institutions has a monopoly on intelli­
gence or probity. . . . Such understanding can be built
only through education and experience.”
— K e n n e t h G. V a n A u k e n , J r .
Special Assistant to the
Commissioner of Labor Statistics

Another path to full employment
The Full Employment Alternative. By Andrew Levison.
New York, Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, Inc.,
1980. 252 pp., bibliography. $10.95
Andrew Levison’s book, directed to a general audi­
ence, is a call for the achievement of economic security
for Americans, through national commitment to a
broadened concept of full employment and the coordi­
nation and prioritizing of national goals. He views eco­
nomic security as dependent first upon the availability
of suitable jobs for those able to work and then upon
legislation ensuring the basic necessities of adequate
housing, education, and health. Levison’s thesis is that
the top priority domestic policy goal should be full em­
ployment, with unemployment measured by hardship or
economic inadequacy rather than by the current official
unemployment rate, which understates the impacts of
unemployment by failing to measure subemployment or
the severity of unemployment. He suggests the use of a
measure such as the Employment and Earnings Inade­
quacy Index, developed by Sar Levitan, to more fully
describe the impact and human meaning of unem­
ployment.
Following this introduction to modern unemploy­
ment, analyzed as structurally different from unemploy­
ment of the 1930’s, which he asserts still influences the
policies taken, Levison presents what he dichotomizes
as the “conservative solution” and the “liberal dilem­
ma” . He describes the conservative solution as imbed­
ded in the neoclassical theory of a self-adjusting free
market, which commits its proponents to an outmoded
philosophy of laissez faire. In contrast, the liberal di­
lemma arises with the Keynesian-based recognition that
laissez faire offers no pragmatic solution to modern
structural unemployment but with liberals totally com­
mitted to standard monetary and fiscal policies to solve
unemployment. These general stimulative policies also

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

fail to achieve the desired goal because they engender a
trade-off perspective between unemployment and infla­
tion. Levison’s dichotomizing of these two views as ba­
sically Democratic and Republican is somewhat over­
stated, as there is a large area of overlap in both the
rhetoric and policy thrusts of the two political parties.
However, to extend this timely book a few months be­
yond its publication, I would point out that President
Reagan’s statements of long-range goals do not empha­
size full employment or economic security in the terms
in which Levison presents them.
As background to his proposed solution calling for
coordination of government policies and a coalition of
government, business, and labor, Levison describes the
various approaches of England, Germany, France, and
Sweden. He indicates that we could learn much by rec­
ognizing, as these European governments have, that nei­
ther the neoclassical nor the Keynesian solution suffices
today and that an alternative approach is required.
Levison’s alternative proposal encompasses three funda­
mental features. He calls for coordination of all major
forms of government intervention through the establish­
ment of a basic framework of social goals. This “eco­
nomic policy planning” is advocated as an extension of
the approach established by the Humphrey-Hawkins
Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act. Second,
the concerted effort he advocates can be made only if
labor, business, and government come to an accord or
social contract to allow wage restraint and other con­
cessions to be negotiated in the context of broad agree­
ments, in contrast to unilateral wage-price guidelines or
controls. Levison further wants to make economic secu­
rity and jobs the central issue instead of current empha­
sis on income and poverty.
This book succeeds iff presenting a broad approach
to the achievement of meaningful full employment with­
out the necessity of inflation. Levison’s call for coordi­
nation of policies and long-term policy planning in the
context of negotiated agreements among major econom­
ic constituencies provides the foundation for a viable
full employment alternative. It is an important and
throught-provoking issue. The book suffers, however,
from an overabundance of too-long quotations, many of
which are redundant and do little to clarify the funda­
mental issues. It appears Levison quotes a wide variety
of sources in order to humanize the dismal science, but
his own optimistic and viable alternative suffices to pro­
vide a humanistic thrust to policy formulation. The
overriding question which ensues is: Will we have the
wisdom and concerted drive to pursue such an alterna­
tive?
— R o se M . R u b in
Department of Economics
North Texas State University
51

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Book Reviews

Teen unemployment: is there a crisis?
Getting Started: The Youth Labor Market. By Paul
Osterman. Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press,
1980. 160 pp. $20.
Youth unemployment statistics are by now depressingly familiar. During 1980, the unemployment rate for
all youth aged 16-19 averaged almost 18 percent, and
for black youth it was twice as high. These figures have
led to references to a “youth employment crisis” and
calls for drastic action.
There now exists a considerable literature debating
the various causes of such extraordinary rates of unem­
ployment and the effect on future labor market behav­
ior. Paul Osterman has been a frequent contributor to
these debates, and Getting Started represents a summa­
tion of that earlier work.
Osterman marshals a wealth of statistical data to sup­
port his analysis of the functioning of the youth labor
market. While primarily relying on the National Longi­
tudinal Survey, he has also done special surveys in Bos­
ton communities of young people and employers.
One of Osterman’s main conclusions is that “youth
unemployment is a structural problem arising from the
marginality of youth labor” (p. 96). This marginality is
a characteristic of the stage of adjustment that young
people experience and which Osterman refers to as the
“moratorium stage.” Structural sources of high unem­
ployment include the hiring practices of firms, the re­
lationship of work patterns to schooling, and the behav­
ior of youth. These three primary causes of high
unemployment are not independent of each other; as
Osterman notes, the behavior patterns of youth affect
the hiring patterns of firms. Nor should these behavior
patterns be assumed to be fixed for all time. The eco­
nomic environment that youth face helps to determine
their behavior.
Part of the structure that Osterman emphasizes is the
segmentation of the labor market into primary and sec­
ondary jobs. The latter typically pay less, provide little
training or opportunity for promotion, and have poorer
working conditions. Consequently, the work force is
less stable than in the primary sector and has a greater
proportion of women, blacks, and, of course, youth.
It should not be surprising that most youth find their
first jobs in the secondary sector. Many are not interest­
ed in full-time or permanent work and have numerous
competing interests. But if these youth show little at­
tachment to the labor force, it is also an economic
structure that demands little of them. As they mature,
most move on to primary jobs. According to Osterman,
youth unemployment should not be viewed as a serious
problem for the vast majority.
One topic of interest concerns the effect of the mini­
mum wage on youth employment. It is often argued
Digitized for
52FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

that the minimum wage prices youth out of the market
due to their presumed lower productivity than adult
workers. Osterman finds that while there is some nega­
tive effect, it is “not large enough that eliminating the
minimum wage or imposing a dual minimum would re­
duce the unemployment of the young to acceptable lev­
els” (p. 83).
If there is no general crisis facing youth, there is a
crisis for black youth. While there has been improve­
ment for blacks with regard to wages, education, and
types of jobs held, their unemployment levels and par­
ticipation rates have deteriorated. A major section of
this book is devoted to an examination of the sources of
this racial differential.
Osterman considers, and rejects, several possible ex­
planations. He finds no significant racial differences in
reservation wages, the minimum acceptable wage for
taking a job. Other factors, such as qualifications, sub­
urbanization of jobs, and competition from other
groups, do explain part of the difference. This still
leaves a considerable, unexplained residual. Discrimina­
tion, Osterman contends, accounts for this residual —
“roughly 50 percent of the unemployment differential”
(p. 147).
Osterman buttresses this conclusion with a rather ex­
haustive test of all alternative factors suggested by tra­
ditional theories of the labor market. While one might
question his exact estimate of 50 percent, his assertion
that the persistence of racial discrimination is a major
explanatory factor of racial differentials seems beyond
challenge.
Unfortunately, more information should have been
provided on the actual models being tested and the the­
oretical justification for them. Without this, it is difficult
to evaluate some of the results. For instance, Osterman
concludes from one test that there is competition for
jobs between women and young men, both white and
black. Yet in a previous study, Osterman found compe­
tition only between women and black youth, both male
and female. While different equations underlie the con­
flicting results, Osterman does not provide any reasons
for his change in the specification of the model, and
hence it is impossible to decide which model might be
preferable or even if either makes any sense. Indeed,
even Osterman finds the conclusions in the book
perplexing, suggesting that they cast “doubt on the reli­
ability of the findings concerning competition from
women” (p. 121). One can only agree and wish that he
had explored the reasons for this in more detail.
Osterman is not optimistic about the possibility of
improving the employment situation of youths in gener­
al and blacks in particular. His basic recommendation
would be for full employment because in the past, tight
labor markets have led to improved conditions and a
reduction of the racial differential. He argues that fur-

ther improvement for blacks will depend on developing
programs specifically aimed at overcoming the discrimi­
nation that confronts blacks. This will require structural
interventions in the economy. But, as Osterman points
out, little work has been done on designing workable
programs, and there appears to be little popular politi­
cal support for such an orientation. One hopes this
book will provide the stimulus for addressing those
problems.
— M

ic h a e l

U

rquhart

Office of Current Employment Analysis
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Publications received
Agriculture and natural resources

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, Statistical Supplement o f the
1979 Annual Report o f the U.S. Railroad Retirement
Board. Chicago, 111., 1980, 140 pp.

Health and safety
Dillingham, Alan E., “ Age and Workplace Injuries,” Aging
and Work, Winter 1981, pp. 1-10.
Hartunian, Nelson S., Charles N. Smart, Mark S. Thompson,
The Incidence and Economic Costs o f Major Health Im ­
pairments: A Comparative Analysis o f Cancer, Motor Vehi­
cle Injuries, Coronary Heart Disease, and Stroke. Lexing­

ton, Mass., D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington Books, 1981,
417 pp., bibliography. $34.95.
Kingson, Eric R., “The Health of Very Early Retirees,” Aging
and Work, Winter 1981, pp. 11-22.
Rea, Samuel A., Jr., “Workmen’s Compensation and Occupa­
tional Safety Under Imperfect Information,” The Ameri­
can Economic Review, March 1981, pp. 80-93.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National

Alexander, Tom, “A Simpler Path to a Cleaner Environ­
ment,” Fortune, May 4, 1981, beginning on p. 234.

Health Interview Survey: Report o f the National Comm it­
tee on Vital and Health Statistics. Hyattsville, Md., U.S.

Baden, John, Richard Stroup, Walter Thurman, “ Myths, Ad­
monitions and Rationality: The American Indian as a
Resource Manager,” Economic Inquiry, January 1981, pp.
132-43.

Department of Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service, Office of Health Research, Statistics, and
Technology, National Center for Health Statistics, 1980,
30 pp. ( d h h s Publication ( p h s ) 81-1160.)

Barnum, H. N. and Lyn Squire, “ Predicting Agricultural Out­
put Response,” Oxford Economic Papers, July 1980, pp.
284-95.
Canada, Statistics Canada, Canada's Farm Population: Analy­
sis o f Income and Related Characteristics. By Paul Shaw.
Ottawa, Ontario, Statistics Canada, Minister of Industry,
Trade and Commerce, 1979, 284 pp., bibliography. $2.80.
Available from Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa.
Berg, Mark R. and others, Jobs and Energy in Michigan: The
Next Twenty Years. Ann Arbor, Mich., University of
Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Center for Re­
search on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, 1981, 196
pp., bibliography. $19.95, cloth; $11.95, paper.

Industrial relations
Anderson, Arne, “ Bargaining '81: On the Treadmill,” The
A F L -C IO American Federationist, March 1981, pp. 17-22.
Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Analysis of
Workers' Compensation Laws, 1981 Edition. Washington,
1980, 45 pp. (Publication 6383.) $8, paper.
Cruz, Nestor, “An Antitrust Approach to Equal Employment
Opportunity Laws,” Labor Law Journal, February 1981,
pp. 67-70.
Garden, Joan, “ Employee Access to Union Bulletin Boards,
Labor Law Journal, February 1981, pp. 71-82.

Varanini, Emilio E. Ill, “The Problems of Energy Planning
When Information Is Lacking,” The Center Magazine,
March-April 1981, pp. 5-16.

Handy, L. J., Wages Policy in the British Coalmining Industry.
New York, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 313 pp.,
bibliography. (Department of Applied Economics, Mono­
graph, 27.) $47.50.

Economic and social statistics

Lederer, Philip C., “ Management’s Right to Loyalty of Super­
visors,” Labor Law Journal, February 1981, pp. 83-104.

Duncan, J. W. and J. Durbin, “ Report of the International
Statistical Institute Committee on the Integration of Sta­
tistics,” Statistical Reporter, March 1981, pp. 298-322.
“ Federal Statistics 1980,” Statistical Reporter, March 1981,
pp. 241-97.
International Labour Office, Year Book o f Labour Statistics,
1980. 40th ed. Geneva, International Labour Organ­
ization, 1980, 687 pp. $57. Distributed in the United
States by the Washington Branch of i l o .
Nadiri, M. I. and M. A. Schankerman, Variable Cost Func­

Maitland, Ian, “ Disorder in the British Workplace: The
Limits of Consensus,” British Journal o f Industrial Rela­
tions, November 1980, pp. 353-64.
Masi, Dale A., Organizing fo r Women: Issues, Strategies, and
Services. Lexington, Mass., D.C. Heath and Co., Lexing­
ton Books, 1981, 219 pp. $22.95.
McCollum, James K., “ Bilateral Interaction v. Unilateral Ful­
fillment,” Public Personnel Management Journal, Vol. 9,
No. 4, 1980, pp. 296-301.

tions and the Rate o f Return to Quasi-Fixed Factors: An
Application to R & D in the Bell System. Cambridge,

------ “ Local Government Initiated Collective Bargaining:
The Northern Virginia Case,” Proceedings o f the 33d An­

Mass., National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.,
1980, 34 pp. (NBF.R Working Paper Series, 597.) $1.50.

nual Meeting o f the Industrial Relations Research Associa­
tion, Denver, Colo., Sept. 5-7, 1980, pp. 227-33.

Sprehe, J. Timothy, “A Federal Policy for Improving Data
Access and User Services,” Statistical Reporter, March
1981, pp. 323-44.

Mellow, Wesley, “Unionism and Wages: A Longitudinal
Analysis,” The Review o f Economics and Statistics," Feb­
ruary 1981, pp. 43-52.


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

53

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Book Reviews
Meltz, Noah M., The Use o f Information and Data in Collec­
tive Bargaining. Toronto. Ontario, Canada, University of
Toronto. Center for Industrial Relations, 1980, 17 pp.
Northrup, Herbert R. and J. Daniel Morgan, "The Memphis
Police and Firefighters Strikes of 1978: A Case Study,”
Labor Law Journal. January 1981. pp. 40-54.
Ogden, Warren C., "An Impasse in Decisionmaking:
Revisited." Labor Law Journal January 1981. pp 61-62.
Ogden, Warren C., John R. Arthur, J. Martin Smith, "The
Survival of Contract Terms Beyond the Expiration of a
Collective Bargaining Agreement," Labor Law Journal
February 1981. pp. 119-25.
Perry, James L. and Harold L. Angle. "Bargaining Unit
Structure and Organizational Outcomes," Industrial Rela­
tions, Winter 1981. pp. 47-59.
Princeton University, Plant Shutdowns and Relocations.
Princeton, N.J., Princeton University, Industrial Rela­
tions Section. November 1980, 4 pp. (Selected References,
204.) 50 cents.
Ratner, Mozart G., "Observations on Some Current Issues in
Labor Arbitration," Labor Law Journal. February 1981,
pp. 114-18.
Salem, George R., "Nonmajority Bargaining Orders: A Pro­
spective View in Light of United Dairy Farmers. " Labor
Law Journal. March 1981. pp. 145-57.
Spelfogel, Evan J., "Equal Pay for Work of Comparable Val­
ue: A New Concept," Labor Law Journal. January 1981,
pp. 30-39.
Subrin, Berton B., "Conserving Energy at the Labor Board:
The Case for Making Rules on Collective Bargaining
Units," Labor Law Journal. February 1981, pp. 105-13.
"Talking Tough to Public Workers,” Business Week. Apr. 27,
1981, beginning on p. 114.
Tanner, Lucretia Dewey and Janice D. Murphey. “The Volun­
tary Pay Standard: A Review," Labor Law Journal
March 1981, pp. 158-69.
"The New Industrial Relations," Business Week. May 11,
1981, beginning on p. 84.
Truesdale, John C., “ Recent Trends at the NLRB and in the
Courts,” Labor Law Journal March 1981, pp. 131-44.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bargaining Calendar. 1981.
Washington, 1981, 57 pp. (Bulletin 2090.) $3.75, Superin­
tendent of Documents, Washington 20402.
—
Conventions 1981: National Unions, Employee Associa­
tions, and State Labor Bodies. Washington, 1918, 13 pp.

(Report 635.)
Directory o f National Unions and Employee Associa­
tions, 1979. Washington, 1980, 139 pp. (Bulletin 2079.)

$5, Superintendent of Documents, Washington, 20402.
Weiner, Paul I., "OSHA'S Standard-Setting Process,” Labor
Law Journal, January 1981, pp. 23-29.
Zimmerman, Don A., “Trends in n l r b Health Care Industry
Decisions,” Labor Law Journal January 1981, pp. 3-12.

Industry and government organization
Bauer, Douglas, “Why Big Business is Firing the Boss," The
New York Times Magazine, Mar. 8, 1981, beginning on p.
22 .

Reich, Robert B., “ Regulation by Confrontation or Negotia54

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

tion?" Harvard Business Review, May-June 1981, pp. 8293.

International economics
Bordo, Michael David and Lars Jonung, "The Long Run Be­
havior of the Income Velocity of Money in Five Ad­
vanced Countries, 1870-1975: An Institutional Ap­
proach," Economic Inquiry, January 1981, pp. 96-116.
Dumas, Bernard, “The Theorems of International Trade
Under Generalized Uncertainty," Journal o f International
Economics, November 1980, pp. 481-98.
Feige, Edgar L. and Kenneth J. Singleton, "M ultinational In­
flation Under Fixed Exchange Rates: Some Empirical Ev­
idence From Latent Variable Models,” The Review of
Economics and Statistics, February 1981. pp. 11-19.
Figlewski, Stephen and Paul Wachtel, "The Formation of In­
flationary Expectations," The Review o f Economics and
Statistics, February 1981, pp. 1-10.
Johannes, James M., "Testing the Exogeneity Specification
Underlying the Monetary Approach to the Balance of
Payments," The Review o f Economics and Statistics, Feb­
ruary 1981, pp. 29-34.
Kareken, John and Neil Wallace, "On the Indeterminancy of
Equilibrium Exchange Rates,” The Quarterly Journal o f
Economics, May 1981, pp. 207-22.
Obstfeld, Maurice, “ Intermediate Imports, the Terms of Trade
and the Dynamics of the Exchange Rate and Current Ac­
count," Journal o f International Economics. November
1980, pp. 461-80.
Shone, Ronald, "The Monetary Approach to the Balance of
Payments: Stock-Flow Equilibria,” Oxford Economic Pa­
pers, July 1980, pp. 200-09.
"World Economic Outlook: Special Report," Business Week,
Apr. 27, 1981, beginning on p. 64.

Labor and economic history
Booth, Alan and A. W. Coates, "Some Wartime Observations
on the Role of the Economist in Government," Oxford
Economic Papers. July 1980, pp. 177-99.
Gruenberg, Gladys W., Labor Peacemaker: The Life and
Works o f Father Leo C. Brown, S.J. St. Louis, Mo., The
Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1981, 162 pp. $6, paper.
"Labor’s Centennial, 1881-1981: 100 Years With the Union
Label,” The A l l- C IO American Federalionist. April 1981,
pp. 1-4.
Lowitt, Richard and Maurine Beasley, eds., One Third o f a
Nation: Lorena Hickok Reports on the Great Depression.

Urbana, University of Illinois Press,
$18.95.

1981, 378 pp.

Taft, Philip; revised and edited by Gary M. Fink, Organizing
Dixie: Alabama Workers in the Industrial Era. Westport,
Conn., Greenwood Press, 1981, 228 pp. (Contributions in
Labor History, 9.) $35.

Labor force
Bohen, Halcyone H. and Anamaria Viveros-Long, Balancing
Jobs and Family Life: Do Flexible Work Schedules Help?

Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1981, 336 pp.,
bibliography. $19.50.
Brown, Charles, Black/W hite Earnings Ratios Since the Civil
Rights Act o f 1964: The Importance o f Labor Market

Drop-Outs. Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1981, 31 pp. (NBER Working Paper
Series, 617.) $1.50.

deForest, Mariah E., “ Mexican Workers North of the Bor­
der,” Harvard Business Review. May-June 1981, pp. ISO57.
Greenhalgh, Christine, “ Participation and Hours of Work for
Married Women in Great Britain,” Oxford Economic Pa­
pers, July 1980, pp. 296-318.
Jones, Ethel B. and James E. Long, “ Part-Week and Women’s
Unemployment,” The Review o f Economics and Statistics,
February 1981, pp. 70-76.
Meltz, Noah M., Labor Market Information in Canada: The
Current Situation and Proposals. Toronto, Ontario, Cana­
da, University of Toronto, Center for Industrial Rela­
tions, 1980, 12 pp.
Pierson, Frank C., The Minimum Level o f Unemployment and
Public Policy. Kalamazoo, Mich., W. E. Upjohn Institute
for Employment Research, 1980, 194 pp. $8.50, cloth;
$5.50, paper.

vice Establishments. New York, AMACOM, A division of
American Management Associations, 1980, 230 pp.

Levinson, Harry, “When Executives Burn O ut,” Harvard
Business Review, May-June 1981, pp. 72-81.
Linenberger, Patricia and Timothy J. Keaveny, “ Performance
Appraisal Standards Used by the Courts,” Personnel A d­
ministrator, May 1981, pp. 89-94.
Lord, Robert W., Running Conventions, Conferences, and
Meetings. New York, a m a c o m , A division of American
Management Associations, 1981, 192 pp. $23.50.
McCaffrey, William T., “Career Growth Versus Upward Mo­
bility,” Personnel Administrator, May 1981, pp. 81-87.
Perasuraman, Saroj and Joseph A. Alutto, “An Examination
of the Organizational Antecedents of Stressors at Work,”
Academy o f Management Journal, March 1981, pp. 4867.
Rogers, Rolf E., Corporate Strategy and Planning. Columbus,
Ohio, Grid Publishing, Inc., 1981, 439 pp.

Schrank, Robert, “ Horse-Collar Blue-Collar Blues,” Harvard
Business Review, May-June 1981, pp. 133-38.

Ronen, Simcha and Sophia B. Primps, “The Compressed
Work Week as Organizational Change: Behavioral and
Attitudinal Outcomes,” Academy o f Management Review,
January 1981, pp. 61-74.

Management and organization theory

Ross, Ronald G., Data Dictionaries and Data Administration:

Baroni, Barry J., "Age Discrimination in Employment: Some
Guidelines for Employers,” Personnel Administrator, May
1981, pp. 97-101.
Bourgeois, L. J. Ill, "On the Measurement of Organization
Slack,” Academy o f Management Review, January 1981,
pp. 29-39.

Concepts and Practices fo r Data Resource Management.

New York, AMACOM, A division o f American Manage­
ment Associations, 1981, 454 pp. $29.95.
Smircich, Linda and R. J. Chesser, “Superiors’ and Subordi­
nates’ Perceptions of Performance: Beyond Disagree­
ment,” Academy o f Management Journal, March 1981,
pp. 198-205.

Breaugh, James A., “ Relationships between Recruiting
Sources and Employee Performance, Absenteeism, and
Work Attitudes,” Academy o f Management Journal,
March 1981, pp. 142-47.

Steers, Richard M., Introduction to Organizational Behavior.
Santa Monica, Calif., Goodyear Publishing Co., Inc.,
1981, 506 pp.

Brief, Arthur P. and Ramon J. Aldag, "The ‘Self’ in Work
Organizations: A Conceptual Review," Academy o f M an­
agement Review, January 1981, pp. 75-88.

Szilagyi, Andrew D., Jr., Management and Performance. Santa
Monica, Calif., Goodyear Publishing Co., Inc., 1981, 750
pp.

"Compensation and Benefits,” Personnel Administrator, May
1981, pp. 22-68.

Wagner, Abe, The Transactional Manager: How to Solve Peo­
ple Problems with Transactional Analysis. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981, 196 pp. $11.95.

Drucker, Peter F., "What is ‘Business Ethics’?” The Public In­
terest, Spring 1981. pp. 18-36.
Fottler, Myron D., “ Is Management Really Generic?" Acade­
m y o f Management Review, January 1981, pp. 1-12.
Goodman, John Prooslin and William R. Sandberg, “A
Contingency Approach to Labor Relations Strategies,”
Academy o f Management Review, January 1981, pp. 145—
54.
Griffin, Ricky W., “ A Longitudinal Investigation of Task
Characteristics Relationships," Academy o f Management
Journal, March 1981, pp. 99-113.
Hill, Raymond E. and Edwin L. Miller, “Job Change and the
Middle Seasons of a Man's Life,” Academy o f Manage­
ment Journal, March 1981, pp. 114-27.

Zalusky, John, “Job Evaluation: An Uneven World,” The
- C I O American Federationist, April 1981, pp. 11-20.

AFL

Monetary and fiscal policy
Aaron, Henry J. and Joseph H. Pechman, eds., How Taxes
Affect Economic Behavior. Washington, The Brookings
Institution, 1981, 456 pp.
Berson, David W. and V. Vance Roley, "Business Fixed In­
vestment in the 1980s: Prospective Needs and Policy Al­
ternatives," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of
Kansas City, February 1981, pp. 3-16.
Kirkland, Lane, “The Madness Called a Federal Budget,” The
A F L - C IO American Federationist, April 1981 ,_,pp. 5-7.

Kelley, Lane, and Reginald Worthley, “The Role of Culture
in Comparative Management: A Cross-Cultural Perspec­
tive,” Academy o f Management Journal, March 1981, pp.
164-73.

Webb, Kerry, “ Have Regulatory Differences Between Banks
and FCA's Affected Bank Performance?” Economic Review,
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, February 1981,
pp. 17-23.

Lemmon, Wayne A., The Owner's and Manager's Market

“Wholesale Banking’s New Hard Sell,” Business Week, Apr.
13, 1981, pp. 82-86.

Analysis Workbook fo r Sm all to Moderate Retail and Ser­

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

55

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Book Reviews
Prices and living conditions

Executive Against Inflation,” The Compensation Planning

Gordon, Robert F., “The Consumer Price Index: Measuring
Inflation and Causing It,” The Public Interest, Spring
1981, pp. 112-34.

Journal, March 1980, pp. 3-8.

Loomis, Carol J., “ How GE Manages Inflation,” Fortune, May
4, 1981, pp. 121-24.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Municipal Government Wage
Survey: Kansas City, Missouri, September 1979, Kansas
City, Mo., Mountain-Plains Regional Office, 1980, 70 pp.
(Regional Report, 25.)

Productivity and technological change

Welfare programs and social insurance

Dogramaci, Ali and Nabil R. Adam, eds., Aggregate and In­
dustry-Level Productivity Analyses. Hingham, Mass.,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, 1981, 195 pp. (Studies in
Productivity Analysis, Vol. II.)

Glamser, Francis D., “ Predictors of Retirement Attitudes,”
Aging and Work, Winter 1981, pp. 23-39.

“General Electric: The Financial Wizards Switch Back to
Technology,” Business Week, Mar. 16, 1981, pp. 110-18.
Mercer, James L. and Ronald J. Phillips, Public Technology:
Key to Improved Government Productivity. New York,
a m a c o m , A division o f American Management Associa­
tions, 1981, 271 pp. $24.95.
Meyer, Herbert E., “Gamma Rays Have a Glowing Future,”
Fortune, May 4, 1981, beginning on p. 201.
Rosow, Jerome M., Productivity Prospects fo r Growth. New
York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1981, 352 pp. $19.95.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Productivity Measures fo r Se­
lected Industries, 1954-79. Washington, 1981, 206 pp.
(Bulletin 2093.) Stock No. 029-001-02572-6. $6.50, Su­
perintendent of Documents, Washington 20402.
U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, The Productivity
Problem: Alternatives fo r Action, Washington, 1981, 137
pp. Stock No. 052-070-05525-1. $5.50, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington 20402.

Wages and compensation
Link, Charles R. and Russell F. Settle, “Wage Incentives and
Married Professional Nurses: A Case of Backward-Bend­
ing Supply?” Economic Inquiry, January 1981, pp. 14456.
Meadows, Edward, “ New Targeting for Executive Pay,” For­
tune, May 4, 1981, beginning on p. 176.
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., Fringe Benefits
and the Costs o f Changing Jobs, by Olivia S. Mitchell
(Conference Paper, 96, 27 pp.); Compensation Arrange­
ments Between Hospitals and Physicians, by Roger
Feldman, Frank Sloan, Lynn Paringer (Conference Paper,
97, 31 pp.); The Effect o f the Baby Boom on the Earnings
Growth o f Young Males, by Mark C. Berger (Conference
Paper, 98, 45 pp.); L ayoff Unemployment, Risk Shifting,
and Productivity, by Kenneth S. Chan and Yannis M.
Ioannides (Conference Paper, 99, 32 pp.); Pensions,
Underfunding, and Salaries in the Public Sector, by Rob­
ert Stewart Smith (Conference Paper, 100, 24 pp.); Firm
Specific Human Capital and Seniority Rules, by Lome
Carmichael (Conference Paper, 101, 41 pp.); Estimating
Preferences fo r Wage and Nonwage Benefits, by Stephen
A. Woodbury (Conference Paper, 102, 39 pp.). Cam­
bridge, Mass., National Bureau of Economic Research,
Inc., 1981 $1.50, each.
National Commission on Unemployment Compensation; Un­
employment Compensation: Studies and Research, Volume
III. Rosslyn, Va., National Commission on Unemploy­

ment Compensation, 1980, 336 pp., bibliography.
Rothschild, V. Henry and Robert J. Salwen, “Protecting the
56


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

Kamerman, Sheila B. and Alfred J. Kahn, Child Care, Family
Benefits, and Working Parents: A Study in Comparative
Policy. New York, Columbia University Press, 1981, 327

pp. $25.
Martin, Peter W., The Art o f Decoupling: Keeping Social Secu­
rity's Promise Up-to-Date. Reprinted from Cornell Law
Review, June 1980, pp. 749-800.
Meier, Elizabeth L. “ Retirement Income Levels and Retire­
ment Age Recommendations,” Aging and Work, Winter
1980, pp. 50-53.
Migliaccio, John N. and Peter C. Cairo, “ Preparation for Re­
tirement: A Selective Bibliography, 1974-1980,” Aging
and Work, Winter 1981, pp. 31-41.
Sheshinski, Eytan and Yoram Weiss, “ Uncertainty and Opti­
mal Social Security Systems,” The Quarterly Journal o f
Economics, May 1981, pp. 189-206.
“Tokyo’s Welfare Measures for the Elderly in an Aging Soci­
ety and Their Future Direction,” Tokyo Municipal News,
December 1980, pp. 1-3.

Worker training and development
“Apprenticeships: New Jobs in an Old Tradition,” Occupa­
tional Outlook Quarterly, Winter 1980, pp. 9-11.
Baxter, Neale, “Three Ways to Become an R.N.: Is One Best
For You?” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Winter 1980,
pp. 12-18.
Beaumont, Andre G., Alva C. Cooper, Raymond H.
Stockard, A M odel Career Counseling and Placement Pro­
gram. 3d ed. Bethlehem, Pa., College Placement Services,
Inc., 1980, 376 pp. $12.50, paper.
Flanders, Russell B., “ NOICC: A Coordinator for Occupational
Information,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Winter
1980, pp. 22-27.
Jain, Harish C., Disadvantaged Groups on the Labour Market
and Measures to Assist Them. Paris, Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, 1979, 68 pp.,
bibliography. Distributed in the United States by Wash­
ington Branch of OECD.
Mangum, Garth and others, Job M arket Futurity: Planning
and Managing Local Manpower Programs. Salt Lake City,
Utah, Olympus Publishing Co., 1979, 398 pp.
Pilot, Michael J., “Job Outlook Projections.” Occupational
Outlook Quarterly, Winter 1980, pp. 2-8.
Schleichkorn, Jay, “ How Not to Apply to Colleges,” Occupa­
tional Outlook Quarterly, Winter 1980, pp. 19-21.
Sommers, Dixie, Empirical Evidence on Occupational Mobility.
Columbus, The Ohio State University, The National Cen­
ter for Research in Vocational Education, 1979, 114 pp.
(Information Series, 193.)

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.

.................................................................
Em ploym ent status of noninstitutional population, selected years, 1950-80 .........................
E m ploym ent status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted .............................................................................................
Selected em ploym ent indicators, seasonally adjusted
..............................................................................................................
Selected unem ploym ent indicators, seasonally adjusted ...........................................................................................................
U nem ploym ent rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................................................
U nem ployed persons, by reason for unem ploym ent, seasonally adjusted .........................................................................
D uration of unem ploym ent, 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.

E m ploym ent by industry, 1950-80
E m ploym ent by State .........................................................................................................................................................................
E m ploym ent by industry division and m ajor m anufacturing group .....................................................................................
E m ploym ent by industry division and m ajor m anufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
..........................................
L abor turnover rates in m anufacturing, 1977 to date ...............................................................................................................
L abor turnover rates in m anufacturing, by m ajor industry group ........................................................................................
H ours and earnings, by industry division, 1950-80
W eekly hours, by industry division and m ajor m anufacturing g r o u p ...................................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and m ajor m anufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
.........................................
H ourly earnings, by industry division and m ajor m anufacturing group ............................................................................
H ourly Earnings Index, by industry division, seasonally adjusted
.....................................................................................
Weekly earnings, by industry division and m ajor m anufacturing group ............................................................................
G ro ss and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date ........................................................

Unemployment insurance data. Definitions and notes

58
59
59
60
61
62
63
63
63
64
65
65
66
67
68
68
69
70
71
72
72
73
74

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

75
75

..................................................................................................................................................
C onsum er Price Index, 1967-80
C onsum er Price Index, U.S. city average, general sum m ary and selected item s ..............................................................
C onsum er Price Index, cross classification of region and population size class ..............................................................
C onsum er Price Index, selected areas .............................................................................................................................................
P roducer Price Indexes, by stage of processing .........................................................................................................................
P roducer Price Indexes, by com m odity groupings ........................................................
P roducer Price Indexes, for special com m odity groupings .....................................................................................................
P roducer Price Indexes, by durability of product ......................................................................................................................
P roducer Price Indexes for the o u tput of selected SIC industries
......................................................................................

76
77
77
84
85
86
87
88
89
89

21. U nem ploym ent insurance and em ploym ent service operations

Price data. Definitions and notes
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

58

Productivity data. Definitions and notes

...............................................................................................................................
A nnual indexes of productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1950-80
A nnual changes in productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and prices, 1970-80
Q uarterly indexes of productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted
....................
Percent change from preceding q u arter and year in productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and prices . .

91
91
92
92
93

Labor-management data. Definitions and notes ..........................................................................

94
94
95
95

31.
32.
33.
34.

35. W age and benefit settlem ents in m ajor collective bargaining units, 1976 to date ...........................................................
36. Effective wage rate adjustm ents going into effect in m ajor collective bargaining units, 1976 to date . ....................
37. W ork stoppages, 1947 to date
........................................................................................................................................................


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

57

NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

This section of the R eview 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 Review. Some general notes applicable to
several series are given below.
Seasonal adjustment. C ertain m onthly and quarterly data are adjusted
to elim inate the effect of such factors as clim atic conditions, industry
production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying
periods, and vacation practices, which m ight otherw ise m ask sh o rt­
term m ovem ents of the statistical series. Tables containing these data
are identified as “ seasonally ad ju ste d .” Seasonal effects are estim ated
on the basis of past experience. W hen new seasonal factors are com ­
puted each year, revisions m ay affect seasonally adjusted data for sev­
eral preceding years.
Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 2-7 were revised in
the F ebruary 1981 issue of the R e v ie w to reflect the preceding year’s
experience. Beginning in January 1980, the BLS introduced tw o m ajor
m odifications in the seasonal adjustm ent m ethodology for labor force
data. First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new proce­
dure called X - ll/A R I M A , which was developed at S tatistics C anada
as an extension of the sta n d ard X - 11 m ethod. A detailed description
of the procedure appears in T h e X - l l A R I M A S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t
M e th o d by Estela Bee D agum (Statistics C anada C atalogue No.
12-564E, F ebruary 1980). T he second change is that seasonal factors
are now being calculated for use during the first 6 m onths of the year,
rath er than for the entire year, and then are calculated at m id-year for
the July-D ecem ber period. Revisions of historical data continue to be
m ade only at the end of each calendar year.
A nnual revision of the seasonally adjusted payroll data in tables
11, 13, 16, and 18 begins with the A ugust 1980 issue using the
X - l l A R IM A seasonal ad justm ent m ethodology. New seasonal fac­
to rs for productivity d ata in tables 33 and 34 are usually in tro ­
duced in the Septem ber issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent
changes from m onth to m onth and from q u arter to q u arter are

published for num erous C onsum er and P roducer Price Index series.
However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U.S.
average All Item s C PI. O nly seasonally adjusted percent changes are
available for this series.

Adjustments for price changes. Some data are adjusted to elim inate
the effect of changes in price. These adjustm ents are m ade by dividing
current dollar values by the C onsum er Price Index or the appropriate
com ponent of the index, then m ultiplying by 100. F or exam ple, given
a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index num ber of
150, w here 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is
$2 ($3/150 X 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as
“ real,” “ co n stan t,” or “ 1967” dollars.
Availability of information. D ata th at supplem ent the tables in this
section are published by the Bureau of L abor S tatistics in a variety of
sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical inform ation
published by the Bureau; the m ajor recurring releases are published
according to the schedule given below. T he B L S H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r
S ta tistic s, Bulletin 2070, provides m ore detailed data and greater his­
torical coverage for m ost of the statistical series presented in the
M o n th ly L a b o r R eview . M ore inform ation from the household and es­
tablishm ent surveys is provided in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, a
m onthly publication of the Bureau, and in tw o com prehensive data
books issued annually — E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, U n ite d S ta te s and
E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, S ta te s a n d A reas. M ore detailed inform a­
tion on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining appears in
the m onthly periodical, C u r re n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts. M ore detailed
price inform ation is published each m onth in the periodicals, the C P I
D e ta ile d R e p o r t and P r o d u c e r P rices a n d P rice In d e x es.

Symbols
p = prelim inary. To im prove the tim eliness of som e series,
prelim inary figures are issued based on representative
but incom plete returns.
r = revised. G enerally this revision reflects the availability
of later data but m ay also reflect other adjustm ents,
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified.

Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
Title and frequency
(monthly except where indicated)
Employment situation..........................................................................
Producer Price Index ..........................................................................
Consumer Price Index ........................................................................
Real earnings .....................................................................................
Major collective bargaining settlements .............................................
Labor turnover in manufacturing ........................................................
Work stoppages...................................................................................
Productivity and costs:
Nonfarm business and manufacturing ..........................................
Nonfinancial corporations ..............................................................


58
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Release
date

Period
covered

Release
date

Period
covered

MLR table
number

July 2
July 7
July 23
July 23
July 27
July 29
July 29

June
June
June
June
2d quarter
June
June

August
August
August
August

7
14
25
25

July
July
July
July

August 28
August 28

July
July

1-11
26-30
22-25
14-20
35-36
12-13
37

July 30

2d quarter
August 26

2d quarter

31-34
31-34

EM PLO YM ENT DATA FROM THE H O U SEH O LD SURVEY

E mployment data 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 60,000
households beginning in May 1981, 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.

Full-time workers are those em ployed at least 35 hours a week;
part-time workers are those who work fewer hours. W orkers on part-

Definitions
Employed persons are (1) those who worked for pay any tim e
d uring the week which includes the 12th day of the m onth or who
w orked unpaid for 15 hours or m ore in a fam ily-operated enterprise
and (2) those who were tem porarily absent from their regular jobs
because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or sim ilar reasons. A
person w orking at m ore than one jo b is counted only in the jo b at
which he o r she w orked the greatest num ber of hours.

Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for w ork except for tem porary illness and
had looked for jo b s within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did
not look for work because they were on layoff or w aiting to start new
jo b s within the next 30 days are also counted am ong the unem ployed.
The unemployment rate represents the num ber unem ployed as a
percent of the civilian labor force.
The civilian labor force consists of all em ployed or unem ployed
persons in the civilian noninstitutional population; the total labor
force includes m ilitary personnel. Persons not in the labor force are

1.

those not classified as em ployed or unem ployed; this group includes
persons retired, those engaged in their own housew ork, those not
w orking while attending school, those unable to w ork because of
long-term illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of
personal or jo b m arket factors, and those who are voluntarily idle.
The noninstitutional population com prises all persons 16 years of age
and older who are not inm ates of penal or m ental institutions,
sanitarium s, or hom es for the aged, infirm, or needy.

tim e schedules for econom ic reasons (such as slack work, term inating
or starting a jo b during the week, m aterial shortages, or inability to
find full-tim e w ork) are am ong those counted as being on full-tim e
status, under the assum ption that they would be w orking full tim e if
conditions perm itted. The survey classifies unem ployed persons in
full-tim e or part-tim e status by their reported preferences for full-tim e
or part-tim e work.

Notes on the data
From tim e to time, and especially after a decennial census,
ad ju stm en ts are m ade in the C urrent P opulation Survey figures to
correct for estim ating errors during the preceding years. These
ad ju stm en ts affect the com parability of historical data presented in
table 1. A description of these ad ju stm en ts and their effect on the
various d ata series appear in the E xplanatory N otes of E m p lo y m e n t
a n d E a rn in g s.

D ata in tables 2-7 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through Decem ber 1980.

Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-80

[Numbers in thousands]

Total labor force
Year

Total non­
institutional
population

Civilian labor force
Employed

Number

Percent of
population

Total

Unemployed

Total

Agriculture

Nonag ricultural
industries

Number

Percent of
labor
force

Not in
labor force

1950
1955
1960
1964
1965

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

106,645
112,732
119.759
127,224
129,236

63,858
68,072
72,142
75,830
77,178

59.9
604
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

5.3
4.4
5.5
5.2
4.5

42,787
44,660
47,617
51,394
52,058

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

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

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

3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.9

52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602
54,280

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

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

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

55,666
56,785
57,222
57,587
58,655

1976
1977
1978
1979

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

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

3,297
3,244
3,342
3,297

84,188
87,302
91,031
93,648

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

166.246

106,821

64.3

104,719

3,310

93,960

7,288
6,855
6,047
5,963
7,448

7.7
7.0
6.0
5.8
7.1

59,130
59.025
58,521
58,623

1980

87,485
90,546
94,373
96,945
97,270


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

59.425

59

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
2.

Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]

1981

1980

Annual average
Employment status

1979

1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

163,620
104,996
161,532
102,908
96,945
3,297
93,648
5,963
5.8
58,623

166,246
106,821
164,143
104,719
97,270
3,310
93,960
7,448
7.1
59,425

165,886
107,148
163,799
105 060
97,116
3,352
93,764
7,944
7.6
58,739

166,105
106,683
164,013
104.591
96,780
3,232
93,548
7,811
7.5
59,422

166,391
107,119
164,293
105 020
96,999
3,267
93,732
8,021
7.6
59,273

166,578
107,059
164,464
104 945
97,003
3,210
93,793
7,942
7.6
59,519

166,789
107,101
164,667
104.980
97,180
3,399
93,781
7,800
7,4
59,687

167,005
107,288
164,884
105.167
97,206
3,319
93,887
7,961
7.6
59,717

167,201
107,404
165,082
105.285
97,339
3,340
93,999
7,946
7.5
59,797

167,396
107,191
165,272
105,067
97,282
3,394
93,888
7,785
7.4
60,205

68,293
54,486
52,264
2,350
49,913
2,223
4.1
13,807

69,607
55,234
51,972
2,355
49,617
3,261
5.9
14,373

69,428
55,440
51,871
2,337
49,494
3,569
6.4
13,988

69,532
55,182
51,624
2,301
49,323
3,558
6.4
14,350

69,664
55,344
51,714
2,306
49,408
3,630
6.6
14,320

69,756
55,403
51,791
2,301
49,490
3,612
6.5
14,353

69,864
55,475
51,823
2,389
49,434
3,652
6.6
14,389

69,987
55,495
51,963
2,351
49,612
3,532
6.4
14,492

70,095
55,539
52,007
2,372
49,635
3,532
6.4
14,556

76,860
38,910
36,698
591
36,107
2,213
5.7
37,949

78,295
40,243
37,696
575
37,120
2,547
6.3
38,052

78,090
40,193
37,600
598
37,002
2,593
6.5
37,897

78,211
40,182
37,613
550
37,063
2,569
6.4
38,029

78,360
40,383
37,728
564
37,164
2,655
6.6
37,977

78,473
40,523
37,890
555
37,335
2,633
6.5
37,950

78,598
40,317
37,804
592
37,212
2,513
6.2
38,281

78,723
40,486
37,754
576
37,178
2,732
6.7
38,237

16,379
9,512
7,984
356
7,628
1,528
16.1
6,867

16,242
9,242
7,603
380
7,223
1,640
17.7
7,000

16,281
9,427
7,645
377
7,268
1,782
18.9
6,854

16,271
9,227
7,543
381
7,162
1,684
18.3
7,044

16,268
9,293
7,557
397
7,160
1,736
18.7
6,975

16,235
9,019
7,322
354
6,968
1,697
18.8
7,216

16,205
9.188
7,553
418
7,135
1,635
17.8
7,017

141,614
90,602
86,025
4,577
5.1
51,011

143,657
92,171
86,380
5,790
6.3
51,486

143,403
92,501
86,251
6,250
6.8
50,902

143,565
92,134
86,007
6,127
6.7
51,431

143,770
92,335
86,075
6,260
6.8
51,435

143,900
92,288
86,067
6,221
6.7
51,612

Civilian noninstitutional population’ ........................
Civilian labor force ..........................................
Employed .................................................

19,918
12,306
10,920

20,486
12,548
10,890

20,395
12,546
10,842

20,448
12,491
10,809

20,523
12,661
10,902

Unemployed ............................................
Unemployment rate ..................................
Not in labor force .............................................

1,386
11.3
7,612

1,658
13.2
7,938

1,704
13.6
7,849

1,682
13.5
7,957

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

TOTAL
Total noninstltutional population' .............................
Total labor force ..........................................
Civilian noninstitutional population’ ........................
Employed ..........................................
Agriculture ..................................
Nonagricultural industries .........
Unemployed ......................................
Unemployment rate ...........................
Not in labor force ......................................

168,071
168,272
109,533
108,851
165,941
166,145
106.722 _m z,4û6
98,976
99,235
3,463
3,353
95,882
95,513
8,171
7,746
7,6
7.3
58,739
59,219

167,747
107,802
165,627
105.681
97,927
3,281
94,646
7,754
7.3
59,946

167,902
108,305
165,774
106,177
98,412
3,276
95,136
7,764
7.3
59,598

70,198
55,470
52,045
2,331
49,714
3,425
6.2
14,728

70,320
70,413
55,443 • 55,445
52,134
52,091
2,378
2,289
49,844
49,713
3,352
3,312
6.0
6.0
14,877
14,968

70,481
55,816
52,511
2,296
50,215
3,305
5.9
14,665

70,574
56,013
52,750
2,409
50,342
3,262
5.8
14,561

70,687
56,395
52,849
2,349
50,500
3,546
6.3
14,292

78,842
40,629
37,909
574
37,335
2,720
6.7
38,213

78,959
40,570
37,820
665
37,155
2,750
6.8
38,389

79,071
40,942
38,191
621
37,570
2,750
6.7
38,129

79,175
41,090
38,410
615
37,794
2,680
6.5
38,085

79,271
41,293
38,567
606
37,961
2,725
6.6
37,978

79,377
41,481
38,760
603
38,157
2,721
6.6
37,896

79,498
41,852
39,014
583
38,431
2,838
6.8
37,646

16,174
9,186
7,489
392
7,097
1,697
18.5
6,988

16,145
9,117
7,423
394
7,029
1,694
18.6
7,028

16,114
9,027
7,417
398
7,019
1,610
17.8
7,087

16,069
9,158
7,414
404
7,010
1,744
19.0
6,911

16,039
9,146
7,384
376
7,008
1,762
19.3
6,893

16,022
9,068
7,334
374
6,960
1,734
19.1
6,954

15,991
9,228
7,465
451
7,014
1,763
19.1
6,763

15,961
9,159
7,372
421
6,951
1,787
19.5
6,802

144,051
92,317
86,307
6,010
6.5
51,734

144,211
92.516
86,371
6,145
6.6
51,695

144,359
92,562
86,409
6,153
6.6
51,797

144,500
92,383
86,377
6,006
6.5
52,117

144,651
92,832
86,620
6,213
6.7
51,819

144,774
93,035
86,940
6,095
6.6
51,739

144,882
93,313
87,291
6,022
6.5
51,569

145,006
93,860
87,791
6,069
6.5
51,146

145,160
94,506
88,083
6,422
6.8
50,654

20,564
12,630
10,902

20,617
12,677
10,894

20,673
12,686
10,884

20,771
12,668
10,895

20,809
12,684
11,051

20,853
12,598
10,942

20,892
12,765
11,020

20,936
12,899
11,193

20,985
12,895
11,138

1,759

1,728

13,9
7,862

13.7
7,934

1,783
14.1
7,940

1,802
14.2
7,987

20,723
12,706
10,922
1,784
14.0
8,017

1,773
14.0
8,103

1,634
12.9
8,125

1,655
13.1
8,255

1,745
13.7
8,127

1,706
13.2
8,037

1,757
13.6
8,090

167,585
107,668
165,460
105,543
97,696
3,403
94,294
7,847
7.4
59,917

Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population’ ........................
Civilian labor force ..........................................
Employed .................................................
Agriculture ........................................
Nonagricultural industries ..................
Unemployed .............................................
Unemployment rate ..................................
Not in labor force .............................................

Women, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population’ ........................
Civilian labor force ..........................................
Employed .................................................
Agriculture ........................................
Nonagricultural industries ..................
Unemployed .............................................
Unemployment rate .................................
Not in labor force .............................................

Both sexes, 16-19 years
Civilian noninstitutional population’ ........................
Civilian labor force ..........................................
Employed .................................................
Agriculture ........................................
Nonagricultural industries ..................
Unemployed .............................................
Unemployment rate .................................
Not in labor force .............................................

White
Civilian noninstitutional population’ ........................
Civilian labor force ..........................................
Employed .................................................
Unemployed ............................................
Unemployment rate .................................
Not in labor force .............................................

Black and other

1As in table 1, population figures are not seasonally adjusted.

Digitized60
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

NOTE: The monthly data In this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1980.

3.

Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted

[ Number in thousands]

Annual average

1980

. Selected categories

1981

1979

1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

96,945
56,499
40,446
39,090
22,724

97,270
55,988
41,283
38,302
23,097

97,116
55,914
41,202
38,197
23,145

96,780
55.597
41,183
38,220
23,131

96,999
55,678
41,321
38,049
23,118

97,003
55,589
41,414
37,987
23,126

97,180
55,754
41,426
38,027
23,027

97,206
55,881
41,325
38,142
22,993

97,339
55,897
41,442
38,167
23,065

97,282
55,920
41,362
38,231
23,063

97,696
56,012
41,684
38,182
23,352

97,927
56,045
41,882
38,113
23,356

98,412
56,383
42,029
38,365
23,513

98,976
56,688
42,288
38,510
23,529

99,235
56,718
42,517
38,498
23,831

49,342
15,050

50,809
15,613

50,627
15,540

50,836
15,682

51,023
15,717

51,307
15,751

51,074
15,540

51,101
15,780

51,148
15,863

51,065
15,810

51,594
15,965

51,698
15,813

51,746
15,827

51,801
15,754

51,967
15,688

10,516
6,163
17,613
32,066
12,880
10,909
3,612
4,665
12,834
2,703

10,919
6,172
18,105
30,800
12,529
10,346
3,468
4,456
12,958
2,704

10,877
6.072
18,138
30,800
12,551
10,379
3,458
4,412
12,947
2,730

10,901
6,046
18,207
30,443
12,357
10,233
3,429
4,424
12,941
2,625

10,999
6,130
18,177
30,276
12,403
10,189
3,354
4,330
13,017
2,694

11,109
6,140
18,307
30,232
12,346
10,147
3,478
4,261
12,928
2,620

11,007
6,316
18,211
30,436
12,490
10,202
3,434
4,310
12,943
2,757

10,979
6,277
18,065
30,521
12,485
10,210
3,443
4,383
12,891
2,735

11,016
6,155
18,114
30,550
12,424
10,247
3,429
4,450
12,888
2,729

11,009
6,175
18,071
30,373
12,337
10,194
3,402
4,440
12,982
2.804

11,363
6,265
18,001
30,338
12,306
10,331
3,322
4,380
12,946
2,737

11,488
6,271
18,125
30,446
12,386
10,390
3,361
4,309
13,070
2,662

11,565
6,220
18,135
30,594
12,605
10,189
3,363
4.437
13,279
2,679

11,444
6,145
18,457
31,156
12,624
10,524
3,411
4,596
13,255
2,834

11,260
6,461
18,557
31,373
12,743
10,609
3,390
4,632
13,213
2,707

1,413
1,580
304

1,384
1,628
297

1,396
1,642
292

1,369
1,606
278

1,360
1,631
295

1,282
1,640
280

1,417
1,688
309

1,363
1,640
325

1,417
1,612
324

1,411
1,655
305

1,465
1,615
284

1,336
1,610
325

1,338
1,615
312

1,524
1,648
290

1,464
1,644
231

86,540
15,369
71,171
1,240
69,931
6,652
455

86,706
15,624
71.081
1,166
69,915
6,850
404

86,722
15,720
71,002
1,197
69,805
6,698
406

86,370
15,817
70,553
1,204
69,349
6,728
445

86,432
15,718
70,714
1,230
69,484
6,801
426

86,490
15,531
70,959
1,196
69,763
6,881
403

86,395
15,575
70,820
1.125
69,695
6,977
416

86,587
15,597
70,990
1,144
69,846
7,005
417

86,643
15,651
70.992
1,148
69,844
6,943
405

86,513
15,653
70,860
1,110
69.750
6,973
396

87,125
15,738
71,387
1,197
70,190
6,839
422

87,236
15,589
71,647
1,176
70,471
6,923
371

87,870
15,685
72,185
1,235
70,949
6,896
354

88,195
15,628
72,567
1,241
71,327
7,021
306

88,877
15,512
73,365
1,164
72,201
6,761
338

88,133
72,647
3,281
1.325
1.956
12,205

88,325
72,022
3.965
1.669
2.296
12,338

87.974
71,501
4.276
1,998
2,278
12,197

87,994
71,454
3.969
1,734
2,235
12,571

87.431
70,825
4,086
1.794
2,292
12,520

88,195
71,526
4,143
1.709
2.434
12,526

88,246
71,929
4.183
1,701
2.482
12,134

88,488
72,071
4,220
1,685
2,535
12.197

88.694
72,265
4.176
1,620
2,556
12.253

88,468
72,131
4,218
1.647
2,571
12.119

89,499
72,807
4,474
1,698
2,776
12,218

89,441
72,945
4.145
1,622
2,523
12,351

89,583
72,875
4,227
1,638
2,589
12,481

89,202
72,761
4,044
1,517
2,527
12,397

89,870
73,375
4,143
1,630
2,513
12,352

CHARACTERISTIC
Total employed, 16 years and over ........................
Men ...................................................
Women.............................................
Married men, spouse present ...........................
Married women, spouse present ......................

OCCUPATION
White-collar workers.................................................
Professional and technical ...............................
Managers and administrators, except
farm .............................................
Salesworkers.................................
Clerical workers...............................................
Blue-collar workers...............................
Craft and kindred workers ...............................
Operatives, except transport.............................
Transport equipment operatives ......................
Nonfarm laborers......................................
Service workers ...............................................
Farmworkers ..........................................................

MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS
OF WORKER
Agriculture:
Wage-and-salary workers.................................
Self-employed workers......................................
Unpaid family workers ......................................
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage-and-salary workers.................................
Government ...............................................
Private industries........................................
Private households .............................
Other industries .................................
Self-employed workers......................................
Unpaid family workers ......................................

PERSONS AT WORK ’
Nonagricultural industries ......................................
Full-time schedules ........................................
Part time for economic reasons................
Usually work full time.................................
Usually work part tim e ...............................
Part time for noneconomic reasons..................

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


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

NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1980.

61

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
4.

Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted

[Unemployment rates]

Annual average
Selected categories

1981

1980

1979

1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

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

5.8
4.1
5.7
16.1

7.1
5.9
6.3
177

7.6
6.4
6.5
18.9

7.5
6.4
6.4
183

7.6
6.6
6.6
18.7

7.6
6.5
6.5
18.8

7.4
6.6
6.2
17.8

7.6
6.4
6.7
18.5

7.5
6.4
6.7
18 6

7.4
6.2
6.8
17.8

7.4
6.0
6.7
19.0

7.3
6.0
6.5
193

7.3
5.9
6.6
19.1

7.3
5.8
6.6
19.1

7.6
6.3
6.8
19.5

White, total ........................................................
Men, 20 years and over ...........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r ......................
Both sexes, 16-19 years...........................

5.1
3.6
5.0
13.9

6.3
5,2
5.6
148

6.8
5.8
5.7
17.1

6.7
5.7
5.7
16.1

68
5.8
5.8
16.5

6.7
5.8
5.8
16.6

6.5
5.8
5,5
15.1

6.6
5.7
5.8
16.0

6.6
5.7
5.8
164

6.5
5.5
5.9
15.4

6.7
5,5
6.0
168

6.6
5.4
5.7
17.4

6.5
5.4
5.6
16.9

6.5
5.2
5.7
17.2

6.8
5.6
6.0
18.0

Black and other, total........................................
Men, 20 years and over ...........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r......................
Both sexes. 16-19 years...........................

11.3
8.4
10.1
33.5

13.2
11.4
11.1
35.8

13.6
11.7
116
35.3

13.5
12.2
10.9
34,8

13.9
12.5
11.3
35.9

13.7
12.5
10.9
37.6

14.1
13.2
10.6
37.8

14.2
12.1
12.3
37.4

14.0
12.0
12.2
36.6

14.0
116
12.3
375

12.9
10.5
11.0
36.5

13.1
108
11.9
35.4

13.7
10.8
12.6
37.3

13.2
10.6
11.8
36.1

13.6
11.8
12.0
33.6

Married men, spouse present...........................
Married women, spouse present......................
Women who head families...............................
Full-time workers...............................................
Part-time workers .............................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over......................
Labor force time lost1 ......................................

2.7
5.1
8.3
5.3
8.7
1.2
6.3

4.2
5.8
9.1
6.8
8.7
1.7
7.9

4.6
6.1
83
7.3
9.0
1.6
8.6

4.6
6.0
8.5
7.2
8.8
1.7
8.1

4.9
6.1
88
7.4
8.8
1.8
8.4

4.8
6.0
9.0
7.3
8.7
2.0
8.3

4.7
5.7
90
7.3
8.7
2.2
8.2

4.6
6.0
10.2
7.3
9.1
2.2
8.4

4.4
5.9
9.9
7.4
8.6
22
8.3

4.3
5.8
104
7,3
8.2
2.3
8.2

4.2
6.2
10.5
7.1
9.2
2.2
8.2

4.1
5.8
9.6
7.1
9.1
2.1
8.1

4.1
6.0
9.4
7.1
9.0
2.1
8.1

3.8
5.9
9.8
6.9
9.0
2.0
8.2

4.1
5.9
10.3
7,3
9.7
2.0
8.6

3.3
2.4

3.7
2.5

3.8
2.6

3.7
2.5

3.7
2.4

3.7
2.4

3.8
2.5

3.9
2.6

3.9
2.5

4.0
2.6

3.9
2.8

3.7
2.6

3.9
2.7

4.0
3.2

4.1
2.9

1.9
3.9
4.6
6.9
4.5
8.4
5.4
108
7.1
3.8

2.4
4.4
5.3
10.0
6.6
122
8.8
146
7.9
4.4

2.6
4.4
5.3
10.9
7.5
13.7
8.7
14.9
8.2
4.7

2.5
4.4
5.2
11.1
7.5
134
10.0
15.7
8.1
45

2.6
4.2
5.4
11.3
7.2
144
10.0
158
8.3
4,6

2.5
4.2
5.4
11.1
7.6
13.3
9.8
16.1
8.5
5.5

2.4
4.3
5.4
108
74
13.0
10.4
15.2
8.1
4.3

2.5
4.6
5.6
10 8
7.1
13.2
10.6
15.3
8.3
4.4

2.4
4.8
5.6
107
7.1
13.0
10.6
15.0
8.3
4.0

2.5
4.7
5.8
105
7.1
12.9
88
148
7.8
4.0

2.4
4.4
5.7
10.2
6.8
12.1
9.1
15.0
8.0
5.0

2.4
4.0
5.3
10.1
7.2
119
8.3
14.9
8.7
4.7

2.6
3.8
5.9
98
7.1
11.3
9.3
14.1
8.1
5.1

2.4
4.0
5.6
9.6
6.8
11.5
8.1
13.8
8.5
3.7

2.7
4.6
5.6
10.0
7.7
11.9
8.2
13.1
9.4
5.4

5.7
10.2
5.5
5.0
6.4
3.7
6.5
4.9
3.7
9.1

7.4
14.2
85
8.9
7.9
4.9
7:4
5.3
4.1
10.8

8.0
16 6
9.7
10.4
8.6
5.0
7.5
5.6
4.2
11 4

8.0
15.6
9.7
10.9
7.9
5.1
7.7
5.6
3.5
10.4

8.0
158
9.8
10.7
8.5
5.6
7.6
5.6
4.1
10.8

8.0
17.3
9.3
10.1
8.0
5.6
7.7
5.5
4.0
13.2

7.8
15.9
9.2
10.0
7.9
5.3
7.7
5.4
4.1
10.7

7.8
14.6
9.2
9.5
8.9
5.3
7.8
5.6
4.4
11.1

7.8
14.8
8.9
9.0
86
4.9
8.2
5.5
4.2
10.1

7.7
13.8
8.8
9.0
8.5
4.9
8.3
5.5
4.1
10.6

7.5
13.3
8.4
8.3
8.5
5.8
7.6
5.8
4.4
115

7.5
13.2
8.4
8.5
8.2
5.5
76
60
4.3
12.1

7.3
14,7
8.0
7.9
8.3
6.4
7.3
5.6
4.6
11.9

7.2
14.4
7.4
7.3
7.6
5.7
73
5.9
4.9
9.1

7.8
16.3
7.9
7.3
8.9
5.9
8.4
5.9
4.8
11.1

CHARACTERISTIC

OCCUPATION
White-collar workers ...............................................
Professional and technical ...............................
Managers and administrators, except
farm ..............................................................
Salesworkers ...................................................
Clerical workers ...............................................
Blue-collar workers .................................................
Craft and kindred workers ...............................
Operatives, except transport ...........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers .............................................
Service workers........................................................
Farmworkers............................................................

INDUSTRY
Nonagncultural private wage-and-salary workers2
Construction ......................................................
Manufacturing...................................................
Durable goods ........................................
Nondurable goods....................................
Transportation and public utilities ....................
Wholesale and retail trade ...............................
Finance and service industries ........................
Government workers ...............................................
Agricultural wage-and-salary workers ....................

' Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a
percent of potentially available labor force hours.
2 Includes mining, not shown separately

62

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

NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through
1980.

5.

Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted
Sex and age

Annual average

1980

1981

1979

1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Total. 16 years and over..........................................
16 to 19 years
...........
..................
16 to 17 years ........................................
18 to 19 years ....................................
20 to 24 y e a r s .................................................
25 years and over .............................................
25 to 54 years
....................................
55 years and over .............................

5.8
161
18 1
14.6
9.0
39
4.1
30

71
17 7
20 0
16 1
115
50
5.4
3.3

7.6
189
21.2
17 4
125
5.3
5.6
34

75
183
20 0
17.6
12.1
5.4
5.8
3.3

7.6
18.7
205
17.4
12.1
5.5
59
34

7.6
188
22.1
16.5
12.0
54
5.9
34

74
178
201
160
120
5.4
5.9
3.4

7.6
18.5
20.9
167
12.3
5.4
5.9
34

75
186
21 4
165
12.1
5.4
5.9
3.3

74
178
199
164
11.7
5.3
58
3.5

7.4
19.0
21.0
17 5
119
5.3
5.7
3.5

7.3
19.3
21.4
17.9
11.8
5.1
5.5
3.6

7.3
19.1
21 3
177
117
5.2
5.5
3.7

7.3
19.1
220
17.2
12 1
5.0
5.4
3.3

7,6
19.5
21.6
18.2
129
5.3
5.6
3.3

Men. 16 years and o v er....................................
16 to 19 years ..........................................
16 to 17 years .
18 to 19 y ea rs ....................................
20 to 24 years ..........................................
25 years and over ....................................
25 to 54 y ea rs ....................................
55 years and over .............................

51
158
179
142
86
3.3
34
29

6.9
182
20 4
16 7
12.5
4.7
5.1
33

7.5
19.4
21.5
17.6
13.5
5.1
5.4
34

7.5
19 1
21.5
188
134
5.2
5.6
3.6

7.6
195
20.9
184
13.2
5.4
5.8
3.6

7.6
199
23.7
17.1
13.6
5.3
5.7
3.6

7.6
189
21.2
169
13.5
5.4
6.0
3.5

7.4
198
21.8
18.1
138
5.1
5.6
33

74
19.8
22.3
17.8
13.2
5.1
56
3.3

7.2
19.0
20.5
17.8
12.5
49
5.4
3.3

7.2
20.3
23.0
18.5
128
49
5.2
3.4

7.1
20.1
22,1
18.7
12.7
4.8
5.2
3.4

7,0
19.5
21.1
18.6
13.0
47
5.1
3.2

6.9
19.3
227
17.0
13.2
4.6
49
31

7.4
20 2
22.7
18.3
14,2
4.8
5.1
3.4

Women. 16 years and o v e r .............................
16 to 19 y e a rs ........................................
16 to 17 y ears....................................
18 to 19 y ea rs ....................................
20 to 24 years ..........................................
25 years and over ......................................
25 to 54 y ea rs ....................................
55 years and over .............................

6.8
164
183
15 0
96
4.8
52
32

74
172
195
156
103
5.5
5.9
32

7.6
183
209
172
11.3
5.5
60
33

7.4
17.3
183
16.3
106
5.5
60
29

7.7
177
201
16.2
10.9
5.7
6.1
3.1

7.6
17.6
202
15.9
10.2
5.7
6.2
3.1

7.2
16 6
18.8
15.1
10 2
5.4
5.9
3.3

7.7
17.0
198
151
10.6
5.9
64
3.4

7.7
17.2
20.3
15.1
10.8
5.8
6.2
3.4

7.7
165
193
148
108
5.9
6.3
3.9

7.7
17.5
18.7
16.4
10.8
5.8
6.3
3.6

7.6
184
20 5
170
108
5.6
5.9
3.9

7.7
18.7
21.6
16.5
10.1
5.9
6.2
4,5

7.7
18.9
21.1
17.4
10.9
5.6
60
3.7

7.9
187
20.4
182
114
5.9
6.4
3.3

6.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May.

Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
1980

Reason for unemployment

1981

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

4.164
1.771
2.393
930
1.975
871

4,468
1.954
2.514
887
1.834
872

4.364
1.832
2.532
866
1.868
893

4.319
1.699
2.620
890
1.883
870

4.387
1,744
2.643
855
1.844
862

4.240
1.692
2,548
870
2.013
880

4.229
1.453
2.776
897
1,896
890

4,226
1,470
2,756
813
1.869
868

3,847
1,258
2,590
907
2.039
1,000

3.896
1.267
2.629
884
1.970
928

3.846
1.299
2.547
863
2.040
986

3.819
1.280
2.539
854
2,017
987

4,084
1.368
2,715
1.009
2.126
938

100.0
52.4
22.3
301
11.7
249
11.0

100.0
554
24.2
31.2
11.0
22.8
10.8

100 0
546
229
31.7
108
23.4
11.2

100 0
54.2
21 3
32.9
11.2
23.6
109

100.0
55.2
21.9
33.3
10.8
23.2
10 8

100.0
53.0
21.1
31.8
10.9
25.2
11.0

100.0
535
18.4
35.1
11.3
24.0
11.2

100.0
54,3
18.9
35.4
105
24.0
11.2

100 0
49.4
161
33.2
11.6
26.2
128

100.0
50.7
16.5
342
11.5
25.7
12.1

100.0
497
168
32.9
11.2
26.4
12.7

100.0
497
16.7
33.1
11.1
26.3
12.9

100 0
50.1
16.8
33.3
12.4
26.1
115

4.0
.9
1.9
8

43
.8
18
8

4.2
.8
1.8
9

4.1
.8
1.8
8

4.2
8
1.8
.8

4.0
8
1.9
8

4.0
.9
1.8
8

40
.8
1.8
.8

3.6
.9
1.9
9

3.7
.8
1.9
.9

3.6
8
1.9
.9

3.6
8
1.9
.9

3.8
.9
2.0
9

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Lost ast job ................................................................................................
On layoff .........................................................................................
Other job losers ...................................................................................
Left last job ................................................................................................
Reentered labor force ................................................................................
Seeking first jo b ............................................................................................

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Total unemployed .......................................................................................
Job losers....................................................................................................
On layoff ..............................................................................................
Other job losers ...................................................................................
Job leavers..................................................................................................
Reentrants ..................................................................................................
New entrants................................................................................................

UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF
THE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job losers.....................................................................................................
Job leavers..................................................................................................
Reentrants ..................................................................................................
New entrants..............................................................................

7.

Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]

Weeks of unemployment

Less than 5 w eeks...................................................
5 to 14 w ee k s ..........................................................
15 weeks and over .................................................
15 to 26 w eeks.................................................
27 weeks and over ........................................
Average (mean) duration, in w eeks.........................

Annual average

1980

1981

1979

1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

2,869
1.892
1,202
684
518
10 9

3.208
2.411
1.829
1.028
802
11.9

3,714
2,589
1.686
980
706
10.6

3.281
2.812
1,777
1.024
753
11.7

3.317
2,649
1,935
1,093
842
11.8

3,255
2,533
2.150
1,239
911
12.5

3,042
2,586
2,295
1,366
929
13.0

3,186
2,500
2,292
1,256
1,036
13.3

3,108
2,524
2,329
1,213
1.116
13.6

3,115
2,217
2,378
1.231
1,147
135

3,259
2,264
2,358
1,079
1,279
14.4

3,203
2,324
2,250
992
1,257
144

3,209
2,356
2,192
1,013
1,179
140

3,074
2,462
2,105
1.001
1,104
13.7

3.369
2.581
2,168
1.022
1.146
13.2

NOTE: The monthly data in these tables have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1980.


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

63

EM PLOYM ENT, H O U R S, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHM ENT SURVEYS

E mployment, hours, and earnings data 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 166,000 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.
Labor turnover data 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 L abor Statistics com putes spendable earnings from gross
weekly earnings for only tw o illustrative cases: ( l ) a w orker with no
dependents and (2) a m arried w orker with three dependents.

Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or
nonsupervisory w orkers for which pay was received and are different
from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the p or­
tion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular
hours and for which overtim e prem ium s were paid.
Labor turnover is the m ovem ent of all wage and salary w orkers
from one em ploym ent status to another. Accession rates indicate the
average num ber of persons added to a payroll in a given period per
100 employees; separation rates indicate the average num ber dropped
from a payroll per 100 employees. A lthough m onth-to-m onth changes
in em ploym ent can be calculated from the labor turnover data, the re­
sults are not com parable with em ploym ent data from the em ploym ent
and payroll survey. The labor turnover survey m easures changes d u r­
ing the calendar m onth while the em ploym ent and payroll survey
m easures changes from m idm onth to m idm onth.

Notes on the data
Definitions
Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holi­
day and sick pay)
12th of the m onth.
cent of all persons
m ent which reports

for any part of the payroll period including the
Persons holding m ore than one jo b (about 5 per­
in the labor force) are counted in each establish­
them.

Production workers in m anufacturing include blue-collar w orker
supervisors and all nonsupervisory w orkers closely associated with
production operations. T hose w orkers m entioned in tables 14-20 in­
clude production w orkers in m anufacturing and mining; construction
w orkers in construction; and nonsupervisory w orkers in tra n sp o rta ­
tion and public utilities, in wholesale and retail trade, in finance, in­
surance, and real estate, and in services industries. These groups
account for about four-fifths of the total em ploym ent on private
nonagricultural payrolls.
Earnings are the paym ents production or nonsupervisory w orkers
receive during the survey period, including prem ium pay for overtim e
or late-shift w ork but excluding irregular bonuses and other special
paym ents. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to elim inate the effects
of price change. The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from aver­
age hourly earnings d ata adjusted to exclude the effects of tw o types
of changes th at are unrelated to underlying w age-rate developm ents:
fluctuations in overtim e prem ium s in m anufacturing (the only sector
for which overtim e d ata are available) and the effects of changes and
seasonal factors in the p roportion of w orkers in high-wage and lowwage industries. Spendable earnings are earnings from which estim at­
ed social security an d Federal incom e taxes have been deducted. The

64FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

E stablishm ent d ata collected by the Bureau of L abor S tatistics are
periodically adjusted to com prehensive counts of em ploym ent (called
“ benchm arks” ). T he latest com plete adjustm ent was m ade with the re­
lease of June 1980 data, published in the A ugust 1980 issue of the Re­
view. C onsequently, data published in the Review prior to that issue
are not necessarily com parable to current data. C om plete com parable
historical unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in a
Supplem ent to Em ploym ent and Earnings (unadjusted data from April
1977 through M arch 1980 and seasonally adjusted data from Jan u ary
1974 through M arch 1980) and in Employment and Earnings, United
States, 1909-78, BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods).
D ata on recalls were show n for the first tim e in tables 12 and 13 in
the January 1978 issue of the Review. F or a detailed discussion of the
recalls series, along with historical data, see “ New Series on Recalls
from the L abor T urnover Survey,” Employment and Earnings, D ecem ­
ber 1977, pp. 10-19.
A com prehensive discussion of the differences between household
and establishm ent d ata on em ploym ent appears in G loria P. G reen,
“ C om paring em ploym ent estim ates from household and payroll su r­
veys,” Monthly Labor Review, D ecem ber 1969, pp. 9-20. See also BLS
Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau
of L abor Statistics, 1976).
The form ulas used to construct the spendable average weekly earn ­
ings series reflect the latest provisions of the Federal incom e tax and
social security tax laws. F or the spendable average weekly earnings
form ulas for the years 1978-80, see Employment and Earnings,
M arch 1980, pp. 10-11. Real earnings data are adjusted using the
C onsum er Price Index for U rban W age E arners and Clerical W orkers
(CPI-W ).

8.

Employment by industry, 1951-80

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]

Year

1951
1952
1953
1954
1955

Total

Mining

Government

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
Total

Federal

State
and local

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

47,819
48,793
50,202
48,990
50,641

929
898
866
791
792

2,637
2,668
2,659
2,646
2,839

16,393
16,632
17,549
16,314
16,882

4,226
4,248
4,290
4,084
4,141

9,742
10,004
10,247
10,235
10,535

2,727
2,812
2,854
2,867
2,926

7,015
7,192
7,393
7,368
7,610

1,956
2,035
2,111
2,200
2,298

5,547
5,699
5,835
5,969
6,240

6,389
6,609
6,645
6,751
6,914

2,302
2,420
2,305
2,188
2,187

4,087
4,188
4,340
4,563
4,727

1956 .................................................................
1957 .................................................................
1958 .................................................................
1959' ...............................................................
1960 .................................................................

52,369
52,853
51,324
53,268
54,189

822
828
751
732
712

3,039
2,962
2,817
3,004
2,926

17,243
17,174
15,945
16,675
16,796

4,244
4,241
3,976
4,011
4,004

10,858
10,886
10,750
11,127
11,391

3,018
3,028
2,980
3,082
3,143

7,840
7,858
7,770
8,045
8,248

2,389
2,438
2,481
2,549
2,629

6,497
6,708
6,765
7,087
7,378

7,278
7,616
7,839
8,083
8,353

2,209
2,217
2,191
2,233
2,270

5,069
5,399
5,648
5,850
6,083

1961
1962
1963
1964
1965

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

53,999
55,549
56,653
58,283
60,765

672
650
635
634
632

2,859
2,948
3,010
3,097
3,232

16,326
16,853
16,995
17,274
18,062

3,903
3,906
3,903
3,951
4,036

11,337
11,566
11,778
12,160
12,716

3,133
3,198
3,248
3,337
3,466

8,204
8,368
8,530
8,823
9,250

2,688
2,754
2,830
2,911
2,977

7,620
7,982
8,277
8,660
9,036

8,594
8,890
9,225
9,596
10,074

2,279
2,340
2,358
2,348
2,378

6,315
6,550
6,868
7,248
7,696

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

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

63,901
65,803
67,897
70,384
70,880

627
613
606
619
623

3,317
3,248
3,350
3,575
3,588

19,214
19,447
19,781
20,167
19,367

4,158
4,268
4,318
4,442
4,515

13,245
13,606
14,099
14,705
15,040

3,597
3,689
3,779
3,907
3,993

9,648
9,917
10,320
10,798
11,047

3,058
3,185
3,337
3,512
3,645

9,498
10,045
10,567
11,169
11,548

10,784
11,391
11,839
12,195
12,554

2,564
2,719
2,737
2,758
2,731

8,220
8,672
9,102
9,437
9,823

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

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

71,214
73,675
76,790
78,265
76,945

609
628
642
697
752

3,704
3,889
4,097
4,020
3,525

18,623
19,151
20,154
20,077
18,323

4,476
4,541
4,656
4,725
4,542

15,352
15,949
16,607
16,987
17,060

4,001
4,113
4,277
4,433
4,415

11,351
11,836
12,329
12,554
12,645

3,772
3,908
4,046
4,148
4,165

11,797
12,276
12,857
13,441
13,892

12,881
13,334
13,732
14,170
14,686

2,696
2,684
2,663
2,724
2,748

10,185
10,649
11,068
11,446
11,937

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

79,382
82,471
86,697
89,886
90,657

779
813
851
960
1,025

3,576
3,851
4,229
4,483
4,469

18,997
19,682
20,505
21,062
20,361

4,582
4,713
4,923
5,141
5,156

17,755
18,516
19,542
20,269
20,573

4,546
4,708
4,969
5,204
5,281

13,209
13,808
14,573
15,066
15,292

4,271
4,467
4,724
4,974
5,162

14,551
15,303
16,252
17,078
17,741

14,871
15,127
15,672
15,920
16,170

2,733
2,727
2,753
2,773
2,866

12,138
12,399
12,919
13,147
13,304

'Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.

9.

E m p lo y m e n t b y S ta te

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
State

Apr. 1980

Mar. 1981

Apr. 1981 »

State

Apr. 1980

Mar. 1981

Apr. 1981 p

Alabama ......................................................................
Alaska..........................................................................
Arizona ........................................................................
Arkansas ......................................................................
California......................................................................

1,366.8
166.6
1,016.9
747.6
9,855.0

1,350.1
165.5
1,022.9
746.5
9,870.6

1,343.0
169.9
1,022.0
751.3
9,896.8

Montana..................................................................
Nebraska................................................................
Nevada ..................................................................
New Hampshire ......................................................
New Jersey ............................................................

276.2
633.6
394.8
379.3
3,041.8

276.8
620.8
405.7
381.5
3,039.0

279.3
628.8
408.9
381.1
3,069.9

Colorado ......................................................................
Connecticut ..................................................................
Delaware......................................................................
District of Columbia......................................................
Florida..........................................................................

1,245.6
1,427.6
254.7
615.2
3,568.4

1,260.2
1,428.6
255.4
611.6
3,750.2

1,262.1
1,432.6
256.6
613.3
3,740.9

New Mexico............................................................
New York................................................................
North Carolina ........................................................
North Dakota ..........................................................
Ohio ......................................................................

462.9
7,136.7
2,395.1
244.5
4,425.3

461.7
7,160.2
2,387.1
241.3
4,330.8

463,6
7,209.5
2,395.9
245.2
4,369.4

Georgia........................................................................
Hawaii..........................................................................
Idaho............................................................................
Illinois ..........................................................................
Indiana..........................................................................

2,148.2
408.5
328.0
4,895.4
2,147.5

2,161.5
406.2
325.8
4,789.6
2,110.9

2,169.9
405,3
326.2
4,793.6
2,121.4

Oklahoma ..............................................................
Oregon ..................................................................
Pennsylvania ..........................................................
Rhode Island ..........................................................
South Carolina ........................................................

1,130.9
1,054.4
4,778.5
398.2
1,199.7

1,166.9
1,009.9
4,684.0
392.9
1,185.2

1,171.9
1,013.0
4,697.2
396.4
1,191.0

Iowa ............................................................................
Kansas ........................................................................
Kentucky ......................................................................
Louisiana ......................................................................
Maine ..........................................................................

1,120.8
953.2
1,219.1
1,554.2
413.7

1,075.9
950.7
1,198.0
1,618.0
408.7

1,085.9
957.1
1,178.4
1,620.9
413.0

South Dakota..........................................................
Tennessee ..............................................................
Texas ....................................................................
Utah ......................................................................
Vermont..................................................................

237.5
1,752.2
5,796.0
551.0
196.9

230.2
1,713.4
6,049.9
556.2
204.2

233.0
1,720.0
6,070.9
555.1
200.8

Maryland ......................................................................
Massachusetts..............................................................
Michigan ......................................................................
Minnesota ....................................................................
Mississippi ....................................................................
Missouri........................................................................

1,702.2
2,658.3
3,438.0
1,768.4
837.9
1,986.9

1,680.3
2,652.3
3,442.6
1,733.5
826.0
1,942.2

1,700.5
2,682.1
3,460.4
NA
831.2
1,966.1

Virginia....................................................................
Washington ............................................................
West Virginia ..........................................................
Wisconsin................................................................
Wyoming ................................................................

2,108.1
1,615.0
646.4
1,936.8
200.1

2,118.1
1,589.9
637.2
1,909.0
201.3

2,122.7
1,596.0
5892
1,935.8
202.4

Virgin Islands ..........................................................

37.4

36.9

36.7


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

65

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
10.

Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]

Annual average

1981

1980

Industry division and group

TOTAL
MINING

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

CONSTRUCTION

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.p

Mayp

90,072

90,729

91,332

91,693

91,846

90,082

90,245

90,817

91,363

91,860

1,029

1,035

1,039

1,055

1,064

1,069

1,073

1,086

943

952

4,618

4,431

4,080

3,985

4,135

4,286

4,350

1979

1980

May

June

July

Aug.

89,886

90,657

90,849

91,049

89,820

960

1.025

1,024

1,049

1,030

4,483

4,469

4,471

4,611

4,633

4,712

4,690

4,700

21,062
15,085

20,361
14,277

20,250
14,172

20,201
14,093

19,754
13,657

20,044
13,947

20,269
14,182

20,302
14,204

20,368
14,260

20,316
14,199

20,155
14,047

20,149
c 14,048

20,246
14,127

20,332
14,203

20,377
14,260

Production workers....................................

12,772
9,120

12,215
8,468

12,150
8,409

12,065
8,307

11,774
8,025

11,827
8,075

12,028
8,281

12,100
8,343

12,195
8,430

12,186
8,413

12,110
8,340

12,082
c8,317

12,159
8,381

12,230
8,448

12,248
8,468

Lumber and wood products .............................
Furniture and fixtures........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ......................
Primary metal industries....................................
Fabricated metal products ...............................
Machinery, except electrical.............................
Electric and electronic equipment....................
Transportation equipment.................................
Instruments and related products ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ...........................

766.1
499.3
709,7
1,250.2
1,723.7
2,481.6
2,124.3
2,082.8
688.9
445.6

686.9
473.7
667.9
1.133.3
1,627.1
2,488,8
2,126.3
1,889.8
699.7
422.0

654.8
469.1
668.1
1,149.8
1,619.8
2,509.3
2,120.2
1,835.1
699.4
424.6

668.0
460.8
666.2
1,112.9
1,598.6
2,486.1
2,102.2
1,847.0
702.9
420.1

666.8
438.1
656.0
1,055.5
1,538.4
2,440.2
2,066.5
1,810.2
698.3
404.0

683.0
454.6
663.2
1,059,6
1,567.6
2,417.8
2,080.7
1,785.4
697.8
417.6

689.2
466.6
667.4
1,081.8
1,594.5
2,449.6
2,103.5
1,857.9
695.5
422.2

686.9
470.3
665.5
1,093.1
1,604.6
2,456,7
2,119.3
1,885.7
695.9
422.1

682.8
473.8
667.2
1,111.9
1,615.6
2,475.2
2,134.9
1,912.2
700.6
421.2

679.8
475.8
654.3
1,124.6
1,614.6
2,492.5
2,143.9
1,888.4
702.2
410.1

668.1
475.0
637.4
1,125.5
1,598.6
2,491.3
2,140.1
1,872.0
700,6
401.5

667.8
476.9
632.9
1,125.7
1,596.8
2,498.2
2,138.5
1,840.8
697.9
406.3

671.4
477.5
641.3
1,129.1
1,603.9
2,504.0
2,146.0
1,876.9
699.5
409.7

679.4
482.7
654.2
1,136.0
1,611.9
2,504.3
2,158.9
1,887.1
702.1
413.6

691.3
484.1
657.4
1,133.9
1,610.2
2,505.5
2,165.5
1,882.5
702.9
415.0

P r o d u c t io n w o r k e r s ...................................................

8,290
5,965

8,146
5,809

8,100
5,763

8,136
5,786

7,980
5,632

8,217
5,872

8,241
5,901

8,202
5,861

8,173
5,830

8,130
5,786

8,045
5,707

8,067
c 5,731

8,087
5,746

8,102
5,755

8,129
5,792

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

1,728.1
69.9
888.5
1,312.5
706.7
1,239.5
1,110.7
210.0
775.6
248.0

1,690.4
69.0
863.8
1,296.5
693.9
1,271.7
1,112.6
197.3
710.7
240.1

1,638.5
62.7
870.6
1,299.0
692.4
1,267.8
1,119.5
203.4
702.4
243.2

1,676.8
64.6
853.2
1,310.5
695.0
1,271.3
1,122.2
209.1
688.5
244.7

1,709.5
63.9
820.6
1,236.9
682.3
1,264.5
1,112.0
212.0
659.3
218.9

1,795.3
71.3
854.1
1,299.9
688.7
1,264.3
1,108.4
212.4
680.4
242.6

1,790.5
75.5
854.7
1,309.2
688.6
1,267.9
1,106.3
210.9
695.8
241.1

1,738.8
76.4
856.8
1,307.5
690.7
1,272.2
1,104.9
210.4
703.4
240.6

1,696.6
75.6
859.4
1,302.3
691.6
1,281.0
1,106.1
210.2
708.3
241.5

1,667.2
74.7
858.3
1,281.7
691.7
1,291.6
1,107.6
207.8
710.3
238.8

1,625.0
72.0
852.5
1,266.2
687.9
1,281.7
1,106.3
207.6
708.9
237.1

1,617.3
70.4
853.0
c 1,285.1
687.9
1,286.8
1,108.8
206.6
711.2
239.9

1,609.7
67.9
853.0
1,299.8
688.5
1,291.4
1,113.2
208.1
714.1
240.9

1,605.4
65.6
855.2
1,304.8
690.7
1,292.5
1,114.8
210.3
719.6
242.7

1,616.2
64.3
853.5
1,316.8
689.1
1,290.2
1,116.0
211.8
724.0
246.6

5,141

5,156

5,167

5,185

5,145

5,144

5,170

5,178

5,158

5,163

5,075

5,089

5,107

5,131

5,163

20,708

20,937

21,313

20,555

20,396

20,480

20,710

20,899

MANUFACTURING
Production workers....................................

Durable goods

Nondurable goods

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
WHOLESALE TRADE
RETAIL TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE

20,269

20,573

20,497

20,562

20,506

20,579

20,692

5,204

5,281

5,263

5,287

5,278

5,284

5,291

5,313

5,313

5,318

5,278

5,275

5,294

5,317

5,337

15,401

15,395

15,624

15,995

15,277

15,121

15,186

15,393

15,562

15,066

15,292

15,234

15,275

15,228

15,295

4,974

5,162

5,137

5,201

5,229

5,232

5,194

5,204

5,215

5,229

5,226

5,235

5,252

5,281

5,307

17,949

17,951

17,978

17,788

17,945

18,103

18,293

18,458

16,252
2,774
13,478

16,391
2,776
13,615

16,352
2,782
13,570

16,134
2,773
13,361

16,373
2,774
13,599

16,408
2,769
13,639

16,387
2,775
13,612

16,354
2,782
13,572

SERVICES

17,078

17,741

17,747

17,846

17,973

17,966

17,915

GOVERNMENT

15,920
2,773
13,147

16,170
2,866
13,304

16,556
2,963
13,593

16,394
2,995
13,399

15,550
2,949
12,601

15,366
2,862
12,504

15,764
2,754
13,010

Federal..............................................................
State and local .................................................
c=corrected.

66FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

11.

Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
1980

Industry division and group

TOTAL
MINING
CONSTRUCTION
MANUFACTURING
Production workers ........................................................

Durable goods
Production workers ...............................................
Lumber and wood products......................................
Furniture and fixtures ...................................................................
Stone, clay, and glass products............................................................
Primary metal industries .................................................
Fabricated metal products...............................
Machinery, except electrical ............................................................
Electric and electronic equipment......................................................
Transportation equipment ..............................................................
Instruments and related products......................................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing.................................................................

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

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
WHOLESALE TRADE

1981

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.P

MayP

90,468

90,047

89,867

90,142

90,384

90,710

90,961

91,125

91,481

c91,653

91,705

91,490

91,474

1,023

1,029

1,013

1,013

1,028

1,037

1,054

1,072

1,086

1,095

1,100

949

951

4,436

4,379

4,322

4,359

4,404

4,442

4,475

4,508

4,610

4,518

4,514

4,441

4,315

20,286
14,186

20,014
13,931

19,828
13,759

19,940
13,872

20,044
13,972

20,157
14,065

20,282
14,179

20,312
14,195

20,345
c 14,219

c20,375
c 14,241

20,396
14,255

20,440
14,286

20,412
14,273

12,140
8,386

11,947
8,205

11,819
8,084

11,860
8,123

11,955
8,212

12,043
8,288

12,146
8,381

12,160
8,386

12,188
c 8,408

12,196
8,411

12,222
8,432

12,259
8,463

12,238
8,446

654
472
663
1,144
1,620
2,517
2,127
1,819
700
424

648
461
647
1,096
1,584
2,476
2,094
1,831
696
414

650
449
641
1,049
1,551
2,448
2,079
1,839
698
415

662
456
648
1,059
1,569
2,437
2,083
1,840
697
409

674
464
655
1,074
1,587
2,452
2,091
1,851
697
410

677
466
656
1,096
1,595
2,469
2,107
1,873
697
407

683
469
661
1,119
1,606
2,475
2,120
1,901
701
411

688
472
660
1,133
1,608
2,480
2,135
1,868
701
415

693
475
663
1,133
1,608
2,484
2,147
1,866
702
417

692
477
661
1,134
1,610
2,491
2,149
1,865
700
417

691
478
662
1,135
1,610
2,494
2,155
1,879
702
416

690
485
659
1,135
1,618
2,499
2,170
1,881
703
419

691
487
652
1,128
1,610
2,513
2,172
1,866
704
415

8,146
5,800

8,067
5,726

8,009
5,675

8,080
5,749

8,089
5,760

8,114
5,777

8,136
5,798

8,152
5,809

8,157
5,811

08,179
c 5,830

8,174
5,823

8,181
5,823

8,174
5,827

1,691
70
869
1,291
692
1,268
1,120
203
703
239

1,677
71
843
1,287
685
1,269
1,112
205
681
237

1,683
69
833
1,276
680
1,266
1,103
207
663
229

1,690
67
851
1,296
682
1,266
1,100
208
680
240

1,672
68
851
1,299
686
1,269
1,104
208
692
240

1,682
69
856
1,292
690
1,272
1,105
209
699
240

1,686
71
856
1,291
692
1,278
1,108
209
705
240

1,684
70
857
1,291
693
1,284
1,112
210
711
240

1,680
70
858
1,289
694
1,284
1,115
213
713
241

1,685
71
856
c 1,293
696
1,289
1,118
213
716
242

1,672
71
855
1,297
695
1,294
1,118
213
717
242

1,669
72
857
1,302
694
1,294
1,117
212
722
242

1,668
72
852
1,309
688
1,290
1.116
212
725
242

5,167

5,134

5,114

5,129

5,124

5,147

5,132

5,137

5,142

5,156

5,164

5,162

5,163

20,487

20,459

20,506

20,589

20,620

20,641

20,660

20,638

20,762

20,885

20,917

20,808

20,888

5,268

5,245

5,247

5,263

5,280

5,292

5,297

5,302

5,315

5,328

5,326

5,338

5,342

15,219

15,214

15,259

15,326

15,340

15,349

15,363

15,336

15,447

15,557

15,591

15,470

15,546

5,137

5,150

5,167

5,180

5,194

5,214

5,225

5,245

5,268

5,277

5,284

5,297

5,307

SERVICES

17,659

17,652

17,760

17,788

17,861

17,913

17,969

18,068

18,133

18,181

18,212

18,275

18,366

GOVERNMENT

16,273
2,960
13,313

16,230
2,951
13,279

16,157
2,893
13,264

16,144
2,828
13,316

16,109
2,765
13,344

16,159
2,788
13,371

16,164
2,790
13,374

16,145
2,789
13,356

16,135
2,801
13,334

16,166
2,794
13,372

16,118
2,786
13,332

16,118
2,786
13,332

16,072
2,779
13,293

RETAIL TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE

Federal ..............................................................
State and local.....................................................
c=corrected.


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

67

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
12.

Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date

[Per 100 employees]

Year

Annual
average

Jan.

Feb.

Apr.

Mar.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

4.3
4.4
4.3
3.8

5.3
5.4
5.0
4.5

4.6
4.9
4.5
4.3

3.9
4.3
4.1
3.6

3.1
3.3
3.0
2.7

2.4
2.4
2.2
2.2

3.0
3.3
3.1
2.1

4.0
4.2
3.7
2.5

3.5
3.9
3.4
2.6

3.0
3.5
3.1
2.2

2.2
2.6
2.2
1.6

1.6
1.7
1.5
1.2

.9
.8
.9
1.4

1.0
.9
.9
1.7

.8
.7
.8
1,4

.6
.6
.7
1.1

.6
.5
.5
.9

.6
.5
.5
.8

4.3
4.1
4.3
4.2

5.1
5.3
5.7
4.8

4.9
4.9
4.7
4.1

3.8
4.1
4.2
3.7

3.4
3.5
3.8
3.0

3.4
3.4
3.5
3.1

1.9
2.1
2.0
1.4

3.1
3.5
3.3
2.2

2.8
3.1
2.7
1.9

1.9
2.3
2.1
1.4

1.5
1.7
1.6
1.1

1.2
1.3
1.1
.9

1.5
1.1
1.4
2.0

1.0
.8
1.3
1.7

1.1
.8
1.1
1.4

1.1
.9
1.2
1.5

1.1
1.0
1.5
1.3

1.5
1.4
1.7
1.6

Total accessions
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981

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

4,0
4.1
4.0
3.5

3.7
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.0

3.7
3.8
4.0
3.8
3.4

4.0
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.4

3.8
4.0
3.9
3.1
p3.4

4.6
4.7
4.7
3.4

4.9
4.9
4,8
3.9

New hires
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981

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

2.8
3.1
2.9
2.1

2.2
2.5
2.8
2.4
1.8

2.6
2.7
2.8
2.3
2.0

2.1
2.2
2.5
2.2
1.8

2.7
2.9
2.9
2.1
p2.0

3.7
3.9
3.8
2.4

3.5
3.6
3.6
2.1

Recalls
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981

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

1.2
1.0
.9
1.1
1.3

.9
,7
.7
1.1

1.1
.8
.7
.9
1.1

1.3
.7
.7
9
1.0

.9
.8
.7
.8
p1.1

8
,7
.7
1.2

.8
.8
.8
1.0

Total separations
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981

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

3.8
3.9
4.0
4.0

3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.2

3.4
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.1

3.9
3.6
3.8
4.1
3.6

3.4
3.6
3.7
4.7
p3.1

3.5
3.8
3.9
4.4

3.5
3.7
3.8
4.8

Quits
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981

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

1.4
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.2

1.8
2.1
2.0
1.5

1.3
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.1

1.7
2.0
2.0
1.5
»1.3

1.6
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.2

1.9
2.1
2.1
1.5

1.9
2.2
2.1
1.4

Layoffs
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981

13.

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

1.7
1.2
1.1
1.6
1.6

1.1
.9
1.1
1.7

1.4
.9
.8
1.2
1.2

1.0
.9
.8
1.3
1.2

.8
.7
.7
2.5

.9
8
.9
2.3
»1.1

.8
.7
.9
2.2

Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group

[Per 100 employees]

Separation rates

Accession rates

MANUFACTURING
Seasonally adjusted................

Durable goods
Lumber and wood products...........
Furniture and fixtures ....................
Stone, clay, and glass products .. .
Primary metal industries ................
Fabricated metal products.............
Machinery, except electrical...........
Electric and electronic equipment ..
Transportation equipment .............
Instruments and related products ..
Miscellaneous manufacturing.........

Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products ...........
Tobacco manufacturers..................
Textile mill products ......................
Apparel and other 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.........


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
68
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

New hires

Total

Major industry group

Total

Recalls

Layoffs

Quits

Apr.
1980

Mar.
1981

Apr.
1981»

Apr.
1980

Mar.
1981

Apr.
1981 p

Apr.
1980

Mar.
1981

Apr.
1981»

Apr.
1980

Mar.
1981

Apr.
1981»

Apr.
1980

Mar.
1981

Apr.
1981 »

Apr.
1980

Mar.
1981

Apr.
1981»

3.1
3.0

3.4
3.5

3.4
3.3

2.1
2.1

2.0
2.2

2.0
2.0

0.8

1.1

1.1

4.7
5.3

3.2
3.6

3.1
3.4

1.5
1.5

1.2
1.4

1.3
1.3

2.3
2.9

1.2
1.4

1.1
1.4

2.7
4.2
3.3
3.6
1.9
3.0
2.0
2.6
2.6
2.4
4.4

3.2
5.4
4.0
4.5
2.7
3.9
2.5
2.7
3.3
2.4
4.3

3.1
5.5
4.3
4.4
2.6
3.3
2,3
2.4

1.7
2.3
2.7
1.8
.9
1,9
1.6
1.7
1.1
2.0
3.1

1.8
3.0
2,9
1.9
1.0
2.1
1.6
1.7
1.4
19
2.5

1.7
3.1
3.1
1.9
.9
1.9
1.5
1.5

.7
1.7
.4
1.6
.8
.9
.2
.4
1.1
.2
1.0

1.1
2.2
.9
2.5
1.4
1.4
.6
.6
1.5
.3
1.7

1.2
2.2
1.1
2.3
1.3
1.1
.6
.5

4.7
10.2
5.0
4.5
3.8
5.9
3.4
3.5
6.2
2.6
5.0

2.9
5.0
3.9
3.2
2.4
3.4
2.4
2.4
3.4
2.0
3.5

2.7
4.6
4.0
3.0
2.1
3.1
2.4
2.3

1.2
2.5
2.2
1.3
.6
1.5
1.0
1.2
.8
1.2
1.9

1.0
2.0
2.0
1.1
.5
1.2
.8
1.0
.8
1.0
1.4

1.0
2.3
2.0
1.1
.5
1.1
.9
.8

2.6
6.6
1.8
2.3
2.4
3.6
1.6
1.3
4.5
.6
2,0

1.2
2.1
1.0
1.4
1.1
1.4
.9
.6
1.8
,4
1.3

1.0
1.5
1.0
1.1
.8
1.3
.9
.7

3.8
5.3
2.6
4.0
5.2
2.2
2.8
1.5
2.5

3.6
4.5
2.0
3.3
5.3
2.2
3.1
1.7
2.1

3.7
5.4

2.4
2.5
.8
2.4
3.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.6

2.4
3.1

1.1
1.8
.7
.6
1.8
.7
.5
.3
.4

3.5
5.0
6.6
3.4
4,9
2.4
2.8
1.5
1.6

1.5
1.7
.3
18
2.3
.8
1.6
.6
.5

2.1
2.4
.8
1.5
.6
.6

1.8
2.9
1.5
1.1
2.2
1.3
.7
.6
1.5

1.3
2.5
5.3
.7
1.9
1.0
.6
.3
.6

1.3
2.2

4.0
5.1
2.3
2.7
1.5
2.0

2.0
2.3
.3
2.6
2.9
,9
1.8
.6
.7

1.6
1.8

.6
1.8
.9
.4
.2
.7

4.6
6.0
2.8
4.8
5.9
2.9
3.1
1.8
2.7

3.6
4.8

2.9
3.1
1.4
2.1
1.2
1.9

.9
1,8
1.0
.5
1.4
.7
.3
.2
.8

1.1
2.1

3.8
5.1
2.6
2.6
1.6
2.6

2.6
3.2
.8
3.2
3.6
1.3
2.4
1.2
1.7

3.2
7.0

4.1
5.7

3.6
6.2

2.2
5.1

2.6
4.2

2.3
4.3

.8
1.4

1.2
1.4

1.0
1.6

6.8
6.9

3.4
5.2

3,5
5.6

1.9
3.8

1.4
2.6

1.5
2.9

3.7
2.1

1.0
1.6

1.0
1.7

2.0
4.3

1.6
2.4

.3
1.7

2.0
3.6

1.0
1.5

.4
1.3

.9
2.0
.8
.6
.3
.7

14.

Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1950-80

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls]

Year

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
earnings

Total private
1950 ..................

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

$53.13

39.8

$1.335

$67.16

37.9

$1.772

$69.68

37.4

$1.863

$58.32

40.5

$1.440

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

57.86
60.65
63.76
64.52
67.72

39.9
39,9
39.6
39.1
39.6

1.45
1.52
1.61
1.65
1.71

74.11
77.59
83.03
82.60
89.54

38.4
38.6
38.8
38,6
40.7

1.93
2.01
2.14
2.14
2.20

76.96
82.86
86.41
88.91
90.90

38.1
38.9
37.9
37.2
37.1

2.02
2.13
228
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 ..................
1959’ ................
1960 ..................

70.74
73.33
75.08
78.78
80.67

39.3
38.8
38.5
39.0
38.6

1.80
1.89
1.95
2.02
2.09

95.06
98.25
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
8232
88.26
89.72

40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7

1.95
2.04
2.10
2.19
2.26

1961
1962
1963
1964
1965

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

82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45

38.6
38.7
38.8
38 7
38.8

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

92.34
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

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

9882
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

3.89
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
39.8

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
369
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
36.4

5.69
6.06
6.41
6.81
7.31

142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79

39.9
40.5
40.7
40.0
39.5

3.57
3.82
4.09
4.42
4.83

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

175.45
189.00
203.70
219.30
235.10

36.1
36.0
35.8
35.6
35,3

4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16
6.66

273.90
301.20
332.88
365.50
396.58

42.4
43.4
43.4
43.0
43.2

6.46
6.94
7.67
8.50
9.18

283.73
295.65
318,69
342.99
367.78

36.8
36.5
36.8
37.0
37,0

7.71
8.10
8.66
9.27
9.94

209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
288.62

40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
39.7

522
5.68
6.17
6.69
7.27

1951
1952
1953
1954
1955

Transportation and public
utilities

Finance, insurance, and
real estate

Wholesale and retail trade

1950 ..................

Services

$44.55

40.5

$1.100

$50.52

37 7

$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 ..................
1959' ................
1960 ..................

57.48
59.60
61.76
64.41
66.01

39.1
38 7
38.6
38.8
38.6

1.47
1 54
1 60
1.66
1.71

65 68
67 53
70.12
72 74
75.14

36 9
36 7
37 1
37 3
37.2

1 78
1 84
1 89
1 95
2.02

1961
1962
1963
1964
1965

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

$118.78
125.14

41.1
41.3

$2.89
3.03

67.41
69.91
72.01
74.66
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

355
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
33.9

2.88
3,05
3.23
3.48
3.73

117.85
122.98
129.20
137.61
148.19

36.6
36.6
36.6
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
33.8
33.6
33.5

3,04
3.27
3.47
3.75
4.02

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

256.71
278.90
302.80
325.98
352.04

39.8
39.9
40.0
39.9
396

6.45
6.99
7.57
8.17
8.89

133.79
142.52
153.64
164.96
175.91

33.7
33.3
32.9
32.6
32.1

3.97
4.28
4.67
5.06
5.48

155.43
165.26
178,00
190.77
209.24

36.4
36.4
36.4
36.2
36.2

4.27
4.54
4.89
5.27
5.78

143.52
153.45
163.67
175.27
190.71

33.3
33.0
32.8
32.7
32.6

4.31
4.65
4.99
5.36
5.85

1951
1952
1953
1954
1955

' Data Include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.


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

69

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
15.

Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group

[G ro s s

averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]

Annual average

1981

1980

Industry division and group

TOTAL PRIVATE

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.p

MayP

35.6

35.1

34.9

35.2

352

35.2

1979

1980

May

June

July

35.6

35.3

35.0

35.3

35,3

35.5

35.3

35.3

35.3

MINING ...................................................................

43.0

43.2

42.7

43.2

41.9

43.1

43.5

43.5

43.5

44.1

43.5

42.8

42.2

43.5

43.7

CONSTRUCTION

37.0

37.0

36.9

37.9

37.7

37.3

37.9

37.9

36.8

37.1

36.4

35.0

37.2

36.9

36.9

MANUFACTURING

40.2
3.3

39.7
2.8

39.3
2.5

39.4
2.5

38.8
2.4

39.3
2.7

39.7
3.0

39.8
2.9

40.2
3.1

40.8
3.3

39.9
2.9

39.5
2.8

39.9
2.8

39.7
2.6

40.1
3.0

Overtime hours ......................................

40.8
3.5

40.2
2.8

39.7
2.5

39.8
2.4

39.1
2.3

39.7
2.6

40.2
2.9

40.3
2.9

40.7
3.1

41.5
3.4

40.4
2,9

39.9
2.8

40.5
2.9

40.3
2.7

40.7
3.1

Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products......................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................

39.4
38.7
41.5
41.4
40.7

38.6
38.1
40.8
40.1
40.4

37.6
37.3
40.6
39.3
39.9

38.4
37.3
41.0
39.1
40.1

38.2
36.2
40.3
38.6
39.2

39.2
37.6
40,7
39.0
40.0

39.3
38.3
41.1
39.9
40.5

39.2
38.5
41.3
39.9
40.5

39.2
38.4
41.4
40.8
40.9

39.6
39.6
41,6
41.6
41.6

38.8
38.1
40.4
41.1
40.4

38.4
38.2
39.6
40.7
40.0

39.0
38.8
40.7
41.1
40.6

39.0
38,2
40.9
41.3
40.3

39.5
38.3
41.4
41.2
40.9

Machinery except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment ..................
Transportation equipment ..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................

41.8
40.3
41.1
408
38.8

41.1
39.8
40.6
40.5
38.7

40.8
39.3
39.9
40.3
38.2

40.8
39.4
39.9
40.5
38.3

40.0
38.5
39.5
39.6
37.8

40.4
39.2
40.0
39.9
38.5

41.0
39.7
40.7
40,1
39.1

40.7
39.9
41.1
40.3
38.9

41.3
40.4
41.7
40.9
39.1

42.2
41.0
43.1
41.2
39.5

41.2
40.1
40.9
40.6
38.6

40.8
39,6
40.1
40.5
38.4

41.2
40.2
41.1
40.6
38.9

40.8
39.8
41.0
39.9
38.6

41.3
40.1
41.7
40.2
39.1

Overtime hours......................................

39.3
3.1

39.0
2.8

38.7
2.5

38.8
2,5

38.5
2.6

38.9
2.9

39.1
3.0

39.1
2.9

39.3
3.0

39.8
3.1

39.1
2.9

38.8
2.8

39.0
2.7

38.8
2,5

39.3
2.9

Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures..................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products..................
Paper and allied products..............................

39.9
38.0
40.4
35.3
42.6

39.7
38.1
40.0
35.4
42.3

39.7
38.7
39.8
35.3
41.6

39.6
38.3
39.6
35.6
41.7

39.9
36.5
38.5
35.3
41.4

40,3
36.8
39 2
35.4
41.8

40.3
38.2
39.8
35.2
42.4

39.7
40.1
39.9
35.4
42.2

40.1
40.0
40.3
35.4
42.8

40.3
38.1
40.8
35.9
43.7

40.0
38.5
39.9
35.2
42.8

39.3
38.4
39.8
c 35.2
42,3

39.2
37.2
40.0
35.8
42.4

39.3
37.2
39.4
35.2
42.4

39.6
38.1
40.4
36.1
42.7

Printing and publishinq ..................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ..
Leather and leather products ........................

37.5
41.9
43.8
40.5
36.5

37.1
41.5
41.8
40.1
36.7

36.9
41.3
42,3
39.0
37.0

36.7
41.2
42.3
39.3
37.4

36.8
40.7
42.7
38.6
36.4

37.2
40.9
42.2
40.0
36.6

37.3
41.3
43.4
40.3
36.2

37.2
41.4
43.7
40,7
36.5

37.2
42.0
43.6
41.1
36.3

38.1
42.1
43.3
41.6
36.9

37.1
41.5
42.6
40.9
36.6

36.8
41.5
42.5
40.1
36.6

37.0
41.6
42.6
40.7
36.8

36.9
41.6
43.2
40.4
36.2

37.2
41.9
42.9
40.7
36.9

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES

39.9

39.6

39.3

39.6

39.9

39.7

39.7

39.8

39.7

40.0

39.4

39.5

39.4

39.3

39.4

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE

32.6

32.1

31.9

32,3

32.5

32.7

32.1

32.1

32.0

32.4

31.7

31.7

31.9

32.1

32.0

WHOLESALE TRADE

38.8

38.5

38.5

38.2

38.2

38.4

38.5

38.7

38.6

38.9

38.5

38.3

38.5

38.5

38.6

RETAIL TRADE

30.6

30.1

29.9

30.4

30.7

30.9

30.1

30.0

30.0

30.5

29.5

29.6

29.8

30.1

30.0

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE

36.2

36.2

36.1

36.4

36.2

36.3

36.1

36.3

36.3

36.3

36.3

36.4

36.3

36.3

36.2

SERVICES

32.7

32.6

32.3

32.8

33.1

33.1

32.5

32.6

32,6

32.6

32.5

32.6

32.6

32.6

32.4

Overtime hours......................................

Durable goods

Nondurable goods

c=corrected.

Digitized 70
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

16.

Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]

1980
Industry division and group

TOTAL PRIVATE

1981

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.p

MayP

35.1

35.0

34.9

35.1

35.2

35.3

35.4

35.4

35 5

35.3

35,4

35.4

353

MINING

42.7

43.2

41.9

43.1

43.5

43.5

43.5

44.1

43.5

42.8

42.2

43.5

43.7

CONSTRUCTION

36.8

37.1

36.8

36.5

37.4

37.0

37.2

37.1

38.5

36.3

37.6

36.9

36.8

MANUFACTURING ........................................................

39.3
2.6

39.1
2.4

39.0
2.5

39.4
2.7

39.6
2.7

39.7
2.8

39.9
2.9

40.1
3.1

40.4
3.1

39.8
2.9

40.0
2.9

40.1
2.9

40.2
3.1

Overtime hours............................................

39.7
2.5

39.5
2.4

39,4
2.4

39.9
2.6

40.1
2.7

40.1
2.8

40.5
3.0

40.6
3.2

40.9
3.1

40.2
2.9

40.5
3.0

40.7
3.0

40.7
3.2

Lumber and wood products ................................
Furniture and fixtures..........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..........................
Primary metal industries......................................
Fabricated metal products ..................................

37,5
37.6
40.3
39.2
39.9

37.6
37.0
40.4
38.8
39.7

38.1
36.6
40.2
38.6
39.6

38.9
37.4
40.3
39.2
40.1

38.8
38.0
40.9
39.7
40.4

38.7
38.0
40.9
40.1
40.4

39.3
38.0
41.1
40.9
40.6

39.4
38.6
41.3
41.4
40.6

40.1
38.9
41.6
41.2
40.7

38.9
38.8
40.6
40.8
40.4

39.4
38.8
40.9
41.1
40.7

39.2
38.8
41.1
41.3
40.9

39.3
38.6
41.1
41.1
40.9

Machinery, except electrical................................
Electric and electronic equipment ........................
Transportation equipment....................................
Instruments and related products ........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..............................

41.0
39.5
39.7
40.3
38.3

40.7
39.2
39.5
40.4
38.2

40.6
39.0
39.6
40.1
38.3

40.8
39.4
40.9
40.1
38,6

40.9
39.5
40.6
40.1
38.9

40.7
39.9
40.8
40.2
38.7

41.0
40.0
41.4
40.5
38.6

41.0
40.2
41.3
40.5
39.0

41.3
40.4
41.9
41.0
39.0

40.8
39.7
40.5
40.6
38.8

41.0
40.2
41.1
40.4
38.7

41.3
40.1
41.8
40,2
38.7

41.5
40.3
41.5
40.2
39.2

Overtime hours............................................

38.9
2.6

38.6
2.5

38.5
2.6

38.7
2.8

38.8
2.7

39.0
2.8

39.0
2.9

39.3
3.0

39.7
3.1

39.3
3.0

39.1
2.8

39.2
2.8

39.4
3.0

Food and kindred products..................................
Tobacco manufactures ......................................
Textile mill products............................................
Apparel and other textile products ......................
Paper and allied products ..................................

39.9
38.2
39.7
35.3
41.7

39.6
37.3
39.1
35.2
41.4

39.7
38.5
38.8
35.1
41.4

39.8
37.3
392
35.1
41.8

39.7
37.5
39.7
35.1
42.2

39.6
39.5
39.9
35.3
42.2

39.8
38.9
40.0
35.0
42.6

39.8
37.2
40.3
35.6
43.0

40.3
39.7
40.5
36.0
43.1

39.9
39.4
40.1
c 35.7
42.8

39.6
37,2
39.9
35.7
42.7

40.0
37.2
39.8
35.7
42.7

39.8
37.6
40.3
36.1
42.8

Printing and publishing........................................
Chemicals and allied products ............................
Petroleum and coal products ..............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ........
Leather and leather products ..............................

37.1
41.3
42.5
39.3
36.7

36.8
41.1
42.3
39 2
36.7

36.9
40.8
42.2
39.0
36.1

37.1
41.0
42.2
40.2
36.5

36.9
41.3
42.7
40.1
36.2

37.1
41.4
43.1
40.4
36.5

36.8
41.7
43.2
40.8
36.2

37.4
41.7
43.2
40.9
36.6

37.7
41.8
43.4
41.3
37.1

37.2
41.8
43.5
40.1
37.0

37.0
41.6
42.9
40.6
37.3

37.3
41.5
43.2
40.8
36.8

37.4
41.9
43.1
41.0
36,6

Overtime hours............................................

Durable goods

Nondurable goods

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES

39.3

39.6

39.9

39.7

39.7

39.8

39.7

40.0

39.4

39.5

39.4

39.3

39.4

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE

32.1

31.9

31.8

32.0

32.1

32.2

32.2

32.1

32.3

32.2

32.2

32.4

32.2

WHOLESALE TRADE

38.6

38.0

38.0

38.2

38.5

38.5

38.6

38.7

38.8

38.7

38.6

38.6

38.7

RETAIL TRADE

30.1

30.0

29.8

30.1

30.1

30.2

30.2

30.0

30.2

30.2

30.2

30.4

30.2

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE
.................................................

36.1

36.4

36.2

36.3

36.1

36.3

36.3

36.3

36.3

36.4

36.3

36.3

36.2

SERVICES

32.5

32.6

32.6

32.6

32.5

32.6

32.7

32.6

32.7

32.8

328

32.8

32.6

c=corrected.


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

71

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
17.

Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]

TOTAL PRIVATE

1981

1980

Annual average
Industry division and group

1979

1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.p

Mayp

$616

$6.66

$6.57

$6.61

$6.64

$6.68

$6.80

$6.86

$6.93

$6 94

$7.03

$7.07

$7.10

$7.13

$7.16

9.51

958

9.78

9.87

9.86

9.72

9.70

10.25

10.35

10.43

10.42

10.45

10.44

10.54

7.80

7.87

7.91

MINING

8.50

9.18

9.08

9.16

9.08

9.18

9.32

9.37

CONSTRUCTION

9.27

9.94

9.77

9.81

9.91

10.05

10.19

10.25

MANUFACTURING

6,69

7.27

7.13

7.20

7.29

7,30

7.42

7.49

7.59

7.69

7.73

7.74

Durable goods
Lumber and wood products ....................
Furniture and fixtures..............................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..............
Primary metal industries..........................
Fabricated metal products ......................

7.13
6.08
5.06
6.85
8.97
6.84

7.76
6.56
5.48
7.51
9.76
7.44

7,60
6.40
5.42
7.45
9.61
7.32

7.69
6.56
5.49
7.53
9.65
7.42

7.77
6,72
5.52
7.60
9.82
7.42

7.78
6.76
5.54
7.64
9.84
7.48

7.93
6.80
5.58
7.69
9.95
7.62

8.02
6.76
5.59
7.74
10.09
7.68

8.13
6.79
5.62
7.82
10.28
7.75

8.24
6.77
5.69
7.83
10.35
7.86

8.25
6,82
5,70
7.87
10.36
7.87

8.27
6.84
5.73
7.89
10.56
7.90

8.33
6.82
5.76
7.94
10.52
7.99

8.41
6.84
5.79
8.10
10.78
8.03

8.47
6.88
5.82
8.14
10.80
8.13

Machinery, except electrical....................
Electric and electronic equipment............
Transportation equipment........................
Instruments and related products ............
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..................

7.32
6.32
8.54
6.17
5.03

8.04
6.96
9.34
6.81
5.45

7.91
6.78
9,06
6.72
5.40

7.97
6.87
9.24
6.80
5.42

8.05
6.96
9.34
6.86
5.46

8.07
7.02
9.35
6.86
5.46

8.28
7.14
9.56
6.92
5.51

8.36
7.20
9.77
6.95
5.55

8.44
7.29
9.89
7.02
5.60

8.57
7.39
10.11
7.14
5,72

8.59
7.42
9,98
7,19
5.81

8.63
7.45
9.94
7.20
5.81

8.69
7.49
10.10
7.23
5.83

8.73
7.52
10.16
7.24
5.90

8.82
7.56
10.27
7.32
5,92

Food and kindred products......................
Tobacco manufactures............................
Textile mill products................................
Apparel and other textile products ..........
Paper and allied products........................

6.00
6.27
6,65
4.66
4.23
7.13

6.54
6.86
7.66
5.07
4.57
7.85

6.42
682
7.64
4.90
4.45
7.65

6.48
6.84
7.97
4.93
4.51
7.79

6.60
6.89
8.06
5.06
4.50
7.97

6.62
6.90
7.74
5.19
4,60
7.99

6.69
6.93
7.42
5.24
4.70
8.06

6.72
6.95
7.56
5.26
4.73
8.09

6.80
7.09
7.74
5.30
4.75
8.18

6.86
7.13
8.00
5.33
4.81
8.28

6.94
7.21
8.42
5.34
4.89
8.27

6.95
7.25
8.47
5.34
4.87
8.28

6.98
7.29
8.54
5.34
4.94
8.31

7.04
7.37
8.79
5.35
4.96
8.38

7.07
7.39
8.91
5.38
4,97
8.44

Printing and publishing ............................
Chemicals and allied products ................
Petroleum and coal products ..................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ..................

6.95
7.60
9.36
5.96
4.22

7.54
8.29
10.09
6.49
4.57

7.44
8.17
10.07
6.34
4.53

7.46
8.24
10.22
6.39
4.54

7.53
8.35
10.25
6.48
4.54

7.63
8.39
10.22
6.57
4.59

7.73
8.46
10.33
6.63
4.61

7.75
8.52
10.39
6.70
4.64

7.79
8.59
10.52
6.79
4.68

7.88
8.68
10.37
6.89
4.73

7.92
8.73
11.06
6.96
4.85

7.96
8.79
11.32
6.95
4.87

8.03
8.84
11.23
6.99
4.89

8,01
8.91
11.40
7.06
4.92

8.08
8.96
11.40
7.12
4.97

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES

8.17

8.89

8.72

8.75

8.90

8.95

9.04

9,20

9.28

9.31

9.35

9.46

9.43

9.54

9.58

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE

5.06

5.48

5.42

5.43

5.48

5.48

5.56

5.59

5.64

5.61

5.80

5.84

5.86

5.87

5.89

7.20

7.24

7.33

7,39

7.44

7.49

754

Nondurable goods

WHOLESALE TRADE

6.39

6.97

6.89

6.95

6.99

7.01

7.08

7.10

RETAIL TRADE

4.53

4.88

4.82

4.83

4.88

4.89

4.95

4.98

5.02

4.99

5.18

5.20

5.20

5.22

5.22

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE .................................................................

5.27

5.78

5.70

5.77

5.77

5.82

5.87

5.91

6.01

6.00

6.10

6.21

6.19

6.18

6.21

SERVICES

5.36

5.85

5.79

5.81

5.79

5.81

5.93

6.00

6.10

6.12

6.22

6.28

6.30

6.30

6.32

18.

Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division

[Seasonally adjusted data: 1967 = 100]

1981

1980
May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.p

May»

Apr. 1981
to
May 1981

May 1980
to
May 1981

248.3

250.9

252.1

254.0

255.4

257.9

260.9

261.9

264.4

266.6

268.6

269.8

271.5

0.6

9.4

284.2
234.2
255.0
268.7
239.8
226.3
245.7

286.3
235.3
258.3
270.6
241.8
230.2
248.4

285.3
236.7
260.6
272.8
243.5
229.0
247.6

288.9
239.0
262.4
273.2
245.3
232.7
249.8

290.4
239.3
264.5
274.0
246.5
233.1
251.7

294.4
241.6
266.6
280.2
247.7
234.8
254.2

298.7
243.0
268.9
283.4
250.9
239.3
258.5

302.3
245.3
270.4
284.1
250,9
238.0
259.4

306.6
247.8
272.6
285.9
254.6
240.2
261.3

309.2
248.1
274.6
289.6
256.7
244.1
263.9

311.0
250.1
276.8
291.3
258.7
245.7
265.8

311.0
250.3
279.6
293.4
259.2
244.2
266.0

311.8
251.3
280.7
296.0
261.1
246.2
268,2

.3
.4
.4
.9
.8
.8
.8

9.7
7.3
10.1
10.2
8.9
8.8
9.2

101.5

101.6

102.1

102.0

101.5

101.4

101.5

100.8

101.0

100.9

101.1

101.2

Industry

TOTAL PRIVATE (in current dollars)
Mining..........................................
Construction ................................
Manufacturing ..............................
Transportation and public utilities . . .
Wholesale and retail trade ............
Finance, insurance, and real estate .
Services ......................................

TOTAL PRIVATE (in constant dollars)

Digitized for
72 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

19.

Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]

1981

1980

Annual average
Industry division and group
1979
TOTAL PRIVATE
MINING

1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.p

MayP

$219.30

$235.10

$229.95

$233.33

$234.39

$237.14

$240.04

$242.16

$244.63

$247.06

$246.75

$246.74

$249.92

$250.98

$252.03

365.50

396.58

387.72

395.71

380.45

395.66

405.42

407.60

413.69

422.48

425.43

422.44

416.09

422.82

423.89

CONSTRUCTION

342.99

367.78

360.51

371.80

373.61

374.87

386.20

388.48

377.20

383.99

379.65

364.70

388.74

385.24

388.93

MANUFACTURING

268.94

288.62

28021

283.68

282.85

286.89

294.57

298.10

305.12

313.75

308.43

305.73

311.22

312.44

317.19

Lumber and wood products........................
Furniture and fixtures ................................
Stone, clay, and glass products..................
Primary metal industries ............................
Fabricated metal products..........................

290,90
239.55
195.82
284.28
371.36
278.39

311.95
253.22
208.79
306.41
391.38
300.58

301.72
240.64
202 17
302.47
377.67
292.07

306.06
251.90
204.78
308.73
377.32
297.54

303.81
256.70
199.82
306.28
379.05
290,86

308.87
264,99
208.30
310.95
383.76
299.20

318.79
267.24
213.71
316.06
397.01
308.61

323.21
264.99
215.22
319.66
402.59
311.04

330.89
266.17
215.81
323.75
419.42
316.98

341.96
268.09
225.32
325.73
430.56
326.98

333.30
264 62
217.17
317.95
425.80
317.95

329.97
262.66
218.89
312.44
429.79
316.00

337.37
265.98
223.49
323.16
432.37
324.39

338.92
266.76
221.18
331.29
445.21
323.61

344.73
271.76
222.91
337.00
444.96
332.52

Machinery except electrical........................
Electric and electronic equipment................
Transportation equipment ..........................
Instruments and related products................
Miscellaneous manufacturing......................

305.98
254.70
350.99
251.74
195.16

330.44
277.01
379.20
275.81
210.92

322.73
266,45
361.49
270.82
206.28

325.18
270.68
368.68
275.40
207.59

322.00
267.96
368.93
271.66
206.39

326.03
275.18
374.00
273.71
210.21

339.48
283.46
389.09
277.49
215.44

340.25
287.28
401.55
280.09
215,90

348.57
294.52
412.41
287.12
218.96

361,65
302.99
435.74
294.17
225.94

353.91
297.54
408.18
291.91
224.27

352.10
295.02
398.59
291.60
223.10

358.03
301.10
415.11
293.54
226.79

356.18
299.30
416.56
288.88
227.74

364.27
303.16
428,26
294.26
231.47

235.80
250,17
252.70
188.26
149.32
303.74

255.06
272.34
291.85
202.80
161.78
332.06

248.45
270.75
295.67
195.02
157.09
318.24

251.42
270.86
305.25
195.23
160.56
324.84

254.10
274.91
294.19
194.81
158.85
329.96

257.52
278.07
284.83
203.45
162.84
333.98

261.58
279,28
283.44
208.55
165.44
341.74

262.75
275.92
303.16
209.87
167.44
341.40

267.24
284.31
309.60
213.59
168.15
350.10

273.03
287.34
304.80
217.46
172.68
361.84

271.35
288.40
324.17
213.07
172.13
353.96

269,66
284.93
325.25
212.53
c 171.42
350.24

272.22
285.77
317.69
213.60
176.85
352.34

273.15
289.64
326.99
210.79
174.59
355.31

277.85
292.64
339.47
217.35
179.42
360.39

260.63
318.44
409.97

279.73
344.04
421.76

274.54
337.42
425.96

273.78
339.49
432.31

277.10
339.85
437.68

283.84
343.15
431.28

288.33
349.40
448.32

288.30
352.73
454.04

289.79
360.78
458.67

300.23
365.43
449.02

293.83
362.30
471.16

292.93
364.79
481.10

297.11
367.74
478 40

295.57
370.66
492.48

300.58
375.42
489.06

241.38
154.03

260.25
167.72

247.26
167.61

251.13
169.80

250.13
165.26

262.80
167.99

267.19
166.88

272.69
169.36

279.07
169.88

286.62
174.54

284.66
177.51

278.70
178.24

284.49
179.95

285.22
178.10

289.78
183.39

325.98

352.04

342.70

346.50

355.11

355.32

358.89

366.16

368.42

372.40

368.39

373.67

371.54

374.92

377.45

179.44

180.48

181.76

183.86

185.13

186.93

188.43

188.48

Durable g o o d s ...................................................

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

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE

164.96

175.91

172.90

175.39

178.10

179.20

178.48

WHOLESALE TRADE

247.93

268.35

265.27

265.49

267.02

269.18

272.58

274.77

277.92

281.64

282.21

283.04

286.44

288.37

291.04

151.10

149.00

149.40

150.60

152.20

152.81

153.92

154,96

157.12

156.60

138.62

146.89

144.12

146.83

149.82

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE

190.77

209.24

205.77

210.03

208.87

211.27

211.91

214.53

218.16

217.80

221.43

226.04

224.70

224.33

224.80

SERVICES

175.27

190.71

187,02

190.57

191.65

192.31

192.73

195.60

198.86

199.51

202.15

204.73

205.38

205.38

204.77

RETAIL TRADE

c=corrected.


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

73

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data

20.

Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date

[Averages for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]

Manufacturing workers

Private nonagricultural workers

Year and month

1960 ..........................................

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

$80.67

$90.95

$65.59

$73.95

$72.96

$82.25

$89.72

$101.15

$72.57

$81.82

$80.11

$90.32

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
80.78
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

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

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
82.84
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
1980

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

175.45
189.00
203.70
219.30
235.10

102.90
104.13
104.30
100.73
95.18

143.30
155.19
165,39
177.55
188.82

84.05
85.50
84.69
81.56
76.45

155.87
169.93
180.71
194.35
206.40

91.42
93.63
92.53
89.27
83,56

209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
288.62

122.77
126.12
127.63
123.54
116.85

167.83
183.80
197.40
212.43
225.79

98.43
101.27
101.08
97.58
91.41

181.32
200,06
214.87
232.07
247.01

106.35
110.23
110.02
106.60
100.00

1980: May ................................
June ................................

229.95
233.33

93.82
94.16

185.23
187.59

75.57
75.70

202.49
205,06

82.62
82,75

280.21
283.68

114.32
114.48

220.08
222.43

89.79
89.76

240,63
243.26

98.18
98.17

July..................................
August ............................
September ......................

234.39
237.14
240.04

94.51
95.01
95.29

188.33
190.25
192.28

75.94
76.22
76.33

205.86
207.95
210.15

83.01
83.31
83.43

282.85
286.89
294.57

114.05
114.94
116.94

221.87
224.61
229.82

89.46
89.99
91.23

242.63
245.69
251.52

97,83
98.43
99.85

October............................
November........................
December........................

242.16
244.63
247.06

95.30
95.41
95.50

193.76
195.48
197.18

76.25
76.24
76.22

211.76
213.63
215.47

83.34
83.32
83.29

298.10
305.12
313.75

117.32
119.00
121.28

23222
236.98
242.60

91.39
92.43
93.78

254.20
259.52
265.84

100.04
101.22
102.76

1981: January ............................
February..........................
March ..............................
Aprilp ..............................
May:i ..............................

246.75
246.74
249,92
250.98
252.03

94.65
93.64
94.24
94,07

195.68
195.67
197.88
198.61
199.34

75.06
74.26
74.62
74.44

213.96
213.95
216.34
217.14
217.93

82.07
81.20
81.58
81.39

308.43
305.73
311.22
312.44
317.19

118.31
116.03
117.35
117.11

237.60
235.81
239.37
240.14
243.15

91.14
89.49
90.26
90.01

260.36
258.40
262.38
263.26
266.70

99.87
98.06
98.94
98.67

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.
These series are described in "The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note on its Cal-

Digitized74for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

culation,” Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force, February 1969,
pp. 6-13. See also "Spendable Earnings Formulas, 1979-81," Employment and Earnings, March
1981, pp. 10-11.

U N EM PLO YM ENT 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 arid 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 unem ploym ent 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. Ini­
tial claims are notices filed by persons in unem ploym ent insurance
program s to indicate they are out of w ork and wish to begin receiv­
ing com pensation. A claim ant who continued to be unem ployed a
full week is then counted in the insured unem ploym ent figure. The
rate of insured unemployment expresses the num ber of insured unem ­
ployed as a percent of the average insured em ploym ent in a
12-m onth period.

Definitions
D ata for all programs represent an unduplicated count of insured
unem ploym ent un d er State program s, U nem ploym ent C om pensation
for Ex-Servicemen, an d U nem ploym ent C om pensation for Federal
Em ployees, and the R ailroad Insurance Act.

An application for benefits is filed by a railroad w orker at the be­
ginning of his first period of unem ploym ent in a benefit year; no ap ­
plication is required for subsequent periods in the sam e year. Num­
ber of payments are paym ents m ade in 14-day registration periods.
The average amount of benefit payment is an average for all com ­
pensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpaym ents or set­
tlem ent of underpaym ents. However, total benefits paid have been
adjusted.

U nder both State and Federal unem ploym ent insurance program s
for civilian em ployees, insured w orkers m ust report the com pletion of
at least 1 week of unem ploym ent before they are defined as unem-

21.

Unemployment insurance and employment service operations

[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]

1980
Item

All programs:
Insured unemployment ......................
State unemployment insurance
program:’
Initial claims2 ....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Rate of insured unemployment ..........
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Average weekly benefit amount
for total unemployment ..................
Total benefits paid ............................
Unemployment compensation for exservicemen: 3
Initial claims’ ....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Total benefits paid ............................
Unemployment compensation for
Federal civilian employees:4
Initial claims ......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Total benefits paid ............................

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

1981
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

3,629

3,680

3,790

4,140

3,911

3,961

3,661

3,726

4,085

4,621

4,264

3,948

2,190

2,248

2,319

2,737

1,829

1,702

1,808

1,673

2,544

2,653

1,806

1,684

3,278
3.8

3,343
3.9

3,455
4.0

3,692
4.3

3,408
3.9

3,087
3.6

2,903
3.3

2,983
3.4

3,321
3.8

3,844
4.4

3,669
4.2

3,382
3.9

12,689

12,302

12,441

14,398

12,786

11,689

11,443

9,524

12,603

14,228

12,882

13,504

$99.52
$99.55
$99.88
$98.75
$99.68
$99.86
$92.32
$1,232,173 $1,196,836 $1,213,595 $1,397,508 $1,249,782 $1,144,885 $1,125,416

20

23

52

50

45

58

55

56

56

54

55

57

54

51

246
$24,518

220
$22,025

122
$11,761

331
$33,342

244
$24,560

245
$24,804

255
$25,880

216
$21,024

261
$27,015

257
$26,646

221
$22,517

234
$24,668

23

25

23

2,988
3.4

$101.96
$101.43
$102.34
$101.89
$105.63
$1,055,065 $1,242,957 $1,416,513 $1,313,507 51,393,612

21

27

3,453

17

21

19

17

18

11

12

14

17

15

19

21

14

18

22

13

12

25

22

20

26

25

29

32

35

37

41

40

36

108
$10,323

88
$8,280

50
$4,665

124
$11,296

93
$8,707

105
$9,699

130
$11,917

118
$11,365

150
$14,184

160
$15,432

148
$14,573

156
$15,561

4

6

24

44

13

10

46

31

Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications ......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Number of payments ........................
Average amount of benefit
payment........................................
Total benefits paid ............................

9

7

11

13

5

5

6

27
62

23
54

27
55

44
66

39
86

40
89

38
84

38
70

39
83

53
118

50
104

44
115

41
94

$201.87
$13,002

$193.44
$9,953

$199.06
$10,140

$207.08
$13,320

$211.87
$17,336

$211.99
$18,809

$208.49
$17,789

$209.00
$14,269

$212.27
$18,046

$209.38
$20,303

$214.56
$22,049

$214.93
$23,233

$201.12
$19,239

Employment service:6
New applications and renewals ..........
Nonfarm placements..........................

10,021
2,143

11,446
2,413

12,864
2,730

14,249
3,105

15,431
3,445

16,632
3,827

' Initial 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

4,476
871

8,659
1,574

4 Includes the Virgin islands. Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State pro­
grams.
5 Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1-September 30). Data computed quarterly.
NOTE: Data for Puerto Rico included. Dashes indicate data not available.

75

PRICE DATA

P rice data are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price
indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100,
unless otherwise noted).
Definitions
The Consumer Price Index is a m onthly statistical m easure of the
average change in prices in a fixed m arket basket of goods and ser­
vices. Effective with the Jan u ary 1978 index, the Bureau of L abor S ta­
tistics began publishing C P I’s for two groups of the population. One
index, a new C PI for All U rban Consum ers, covers 80 percent of the
total n o n in stitutional population; and the other index, a revised CPI
for U rban W age E arners and Clerical W orkers, covers about half the
new index population. T he All U rban Consum ers index includes, in
addition to wage earners and clerical w orkers, professional, m anageri­
al, and technical w orkers, the self-em ployed, short-term w orkers, the
unem ployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs,
tran sp o rtatio n fares, d o c to r’s and d en tist’s fees, and o ther goods and
services th at people buy for day-to-day living. The q u antity and quali­
ty of these item s is kept essentially unchanged between m ajor revi­
sions so th at only price changes will be m easured. Prices are collected
from over 18,000 tenants, 24,000 retail establishm ents, 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 item s are
included in the index. Because the C P I’s are based on the expendi­
tures of two population groups in 1972-73, they m ay not accurately
reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with
different buying habits.
T hough the C PI is often called the “ Cost-of-Living Index,” it m ea­
sures only price change, which is ju st one of several im portant factors
affecting living costs. A rea indexes do not m easure differences in the
level of prices am ong cities. They only m easure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.

Producer Price Indexes m easure average changes in prices received
in prim ary m arkets of the U nited States by producers of com m odities
in all stages of processing. The sam ple used for calculating these in­
dexes contains about 2,800 com m odities and about 10,000 q uotations
per m onth selected to represent the m ovem ent of prices of all com ­
m odities produced in the m anufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing,
m ining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The universe
includes all com m odities produced or im ported for sale in com m ercial
transactions in prim ary m arkets in the U nited States.
P roducer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or
by com m odity. T he stage of processing structure organizes products
by degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, interm ediate or
semifinished goods, an d crude m aterials). The com m odity structure
organizes p ro d u cts by sim ilarity of end-use or m aterial com position.
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating P roducer Price In ­
dexes apply to the first significant com m ercial transaction in the U n it­
ed States, from the production or central m arketing point. Price data
are generally collected m onthly, prim arily by mail questionnaire.

Digitized for
76 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

M ost prices are obtained directly from producing com panies on a vol­
untary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the
T uesday of the week containing the 13th day of the m onth.
In calculating P roducer Price Indexes, price changes for the vari­
ous com m odities are averaged together with im plicit quantity weights
representing their im portance in the total net selling value of all com ­
m odities as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain in­
dexes for stage of processing groupings, com m odity groupings, d u ra­
bility of product groupings, and a num ber of special com posite
groupings.

Price indexes for the output of selected SIC industries m easure av­
erage price changes in com m odities produced by p articular industries,
as defined in the 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 1 9 7 2
(W ashington, U.S. Office of M anagem ent and Budget, 1972). These
indexes are derived from several price series, com bined to m atch the
econom ic activity of the specified industry and weighted by the value
of shipm ents in the industry. They use data from com prehensive in­
dustrial censuses conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the
U.S. D epartm ent of A griculture.

Notes on the data
Beginning with the M ay 1978 issue of the R ev ie w , regional C P I’s
cross classified by population size, were introduced. T hese indexes will
enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a
better approxim ation of the C PI for their area by using the ap p ro p ri­
ate population size class m easure for their region. The cross-classified
indexes will be published bim onthly. (See table 24.)
F or further details about the new and the revised indexes and a
com parison of various aspects of these indexes with the old unrevised
C P I, see F a c ts A b o u t th e R e v is e d C o n s u m e r P rice I n d e x , a pam phlet in
the C onsum er Price Index Revision 1978 series. See also Th e
C o n s u m e r P ric e I n d e x : C o n c ep ts a n d C o n te n t O v e r th e Years, R eport
517, revised edition (Bureau of L abor Statistics, M ay 1978).
F or interarea com parisons of living costs at three hypothetical sta n d ­
ards of living, see the family budget data published in the H a n d b o o k
o f L a b o r S ta tistic s , 1977, Bulletin 1966 (Bureau of L abor Statistics,
1977), tables 122-133. A dditional data and analysis on price changes
are provided in the C P I D e ta ile d R e p o r t and P r o d u c e r P rices a n d P rice
In d e x es , both m onthly publications of the Bureau.
As of January 1976, the W holesale Price Index (as it was then
called) incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 val­
ues of shipm ents. F rom January 1967 through Decem ber 1975, 1963
values of shipm ents were used as weights.
F or a discussion of the general m ethod of com puting consum er,
producer, and industry price indexes, see B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s
f o r S u r v e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau of L abor Statistics,
1976), chapters 13-15. See also John F. Early, “ Im proving the m ea­
surem ent of producer price change,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , April
1978, pp. 7-15. F o r industry prices, see also Bennett R. M oss, “ In ­
dustry and Sector Price Indexes,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , A ugust
1965, pp. 974-82.

22.

Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-80

[1967 = 100]

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

Percent
change

Index

Other goods
and se rvices

Entertainment

Medical care

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
130.0
139,8
152.2

5.3
2.9
28
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
1980

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

170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7
247,0

5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5
13.5

177.4
188.0
206.2
228.7
248.7

3.1
6.0
9.7
10.9
8.7

174.6
186.5
202.6
227.5
263.2

6.1
6.8
8.6
12.3
15.7

147.6
154.2
159.5
166.4
177.4

3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3
6.6

165.5
177.2
185.8
212.8
250.5

9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5
17,7

184.7
202.4
219.4
240.1
267.2

9.5
9.6
8.4
9.4
11.3

159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6
203.7

5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5
8.5

162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3
213.6

5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2
8.8

23. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers,
U.S. city average general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

All Urban Consumers
General summary
Apr.

Nov.

1981

1980

1981

1980
Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

Apr.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

All items

242.5

256.2

258.4

260.5

2632

265.1

266.8

242.6

256.4

258.7

260.7

263.5

265.2

266.8

Food and beverages .................................................
Housing.......................................................................
Apparel and upkeep...................................................
Transportation ............................................................
Medical care ..............................................................
Entertainment ............................................................
Other goods and services..........................................

242.8
257.9
177.3
246.8
262.0
202.5
209.8

257.4
273.8
184,8
259.0
274.5
211.2
222.8

259.3
279.9
183.9
261.1
275.8
212.0
224.6

261.4
279.1
181.1
264.7
279.5
214.4
226.2

263.7
280.9
182.0
270.9
282.6
216.7
227.4

265.0
282.6
185.1
273.5
284.7
218.2
228.7

265.7
284.8
186.4
275.3
287.0
219.2
229.9

243.2
257.8
176.1
247.7
263.1
201.3
209.2

258.7
273.7
183.3
259.7
276.3
209.9
221.0

260.5
277.1
182.9
261.9
277.6
210.1
223.0

262.1
279.1
180.8
265.7
281.4
212.2
224.4

264.3
280.7
181.8
272.1
284.4
215.0
225.6

265.5
282.2
184.3
274.4
287.0
216.1
226.8

266.1
284.3
186.0
276.3
289.1
217.0
227.9

Commodities..............................................................
Commodities less food and beverages .............
Nondurables less food and beverages...........
Durables ..........................................................

229.9
220.4
239.5
204.9

242.5
232.0
245.3
220.6

243.8
232.9
246.8
221.1

245.4
234.3
250.2
221.0

248.3
237.4
258.6
220.3

249.8
239.0
263.1
219.8

250.8
240.0
263.8
221.1

230.1
220.6
241.7
203.3

242.9
232.0
247.1
218.9

244.3
233.1
248.8
219.7

245.8
234.7
252.6
219.5

248.8
237.9
261.4
218.6

250.2
239.4
265.7
217.8

251.2
240.5
266.5
219.3

Serv cos .....................................................................
Rent, residential...............................................
Household services less rent ........................
Transportation services....................................
Medical care services......................................
Other services.................................................

265.3
187.0
313.4
238.1
283.4
214.5

280.9
198.3
331.9
253.3
296.6
227.2

284.7
199.6
338.4
255.8
297.9
228.1

287.7
200.9
342.3
258.7
302.1
230.4

290.1
201.9
345.4
260.5
305.2
232.3

292.5
203.0
348.8
262.5
307.5
233.2

295.4
204.2
353,3
264.4
309.8
234.4

265.8
186.9
315.8
238.0
284.5
214.6

281.5
198.0
334.8
252.2
298.7
227.9

285.5
199.4
341.9
254.7
300.0
228.4

288.4
200.6
345.5
257.7
304.3
230.2

290.8
201.6
348.5
259.7
307.4
232.1

293.1
202.7
351.8
261.3
310.2
233.0

295.9
203.9
356.2
263.1
312.2
233.8

All items less food ......................................................
All items less mortgage interest costs ......................
Commodities less food...............................................
Nondurables less food ...............................................
Nondurables less food and apparel ...........................
Nondurables ..............................................................
Services less rent ......................................................
Services less medical c a re ........................................
Domestically produced farm foods ...........................
Selected beef cuts.....................................................
Energy .......................................................................
All items less energy .................................................
All items less food and energy ......................
Commodities less food and energy.............
Energy commodities ....................................
Services less energy....................................

239.9
231.8
218.6
234.6
266.5
242.2
280.0
261.5
2327
268.0
358.8
233.4
228.5
198.2
402.3
263.5

253.2
244.5
230.0
240.5
272.1
252.4
296.4
277.2
249.2
278.9
366.1
247.7
2424
211.2
400.2
278.6

255.5
2459
231.0
242.0
274.7
254.1
300.7
281.2
251.1
276.2
370,4
249.7
244.5
211.7
4049
282.4

257,6
247.8
232.4
245.3
281.1
256.9
304.2
284.2
252.4
276.2
381.7
251,2
245.7
211.5
c 420.4
285.4

260.4
250.6
235.4
253.2
292.4
262.3
306,9
286.5
254,0
273.0
401.1
252.5
246.8
211.7
449.0
287.6

262.3
252.3
237.0
257.5
297.3
265.2
309.5
288.9
255.4
270.9
409.3
253.8
248.1
212.2
460.0
289.9

264.2
253.6
238.0
258.1
297.7
265.9
312.8
291.8
255.3
267,7
409.8
255.6
250.1
213.5
458.4
292.7

240.2
232.4
218.9
236.7
268.7
243.3
280.8
261.9
230.7
269.5
363.3
232.7
227,5
196.9
404,1
264.2

253.4
245.1
230.1
242.2
273.9
253.8
297.4
277.7
249.1
280.7
369.5
247.2
241.5
209.9
401,3
279.3

255.7
246.7
231.2
243.9
276.6
255.6
302.0
281.9
251.1
278.4
373.7
249.3
243.6
210.6
405.9
283.4

257.9
248.5
232.7
247.5
283.0
258.3
305.2
284.7
252.1
277.9
385.2
250.6
244.8
210.4
421.3
286.2

260.8
251.4
236.0
255.9
294.7
263.8
307.9
287.0
253.9
275.1
405.4
251.8
245.8
210.5
450.1
288.4

262.6
252.9
237.4
259.9
299.5
266.6
310,4
289.2
254.9
273.9
413.7
252.9
246.9
210.7
460.9
2906

264.4
254.2
238.6
260.7
299.9
267.3
313.5
292.0
255.0
270.7
414.0
254.7
248.9
212.2
459.3
293.2

Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1

$0,412

$0,390

$0,387

$0,384

$0,380

$0,377

$0,375

$0,412

$0,390

$0,387

$0,384

$0,380

$0,377

$0,375

Special indexes:


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

77

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.

Continued

Consumer Price Index

U.S. city average

[1967 -100 unless otherwise specified]

All Urban Consumers
General summary

1980

Apr.

Nov.

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1981

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

1980

Mar.

Apr.

Apr.

Nov.

1981

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

FOOD AND BEVERAGES

242.8

257.4

259.3

261.4

263.7

265.0

265.7

243.2

258.7

260.5

262.1

264.3

265.5

266.1

Food

249.1

264.5

266.4

268.6

270.8

272.2

272.9

249.5

265.7

267.6

269.2

271.4

272.6

273.2

Food at home........................................................................................
Cereals and bakery products ..........................................................
Cereals and cereal products (12/77
100) ..............................
Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 - 100)....................
Cereal (12/77 = 100)........................................................
Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 - 100) ..........................
Bakery products (12/77 = 100)................................................
White bread ......................................................................
Other breads (12/77 = 100)..............................................
Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 100) ..................
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) ..........

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

262.1
255.8
138.7
132.9
141.1
140.5
134.3
224.9
133.1
134.6
133.4
133.1
125.6
135.3

263.9
258.5
140.8
133.5
143.8
143.1
135.4
226.3
134.1
135.4
135.3
134.9
126.9
135.9

265.6
262.9
143.2
135.9
145.8
146.0
137.7
229.5
137.1
137.6
138.5
138.0
127.0
138.0

267.3
265.3
144.5
137.5
146.5
147.9
139.0
231.4
137.3
138,9
139.5
139.0
128.6
140.4

268.6
266.7
145.2
138.5
146.9
148.9
139.7
232.9
137.9
140.1
140.0
139.7
129.1
141.1

268.7
268.3
145.4
137.1
147.8
149.5
140.8
233.2
139.5
140.4
142.1
141.2
130.9
141.7

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

262.0
256.8
139.7
133.6
141.5
142.7
134.7
225,2
137.0
134.1
133.1
134.5
125.7
136.1

263.9
259.5
142.3
134.4
145.0
145.8
135.7
226.6
137,9
135.1
134.2
136.1
126.5
136.4

265.1
263.0
144.5
136.8
147.2
147.8
137.5
229.4
139.4
136.4
136.8
139.0
126.8
138.5

267.0
265.0
145.5
137,9
148.0
149.3
138.5
230.9
140.1
136.9
138.1
139.8
128.6
140.0

268.1
266.5
146.5
139.4
148.5
150.5
139.2
231.2
140.3
138.4
139.5
140.6
129.6
140.7

268.2
268.0
146.9
139.2
148.9
151.4
140.1
232.1
141.2
138.7
140.8
141.8
131.1
141.7

129.7

136.2

137.5

139.7

141.4

141.9

144.0

125.3

132.4

134.0

135.2

136.3

137.6

139.0

Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ..........................................................
Meats, poultry, and fish ............................................................
Meats ..............................................................................
Beef and veal ................................................................
Ground beef other than canned....................................
Chuck roast................................................................
Round roast................................................................
Round steak ..............................................................
Sirloin steak................................................................
Other beef and veal (12/77 = 100) ............................
Pork..............................................................................
Bacon ........................................................................
Chops ........................................................................
Ham other than canned (12/77 = 100)........................
Sausage ....................................................................
Canned ham ..............................................................
Other pork (12/77 = 100) ..........................................
Other meats ..................................................................
Frankfurters................................................................
Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 100) ............
Other lunchmeats (12/77 = 100) ................................
Lamb and organ meats (12/77 = 100) ........................
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 = 100)......................
Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100) ........
Eggs ......................................................................................

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

254.9
260.7
261.1
277.9
277.1
291.7
251.2
263.8
271.8
161.8
228.6
229.5
208.5
107.9
283.5
237.7
128.4
261.8
262.6
148.4
129.7
146.1
204.1
208.7
131.8
128.0
343.0
136.0
127.5
185.2

255.7
259.9
260.0
275.3
276.1
288.5
245.7
260.2
267.6
160.4
229.1
231.9
208.7
107.8
285.6
238.4
127.6
262.8
264.0
149.1
129.9
146.6
202.7
206.9
131.6
126.6
346.9
136.4
129.6
206.6

255.1
260.6
259.7
275.3
276.3
285.3
250.0
262.4
264.9
160.3
228.2
228.1
211.6
104.1
287.8
241.1
127.4
262.9
262.5
151.2
130.3
145.0
202.4
202.5
132.7
128.7
358.0
137.4
135,7
190.2

252.5
257.9
256.4
272.3
272.8
288.1
248.0
259.0
262.0
157.7
223.6
221.7
210.3
100.0
282.3
238.0
125.4
260.8
259.4
149,4
129.8
144.1
203.7
207.0
131.9
128.5
355.0
138.0
133.5
188.2

250.5
256.2
254.4
270.3
269.7
284.1
243.9
256.1
259.8
157.8
221.6
218.5
209.3
98.7
281.0
236.6
124.2
258.5
257.8
147.0
128.1
144.7
201.6
203.1
131.6
127.6
358.8
138.9
135.3
180,5

247.7
253.0
251.0
267.4
264.8
281.4
242.8
252.9
261,5
156.1
217.4
209.0
209.2
95.2
277.4
230.1
123.4
255.4
253.5
1435
127.9
143.1
196.8
198.0
127.5
125.9
359.7
138.8
135.9
184.3

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

254.2
259.9
260.3
279.1
280.4
301.9
249.9
261.8
274.9
160.3
228.5
232.3
204.8
106.0
285.9
242.2
128.8
259.0
262.6
145.7
127.5
147.7
201.4
203.5
131.6
126.5
340.0
133.5
127.0
185.7

255.0
259.2
259.3
276.8
281.0
296.0
246.6
257.6
269.7
159.2
228.8
234.1
206,8
105.7
287.2
242.6
127.4
259.4
263.4
145.2
127.7
148.5
201.1
202.2
132.3
126.2
343.1
133.7
128.8
206.6

254.1
259.4
259.2
276.4
279.3
295 2
249.6
255.5
266.3
159.5
228.5
232.5
210.2
102.2
288.5
243.3
127.9
260.4
262.6
148.0
128.1
147.8
199.2
197.2
131.3
127.9
350.0
135.3
132.0
190.1

251.6
257.0
256.0
273.8
275.7
298.6
247.5
254.7
263.5
156.9
223.2
225.7
207.6
98.2
282.0
240.6
125.0
259.1
261.0
146.0
128.6
146.5
201.3
201.7
131.9
127.8
349.5
135.9
131.4
187.0

249.9
255.7
254.2
272.6
272.9
295.6
248.8
253.3
264,5
156.7
221.3
221.6
206.9
96.3
282.7
237.9
124.3
256.0
257.2
144.7
126.4
146.0
200.6
200.9
130.1
128.9
351.5
136.2
132.5
180.5

247.1
252.2
250.7
269,5
269.0
291.8
247.5
251.3
262.7
154.9
216.7
210.0
206.3
92.6
280.1
230.8
123.8
253.4
252.8
142.6
126.4
143.8
194.6
194.1
125.8
126.3
353.7
136.6
133.6
185.5

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 - 100)............................
Butter............................................................................
Cheese (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 100)................
Other dairy products (12/77 - 100)................................

222.4
124.7
204.9
123.5
127.0
219.9
126.2
128.6
124.0

235.4
130.4
213.3
130.5
136.9
241.5
135.9
139.1
130.6

238.0
131.9
216.2
131.4
138.2
241,0
137.0
141.4
132.4

240.1
133.0
218.2
132.1
139.6
242.7
138.2
143.6
133,3

242.1
134.0
219.3
134.2
140.8
242.2
139.2
145.9
134.5

242.6
134.3
219.9
134.4
141.1
243.0
139.8
145.3
135.1

243.5
134.6
220.4
134,5
142.0
244.3
140.6
146.7
135.7

223.1
124.9
204.8
124.1
128.0
222.7
126.8
130.4
123.6

235.9
130.4
213.0
131.0
137.9
244.4
136.2
140.9
131.9

238.8
132.2
216.5
131.9
139.2
244.1
137.4
143.2
133.1

240.7
133.4
218.5
132.9
140.1
246.5
138.3
144.3
132.9

242.5
134.1
219.3
134.4
141.6
246.0
139.6
146.8
135.0

242.7
134.1
219.4
134.5
141.8
246.4
140.0
146.1
136.1

243.8
134.7
220.2
135.2
142.6
247.7
140.5
147.8
136.1

Fruits and vegetables ..............................................................
Fresh fruits and vegetables ................................................
Fresh fruits ....................................................................
Apples........................................................................
Bananas ....................................................................
Oranges ....................................................................
Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 100)..................................
Fresh vegetables............................................................
Potatoes ....................................................................
Lettuce ......................................................................
Tomatoes ..................................................................
Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 100) ........................

240.9
245.2
257.0
265.5
242.8
240.6
136.5
234.2
201.7
271.9
201.2
134.6

253.3
258.3
258.6
213.5
235.7
316.6
134.9
258.0
293.0
273.5
192.2
139.6

255.6
262.0
251.8
218.8
244,1
299.3
128.6
271.5
297.7
255.3
206.1
156.3

257.6
263.9
245.6
220.8
237.8
272.9
127.8
281.1
326.1
234.2
247.2
157.8

267.3
278.1
256.8
217.1
256.9
284.9
135.9
298.0
350.2
220.4
312.8
163.5

278.2
293,9
265.2
227.9
264.1
287.4
141.1
320.8
363.9
225.2
367.8
177.0

281.9
296.4
271.6
231.1
266.8
287.5
147.1
319.6
378.1
226.9
375.3
170.0

239.8
244.8
255.6
264.4
243.5
234.3
135.7
235.2
198.2
281.9
197.7
135.3

251.4
255.7
255.5
213.0
232.0
300.4
136.4
256.0
289.9
267.2
188.9
140.0

253.9
260.2
248.6
216.9
239.2
287.0
129.2
270.9
298.0
253.8
204.5
156.2

255.1
260.3
241.1
216.8
228.9
258.9
128.4
277.8
322.9
229.9
239.8
156.9

266.5
277.6
254,4
218.2
249.4
269.4
137.9
298.7
347.1
225.6
308.6
164.8

275.0
289.4
259.0
225.7
258.8
268.4
139.9
316.9
359.6
219.3
354.0
177.1

280.0
294.5
268.6
232.1
262.2
274.3
147.6
318.0
369.8
231.5
370.7
170.0

Processed fruits and vegetables ........................................
Processed fruits (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 100)....................
Fruit juices and other than frozen (12/77 = 100) ..........
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 - 100) ........................
Processed vegetables (12/77 = 100)..............................
Frozen vegetables (12/77 = 100)................................

238.4
125.0
119.3
128.3
126.3
114,5
113.3

250.1
129.1
120.5
131.9
133.3
122.2
121.8

250.9
129.0
120.6
131.6
133.1
123.1
122.1

253.0
129.9
120.7
133.2
134.1
124.2
124.1

257.8
133.5
127.1
137.2
134.9
125.5
124.4

263.3
137.6
135,3
141.2
135.7
127.0
126.9

268.5
141.0
142.8
144.5
135.6
128.9
128.3

236.2
124.9
118.4
128.4
126.4
113.2
113.0

248.8
129.4
120.7
132.3
133.5
121.0
121.7

249.0
129.1
119.9
132.2
133.3
121.5
121.2

251.3
129.9
119.6
133.2
134.7
123.0
123.3

256.4
133.8
127.1
137.1
135.8
124.4
124,0

261.3
137.5
134.6
140.7
136.3
125.8
126.4

266.1
140.1
140.2
143.2
136.6
128.1
129.1

78 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

23.

Continued

Consumer Price Index

U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]

All Urban Consumers
General summary

1980

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1981

1980

1981

Apr.

Nov.

Dec,

Jan.

Feb,

Mar.

Apr.

Apr.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

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
380.2
120.7
226.6
120.5
130.4
124.8
125.2
127.1
124.4
123.1

124.1
121.5
314.8
381.3
135.7
225.9
132.5
247.4
254.9
127.4
129.0
405.5
284.0
133.8
399.2
364.9
126.7
239.9
125.1
136.6
135.2
133.5
133.3
133.5
128.6

124.5
122.9
317.1
386.3
136.9
230.3
133.7
251.9
253.6
139.6
129.1
405.2
285.2
134.8
389.7
356.5
127.5
242.4
127.2
137.6
138.6
134.2
133.5
133.8
130.3

126.0
123.4
320.5
385.4
138.6
222.8
137.1
260.4
256.9
156.0
130.3
409.7
290.8
137.5
380.7
354,6
129.1
244.9
128.1
138.6
141.1
135.2
134.4
135.4
131.6

128.2
124.7
323.0
385.4
141,1
217.7
137.7
267.3
256.8
171.8
131.0
411.9
295.3
140.1
364.9
345.3
130.8
246.9
128.7
140.0
142.3
137.2
135.8
135.8
132.4

128.4
126.4
324 1
383.2
142.8
209.7
139.3
268.9
255.7
179.3
129.9
412.2
295.9
140.5
359.4
340,8
132.4
249.4
128.4
142.3
143.9
139.1
138.1
135,9
134.1

130.2
128.7
324.7
3758
144,1
195.5
139.8
270.1
256.1
182.4
129.8
414.4
298.0
141.8
356.7
339.5
133.5
251.2
129.3
142.3
145.6
139.9
139.2
136.7
135.1

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
1196
226.6
120.6
128.8
126.0
124.5
128.1
123.7
123.3

121.8
120.3
315.7
383.9
136.8
225.9
131.9
248.2
256.9
128.0
128.8
407,8
283.6
133.2
395.5
364.0
126.2
240.4
125.6
133.5
136.1
132.8
136,5
133.8
128.9

122.8
121.0
317.8
388.9
137.4
231.4
133.1
252.6
254.6
139.9
129.1
407.4
284.0
133.5
386.2
358.1
127.7
242.8
128.0
134.8
140.1
133.4
136.3
133.5
130.2

124.5
122.1
320.8
387.3
139.4
223.4
135.5
261.8
257.4
156.4
131.0
410,7
288.2
135.0
376.4
355.8
129.6
245.1
127.9
136.9
141.7
134.5
136.3
135.2
132.1

126.5
123.5
323.6
387.7
142.0
217.9
137.3
268.9
258.3
172.7
131.4
413.6
293.4
137.8
360.3
347.0
130.9
247.1
129.3
137.8
143.5
136.3
137,3
136.0
132.4

126.3
125.3
325.2
384.6
143.6
209.6
138.2
270.5
257.7
180.0
130.3
415.4
295.4
138.7
355.0
343.9
132.7
250.0
129.2
139.6
145.5
137.9
140.0
136.2
134.4

129.0
127.1
325.4
377.8
145.1
196.0
138.7
270.4
256.1
182.3
129.7
415.8
294.9
139.8
352.5
340.9
133.5
252,4
129.8
139.8
148.1
138.7
141.7
137.7
135.9

Food away from home..................................
Lunch (12/77 = 100) ................................
Dinner (12/77=100) ......................................................
Other meals and snacks (12/77 = 100)............................................

263.0
127.9
127.9
126.4

275.3
134.3
133,4
132.5

277.7
135.7
134.4
133,7

280.9
137.2
136.2
134.7

284.7
138.6
138.2
137.0

286.1
139.2
138.8
137.9

288.2
140.7
139.4
138.8

265.3
128.9
129.1
127.7

279.5
135.7
136.1
134.5

281.8
137.3
136.7
135.6

284.2
138.5
138.2
136.4

287.3
139.8
139.4
138.5

288.6
140.3
140.1
139.3

290.7
141.4
141.1
140.1

Alcoholic beverages

183.9

190.9

191.6

193.7

195.9

197.1

197.8

185.0

192.8

193.7

195.5

197.6

198.7

199.4

Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77 = 100)........................
Beer and a le ................................
Whiskey ..........................................
Wine............................
Other alcoholic beverages (12/77 = 100) , , .
Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77=100) ,, .

119.9
185.9
133.4
206.6
108.2
120.5

124.4
192.0
138.9
215,2
112.9
125.3

124.9
192.9
138.9
217.6
112.7
125.8

126.1
194.5
140.0
221.7
113.7
127.6

127.4
197.6
140.0
224.0
113.9
129.7

128.1
198.2
141.6
224.3
115.0
131.1

128.5
199.7
141.3
224.7
114.9
131.6

120.8
185.1
134.6
209.8
107.8
120.5

125.9
192.2
139.8
224.0
112.0
125.5

126.5
192.9
140.2
227.2
112.1
126.2

127.6
194.5
141.5
229.4
113.2
127.4

128.8
197.2
142.0
231.6
113.3
129.4

129.6
198.5
142.3
233.6
114.0
129.9

130.0
199.8
142.3
233.2
114.1
130.6

280.9

282.6

284.8

257.8

273.7

277.1

279,1

280.7

282.2

284.3

FOOD AND BEVERAGES
Food

Continued

Continued

Food at home

Continued

Fruits and vegetables Continued
Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77=100) . ..
Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77 = 100)............
Other foods at home..................................................
Sugar and sweets........................................................
Candy and chewing gum (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ..............
Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77 = 100)......................
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 (12/77 = 100)............
Roasted coffee ......................................................
Freeze dried and instant coffee..................................
Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77 = 100)..................
Other prepared foods ..............................
Canned and packaged soup (12/77=100)........................
Frozen prepared foods (12/77=100)..................................
Snacks (12/77=100)..........................................
Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77 = 100)............
Other condiments (12/77= 100) ......................................
Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77 = 100) ............
Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77 = 100) ..

HOUSING

257.9

273.8

276.9

279,1

Shelter

276.0

2947

298.5

300.1

300.5

301.6

303.8

277.2

296.4

300.4

301.7

301.7

302.6

304.6

Rent, residential....................

187.0

198.3

199.6

200.9

201.9

203.0

204.2

186.9

198.0

199.4

200.6

201.6

202.7

203,9

Other rental costs ..............................
Lodging while out of town........................
Tenants'insurance (12/77 = 100) ................................

260.7
279.3
119.9

268.3
284.2
126.5

267.7
282.6
126.9

273.9
291.5
127.6

278.5
297.4
129.3

283.6
304.8
130.1

285.9
307.5
131.2

260.5
278.0
120.1

268.4
283.3
126.8

267.3
281.0
127.2

273.6
289.9
128.0

278.3
296.0
129.9

283.5
303.2
130.8

285.8
306.0
131.6

Homeownership........................
Home purchase..................................................
Financing, taxes, and Insurance ........................................
Property insurance ......................................................
Property taxes ........................................
Contracted mortgage interest c o s t............................
Mortgage interest rates..................................................
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 (12/77 —100)............
Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
supplies (12/77=100)..................................................
Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100) ..........

307.7
246,5
390.6
338.9
188.4
499.4
199.4
282.9
307.9
224.3

329.4
267.3
416.9
364.5
192.8
536.7
198.0
294.2
318.6
237.1

334.2 ,
267.2
429.4
365.8
194.5
555.5
205.1
296.8
321,5
239.1

335.8
266.2
435.2
369,8
196.0
563.5
209.0
296.8
321.3
239.7

335.8
263.0
437.1
373.1
198.5
565.0
211.9
302.8
328.7
242.4

336.8
261.1
441.1
375.6
199.0
570.9
216.0
306.1
332.6
243.9

339.3
260.7
447.1
378.5
199.9
579.8
219.5
309.3
337.0
244,4

310.0
246.5
395.3
340.4
190.1
500,9
199.8
281.7
307.7
224.3

332.3
268.2
423.1
367.8
194.7
539.7
198.4
291.1
315.9
235.6

337.5
268.0
436.0
369.0
196.4
558.7
205.5
294.2
320.3
2362

338,6
266.4
441.3
373.2
197.9
565.9
209.4
294.1
319.8
236.7

338.2
262.7
442.6
376.6
200.6
566.5
212.3
299.9
327.7
238.6

0 338.8
260.2
446.4
379.9
201.0
572.0
216.7
302,7
331.3
239.9

341.1
259.7
452.6
382.5
201.7
580.9
220.3
304.5
334.1
239.7

126,6
118.8

137.4
122.3

139.2
123.2

139.5
123,4

141.6
124.0

143.7
123.3

143.4
124.3

126.0
119.7

134.7
122.0

134,9
122.9

135.1
122.7

136.9
122.3

138.5
122.4

136.8
123.1

119.1
118.2

124.2
123.7

124.8
124.2

125.2
124,7

127.3
125.2

127.6
125.9

127.9
126.4

120.0
119.4

124.6
126.4

124.9
126.3

124.5
127.9

127.0
127.8

127.8
128.8

127.9
129.9

285.7

289.9

296.7

304.5

308.4

310.5

271.0

286.3

290.7

297.5

305.6

309.4

311.4

358.7
567.0
589.8
145.7
310.5
258.7
379.0 |

364.7
585.3
610.0
148.4
313.9
262.3
381.5

375.4
625.9
656.0
152.3
318.5
266.9
385.3

387.4
675.6
712.0
157.5
322.9
271.3
389.0

393.7
693.4
730.9
161.5
326.7
273.9
395.2

396.5
690.6
727.0
162.5
330.6
277.3
399.4 I

337.6
557.1
580,7
140.8
287.6
241.5
346.4

358.2
568.3
590.3
147.3
309.8
258.4
376.7

364.5
587.0
610,9
150.1
313.4
262.1
379.7 |

375.0
627.9
657.1
154.1
317.7
266.5
383.3 I

387.3
678.5
714.2
159.4
322.1
271.1
386.8

393.4
696.3
733.2
162.9
325.9
273.5
392.8

396.2
693.7
729.4
164.2
329.6
276.8
397.2

Fuel and other utilities
Fuels ..............................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas..............................................
Fuel o il..............................
Other fuels (6/78 - 100) ........................
Gas (piped) and electricity ..............................................................
Electricity..................................................................
Utility (piped) gas ....................................................................


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

270.5
337.8
556.4
580.7
139.6
288.0
241.5
| 347.9

79

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.

Continued — Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]

All Urban Consumers
General summary

1980

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1981

1980

1981

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

162,3
133.4
103,5
97.3
99.0
255.2

169.0
138.7
108.3
101.7
100.6
267.0

170.6
140.3
110.5
101,8
100,9
267.8

171.9
141.1
111.6
101.8
101.0
271.4

173.6
142.4
113.5
101.8
101.2
274.7

c 174.0
142.5
113.6
101.8
101.2
277.1

175.1
143.4
114.8
101.8
101.4
278.4

162.3
133.2
103.3
97.4
98.9
256.2

169.1
138.7
108.3
101.8
100.5
268.0

170.7
140.3
110.6
101.8
100.7
268.7

172.0
141.1
111.7
101.9
100.8
272.5

173,9
142.5
113.6
101,9
101.0
276.3

174.4
142.6
113.7
101.9
101.0
279.0

175.4
143.4
114.9
101.9
101.2
280.3

Household furnishings and operations

203.0

211,0

211.6

212.6

214.9

216.9

219.2

200.7

208.1

209.0

209.7

211.7

213.7

215.9

Housefurnlshings ................................................................................
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 = 100)....................................................
Appliances including TV and sound eguipment....................................

172.7
188.2
114.8
119.9
190.9
124.3
111.6
110.9
124.0
139.3

178.1
192.4
117.3
122.7
196.5
128.6
114.2
113.3
127.9
142.6

178.3
193.2
117.2
123.8
197.0
129.2
115.3
113.1
127.8
142.4

178.7
191.9
114.6
124.9
196.6
128.3
114.2
113.1
128.7
143.1

180.8
195.1
118.6
124.8
199,3
131.3
114.5
115.9
129.1
143.9

182.6
199.8
123.1
126.1
201.6
133.2
115.8
116.5
130.8
144.2

183.9
200.5
123,0
127.1
203.7
134.5
116.5
116.6
133.4
145.3

171.5
186.3
113.8
118.9
189.4
120.9
111.8
112.6
123.1
139.7

176.9
196.6
122.7
122.4
194.4
125.7
114.7
115.2
124.7
142.0

176.9
193.4
117.0
124.6
193.6
125.1
113.2
114.3
125.6
142.7

1 0 5 .7

1 0 7 .4

1 0 7 .2

1 0 7 .4

1 0 7 .9

1 0 8 .0

1 0 8 .6

1 0 5 .4

1 0 6 .1

1 0 6 .5

104.0
108.3
161.4
160.6
117.5
111.5

105.1
110.6
166.2
166.1
122.0
114,2

105.2
110.1
165.9
166.5
123.4
113.1

105.6
110.2
167.2
168.0
123.6
114.2

105.7
111.0
168.2
168.4
123.7
115.4

105.6
111.2
168.9
168.5
124.5
115.9

106.0
112.1
170.4
170.6
126.1
116.6

102.8
108.6
162,3
163.5
117.8
111.6

176.4
195.7
122.6
121.2
193.9
125.5
113.6
115.6
124.6
141.4
106.1
103.8
109.1
165.2
169.2
120.2
112.4

103.7
109.2
166.3
170.9
121.4
112.8

104.2
109.4
167.6
171.7
121.9
114.0

178.5
196.9
121.4
124.4
195.6
127.7
113.2
115.2
126.6
142.9
106.6
104.2
109.6
167.8
172.3
122.8
113.7

180.2
201.4
124.1
127.2
198.0
129.4
114.1
116.7
128.3
143.4
106.4
104.3
109.3
169.0
172.7
124.3
114.5

181.6
202.9
125.0
128.2
200.0
130.7
114.9
117.6
130.1
144.2
107.1
104.7
110.2
169.9
174.7
125.7
114.4

110.0

113.0

112.0

114.8

115.1

115.1

115.8

111.6

112.6

113.9

115.7

114.2

115.2

113.9

113.1
118.4

115.5
124.6

114.3
124.8

113.6
125.6

115.7
127.9

116.9
129.1

117.4
130.0

111.6
117.0

112.1
123.2

111.5
123.1

112.0
123.8

113.1
125,6

113.7
126.9

115.0
127.9

HOUSING

Continued

Fuel and other utilities

Continued

T e le v is io n a n d s o u n d e q u ip m e n t ( 1 2 / 7 7 =

100)

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

Television ..........................................................................
Sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................................
Household appliances................................................................
Refrigerators and home freezers..........................................
Laundry equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Other household appliances (12/77 = 100)..........................
Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing
machines (12/77 = 100)..............................................
Office machines, small electric appliances,
and air conditioners (12/77 = 100)................................
Other household equipment (12/77 = 100)........................................
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) .

118.2
115,6

124.3
121.4

124.6
121.7

125.7
122.3

128.7
124.1

130.7
125.7

131.4
125.6

113.1
112.6

119.0
119.2

118.4
118.8

118.9
119.2

120.8
121.7

123.2
121.7

124.4
120.9

123.4
113.5

130.6
118.4

130.8
118.7

131.9
118.7

134.8
119.9

135.6
120.8

137.1
121.5

121.4
115.9

127.4
122.3

127.6
122.3

128.0
123.8

131.0
123.8

132.1
125.1

134.1
125.9

Housekeeping supplies............................................................................
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 - 100)..............................
Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 = 100)..........................................

240.7
2332
117.6
126.2
115.6
122.0
123.8

256.0
252.4
126,7
135,6
118.3
131.1
128.0

257.7
254.0
127.6
136.1
119.5
132.5
128.4

259.5
255.6
128.8
137.3
119.9
132.6
130.0

262.8
256.2
129.3
138.4
121.4
135.9
134.0

264.2
255.3
129.7
137.9
122.3
137.3
136.6

266.9
259.4
131.0
138.4
123.1
138.1
139.1

238.1
231.1
118.1
128.1
1149
119.2
116.5

253.5
248.2
126.2
136.6
118.8
128.4
122.5

256.0
252.3
127.6
137.6
120.0
129.5
122.5

257.5
253.4
129.0
139.2
120.7
129.3
122.7

260.1
254.3
129.6
139.2
122.4
132.2
126.1

261.2
253.8
130.3
138.1
123.7
133.2
128.5

263.4
256.7
130.4
138.5
124.8
134.5
131.1

Housekeeping services............................................................................
Postage ..........................................................................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 = 1 00) ..............................................
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 100) ....................................

266.0
257.3

276.1
257.3

277.1
257.3

279.6
257.3

281.6
257.3

284.8
274.3

289.9
308.0

264.3
257.3

272.5
257.3

273,8
257.3

276.4
257.3

279.4
257.3

283.3
274.2

288.6
308.1

128.3
116.5

134.6
120.7

134.4
121.4

137.0
122.4

138.2
123.6

139.0
124.5

140.7
125.2

127.8
116.2

131.4
119.7

131.8
120.6

134.3
121.5

137.8
122.4

139.0
123.8

140.2
124.3

APPAREL AND UPKEEP

177.3

184.8

183.9

181.1

182.0

185.1

186.4

176.1

183.3

182.9

180.8

181.8

184.3

186.0

Apparel commodities

1702

177.2

176.0

172.6

173.2

176.3

177.6

169.5

176.0

175.3

172.6

173.3

175.8

177.5

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

173.9
174.8
110.1
104.7
100.5
123.3
119.6
103.5
113.3
109.4
1184
114.3
159.9
106.3
164.7
168.1
102.9
116.7
97.4
106.5
102.7
105.9

172.5
174.3
109.8
103.5
99.7
123.9
119.7
103.4
113.1
108.6
118.7
114.3
157.4
104.4
161.4
163.8
101.4
116.8
91.9
106.1
101.3
106.1

168.9
171.1
107.5
99.9
95,2
123.9
115.4
103.4
112.0
104.8
119.1
114.8
152.1
100.8
150.4
155.5
98.2
116.0
87.8
102.9
96.0
103.6

169.6
171.6
107.8
100.5
95.6
125.3
114.8
102.7
112.6
104.3
119.1
116.6
153.4
101.9
160.7
156.9
97.1
116.4
90.0
102.8
94.4
104.2

172.7
175.0
110.2
103.2
97.9
127.2
118.0
104.7
113,7
106.5
121.2
116.5
157.5
104.4
157.9
166.4
99.3
117.8
93.0
106.4
101.2
106.2

174.0
175.6
110.5
104.1
98.1
127.5
117.0
105.4
114.5
107.2
121.5
117.4
158.8
105.0
157.6
167.8
100.2
119.3
91.6
108.6
106.4
106.8

166.3
167.3
105.2
97.3
97.0
114.2
111.7
104.2
108.7
107.2
111.6
108.8
154.7
103.3
167.8
154.1
101,6
111.7
98.2
101.1
96.8
100.5

172.5
174,8
110.2
99.4
101.9
119.7
120.4
108.7
112.7
112.5
115.2
111.9
159.9
106.6
175.5
157.7
102.8
116.4
102.8
105.3
99.1
106.8

171.6
174.4
109.9
98.2
101.9
120.0
120.7
108.1
112.6
111.8
116.2
112.0
158.2
105.3
172.2
154.3
102.4
116.6
98.2
104.9
98.6
106.6

168.7
171.7
107.9
95.1
97.4
119.9
116.7
108.2
111.6
107.9
115.8
112.9
153.9
102.3
162.1
147.3
100.1
115.6
95.5
102.5
94,4
104.4

169.6
172.2
108.2
96.1
96.0
120.2
116.8
108.7
111.9
107.0
116.1
114.2
155.4
103.5
159.1
150.5
99.7
116.0
103.6
102.7
93.5
105.8

172.3
174.9
110.1
98.5
98.9
121.5
119.2
110.0
112.9
109.5
117.4
113.9
158.9
105.5
156.9
154.3
101.6
117.7
109.5
106.4
98.4
109.1

173.9
176.1
110.9
98.3
99.6
122.7
119.5
111.5
113.9
110.9
118.2
114.8
160.7
106.7
156.8
159.8
102.6
119.1
108.0
107.8
101.3
109.5

109.5

114.0

113.8

113.1

113.9

115.6

115.5

108.9

112.6

112.2

112.2

112.5

114.6

115.4

Apparel commodities less footwear..................................................
Men’s and boys’ ..............................................................................
Men’s (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ......................
Coats and jackets (12/77 = 100)........................................
Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 - 100) ....................
Shirts (12/77 - 100) ..................................................
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100) ....................
Boys’ (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 100) ..............
Furnishings (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ........
Women's and girls' ......................................................................
Women's (12/77 = 100)............................................................
Coats and jackets ..............................................................
Dresses ..............................................................................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 - 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 100)................
Suits (12/77 = 100)............................................................
Girls (12/77 = 100) ..................................................................
Coats, |ackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 - 100)..................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and
accessories (12/77 = 100)..............................................

Digitized 80
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

23.

Continued — Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]

All Urban Consumers
General summary

1980

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1981

1980

1981

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) ..................................

234.3
201.9
107.9
140.1

248.9
213.7
110.3
149.9

250.1
213.3
110.6
149.5

249.7
214.2
111.9
149.7

254.3
212.3
112.2
147.9

255.3
212.2
113.3
147.3

259.2
214.1
114.8
148.4

241.1
198.5
106.9
138.1

254.0
204.0
110.2
141.8

255.4
204,4
110.0
142.3

256.9
205.3
110.8
142.8

264.0
204.4
112.2
141.3

266,4
204.5
113.3
140.9

269.3
205.6
114.3
141.4

Footwear................................................................
Men’s (12/77 = 100) ................................
Boys’ and girls' (12/77 = 100) ......................................................
Womens' (12/77 = 100)........................................

188.3
119.7
119.5
115.6

196.5
125.4
126.2
119.4

196.6
124.6
126.6
120.0

194.9
124.4
125.7
118.1

194.9
125.0
125.3
117.9

197.4
125.2
127.6
120.0

199.3
126.8
128.2
121.3

188.1
122.4
119.5
112.6

196.4
126.7
127.4
116.5

196.7
126.0
127.8
117.5

195.5
126.1
127.0
115.9

194.9
125.7
126.2
115.9

195,9
125.4
127.3
117.0

198.4
128.0
126.7
119.3

Apparel services

230.0
135.5
123.3

241.9
142.4
130.0

243.4
143.5
130.5

246.3
145.3
131.7

249.9
147.6
133.3

252.4
149.6
133.7

254.3
150.9
134.5

226.0
134.1
120.4

239.9
141,6
129.1

242.2
143.2
129.9

245.5
145.5
131.1

248.7
147.3
132.9

251.5
149.3
133.9

252.7
150.4
134.0

APPAREL AND UPKEEP
Apparel commodities

Continued
Continued

Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100)............
Other apparel services (12/77 = 100) ........................................

TRANSPORTATION

246.8

259.0

261.1

264.7

270.9

273.5

275.3

247.7

259.7

261.9

265.7

272.1

274.4

276.3

Private

247.0

257.4

259.4

262.9

269.4

271.7

273.4

248.0

258.6

260.8

264.4

271.0

273.2

275.1

New cars ..........................................................................
Used cars ..........................................................................
Gaso no ..................................................................................
Automobile maintenance and repair........................................................
Body work (12/77 = 100)..............................................................
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 - 100)........................
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' licenses (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Vehicle inspection (12/77 = 100) ....................
Other vehicle related fees (12/77 = 100) ..........................

177.0
196.7
374.7
264.1
129.1

184.3
230.8
370.5
278.4
136.1

184.5
234.4
373.3
280.1
136.8

185.3
234.0
385.2
282.7
137.3

184.8
234.3
410.8
285.4
139.2

182.9
235.4
420.7
287.7
140.3

186.1
239.1
419.3
289.0
140.8

177.7
196,8
376.3
264.3
128.4

184.5
230.8
371.7
278.9
135.9

184.6
234.4
374.4
280.6
136.7

185.7
234.0
386.6
283.2
137.3

185.0
234.4
412.5
285.4
139.2

182.7
235.4
422.3
288.2
140.2

186.2
239.1
420.8
289.7
140.7

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

133.6
131.0
131.3
228.8
203.1
137.8
130.3
181.7
127.3
237.9
251.9
154.4
115.0
146.6
105.0
123.2
130.7

134.0
131.6
132.7
231.0
203.6
138.8
130.6
182.1
127.6
240.6
252.5
159.4
115.8
146.9
105.3
124.3
132.7

135.8
132.5
134.4
232.4
203.7
139.1
130.6
181.5
128.6
242.4
252.3
163.4
116.2
146.9
105.3
124.8
133.7

136.8
133.7
135.5
234.2
205.8
141.6
131.8
183.5
129.3
244.0
253.7
165.1
116.7
146.9
105.4
125.8
134.7

137.7
134,8
137.0
234.7
206.2
141.6
132.1
184.1
129.2
244.6
254.4
164,3
118.2
146.9
105.4
126.1
138,4

138.0
135.5
137.8
236.3
208.1
143.5
133.2
185.8
130,1
246.2
255.7
166.5
118.2
146.9
105.5
126.0
138.4

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

135.0
131.1
130.8
230.6
203.4
137.3
130.6
182.5
126.9
240.1
251.5
153.2
116.7
146.6
104.7
123.9
140.0

135.6
131.7
132.2
233.2
205.7
139.0
132.0
184.7
127.8
242.9
252.0
157.9
117.5
147.0
105.1
125.1
142.0

137.5
132.7
133.5
235.0
206.2
139.2
132.4
184.8
128.9
244.9
251.8
161.7
118.2
146.9
105.1
125.6
144.1

138.3
133.5
134.7
236.9
207.5
139.0
133.4
186.6
129.3
247.0
253.2
163.9
119.3
147,0
105.1
126.6
147.2

140.2
134.7
135.9
237.3
208.0
139.8
133.7
186.9
129.5
247.4
253.9
163.4
119.9
147.0
105.1
126.7
148.9

140.5
135.7
136.7
239.2
210.4
140.5
135.4
189.6
130.8
249.2
255.2
166.3
119.3
147.0
105.2
126.6
147.1

Public.....................................................................

235.9

277.0

280.1

286.4

288.1

293.9

297.2

229.7

269,2

271.8

279.0

280.6

285.1

287.7

Airline fare......................................................
Intercity bus fare ......................................................
Intracity mass transit ............................................................
Tax- fare ......................................................
Intercity train fa re ................................................

264,3
291.5
203.0
256.4
237.3

321.8
308.0
236.1
269.2
255.6

327.4
310.1
237.1
269.7
270.1

331.9
310.7
247.1
271.0
276.4

334.1
312.8
248.4
271.4
276.5

343.7
323.2
250.8
273.8
276.7

348.6
329.1
251.7
279.9
277.2

263.9
291.0
200.8
261.6
237.2

319.8
308.0
235.6
275.6
255.7

325.7
309.8
236.5
275.9
270.3

330.2
310.6
246.5
277.5
276.8

332.7
312.2
247.8
277.7
276.9

342.3
323.9
249.1
280.5
277.1

346.6
329.2
249.8
287.4
277.5

MEDICAL CARE

262.0

274.5

275.8

279.5

282.6

284.7

287.0

263,1

276.3

277.6

281.4

284.4

287,0

289.1

Medical care commodities

164.9

173.8

175.1

176.7

179.2

180.7

182.4

166.0

174.1

175.6

177.5

179.6

181.2

183,4

Prescription drugs ..........................................
Anti-infective drugs (12/77 = 100) ..................
Tranquilizers and sedatives (12/77 = 100) ....................................
Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 = 100) ........................................
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 = 100)................................................

152.2
118.5
122.9
114.2

159.6
124.6
128.9
118.3

160.7
124.7
130,2
119.1

162.7
127.7
130.7
120.6

165.0
129.2
131.9
121.9

166.5
130.5
132.8
122.2

168.5
130.2
134.4
123.9

153.5
120.4
122.7
115.9

160.2
125,6
127.7
119.9

161.5
126.4
128.6
120.2

163.4
128.6
129.4
121.3

165,3
129.5
130.7
122.9

166.8
131.0
131.5
123.7

169.2
132.4
133.3
125.3

131.3
121.4

140.4
126.7

142.3
126.9

143.9
128.7

147.4
130.9

148.2
132.7

151.2
134.5

131.3
122.6

139.6
128.3

141.7
129.6

143.8
131.4

146.5
133.3

147.8
134.1

150.9
135.8

1171

121.2

122.4

123.2

124.5

126.3

128.6

118.5

122.3

123,1

123.8

125.2

126.5

128.8

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 = 100)........

118.4
115.0
184,4
115.3

125.3
121.2
195.8
121.5

126.2
120.8
198.1
122.5

127.1
121.5
199.3
123.6

128.9
123.1
202.7
124.5

129.9
124.6
204.2
125.0

130.9
125.1
205.9
126.2

119.2
115,3
185.4
116.3

125.5
120.2
195.8
123.0

126.5
120.4
198.0
123.7

127.9
121.1
200.4
125.1

129.4
122.3
203.0
126.5

130.5
122.6
205.5
127.1

131.9
123.4
208.0
128.2

Medical care services

2834

296.6

297.9

302.1

305.2

307.5

309.8

284.5

298.7

300.0

304.3

307.4

310.2

312.2

Professional services ..................................................
Physicians’ services................................................................
Dental services......................................................
Other professional services (12/77 = 100)......................................

248.2
264.8
237.2
121.7

260.4
278.0
248.0
128.5

261.7
280.3
248.6
128.5

264.7
283.9
251.4
129.3

267.2
287.7
252.8
130.0

269.6
290.3
254.9
131.5

271.7
292.2
257.1
132.6

251.2
269,7
238.9
121.1

263.8
283.8
250.4
126.7

265.0
285.7
251.3
126.6

268.7
290.0
254.9
127.6

271.6
293.9
257.0
128.5

274.2
296.3
259 8
129.9

276.2
297.9
262.2
131.3

Other medical care services..................................................................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100)..........................
Hospital room..........................................................................
Other hospital and medical care services (12/77 = 100)............

325.8
129.7
408.0
128.8

340.5
141.1
441,0
140.9

341,6
141.7
443.7
141.4 I

347.3
144,5
453.8
143.7 |

351.1
146.1
458.2
145.5

353.4
147.1
460.9
146.7

355.9
148.1
465.0
147.3 |

325.3
128.6
403.6
128.0

341.6
140.5
439.8
140.2

342.9
141.3
443.1
140.6

347.8
143.7
451.9
142.7

351.3
145.2
455.9
144.4

354.4
146.7
459.2
146.3

356.2
147.3
461 4
146.8


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

81

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.

Continued

Consumer Price Index

U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]

All Urban Consumers
General summary

1980

Apr,

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1981

1980

1981

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

Apr.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb,

Mar.

Apr.

ENTERTAINMENT

202.5

211.2

212.0

214.4

216.7

218.2

219.2

201.3

209.9

210.1

212.2

215.0

216.1

217.0

Entertainment commodities

205.7

214.5

215.3

217.1

219.7

222.1

223.6

202.8

210.2

210.9

213.0

216.2

218.0

219.4

Reading materials (12/77 = 100)........................
Newspapers ............................................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100)..........

120.1
234.8
120.8

127.6
245 6
130.7

128.2
246.2
131.5

130.0
249.7
133.4

130.9
253.8
132.9

133.2
256.6
136.2

134.1
262.5
134.8

119.7
234.3
120.6

127,1
244.9
130.8

127.6
245.5
131.5

129.6
2494
133.5

130.7
254.0
132.9

133.0
256.7
136.3

134,1
262.5
134.8

Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100) ,, . .
Sport vehicles (12/77
100) ..............
Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100)
Bicycles ..............................................
Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100) ........

118.7
120.6
111.3
178.6
113.1

122.8
( ')
114.7
185.7
119.9

122.9
(’ )
116.2
184.7
120.4

123.5
(’ )
115.7
185.9
120.9

124.7
126.5
115.9
187.2
120.6

126.1
128.5
116.2
188.4
121.2

127.5
130.4
116.7
188.3
122.6

114,1
113.0
110.5
179.8
114.0

117.0
(’ )
112.2
185.8
119.1

117.8
C)
113.4
184.9
119.3

118.5
( 1)
114.5
186.7
119.2

119.3
118.1
115.3
188.3
119.2

120.3
119.5
115.2
189.4
119.3

120.9
120.0
115.4
189.7
121.1

Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100)..............
Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 100) ..................
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Pet supplies and expense (12/77 = 100) ..........

1184
117.3
120.1
119.2

122.8
120.7
121.8
127.3

123.5
121.3
122.0
128.4

124.4
122.4
121.5
130.1

126.3
124.7
122,6
132.0

127.2
125.6
124.0
132.3

127.8
126.2
125.4
132.4

118.0
116.5
118.9
120.0

121.6
118.4
122.7
126.8

121.8
118.5
122.4
127.6

122.9
119.4
122.3
129.7

125.8
123.0
1244
131.9

126.3
123.1
125.5
132.8

127.2
124.0
126.7
133.2

Entertainment services

198.5

2069

207.8

210.9

213.0

213.0

213.4

199.9

210.5

209.7

212.0

213.9

213.8

213.9

Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 100)....................
Admissions (12/77 = 100)................................
Other entertainment services (12/77 = 100)..........

119.0
118.7
114.8

125.2
122.6
118.7

125.7
123.1
119.4

128.1
124.7
120.1

129.4
125.3
122.0

129.8
125.3
121.0

130.7
124.5
121.1

119.3
120.1
115.1

126.7
124.3
121.6

125.9
124,0
121.8

127.8
125.2
122.0

129,0
126.2
123.0

129.6
125.9
121.7

130.2
124.7
122.4

OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES

209.8

222.8

224.6

226.2

227.4

228.7

229.9

2092

221.0

223.0

224.4

225.6

226.8

227,9

Tobacco products

198.8

207.3

210.8

211.9

212.3

212.5

213.3

198.9

206.8

210.4

211.7

211.9

212.4

213.2

Cigarettes..............................................................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100)........

201.4
117.6

209.6
1243

213,5
124.9

214.6
125.4

214.8
126.5

214.8
128.0

215.5
129.6

201.6
117.2

209.3
123.9

213.2
124.5

214.5
125.4

214.5
126.4

214.9
128.1

215.5
130.0

Personal care

209.7

219.0

220.9

222.5

224.6

226.9

228.7

209.5

218.5

220.0

221.1

223.2

225.1

226.4

Toilet goods and personal care appliances......................................
Products for the hair, hairpieces, and wigs (12/77 = 100) ................
Dental and shaving products (12/77 = 100)..............................
Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure
and eye makeup implements (12/77 = 100) ..........
Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100)

201.8
117.9
120.5

212.4
124.5
127.2

215.2
125.2
128.4

216.9
126.3
130.8

219.5
128.3
132.9

222.4
131.4
135.3

223.9
131.9
136.6

201.8
117.9
119.3

212.7
123.2
125.9

214.3
125.3
125.4

216.1
126.2
128.3

218.5
126.7
131.2

220.9
128.4
133.3

222.5
128.8
135.1

115.7
115.4

120.8
122.2

122.6
124.8

122.9
125.5

123.2
127.5

123.9
128.3

125.3
128.4

115.2
117.2

121.0
125.3

121.4
126.8

122.2
126.6

122.8
129.0

123,4
130.7

124.4
131.3

Personal care services................................
Beauty parlor services for women............................................
Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100)

217.2
218.6
121.7

225.5
227.5
125.6

226.8
228.7
126.4

228.3
230.1
127.3

230.0
231.7
128.5

231.7
233.6
129.2

233.7
236.0
129.9

217.2
218.6
121.5

224.4
226.1
125.2

225.8
227.5
126.0

226.3
227.6
126.7

228.1
2294
127.6

229.4
230.8
128.4

230.5
231.7
129.1

Personal and educational expenses

228.7

251,3

251.5

253.6

254.4

255.2

256.2

228.7

251.4

251.7

254.0

255.0

256.0

257.1

Schoolbooks and supplies ..............................................
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 = 100)....................

207.1
234.0
118.6
117.9
120.9
126.1

221.9
258.1
132.2
131.5
134.4
133.0

222.1
258.2
132.2
131.5
134.4
133.4

228.6
259.7
132.6
132.0
134.4
135.7

229.8
260.4
132.7
132.1
134.4
137.1

230.5
261.2
132.8
132.3
134.4
138.7

230.8
262.4
132.8
132.3
134,4
141.8

210.9
233.4
118.7
117.9
120.7
123.3

225.6
257.8
132.4
131.5
134.3
131.6

225.8
258.1
132.4
131.5
134.3
132.2

232.4
259.6
132,8
132.0
134.3
134.4

233.6
260.6
132.9
132.1
134.3
136.3

234.4
261.6
133.0,
132.3
134.4
138.1

234.6
262.9
133.0
132.3
134,4
141.1

369.3
335.2
233.4
295.7

365.5
355.3
253.1
306.4

368.3
364.5
255.8
308.4

379.9
368.9
259.4
309.5

404.8
370.7
262.3
314.6

414.5
373.6
265.2
318.3

413.2
378.1
267.9
323.1

370.8
335.2
232.6
295.1

366.7
355.6
251.6
303.5

369.4
364.7
254.4
306.6

381.2
368.8
258 0
307.4

406.3
370.4
261,0
313.4

415.9
373.0
263.6
317.2

414.5
377.6
266.1
321.1

...

Special indexes:
Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products........
Insurance and finance ................................
Utilities and public transportation..................................
Housekeeping and home maintenance services ......................
1Not available.

82 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

c= corrected

24. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure
category and commodity and service group
[December 1977 = 100]

*

Category and group

Size class A
(1.25 million or more)
1980
Dec.

1981
Feb.

Size class B
(385,000 1.250 million)
1980

Apr.

Dec.

Size class C
(75,000 385,000)

1981
Feb.

1980
Apr.

Dec.

Size class D
(75,000 or less)

1981
Feb.

I

1980

1981

Apr.

Dec.

Feb.

Apr.

Northeast
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ..........................................................
Food and beverages ............................................................
Housing ....................................................
Apparel and upkeep ........................................................
Transportation........................................................................
Medical care........................................................
Entertainment ..........................................
Other goods and services ..........................................................

132.8
132.8
135.2
114,8
141.9
128.0
1207
122.7

135.7
135.2
138.0
114.9
147.3
130.5
124.6
123.7

137.3
136.8
139.1
116.9
149.7
132.9
126,3
124.5

139.8
135.8
144.6
116.8
149.4
129.3
123.2
127.5

143.2
137.6
149.0
114.0
155.0
131.2
127.5
128.5

144.4
138.3
149.1
118.2
157.3
132.9
130.2
130.4

143.8
137.7
153.7
124.8
146.5
130.1
120,4
130.3

146.6
139.8
156.3
119.5
153.0
132.1
124.2
131.1

149.8
141.4
161.5
121.7
154.9
133.8
125.8
132.6

137.8
132.8
142.0
120.3
146.5
130.7
126.7
124.4

141.6
134.8
147.5
119.1
151.0
134.4
126.7
126.5

143.4
135.2
149.7
123.3
153.0
135.9
128.5
127.1

133,7
134.3
131.6

137.0
138.2
134.0

137.9
138,7
136.4

140.8
143.2
138.3

144.3
147.6
141.5

145.0
148.3
143.4

142.1
144.1
146.7

144.6
146.8
149.8

147.1
149.7
154.1

138.1
140.7
137.3

141.7
145.0
141.4

143.3
147.1
143.6

COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities..............................................
Commodities less food and beverages ........................
Services ........................................................

North Central
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ..........................................................
Food and beverages ......................................................................
Housing ................................................
Apparel and upkeep ..........................................................
Transportation................................................................
Medical care............................................................
Entertainment ......................................
Other goods and services ......................................................

143.3
135.0
155.3
110.8
146.4
130.5
125.1
124,2

144.0
137.1
152.7
109.4
151.8
134.6
127.5
126.3

145.9
137.5
155.0
112.3
153.9
137.1
130.2
127.9

140.0
132.9
146.0
118.8
146.8
131.4
121.3
130.3

142.8
136,4
147.7
116.9
152.3
136.2
124.2
132.7

143.5
136.6
147.4
119.8
154.3
138.1
125.3
134.0

136.6
135.1
139.1
114.8
146.2
132.4
124.0
123.9

139.7
137.0
141.5
114.5
153.1
136.7
126.8
126.4

140.2
137.8
140.5
116.4
155.1
138.6
129.2
127.9

136.2
139.1
135.9
116.2
145,4
134.6
120.8
129.8

139.6
139.6
140.5
114.1
150.3
140.1
124.8
131.1

141.1
140.5
142.1
115.6
152.6
142.1
125.7
131.7

139.9
142.3
148.4

140.3
141.8
149.4

141.7
143.7
152.1

136.5
138.0
145.6

139.5
140.9
148.1

140.1
141.5
149.0

135.2
135.3
138.9

138.2
138.7
142.2

138.6
139.0
142.7

133.4
130.9
140.6

136.0
134.5
145.3

136.9
135.4
147.8

COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities ................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ............................
Services ................................................................

South
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ..........................................................
Food and beverages ..................................................
Housing ..........................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ......................................................
Transportation..................................................................
Medical care......................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................
Other goods and services ..............................................

139.0
136.8
143.1
120.0
146.8
127.9
120.4
128.1

142.1
138.8
146.1
119.3
152.9
130.4
123.5
129.4

144.1
139.0
148.7
121.1
155.7
132.5
123.2
131.3

140.9
135,4
146.7
117.3
147,9
132.1
127.9
128 8

144.9
138.6
151.5
117.1
153.4
135.1
129.0
131.0

146.7
139.8
153.0
121.3
155.9
136.5
130.0
132.0

138.6
137.2
142.5
114.1
145.7
133.7
127.5
126.7

142.1
138.4
146.6
113.0
152.2
136.8
129.0
128.6

143.7
139.0
148.3
115.5
153.8
140.0
130.5
129.7

136.5
136.9
137.5
108.9
144.8
140.7
130.7
129.9

138.8
140.2
138.4
105.6
151.4
144.0
131.0
130.5

141.8
142.3
142.4
109.4
154.3
146.4
131.2
131.6

137.2
137.3
141.5

140.1
140,7
144.8

141.5
142.6
147.6

137.5
138.3
146.1

140.8
141.7
151,2

142.3
143.4
153.3

136.3
135.9
142.3

139.1
139.5
146.6

140.1
140.6
149,2

135.6
135.0
138.0

138.4
137.6
139.3

140.7
140.0
143.6

COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ............................
Services ..........................................................................

West
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ..............................
Food and beverages ............................................
Housing ................................................
Apparel and upkeep ..............................................
Transportation..........................................
Medical care......................................................
Entertainment ..........................................
Other goods and services ................................

140.7
134.3
146.0
117.9
146.7
134.3
123.8
127.7

142.6
136.8
147.2
116.4
150.8
137.5
127.0
129.1

145.7
138.2
151.2
119.9
154.2
139.5
127.0
131.8

141.4
136,5
146.7
123.8
146.6
133.1
125.0
129.0

144.0
139.4
148.7
122.3
151.9
136.0
126.6
131.4

146.7
141.4
151.8
125.2
154.9
137.5
128.9
133.3

138.4
132.7
142.1
112.0
148.5
134.5
126.3
125.2

141.2
134.8
145.2
112.1
152.6
137.5
126.6
126.8

142.1
136.2
144.a114.9
155.6
139.0
128.9
128.6

139.8
137.3
140.6
129.0
148.0
136.6
133.5
130.4

141.0
140.8
138.3
129.8
154.1
139.6
140.5
131.5

143.6
141.3
142.0
133.7
156.0
140.8
142.1
133.0

135.3
135.7
147.8

137.3
137.6
149.6

139.5
140.1
154.0

137.5
138.0
146.7

140.0
140.3
149.4

142.2
142.6
152.9

135.2
136.2
142.9

137.1
138.0
146.9

139.1
140.2
146.4

137.2
137.1
143.8

139.7
139.3
142.9

141.6
141.6
146.5

COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................
Commodities less food and beverage ..............................
Services ............................................................................


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

83

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
25.

Consumer Price Index

U.S. city average, and selected areas

[1967 =100 unless otherwise specified]

All Urban Consumers
Area1

U.S. city average2 ..............................................................

Anchorage, Alaska (10/67 = 100) ........................................
Atlanta, Ga...........................................................................
Baltimore, Md.......................................................................
Boston. Mass........................................................................
Buffalo, N Y..........................................................................
Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind................................................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.........................................................
Cleveland, O hio..................................................................
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. (Scranton)....................................................

1980

1981

Apr.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

Apr.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

242.5

256.2

258.4

260.5

263.2

265.1

266.8

242.6

256.4

258.7

260.7

263.5

265.2

266.8

265.9

239.3

236,5
235.3

240,1
258.3

258.4
248.8
233.7
240.1

260.3

266.4

255.5
133.9
262.1

244.3
233.1

237.4
240.9

San Francisco-Oakland, Calif.................................................
Seattle-Everett, Wash...........................................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va.......................................................

243.5

244.7
247.0
249.2

250.5
262.0

259.7
266.1

273.5
274.4

268.5

259.4

270.2
243.3
281.5
261.9
261.6

249.4
252.4
253.2

263.3

260.6
252.7

255.9
265.5

253.9
257.6

’ 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

233.3

263.7

239.8

272.0
279.6

248.4
249.6

258.3

258.9

272.4
250.0
286.4
265.4
265.5

248.0
228.4
257,3
242.2
247.8

266.5
255.4

245.7
232.4

261.0
265.7

237.9
242.2

258.4

244.2
249.5
251.1

265.5
237.0
272.1
257.2
262.2

252.3
262.9

242.8

Area is used for New York and Chicago.
2 Average of 85 cities.

264.4

262.7

249,1
255.1
255.5

272.1
276.9

265.5
243.5
277.7
260.1
265.0

263.6

266.5

268,0
250.2
283.1
264.3
269.1

141.7
274,6
262.4
252.7

258.1
266.4

253.7
260.6
259.5

267.3
254,8

261,5
267.3

267.0
259.4
288.0
261.6

262.3
259.4

263.0

285.8

265.0
255.9
282.9
255.7

259.4
255.7

252.7
258.9
267.7

273.9
272.9

138.8
271.9
260.6
247.2

260.7
254.2
275.1
270.3

258.8

2822

135.6
267.5

271.1
262.3

258.1
266.3

266.7
268.2

263.6

268.8
269.3
261.8

249.7

245.2
258.9
236.5

236.2
266.4

262.6
255.7

276.7

268.1
259.3
293.1
2605

264.9
257.2

254.6

140.0
269.9

266.4
255.7
287.7
254.9

268.2

235.0
260.3

257.4
249.2

281.4

137.3
266.2
259.0
247.3

261.9
253.8
279.1

262.6
253.6

259.6

277.3
269.7
236.1
274,8
259.1
258.7

232.0

270.3
262.3
251.4

258.9
264.5

266.5
269.5
271.9

248.2
227.4
260.8
243.8
244.6

241.1
263.0

264.3
256.4
246.5

259.9
262.1

247.3
251.4

Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.............................................................
Pittsburgh, Pa.......................................................................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash............................................................
St. Louis, Mo - II....................................................................
San Diego. Calif....................................................................

Digitized 84
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1981

1980

270.9
267.9
264.2

26.

Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

[1967 = 100]

Commodity grouping

Annual
average

1980

1981

1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.1

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

Finished goods....................................................................

r 247.0

243.4

244.9

249.3

251.4

251.4

255.4

256.2

257.2

'260.4

262.4

265.3

267.7

268.9

Finished consumer goods..............................................
Finished consumer foods ..........................................
Crude ..................................................................
Processed ............................................................
Nondurable goods less foods ....................................
Durable gooes..........................................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy . . . .
Capital equipment ........................................................

'248.9
r 239,5
'237.8
283.9
'206.2
'191.2
'239.8

245.2
231.9
229.1
230.3
284.2
201.9
189.6
236.7

246.8
2330
2245
231.8
285.9
204.1
191.1
237.8

251.7
241.6
240.9
239.7
288.4
207.5
192.8
240.6

254.1
246.5
247.0
244.4
290.0
208.1
193.9
241.9

254.1
247.4
259.8
244.3
290.9
206.2
194.6
241.8

257.0
248,0
237,8
246.9
291,7
214,0
195.6
249.2

257.9
248.9
250.5
246.7
293.9
213.1
196.9
250.2

258.9
249.3
254.8
246.7
296.2
213.5
197.6
250.9

'262.0
'251.2
'257.9
'248.6
'301.3
'214.5
'200.6
'254.5

264.0
250.9
265.0
247.6
307.1
213.9
203.0
256.3

267.3
251.8
279.1
247,3
314.7
213.7
204.5
257.8

269.6
251.5
278.8
247.0
318.8
216.2
206.5
260.5

270.6
252.0
262.3
249.1
319.6
217.7
207.1
262.6

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

'280.3

277.0

278.8

281.6

284.3

285,3

287.7

289.1

291.9

'296.2

297.8

301.4

305.4

306.6

Materials and components for manufacturing..................
Materials for food manufacturing................................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing......................
Materials for durable manufacturing............................
Components for manufacturing ..................................

'265.7
'264.4
259.5
301.0
'231.8

262.5
2553
260.4
294.1
229.0

264.3
259.7
261.0
297.0
2303

265,6
264.4
261.7
297.3
232.4

268.9
277.9
263.4
299.2
235.6

2695
275.8
263.2
300.5
237.0

273.3
295.1
265.0
304.7
238.4

273.9
299.0
266.7
303.8
238.3

275.7
279.6
268.5
304,3
246.3

'279.7
'281.0
'274.1
'307.2
'250.2

279.7
273.8
275.8
305.5
251.7

281.0
267.9
278.7
306.5
253.5

283.9
264.0
283.8
310.2
255.2

285.0
260.3
286.6
311.1
256.0

Materials and components for construction ....................

'268.3

265.2

266.9

269.6

271.4

271.7

272.4

274.0

276.6

'279.3

280.2

282.6

287.7

288.3

Processed fuels and lubricants......................................
Manufacturing industries............................................
Nonmanufacturing industries......................................

'503.0
'425,7
' 570.9

498.2
420.9
565.9

502.0
425.4
569.6

514.2
431.0
586.1

517.4
436.0
588.4

519.5
440.8
588.9

516.2
440.6
583.7

521.3
445.2
589.3

539.4
457.9
611.4

'551.9
'469.5
'624.7

568.3
481.5
644.8

595.8
501.6
678.7

607.0
506.9
695.2

608.7
510.9
695.0

Containers ..................................................................

254.5

254.4

2562

257.0

257.4

257.9

260.1

259.5

260.6

'264.4

268.0

270.6

274.2

276.0

Supplies......................................................................
Manufacturing industries............................................
Nonmanufacturinq industries......................................
Feeds ..................................................................
Other supplies ......................................................

244.5
'231.9
251.1
'229.0
'253.6

240.0
230.5
245.0
207.5
251.9

241.2
232.8
245.7
205.1
253.4

245.3
234.2
251.1
225.2
254.7

247.7
235.4
254.1
234.7
255.8

250.3
236.1
257.6
246.8
256.9

252.3
237.5
259.9
250.3
258.8

255.2
238.7
263.8
259.2
261.3

255.0
239.5
263.0
251.5
262.4

'257.5
'242.4
'265.4
'251.9
'265.3

257.5
244.6
264.3
238.1
267.6

258.6
246.7
265.0
232.2
270.1

262.1
250.3
268.4
239.5
272.4

263.8
251.7
270.1
243.2
2736

Crude materials for further processing..................................

'304.6

289.3

2884

304.3

317.0

319.3

322.8

324.6

323.5

'328.0

335.5

333.0

335.2

333.2

Foodstuffs and feedstuffs..............................................

'259.2

243.0

243.0

263.4

276.8

276.6

279.1

277.3

271.6

'270.7

267.1

262.0

263.4

260.6

Nonfood materials........................................................

'401.0

387.5

384.6

390.8

401.9

409.8

415.4

424.9

433.8

'450.1

481.7

484.8

488.8

488.6

Nonfood materials except fuel....................................
Manufacturing industries ........................................
Construction..........................................................

' 346.1
' 357.4
'237.6

333.3
343.8
232.8

328.9
3389
234.1

333,9
343.9
239.1

344.8
355.4
243.7

351.4
362.6
244.8

355.6
367.1
245.3

363.9
376.1
246.5

373.3
386.5
247.4

'391.0
'405,2
'254.8

428.1
445.7
257.9

430.6
448.2
260.2

432.7
450.4
262.3

428.6
445.7
263.4

Crude fu e l................................................................
Manufacturing industries ........................................
Nonmanufacturing industries ..................................

'615.0
'690.5
'567.0

600.0
670.3
555.9

604.0
675.7
558.8

615.1
690.5
567.1

626,3
705.4
575.5

639.1
722.0
585.4

650.9
738.1
593.8

664.9
755,8
605.2

670.2
762.9
608.9

'677.4
'771,9
614.9

679.0
773.1
616.8

685.2
781.4
621.5

697.2
795.9
631.6

715.3
819.7
645.2

Finished goods excluding foods............................................
Finished consumer goods excluding foods......................
Finished consumer goods less energy............................

'247.8
'250.8
' 218.0

245.6
249.0
213.4

247.3
250.9
214.9

250.2
253.9
219.7

251.4
255.0
221.9

251.1
254.6
221.9

256.2
258.7
225.0

257.0
259.5
225.5

258.2
260.9
226.0

'261.7
'264.2
' 228.1

264.4
267.3
228.9

268.0
271.7
229.8

271.2
275.1
231.3

272.6
276.1
232.1

Intermediate materials less foods and feeds..........................
Intermediate materials less energy ................................

'282,3
'265.3

279.6
261.9

281.5
263.5

283.8
265.5

285.8
268.3

286.6
269.2

288,2
272.2

289,3
273.3

293.5
274.9

'298.0
'278.4

300.4
278.6

304.7
280.0

309.0
283.4

310.5
284.6

Intermediate foods and feeds ..............................................

'252.6

239,7

242.0

251.4

263.7

265.9

280.3

285.7

270.0

'271.1

261.9

256.0

255.6

254.1

Crude materials less agricultural products ............................
Crude materials less energy..........................................

' 446.4
' 256.1

430.2
241.0

428.6
239.0

434.6
256.1

447.1
268.5

454.1
269.9

463.2
272.4

473.8
271.7

482.8
267.5

'504.0
'266.0

543.7
262.6

547.5
259.4

551.9
261.1

552.8
257.9

FINISHED GOODS

•2 3 7 2

INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS

CRUDE MATERIALS

SPECIAL GROUPINGS

1Data for January 1981 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.
r=revised.


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

NOTE: Figures in this table may differ from those previously reported because stage-of-processing
indexes from January 1976 through December 1980 have been revised to reflect 1972 input-output
relationships.

85

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
27.

Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]

Annual
Code

1981

1980

Commodity group and subgroup
1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.'

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

All commodities
All commodities (1957-59 - 100)

r 268.8
r 285.2

264.2
280.3

265.6
281.8

270.4
286.9

273.8
290.5

274.6
291.4

277.8
294.7

279.1
296.1

280.8
297.9

'284.6
'302.0

286.9
304.4

289.6
307.3

292.8
310.7

293.7
311.6

Farm products and processed foods and feeds
Industrial commodities

r 244.7
'274.8

233.8
271.9

234.3
273.5

246.6
276.2

255.1
278.2

256.5
278.8

259.4
282.0

260.5
283.4

257.0
286.6

'258.0
'291.2

254.9
294.8

253.1
298.9

2536
302.8

252.6
304.1

FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9

Farm products ............................................................................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables ........................................
Grains......................................................................................
Livestock ................................................................................
Live poultry..............................................................................
Plant and animal fibers..............................................................
Fluid milk ................................................................................
Eggs........................................................................................
Flay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ....................................................
Other farm products ................................................................

'249.4
'238.6
239.0
252.7
202.1
271.1
271.2
171.0
247.1
'299.0

2335
244.0
219.0
233.3
171.3
272.7
265.4
140.5
206.9
311.0

233.4
233.5
215.3
240.0
166.6
247.0
265.5
146.8
207.4
309.4

254.3
252,0
244.8
260.5
227.2
267.0
265.8
159.3
251.4
292.4

263.8
254.0
256.5
275.7
224.5
280.8
271.6
176,9
261.5
282.7

267.0
266.2
260.6
266.8
241.0
295.2
275.5
188.4
280.7
292.0

263.6
240.9
269.2
263.0
222.9
278.5
280.9
175.2
284.4
285.8

264.9
246.6
270.9
254.8
221.0
287.2
284.7
194,0
298.3
296.6

265.3
245.1
265.2
251.4
218.9
294.1
290.5
217.5
310.2
296.0

' 264.5
' 258.7
277.7
244.3
213.1
284.1
288.4
185.7
311.8
296.1

262,3
270.4
267.5
244.6
220.8
268.4
289.5
184.8
295.0
295.1

260.6
291.6
261.8
239.3
213.5
270.1
289.5
180.4
289.5
295.9

263.2
285.2
264.7
246.6
195.4
274.2
287.2
196.2
296.3
295.9

259.5
273.9
257.7
251.8
207.2
258.3
283.6
165.0
299.0
259.7

02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-7
02-8
02-9

Processed foods and feeds..........................................................
Cereal and bakery products......................................................
Meats, poultry, and fish ............................................................
Dairy products..........................................................................
Processed fruits and vegetables................................................
Sugar and confectionery ..........................................................
Beverages and beveraae materials............................................
Fats and o ils ............................................................................
Miscellaneous processed foods ................................................
Manufactured animal feeds ......................................................

'241.2
'236.0
'243.1
'230.6
'228.7
'322.5
'233,0
226.8
227.2
'226.8

233.1
234.7
224.5
228.5
225.4
327.8
231.2
212.0
223.7
207.2

233.9
233.2
226.6
229.5
227.2
325.4
234.3
212.8
223.4
205.0

241.5
234.7
248.5
230.1
229.8
313.5
234.6
226.9
223.5
223.9

249.4
235.8
259.9
232.6
230.7
347.1
237.1
240,2
224.0
232.4

249.8
238.3
257.8
233.7
231.3
341.4
236.1
238.3
226.8
243.4

256.1
241.5
256.0
238,0
233.8
404.7
239.5
231.0
230.6
246.9

257.2
245.3
250.9
240.2
234.7
409.0
240.6
238.0
235.0
254.5

251.5
248.7
248.1
242.3
236.6
339.8
240.5
234.1
240.5
247.1

'253.4
'251.1
' 248.9
'244.7
' 238.4
'344.6
'243.0
'230.2
244.2
'248,8

250.0
251.7
243.9
245.5
244,1
324.7
242.2
228.3
248.0
235,3

248.1
251.9
242.0
245.5
251.8
302.6
242,8
230.0
249.2
231.5

247.4
253.5
239.2
245.8
258.7
286.0
243.4
232.6
249.9
237.8

248.0
255.1
244.8
245.0
260.1
265.3
245.0
228.6
251.1
241,2

03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03 4
03-81
03-82

Textile products and apparel ........................................................
Synthetic fibers (12/75 - 100)..................................................
Processed yarns and threads (12/75 - 100) ............................
Gray fabrics (12/75 - 100)......................................................
Finished fabrics (12/75 - 100) ................................................
Apparel....................................................................................
Textile housefurnishings............................................................

'183.5
'134.7
'122.5
' 1.38.1
115.7
' 172.4
'206.9

182.0
133.2
124.2
136.5
115.3
170.2
202.6

183.0
134.5
122.8
134.8
115.8
172.7
202.7

184.7
136.0
122.4
135.7
116.6
174.4
210.7

185.6
137.5
123.2
137.5
116.8
175.1
211.0

186.6
139.5
124,3
141.0
117.0
175.0
212.9

188.1
140.2
125.1
143.5
118.3
176.2
213.8

189.6
140,7
125.8
145.0
119.1
176.8
213.8

190.4
140.8
128.2
144.0
120.1
177.5
214.3

'193.0
'146.5
'129.8
' 143.5
'122.2
'179.9
'219.7

193.1
147.8
129.6
143.1
122.2
179.3
225.4

194.5
149.6
133.9
144.0
122.5
180.1
225.4

196.5
151.6
134.6
145.7
124.1
182.1
226.3

198.0
156.7
137.1
146.1
124.7
182.4
231.1

04
04-1
04-2
04-3
04-4

Flides, skins, leather, and related products ....................................
FHides and skins........................................................................
Leather ....................................................................................
Footwear ................................................................................
Other leather and related products............................................

'248.9
370.9
'310.6
'233.1
'218.3

240.7
289.7
290.4
231.9
217.4

240.9
315.7
284.4
231.9
215.9

245.1
356.6
292.2
232.7
217.5

251.3
398.4
314.2
233.7
218.7

247.8
356.1
298.1
235.5
218.8

251.2
381.5
301.9
236.6
221.8

255.4
409.1
317.3
237.5
222.6

256.9
392.8
332.4
236.9
225.3

'258.2
377.8
332.6
'238.4
'230.1

257.4
367.3
310.0
240.8
235.8

262.4
( 2)
322.5
240.5
243.4

264.9
(2)
337.8
241.1
243.5

265.9
<2)
337.0
241.1
249.3

05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7

Fuels and related products and power ..........................................
C oal........................................................................................
Coke ......................................................................................
Gas fuels3 ..............................................................................
Electric power..........................................................................
Crude petroleum4 ....................................................................
Petroleum products, refined5 ....................................................

'574.0
' 467.3
430.6
'760.7
'321.6
'556.4
'674.7

572.1
466.5
430.6
745.1
316,5
540.1
680.9

576.5
466.6
430.6
749.2
326.0
549.0
681.7

585.5
467.5
430.6
762.1
331.1
551.4
693.9

590.6
468.7
430.6
772.6
333.6
566.8
697.6

593.5
471.3
430.6
786.2
338,3
571.3
696.4

592.9
470.7
430.6
802.2
337.4
579.6
690.4

600.2
475.4
430.6
825.5
333.8
600.6
697.6

615.7
475.3
430.1
844.3
337.6
632.8
717,0

'634.6
'477.8
'430.1
'857.1
'341.4
'704.4
' 736.9

663.8
480.8
430.6
858.8
345.4
842.9
767.8

692.2
481.3
430.6
867.6
350.4
843.0
822.4

703.8
486.4
430.6
884.5
355.8
842.6
839.1

706,0
487.7
468.5
906.0
360.7
840.0
835.4

06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06 3
06-4
06-5
06 6
06-7

Chemicals and allied products......................................................
Industrial chemicals6 ................................................................
Prepared paint..........................................................................
Paint materials ........................................................................
Drugs and pharmaceuticals ......................................................
Fats and oils, inedible ..............................................................
Agricultural chemicals and chemical products ............................
Plastic resins and materials ......................................................
Other chemicals and allied products..........................................

'260.3
'324.0
'235.3
'273.9
' 174.5
' 298.0
'257.1
'279.2
'224.5

262.5
328.5
238.8
273.9
172.8
294.7
258.5
288.4
224.8

262.8
329.5
238.8
275.0
174.4
255.8
257.6
287.6
226.9

263.3
328.7
238.8
277.2
175.7
260.0
258.7
285.7
228.5

264.4
330.0
238.8
278.4
176.1
307.6
260.0
281,5
229.0

263.4
327.5
239.3
278.9
176.8
304.5
260.6
276.5
229.1

264.8
330.0
239.3
279.6
178.4
302.0
260.6
276.1
230.9

266.7
332.7
241.4
279.8
181.1
308.2
261.1
276.2
232.4

268.1
334.6
241.4
281.0
182.6
317.1
263.3
274.1
234.1

'274.3
' 344.6
'242.9
'284.0
184.7
'310.7
'267.5
' 274 9
' 244.2

277.2
349.4
246.9
286.4
187.4
289.7
271.3
276.1
246.7

279.4
352.5
246.9
288.3
189.1
295.7
274.8
278.3
247.8

285.8
360.8
248.5
295.2
190.9
312.7
277.3
285.4
256.4

288.2
366.6
250.4
300.1
192.3
312.1
278.6
287.9
255.8

07
07-1
07-11
07 12
07 13
07-2

Rubber and plastic products ........................................................
Rubber and rubber products......................................................
Crude rubber ..........................................................................
Tires and tubes........................................................................
Miscellaneous rubber products..................................................
Plastic products (6/78 - 100) ..................................................

'217.4
'237.5
' 264.3
'236.9
'226.6
'121.1

215.0
234.7
263.9
233.2
224.0
119.9

217.3
236.8
264.1
235.6
226.4
121.4

218.8
239.0
263.4
238.0
229.3
122.0

220.5
240.2
264.3
238.0
232.0
123.2

222.0
242.6
267.3
242.1
232.1
123.7

222.8
244.6
271,7
245.2
232.0
123,6

223.4
245.0
271.0
245.2
233.3
124.0

223.3
244,9
268.5
245.2
234,0
123.9

'224.8
'246.2
'279.1
’ 240.9
'238.5
'125.0

226.5
249.2
280.8
243.1
243.0
125.3

228.8
253.0
280.6
248.2
246.5
125.9

230.9
253.9
279.1
250.3
246.8
127.8

232.0
255.3
282.9
250.8
248.6
128.3

08
08-1
08-2
08-3
084

Lumber and wood products..........................................................
Lumber....................................................................................
Millwork ..................................................................................
Plywood ..................................................................................
Other wood products................................................................

'288.9
' 325.8
' 260.4
' 246.5
239.1

272.1
3014
251.8
230.6
240.7

279.8
313.0
253.0
241.7
238.7

289.2
327,2
255.9
252.8
236.9

296.1
333.7
260,3
266.0
236.2

292.2
328.0
264,5
252.6
236.8

289.0
320.6
264.5
252.9
236.7

293.4
324,9
270.0
256.6
236.6

299.4
333.0
273.3
263.5
236.2

296.6
331.6
273.6
251.1
238.5

294.5
327.8
273.8
248.6
238.1

293.6
324.7
275.7
246.7
239.3

298.1
331.3
276.5
254,4
238.2

297.8
334.9
274.8
248.4
238.1

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES

See footnotes at end of table.

Digitized for
86 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

27.

Continued -P ro d ucer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]

Code

Commodity group and subgroup

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES

Annual
average

1981

1980

1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.1

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

Continued

09
09-1
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2

Pulp, paper, and allied products....................................................
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper and board . . .
Woodpulp................................................................................
Wastepaper ............................................................................
Paper ......................................................................................
Paperboard..............................................................................
Converted paper and paperboard products ................................
Building paper and board..........................................................

'249.2
'250.6
'380.3
' 208.7
'256.8
'234.6
'238.5
'206.2

249.2
250.6
385.6
226.1
256.1
235.5
237.6
206.8

251.1
252.4
387.7
206.6
257.9
238.9
239.8
208.9

251.7
252.9
388.3
194.0
258.2
237.1
241.2
211.8

252.4
253.8
388.3
193,8
258.6
238.4
242.3
210.3

252.8
254.1
388.2
192.5
258.7
239.5
242.7
210.2

254.3
255.6
389.6
193.5
262.1
239.9
243.7
212.7

255.0
256.2
390.2
192.3
264.1
241.7
243.5
216.5

256.7
257.9
390.2
191.5
269,4
239.6
244,7
219.7

'261.3
' 260.9
'390,2
'191.5
'271.7
'251.0
'246.6
'219.7

266.2
264.6
392.6
186.1
273.1
253.2
252.0
225.2

268.4
266.9
392.6
\ 185.1
274.0
255.9
255.1
227.3

270.6
269.1
396.6
184.2
275,5
257.8
257.4
231.9

271.6
270.4
396.6
182.7
276.1
262.3
258.6
236.9

10
10-1
10-13
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8

Metals and metal products ..........................................................
Iron and steel ..........................................................................
Steel mill products....................................................................
Nonferrous metals....................................................................
Metal containers ......................................................................
Hardware ................................................................................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings............................................
Heating equipment....................................................................
Fabricated structural metal products..........................................
Miscellaneous metal products....................................................

'286.4
' 305.2
302.7
'305.0
298.6
'240.5
'246.7
'206.5
'270.5
'250.0

281.8
304.8
305.5
289.7
302.7
238.4
247.5
204.0
269.9
246.7

281.9
303.4
305.8
288.8
302.7
240.5
248.6
205.0
270.1
250.4

282.5
300.6
301.0
292.6
303.0
242.6
249.7
296.2
272.2
251.1

285.1
302.6
301.0
298.4
303.2
243.3
250.4
208.0
273.0
253.2

287.3
304.5
301.0
302.2
303.2
245.9
250.6
208.8
274.1
255.0

291,9
310.5
307.5
309.4
304.4
246.6
250.6
210.6
276.9
256.3

291.1
312.7
309.4
302.1
303.3
249.6
252.3
212.0
278.0
256.9

290.6
316.4
313.7
293.4
303.3
251.7
254.9
214.0
279.3
257.6

'294.1
'322.9
'322.6
'292.8
311.4
'254.5
'256.7
'216.7
283.0
'260,5

293.7
323.0
322.9
286.2
313.8
256.0
259.0
216.1
285.6
264.0

296.1
328.0
328.7
285.5
314.1
256.5
259.2
217.6
289.4
265.7

298.7
330.9
331.8
288.0
314.1
256.4
265.2
218.8
293.5
268.1

299.2
330.6
332.0
287.8
314.1
257.3
265.6
221.7
294.3
270.6

11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-6
11-7
11-9

Machinery and equipment ............................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment........................ ................
Construction machinery and equipment......................................
Metalworking machinery and equipment ....................................
General purpose machinery and equipment................................
Special industry machinery and equipment ................................
Electrical machinery and equipment ..........................................
Miscellaneous machinery..........................................................

'239.8
259.2
'289.4
'274.4
'264.6
'275.8
201.7
'229.9

237.6
256.4
285.9
272.9
262.8
273.0
199.9
227.3

239.2
257.1
287.6
275.4
264.8
274.3
201.6
228.2

241.5
258.6
291.5
278.0
266.1
276.7
203.7
231.1

242.6
259.9
293.4
278.8
267.0
277.1
205.0
232.1

244.7
263.9
295.7
280.2
270.0
283.0
206.0
233.6

246.8
265.4
299.1
282.5
272.5
286.0
207.0
236.5

248.3
271.6
300.1
283.9
274.3
287.7
207.5
238.5

249.8
272.9
301.4
285.7
275.6
290.9
208.9
239.6

'253.2
'276.4
'305.3
'289.6
'278.6
'295,1
211.9
'243.3

254.8
277.2
308.4
291.2
279.9
299.3
213.6
243.7

256.9
278.7
311.3
294.7
281.3
300.9
215.9
245.4

259.2
281.2
314.7
298.1
283.1
303.8
217.8
248.1

260.6
284.4
318.3
299.5
285.3
307.4
218.0
248.4

12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6

Furniture and household durables ................................................
Household furniture..................................................................
Commercial furniture................................................................
Floor coverings ........................................................................
Household appliances ..............................................................
Home electronic equipment ......................................................
Other household durable goods ................................................

'187,7
'204.8
'236.0
163.0
'174.2
'91.4
'278.6

185.4
203.0
233.9
161.9
173.2
92.0
265.6

186.5
204.0
235.5
162.1
175.5
91.8
266.5

188,0
206.5
237.2
163.2
175.8
91.7
271.5

188.9
208.0
237.3
163.8
176.3
91.3
275.9

189.5
208.5
237.8
163.9
177.2
91.6
276.2

190.9
209.8
241.4
164.4
177.5
91.5
281.8

191.5
210.9
242.2
165.5
178.5
91.2
281.2

193.1
212.1
242.4
170.7
179.5
91.0
285.7

'193.9
'212.9
246.1
172.3
'182.2
91.0
'278.9

194,6
212.1
251.2
172.4
182.3
91.7
280.2

195.4
214.4
253.2
174.0
183.0
91.3
277.6

196.4
216.9
254.3
176.2
183.8
91.3
276.2

197.5
217.6
256.9
179.9
184.2
91.0
277.6

13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9

Nonmetallic mineral products........................................................
Fla: glass ................................................................................
Concrete ingredients ................................................................
Concrete products....................................................................
Structural clay products, excluding refractories..........................
Refractories ............................................................................
Asphalt roofing ........................................................................
Gypsum products ....................................................................
Glass containers ......................................................................
Other nonmetallic minerals........................................................

'283.0
196.5
'274.0
273.9
231.5
'264.6
'396.8
256.3
292.7
'394.6

284.0
195.3
272.4
275.2
230.0
264.4
401.1
256.5
294.3
400.7

283.4
193.6
273.2
275.8
230.1
265.8
400.9
257.1
294.3
394.8

284.8
194.3
275.9
275.9
230.1
268.7
413.8
253.1
294.3
396.9

286.0
199.5
278.6
276.0
229.7
270.6
411.2
251.8
294.3
397.1

286.8
199.7
278.9
277.3
230.1
270.6
407.9
251.8
294.6
400.7

288.6
200.7
279.0
277.5
233.3
273.2
408.5
249.5
306.2
402.7

288.7
203.1
279.1
277.7
233.5
273.2
397.1
253.3
306.2
403.3

291.2
203.0
279.7
277.6
233.6
273.2
394.6
252.7
311.4
418.9

'296.6
203.9
'290.0
'286.1
'239.5
'282.6
'394.8
259.6
'311.4
'418,7

297.7
204.3
289.6
286.6
240.4
294.4
389.3
257.3
311.5
424.7

301.2
204.8
291.9
286.9
245.2
297.1
400.7
257.6
311.5
441.7

310.2
208.1
296,4
289,5
245.6
297.3
416.3
256.8
326.0
479.9

311.7
208.1
297.2
290.7
249.6
304.2
412.4
261.1
334.5
477.6

14
14-1
14-4

Transportation equipment (12/68 - 100)......................................
Motor vehicles and equipment ..................................................
Railroad equipment ..................................................................

' 207.0
'208.8
'313.1

202.5
204.5
310.5

203.1
205.2
312.2

206.2
208.6
316.4

208.8
211.7
318.0

204.4
205,6
320.0

217.4
218.2
323.3

217.8
218.6
323.6

224.3
226.2
323.9

'227.4
'228,9
'332.5

228.5
230.2
334.4

228.5
229.9
335.8

231.5
233.2
341.8

233.2
235.3
337.1

15
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-51
15-9

Miscellaneous products................................................................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammunition............................
Tobacco products ....................................................................
Notions....................................................................................
Photographic equipment and supplies ........................................
Mobile homes (12/74 - 100)....................................................
Other miscellaneous products ..................................................

'258.8
' 198.6
'245.7
217.2
'202.9
'150.2
'363.4

251.7
196.0
247.7
217.0
199.6
150.4
340.2

258.0
197.5
248.1
217.0
201.7
150.6
360.2

261.7
200.2
248.2
221.7
201.6
151.2
370.9

260.1
201.3
248.2
223.8
200.9
151.4
364.6

265.1
202.3
248.2
223.9
200.9
151.7
381.9

266.0
202.7
249.4
224.0
200.8
153.2
383.4

263.6
202.8
254.4
224.1
206.7
152.7
367.0

265.3
205.7
254.8
225.0
206.6
153.0
370.5

'264.3
'208,4
'254.8
'227.2
'207.4
' 153.0
'363.3

263.2
209.5
255.3
247.3
209.6
152.5
353.2

262.4
210.4
255.4
247.3
211.1
154.4
346.7

265.5
211.7
268.4
248.4
211.6
155.2
347.8

266.1
212.3
268,4
248.4
212.9
155.3
348.4

1Data for January 1981 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.
3 Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.


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

4 Includes only domestic production.
5 Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month.
6 Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
r=revised.

87

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
28.

Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings

[1967= 100 unless otherwise specified]

Commodity grouping

All commodities less farm products
All foods
Processed foods
Industrial commodities less fu e ls ......................................
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 1 0 0 )...........
Hosiery..............................................................................
Underwear and nightwear.................................................
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 products ...............................................
Copper and copper products ..........................................
Machinery and motive products........................................
Machinery and equipment, except electrical....................
Agricultural machinery, including tra c to rs ........................
Metalworking machinery...................................................
Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 = 100)
Total tractors.....................................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts ...........
Farm and garden tractors less parts ...............................
Agricultural machinery excluding tractors less parts . . . .
Industrial valves................................................................
Industrial fittings................................................................
Abrasive grinding wheels .................................................
Construction materials .....................................................

Annual
average
1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.1

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

r 269.6
r 244.7
246.6
'243.5
' 124.3
'123,2
' 185.4

265.9
237.3
239.0
240.6
122.9
121.5
182.8

267.5
237.7
239.9
242.0
123.7
122.2
187.1

270.9
245.9
247.3
243.9
125.5
123.5
188.3

273.8
254.1
255.7
245.6
126.0
125.9
189.3

274.3
254.3
254.9
246.0
126.6
126.4
189.5

278.1
258.8
261.7
249.6
127.5
126.2
189.7

279.4
259.7
261.9
250.3
128.1
126.7
190.3

281.2
254.3
255.5
252.3
129.3
126.4
190.6

' 285.4
'255.8
'257.0
'255.4
131.8
'129.5
'199.2

288.0
253.9
254.2
256.6
132.7
130.1
201.2

291.1
253.2
252.2
258.2
133.1
130.5
201.6

294.3
251.6
250.5
261.4
134.6
134.1
202.1

295.6
250.3
250.6
262.6
136.3
134.5
202.3

250.7
167.1

252.8
165.9

253.8
167.6

254.2
168.1

254.7
168.4

254.0
168.8

255.4
170.8

257,0
173.7

258,2
174.6

' 264.8
177.1

268.0
179.7

270.2
181.8

276.0
184.0

278.7
185.7

'304.0
'258.5
258.2
'222.0
' 230 4

282.0
254.0
256.8
212.2
227.1

293.5
254.4
258.6
208,5
228.3

306.9
256.2
259.9
214.5
231.0

315.5
259.0
261.2
220.4
232.9

307.4
257.8
262.6
214.1
232.1

302.3
265.7
264.3
216.5
239.2

306.5
265.7
265.2
215.7
240.2

314.2
268.6
266.3
210.8
244.1

309.2
'271.8
'269.9
'207,4
'247,4

305.7
272.2
272.6
205.9
248.8

303.0
273.5
274.7
205.2
250.0

310.1
276.4
277,3
207.5
252.6

310.6
277.7
278.7
207.1
254.2

'263.0
' 267 3
'299.4
225.6
'287.3
'261.2
' 268.8
'266.5
'287.8
291.8
(2)
'266.4

259.6
263.9
296.8
226.9
2829
258.0
264.7
2636
288.4
291.5
261.3
261.8

261.2
264.7
299.7
228,5
284.0
258.7
264,8
265.0
290,1
295.9
261.3
264.2

263.7
266.3
303.3
228.7
288.3
260.8
267.2
265.9
291.1
296.1
261.5
267.0

264,6
268.1
304.5
229.3
291.1
262.2
270.3
266.6
291.3
296.1
261.5
269.6

270.2
272.9
306.5
230.0
295.8
266.5
277.3
269.7
292.4
296.1
261.3
269.3

273.0
274.8
309.6
231.7
298.3
268,3
278.0
272.5
294.6
298.6
263.4
269.9

275.1
280.9
311.2
232.1
299.9
273.7
282.4
279.9
296.0
298.6
273.0
271.9

276.7
281.4
314.1
230.6
301.2
274.3
282.4
280.9
297.8
298.6
273.8
274.1

'277.3
'285.0
318.9
'234.6
'305.8
'278.0
'284,4
'285.7
'300.7
298.6
(2)
276.7

278.9
285.8
320.0
235.4
310.2
279.0
286.4
285 5
302.7
296.0
<2)
277.1

280.9
286.7
323.3
236.1
310.9
280.2
286.8
286.9
306.8
298.8
(2)
279.0

283.5
287.8
325.7
236.1
315.6
281.7
288.5
287.5
310.4
302.7
<2)
283.4

285.5
292.2
327.1
237,7
321.5
285.5
296.8
288.8
311.0
303.0
(2)
284.1

1980

' Data for January 1981 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.

1981

2 Not available,

Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product

[1967 = 100]

Annual
average
1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.1

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

Total durable g o o d s........................................................
Total nondurable goods .................................................

'251.5
'282.4

247.1
277.6

248.7
278.8

251.2
285.6

253.1
290.3

253.7
291.2

258.4
293.0

258.6
2952

261.0
296.3

'262.6
'302.3

263.1
306.0

264.5
310.0

267.4
313.3

268.4
314.1

Total manufactures ........................................................
Durable.....................................................................
Nondurable ..............................................................

'261.5
'250.8
'273.0

258.3
246.7
270.7

259.8
248.5
271.7

263.0
251.0
275.9

265.7
252.7
279.5

265.8
253.1
279.5

269.6
257.8
282.1

270.5
257.9
284.0

272.0
260.4
284.3

'277.1
' 262.1
'293.1

278,7
262.7
295.9

281,8
264.0
301,0

284.8
266.9
304.3

286.0
268.0
305.4

Total raw or slightly processed goods ...........................
Durable.....................................................................
Nondurable ..............................................................

' 305.7
' 278.2
'306.7

292.7
2622
294.0

293.8
249.9
296.1

307.7
255.2
310.6

315.7
265.8
318.4

319.9
274.9
322.2

319.6
282.7
321.3

322.9
285.6
324.6

326.2
284.0
328.2

'322.9
'275.9
' 325.3

328.9
275.7
331.7

329.7
280.8
332.2

333.3
286.2
335.6

332.7
281.0
335.4

Commodity grouping

1980

1981

1Data for January 1981 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.

Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]

1972
SIC
code

Industry description

Annual
average
1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.1

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

152.9
331.2
'466.7
' 643.8
'252.7
136.0

152.6
337.5
466.0
619.6
249.3
136.6

152.6
322.9
466.0
631.5
250.0
136.6

155.8
331.2
466.9
638.0
254.8
136.6

155.8
329.1
467.9
656.7
255.8
136.6

155.8
335.4
470.3
667.6
258.5
136.6

155.8
338.7
469.7
681.8
261.8
137.2

155.8
343.7
474.2
704.6
263.2
132.1

155.8
325.0
473.9
731.7
264.3
133.7

155.8
297.9
'476.1
' 786.5
'270.1
137.1

168.1
324.5
478.3
885.6
271.7
137.1

168.1
335.4
478.8
889.6
274.9
137.1

168.1
354.1
483.9
895.9
277.3
137.1

168.1
347.9
484.9
904.6
277.7
137.1

'244.0
'220.1
191.9
258.5

227.2
193.3
164.7
253.7

230.0
190.9
164.2
255.7

249.1
213,7
214.2
256.3

265.3
233.0
212.1
268.5

257.1
240.0
226.0
265,8

258.0
247.0
211.3
273.2

251.4
249.5
205.9
273,3

249.0
247.4
201.8
274.8

'245.9
'235.8
201.9
'273.6

237.3
232.7
208.3
273.5

236.1
229.9
203.9
273.6

237.7
227.1
186.7
273.4

243.0
230.4
196.2
273.4

1980

1981

MINING
1011
1092
1211
1311
1442
1455

Iron ores (12/75 = 100) ................................................
Mercury ores (12/75 = 100)..........................................
Bituminous coal and lignite ............................................
Crude petroleum and natural gas....................................
Construction sand and gravel ........................................
Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 = 100) ..................................

2011
2013
2016
2021

Meatpacking plants........................................................
Sausages and other prepared meats ..............................
Poultry dressing plants ..................................................
Creamery butter............................................................

MANUFACTURING

See footnote at end of table.

Digitized 88
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

30.

Continued — Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]

1972
SIC
code

Annual

MANUFACTURING

1981

1980

Industry description
1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.1

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

Continued

2022
2024
2033
2034
2041
2044
2048
2061
2063
2067

Cheese, natural and processed (12/72 = 100)
Ice cream and frozen desserts (12/72 = 100)
Canned fruits and vegetables........................
Dehydrated food products (12/73 = 100) . . . .
Flour mills (12/71 = 100) ............................
Rice milling..................................................
Prepared foods, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)............
Raw cane sugar ..........................................
Beet sugar ..................................................
Chewing gum ..............................................

• 204.4

193.3
'221.4
160.2
189.1
243.4
r 124.2
414.1
'358.0
290.7

201.9
192.1
217.3
156.4
182.3
254.5
116.9
456.1
339.9
282.0

202.5
195.2
219.9
156.3
180.8
236.0
116.2
402.4
348.0
282.0

203.4
195.2
222.9
157.7
188.6
225.3
122.2
381.8
342.3
282.4

206.8
195.5
223.4
159.6
193.1
219.9
126.6
484.0
365.5
282.4

208.0
1961
224.3
159.9
196.1
225.9
129.6
458.9
384.5
302.4

213.7
199.5
227.6
162.6
201.5
237.2
129.2
588.2
460.1
322.4

214.9
199.8
231.1
168.6
205.1
265.8
133.3
563.8
512.2
322.9

216.1
207.5
232.0
170.4
199.5
287.2
133.9
402.9
423.3
322.9

'215.9
210.1
'233.3
'174.1
'203.8
289.6
'132.5
418.0
'414.5
323.0

217.4
210.6
238.3
170.1
198.0
289.6
129.7
367.1
403.1
323.0

217.5
210.6
241.7
172.9
195.1
298.0
127.0
318.8
375.0
323.1

218.1
211.4
245.0
174.5
201.5
300.9
128.8
275.7
360.7
323.1

218.0
212.4
246.9
175.3
199.4
300.3
130.2
224.8
351.3
303.1

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 = 100)..................
Macaroni and spaghetti ............................
Cigarettes................................................

192.9
r 244.3
'290.2
249.9
123.0
174.0
'366.9
269.3
233.8
254.6

150.4
212.9
262.9
244.1
118,9
173.1
360.0
273.9
230.5
257.3

155.1
208.6
238.9
244.1
120.5
175.3
361.2
283.1
230.5
257.4

191.3
37.4
274.5
244.1
121,0
175.9
363.7
274.5
230.5
257.4

215.1
256.9
297.4
244.1
127.7
177.5
365.2
274.7
230.5
257.4

232.9
275.2
307.0
244.1
127.7
178.6
355.0
263.9
239.3
257.4

218.7
279.2
311.0
267.4
127.9
180.0
353.8
257.0
243,6
257.8

231.8
290.5
317.2
267.4
128.5
183.1
353.3
252.5
243.6
263.5

228.0
270.5
311.8
267.4
129.2
183.4
353.9
248.5
243.6
263.6

221.2
272.0
310.8
286.1
129.2
' 187.3
'374.9
238.2
243.6
' 263.6

193.7
253.0
287.2
286.1
133.9
186.8
367.2
238.3
243.6
263.9

204.4
253.0
284.2
286.1
133.9
187.6
385.7
238.3
243.6
263.9

218.3
257.7
301.7
286.1
133.9
187.8
394.9
238.5
243.6
278.3

216.6
258.1
304.3
286.1
134.3
187.4
379.7
238.6
246.6
278.3

2121

2131
2211
2221
2251
2254
2257
2261
2262

Cigars ........................................................
Chewing and smoking tobacco......................
Weaving mills, cotton (12/72 = 100) . ........
Weaving mills, synthetic (12/77 = 100) ........
Women's hosiery, except socks (12/75 = 100)
Knit underwear mills ....................................
Circular knit fabric mills (6/76 = 100)............
Finishing plants, cotton (6/76 = 100) ............
Finishing plants, synthetics, silk (6/76 = 100) .

' 158.6
'279.8
'215.8
' 124.8
' 106.3
' 190.1
' 104.6
135.1
113.6

155.3
278.6
212.9
122.4
105.4
187.1
104.4
134.5
111.8

159.8
278.6
212.9
121.2
105.4
190.4
105.0
134.6
112.1

159.9
279.5
217.7
123.0
105.4
192.6
105.4
137.2
113.8

159.9
279.7
219.0
124.9
108.8
192.9
105.7
137.3
114.1

159.9
279.7
221.9
127.7
108.8
194.1
105.8
136.9
115,3

163.7
295.0
223.4
130.7
108.7
194.2
106.7
139.1
117.3

164.0
295.0
224.2
133.0
109.0
194.7
107.1
139.3
117.9

165.1
298.8
225.0
132.5
108.6
195.0
107.5
140.2
120.5

'165.1
'298.7
'227.4
'131.9
109.1
'205.6
'109.3
142.4
'121.7

162.6
310.4
230.2
131.8
109.2
208.6
108.2
144.5
123.0

164.2
310.4
232.3
132.9
109.0
209.4
107.8
144.6
124.2

165.6
320.4
235.2
134.2
114.2
209.7
109.3
146.8
124.8

165.6
320.4
236.3
135.3
114.3
209.9
109.0
147.0
126.4

2272
2281
2282
2284
2298
2311
2321
2322
2323
2327

Tufted carpets and rugs..........................
Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 =100)
Throwing and winding mills (6/76 = 100)
Thread mills (6/76 = 100)......................
Cordage and twine (12/77 = 100)........
Men's and boys’ suits and coats............
Men's and boys’ shirts and nightwear
Men’s and boys’ underwear..................
Men’s and boys' neckwear (12/75 = 100)
Men’s and boys’ separate trousers........

138.1
203.5
'115.5
139.1
123.6
'212.6
'204.4
208.0
112.6
'175.3

137.1
204.5
118.1
143.0
123.8
210.9
203.7
204.3
112.4
,,-,.9

137.4
202.8
115.8
142.9
125.0
211.6
205.1
208.5
112.4
175.1

137.7
202.9
115.0
143.0
125.0
214.9
206.5
211.1
112.4
175.3

138.3
204.3
115,8
143.1
125.0
214.9
206.7
211.2
112.4
175.3

138.3
206.2
117.2
143.1
125.0
214.9
207.7
212.8
112.4
175.3

138.8
207.9
118.2
143.8
127.1
216.2
208.0
212.8
112.4
180.2

140.0
209.9
118.4
143.9
129.2
216.3
208.6
212.8
112.4
180.2

145.7
215.1
120.1
143.9
129.3
216.1
209.5
212.9
115,4
180.3

'148.2
'216.9
'123.2
144.1
129.3
'218.2
'206.3
'224.9
115.4
'185.3

148.2
218.1
121.6
144.3
129.3
219.7
203.9
229.0
115.4
180.4

150.2
220.6
129.5
148.4
130.9
220.4
205.0
230,9
115.4
180.4

152.5
221.0
130.6
150.8
132.7
220.5
205.3
230.9
115.4
185.7

156.0
224.1
134.9
150.9
134.3
220.4
204.9
230.9
115.4
185.8

Women’s and misses' dresses (12/77 = 100)............
Women's and children's underwear (12/72 = 100) . . .
Brassieres and allied garments (12/75 = 100) ..........
Children’s dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100)..........
Dress and work gloves , fabric................................
Canvas and related products (12/77 = 100)..............
Automotive and apparel trimmings (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Sawmills and planing mills (12/71 = 100)..................

'240.5
'110.3
114.7
'154,4
'126,5
' 109.9
268.6
'123.8
122.4
'227.7

241.8
107.6
113.9
153.2
125.4
105.6
271.1
123.4
122.3
209.4

242.6
107.8
114,0
155.0
126.6
108.0
271.1
123.4
122.3
218.1

244.8
111.4
114.0
155.4
127.8
112.7
271.1
123.4
122.3
228.9

244.1
112.6
115.4
156.9
129.0
112.7
271.1
123.4
122.3
234.2

243.9
112.6
115.4
155.4
129.0
112.2
271.1
123.9
122.3
229.0

244.3
114.0
116.3
156.0
129,0
112.7
271.1
125.1
122.3
2232

244.3
114.0
116.3
157.1
129.1
115.1
272.1
125.1
131.0
226.8

244.4
115.4
116.3
158.1
129,1
117.4
272.1
126.1
131.0
233.5

'242.2
' 116.3
'116.5
'165.5
'131.7
' 118.1
284.9
'126.8
131.0
232,4

241.7
114.8
116.7
168.0
133.2
117.7
289.1
127.4
131.0
230.0

241.9
115.1
117.9
168,0
134.5
118,0
289.1
128.4
131.0
228.1

246.2
115.2
118.2
169.5
134.5
119.2
289.1
129.9
131.0
231.9

247.4
115.2
118.7
169.8
134.5
119.4
292.1
130.6
131.0
233.6

2436
2439
2448
2451
2492
2511
2512
2515
2521
2611

Softwood veneer and plywood (12/75 = 100) .
Structural wood members, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)
Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 100)............
Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)..........................
Particleboard (12/75 = 100) ........................
Wood household furniture (12/71 = 100) . . . .
Upholstered household furniture (12/71 = 100)
Mattresses and bedsprmgs............................
Wood office furniture ....................................
Pulp mills (12/73 = 100)..............................

144.6
' 155.6
160.1
' 150.3
'161.5
' 183.8
■163.6
'179.1
'235.2
'240.0

130.3
152.1
162.8
150.5
167.3
182,2
161.1
176.0
2339
243.9

140.5
152.1
159.7
150.7
171.7
183.5
162.5
176.0
234.0
243.9

150.4
152.1
157.1
151.3
168.7
185.1
166.1
180.8
235.5
244.5

160,7
152.2
156.0
151.4
169.4
186.4
166.2
186.4
235.5
244.5

149.6
155.5
154.9
151.8
163.7
187.7
166.2
186.4
235.5
244.4

149.1
156.2
154.6
153.2
159.8
188.1
167.7
186.5
239.7
246.1

152.3
157.0
154.7
152.7
163.6
189.1
168.6
186.5
239.7
246.8

158.2
157.1
154.1
153.1
165.9
190.0
170.5
186.5
240.9
246.8

149.8
157.1
153.8
'153.1
' 163.9
191.2
' 169.8
' 186.3
'244.1
'246.9

147.0
157.0
152.8
152.5
169.1
191.7
167.2
188.2
250.3
249.1

145.3
157.1
152.7
154.5
171.0
193.4
170.0
192.1
253.5
249.1

151.2
158.3
153,0
155.3
179.6
195.3
173.4
194.5
254.6
253.4

145,8
158.2
153.1
155.4
183.2
196.2
173.4
194.5
255.5
253.5

2621
2631
2647
2654
2655
2812
2821
2822
2824
2873

Paper mills, except building (12/74 = 100)................
Paperboard mills (12/74 = 100) ..............................
Sanitary paper products............................................
Sanitary food containers ..........................................
Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100)
Alkalies and chlorine (12/73 = 100)..........................
Plastics materials and resins (6/76 = 100)................
Synthetic rubber ......................................................
Organic fiber, noncellulosic........................................
Nitrogenous fertilizers (12/75 = 100) ........................

' 145.5
' 139.0
'322.0
'216.0
' 150.6
'247.5
' 143.0
’ 255.8
' 132.5
' 124.4

145.8
139.5
319.3
215,5
148.7
246.5
147.3
259.3
131.7
124.5

146.2
141.2
321.2
217.2
150.6
250.0
146.9
259.6
132.8
123.4

146.4
140.3
327,4
218.2
155.2
251.9
146.1
259.8
133.4
122.6

146.7
141.1
331.1
220.3
155.2
257.3
144.4
260.5
134.9
123.7

146.7
141.7
331.1
222.3
155.2
257.2
141.5
260.1
137.1
127.2

148.2
142.3
332.6
222.3
155.5
257.9
141.5
260.9
138.0
130.3

149.2
143.2
334.7
222.3
155.5
265.1
141.5
260.4
138.7
130.0

150.7
142.4
338.2
225.3
155.0
262.3
140.9
262.5
138.9
131.8

152.0
'148.2
'338.3
'232.0
157.7
'276.6
' 142.5
' 275.9
'144.0
135.1

152.8
1494
343.6
236.5
159.7
290.5
143.5
279.5
145.4
137.9

153.5
151,0
344.1
239.1
159.7
292.4
144 4
282.8
148.1
141.6

154.3
152.0
344.2
240.4
159.9
293.6
148.1
286.9
150.8
147.1

154.8
154.1
345.4
240.4
160.9
300.7
149.7
291.9
156.9
148.5

2874
2875
2892
2911
2951
2952
3011

Phosphatic fertilizers ..............................
Fertilizers, mixing only ............................
Explosives ............................................
Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) ............
Paving mixtures and blocks (12/75 = 100)
Asphalt felts and coatings (12/ 75) = 100)
Tires and inner tubes (12/73 = 100) . . . .

'237.3
' 246.9
2697
' 248 6
'171,4
' 173.4
'203.1

236.3
248.5
272.8
2530
172.7
174.8
200.1

235.7
249.0
273.7
253.3
172.6
175.0
202.2

234.8
249.8
273.8
255.9
174.7
180.9
204 1

240.6
249.3
273.4
256,9
175.1
179.8
204.1

240.8
250.2
273.3
256.4
176.0
178.3
207.4

239.3
250.6
273.5
254.6
176.2
178.6
209.9

239.6
252.9
272.9
256.3
176.2
173.5
209.9

245.4
252.2
282.8
261.4
181.5
172.5
210.1

247.5
255.9
' 288 8
'268.3
'183.1
172.4
' 207.0

248.4
267,2
295.3
279.1
185.4
170.0
209.0

250.8
269.1
303.8
298.2
189.1
174.3
213.5

249.0
271.8
324,8
305.7
199.0
180.6
215.2

248.6
273.7
314.5
304.3
198.8
178.7
215.8

2328
2331
2335
2341
2342
2361
2381
2394
2396
2421

Men’s and boys' work clothing ..................................
W o m e n ’s a n d m is s e s ' b lo u s e s a n d w a is t s ( 6 / 7 8 =


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

100)

89

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
30.

Continued— Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
1972

SIC
code

Industry description

Annual
average

1981

1980

1980

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.1

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

183,7
195.2
128.4
158.6
(2)
168.4
218.7
149.7
171.7
325.9

184.0
195.5
128.8
158.3
( 2)
168.4
219.3
158.4
171.7
334.4

3021
3031
3079
3111
3142
3143
3144
3171
3211
3221

Rubber and plastic footwear (12/71 = 1 0 0 ) ....................................
Reclaimed rubber (12/73 - 100) ..................................................
Miscellaneous plastic products (6/78 - 100) ..................................
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) ..............................
Flat glass (12/71 - 100) ..............................................................
Glass containers............................................................................

r 177.9
' 184.7
r 121.7
r 146.6
r 149.1
r 159.8
213.5
137.9
161.3
292.6

173,7
186.5
120.5
137.9
145.4
158.5
213.8
140,8
160.8
294.2

173.8
186.5
122.2
134.6
145.4
158.5
213.8
140.9
158.9
294.2

181.8
186.5
122.7
137.7
151.1
158.5
214.2
140.9
159.5
294.2

181.9
185.9
123.9
147.9
151.1
159.5
214.3
140.0
162.6
294.2

182.0
185,9
124.4
140.0
151.1
161.5
215.2
140.9
162.8
294.2

182.0
184.0
124.2
<2)
153.5
161.6
217.1
140.9
163.8
306.1

182.4
184.1
124.6
149.3
158.2
162.4
217.1
140.9
166.4
306.1

182.3
186,7
124.5
156.6
154.9
162.4
217.1
140.9
166.3
311.4

'182.5
' 190.4
'125.4
157.0
(2)
' 164.6
'217.8
149.5
167.1
311.4

183.7
192.1
125.6
145.5
( 2)
166.4
220.0
149.5
167.5
311.4

184.4
195.1
126.2
151.4
( 2)
167.4
218.8
149.7
168.1
311.4

3241
3251
3253
3255
3259
3261
3262
3263
3269
3271

Cement, hydraulic..........................................................................
Brick and structural clay tile ............................................................
Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 - 100) ......................................
Clay refractories............................................................................
Structural clay products, n.e.c...........................................................
Vitreous plumbing fixtures ..............................................................
Vitreous china food utensils ............................................................
Fine earthenware food utensils........................................................
Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100)............................................
Concrete block and brick................................................................

r 310.8
277.3
122.5
r 273.6
r 202,7
234.8
317.3
r 295.5
152.6
257.3

313.8
278.5
117.6
275.6
204.1
236.1
313.4
293.9
151.5
259.4

313.8
278.5
117.6
275.9
204.4
235.8
318.6
294.7
152.7
259.4

313.3
278.5
117.6
279.2
204.7
237.2
318.3
294.6
152.7
259.5

313.1
277.6
117.6
279.5
205.0
240.4
318.3
294.6
152.7
259.5

312.3
278.5
117.6
279.7
204.8
241.1
318.7
296.4
153.3
260.5

311.8
282.6
120.1
280.2
204.9
241.5
327.4
297.9
155.4
259.4

310.5
282.9
120.1
280.7
205.0
242.6
327.4
297.9
155.5
259.4

310.5
282.9
120.1
280.7
205.1
245.0
327.4
297.9
155.5
259.4

'324.3
'286.6
127.1
'291.5
'209.5
244.7
327.4
'298.6
'155.5
264.1

319.1
287.0
127.1
306.9
213.3
248.9
327.4
298.3
155.4
264.9

321.3
296.2
127.2
309.9
213.5
249.4
328.0
307.6
158.4
263.2

329.0
297.0
127.2
310.3
213.1
252.0
328.2
307.6
158.5
267.3

329.2
298.3
129.6
312.7
224.3
252.5
336.6
309.1
160.5
271.1

3273
3274
3275
3291
3297
3312
3313
3316
3317
3321

Ready-mixed concrete....................................................................
Lime (12/75 - lOW"......................................................................
Gypsum orodjcts ..........................................................................
Abrasive products (12/71 - 100) ..................................................
Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 100)................................................
Blast furnaces and steel mills ........................................................
Electrometallurgical products (12/75 - 100) ..................................
Cold finishing of steel shapes..........................................................
Steel pipes' and tubes ....................................................................
Gray iron foundries (12/68 - 100)..................................................

279.9
r 157.7
256.7
212.6
r 161.1
'310.5
117.7
r 284.0
'290.9
' 282.5

281.5
157.3
257.0
211.8
159.7
313.3
118.6
288.1
286.9
280.5

282.5
157.7
257.5
213.5
161.2
313.5
118.7
238.2
290.4
282.5

282.6
159.6
253.5
215.2
162.8
308.6
117.1
282.2
292.4
283.0

282.6
160.2
252.3
215.7
164.9
308.5
117.1
282.3
2926
283.2

283.6
158.8
252.2
217.1
164.8
308.6
117.2
282.3
292.6
283.3

282.7
160.8
250.0
218.8
167.8
314.8
117.3
288.1
294.2
289.7

282.8
160.8
253,6
220.2
167.5
316.6
117.3
288.8
302,4
290.1

282.9
161.8
253.1
220.6
167.6
320.7
117.3
293.3
308.4
290.7

'294.8
'165.7
259.9
222.7
172.4
328.7
119.9
302.8
'315.5
'293.4

295.4
171.9
257.6
226.9
177.5
328.9
119.9
303.1
315.7
293.0

296.1
172.8
257.9
229.7
179.0
334.0
120.0
306.1
326.2
293.0

298.6
172.4
257.1
232.0
178.9
336.6
120.8
308.3
333.1
296.9

299.5
172.4
261.4
233.0
185.9
337.6
120.6
308.3
334.2
298.3

3333
3334
3351
3353
3354
3355
3411
3425
3431
3465

Primary zin c..................................................................................
Primary aluminum..........................................................................
Copper rolling and drawing ............................................................
Aluminum sheet plate and foil (12/75 - 100)..................................
Aluminum extruded products (12/75 - 100)....................................
Aluminum rolling, drawing, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100) ..............................
Metal cans....................................................................................
Hand saws and saw blades (12/72 - 100) ....................................
Metal sanitary ware........................................................................
Automotive stampings (12/75 = 100) ............................................

'270.5
'297.9
'227.5
158,2
167,7
146.2
291.6
'182.1
248.3
'136,9

268.2
287.0
222.8
157.6
167.7
145.2
295.2
181.5
249.7
133.8

268.6
290.1
220.2
157.8
167.7
146.7
294.9
181,9
249,9
137.8

255.9
312.1
222.8
158.2
168.3
147.4
295.6
183.5
250.9
137.8

255,9
312.2
226.2
157.6
168.4
147.6
295.9
185.4
251.4
139,8

264.0
313.0
220.2
157.6
168.2
147.5
296.1
185.8
251.4
140.1

269.9
325.6
222.0
161.5
173.2
150.7
297.9
186.8
251.5
140.2

282.0
328.5
222.9
163.3
176.3
151.2
297.2
187.2
252.2
140.9

288,7
328.0
222.8
165.1
176.4
151.1
297.3
190.5
253.8
141.2

'289.7
'331.1
'221.6
169.3
176.8
'155.3
302.1
'195.4
'256.0
'143.0

296.3
334.9
215.4
170.7
177.1
157.5
303.0
195.1
256.3
144.1

296.0
334.8
212.0
172.1
177.3
157.5
304.7
197.6
256.6
144.5

308.0
334.6
212.1
173.9
180.6
157.5
304.7
197.8
262.9
145.2

321.6
336.0
211.9
174.4
180.7
157.5
304.7
199.8
263.7
145.3

3482
3493
3494
3498
3519
3531
3532
3533
3534
3542

Small arms ammunition (12/75 - 100) ..........................................
Steel springs, except wire ..............................................................
Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 - 100)............................................
Fabricated pipe and fittings ............................................................
Internal combustion engines, n.e.c.....................................................
Construction machinery (12/76 - 100) ..........................................
Mining machinery (12/72 - 100)....................................................
Oilfield machinery and equipment....................................................
Elevators and moving stairways......................................................
Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 - 100) ..........................

'145.6
'230.3
'230.0
315.5
'275.4
'141.1
'258.5
'338.1
'239.3
'279.5

141.4
229.2
229.9
313.1
271.6
139,5
257.3
333.1
234.1
275.1

144.6
230.3
231.8
313.8
271.7
140.3
258.2
337.4
242.8
279.2

145.1
230.3
232.5
317.2
276.8
141.8
259.4
342.6
244.2
284.3

147.3
230.8
232.7
317.2
278.6
142.7
262.0
345.7
243.8
285.3

145.3
231.9
233.3
319.9
283.2
143.8
264.1
347.3
246.4
285.6

145.8
233.0
235.8
325.0
285.2
146.0
266.0
352.9
248.3
286.8

146.3
233.3
236.9
329.9
289.1
146.6
268.0
358.4
248.8
287.4

160.9
234.3
238.3
329.9
289.9
147.5
270.0
360.9
249.5
292.0

'157.9
'238.4
'240.2
335,7
'298.2
'149.7
' 272.4
366.5
250.3
'297.5

163.2
239.0
240.8
335.7
294,2
150.4
273.5
373.7
250.3
298.5

163.2
239.4
243.4
338.5
298.5
151.5
275.7
375.8
250.3
301.8

163.2
240.6
245.9
358,8
304.2
154.3
279.1
380.7
251.1
302.9

163.2
241.6
246.5
359.9
304.2
155.0
279.6
382.8
251.2
304.4

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 laboratory ......................................
Carburetors, pistons, rings, valves (6/76 - 100)..............................
Transformers ................................................................................
Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 = 100)......................................
Household cooking equipment (12/75 - 100)..................................
Household refrigerators, freezers (6/76 = 100) ..............................
Household laundry equipment (12/73 - 100)..................................

'132.2
216.6
'212,5
'215.0
'156.6
'184.9
' 209.9
'133.1
'121.4
162.0

131.2
213.6
212.1
208.2
153.0
181.5
209.2
133.1
119.4
161.7

131.1
217.0
213.7
208.6
153.5
182.9
211.0
134.7
122.0
162.3

133.5
221.7
215.9
215.4
158.6
186.0
212.1
134.9
122.2
161.2

134.5
222,1
216.0
226.2
159.3
190.6
212.1
134.4
122.2
163.6

135.3
222.3
216.0
226.2
160.1
190.7
211.7
134.7
123.3
165.5

136.6
223.8
217.0
226.3
164.9
193.9
214.4
134.8
124.1
166.1

136.7
224.5
217.7
226.9
165.2
193.0
214.9
135.8
125,1
166.6

137.9
226.0
221.5
217.9
167.6
193.3
215.8
137.5
125.1
167.4

'142.0
'231.0
'222.5
219.8
'168,9
'194,9
'218.9
140.1
'127.5
169.7

143.9
233.7
223.1
221.1
170.6
197.0
220.0
140.8
126.1
170.1

144.8
236.6
225.0
224.2
170.8
204.4
221.1
140.9
126.2
170.9

146.4
241.0
225.8
225.9
171.9
206.2
223.8
140.3
128.1
171.1

147.0
241.1
225.7
230.2
171.9
207.9
225.4
140,5
128,1
173.8

3635
3636
3641
3644
3646
3648
3671
3674
3675
3676

Household vacuum cleaners ..........................................................
Sewing machines (12/75 - 100)....................................................
Electric lamps................................................................................
Noncurrent-carrying wiring devices (12/72 = 100) ..........................
Commercial lighting fixtures (12/75 - 100) ....................................
Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100) ........................................
Electron tubes receiving type.........................................................
Semiconductors and related devices ..............................................
Electronic capacitors (12/75 - 100) ..............................................
Electronic resistors (12/75 - 100)..................................................

'154.4
r 129.1
'260.3
'219.7
139.3
139.9
251.8
'90.7
'162.7
' 134.2

149.3
129.2
251.3
218.2
138.5
140.2
254.7
91,2
160.7
133.0

155.8
129.2
258.1
220.4
139.2
140.7
255.2
92.0
160.5
135.2

158.4
130.0
266.3
220,3
139.2
140.7
255,5
92,1
168.6
135.3

158.5
130.0
268,1
220.7
140.4
140.9
255.6
91.8
172.6
136.3

158.6
130.0
269.2
220.9
142.3
143.2
255.7
92.0
174,0
136.9

158.8
130.3
268.7
221.8
142.8
143.3
264,6
91.8
170.1
137.7

158.8
130.3
270.2
223.7
143.1
144.7
264.8
91.2
170.2
137.8

159.1
130.3
266.2
229.2
144.7
145.0
272.7
91.6
170.3
137.8

'159.1
' 130.3
'265.8
'233.1
'145.1
146.3
284.3
'91.1
170,3
' 138.2

149.9
129.7
271.2
238.5
148.5
146.8
284.5
90.8
170.6
138.8

151.8
131.3
272.6
242.9
151.9
152.7
285.1
91.7
172.5
139.5

151.8
131.2
275.5
244.9
156.6
153.2
285.1
91.7
171.4
139.7

151.9
153.1
275.2
245.2
156.7
153.3
285.2
91.2
171,0
140.9

3678
3692
3711
3942
3944
3955
3995
3996

Electronic connectors (12/75 - 100)..............................................
Primary batteries, dry and w e t........................................................
Motor vehicles and car bodies (12/75 - 100)..................................
Dolls (12/75 - 100)......................................................................
Games, toys, and children's vehicles ..............................................
Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 = 100) ..............................
Burial caskets (6/76
100) ..........................................................
Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 - 100)....................................

'148.1
176.5
'136.7
'127.4
'205.2
' 132.8
131.2
143.7

146.8
176.4
134.5
128.4
205.3
133.3
130.3
143.3

148.7
176.4
134.6
128.4
205.9
136.4
132.2
143.3

148.9
176.4
137.3
128.4
206.0
135.0
132.2
146.1

149.1
176.7
137.9
128.4
206.0
135.0
132,2
146.6

149.6
176.8
131.4
128.4
206.6
135.0
132.9
146.6

149.7
176.9
144.5
128.3
207.0
135.0
132.9
146.6

149.7
177.0
144.6
128.3
207.0
135.0
132.9
146.6

149.7
176.9
144.0
128.3
207.1
135.0
135.0
146.6

'152.2
179.0
'145.3
' 130.7
'213.9
' 133.0
135.0
148.6

153.7
183.3
145.1
129.1
214.7
136.4
135.0
148.6

154.1
184.2
144.7
129.1
217.2
136.5
138.1
148.7

153.8
184.2
147.7
130.6
219.2
136.9
138.1
151.5

152.9
182.5
148.9
130.6
219.8
136.9
138.3
151.5

’ Data for January 1981 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
90
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2Not available,
r=revised.

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.

The use of the term “ m an-hours” to identify the labor com ponent
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
payroll w orkers, self-em ployed persons, and unpaid family workers.

Output per all-employee hour is now used to describe labor productiv­

Definitions

ity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed.

Output is the con stant dollar gross dom estic product produced in a
given period. Indexes of output per hour of labor input, or labor pro­
ductivity, m easure th e value of goods and services produced per hour

Notes on the data

of labor. Compensation per hour includes wages and salaries of em ­
ployees plus em ployers’ contributions for social insurance and private
benefit plans. The d ata also include an estim ate of wages, salaries, and
supplem entary

paym ents for the self-em ployed, except for nonfi-

nancial co rporations, in which there are no self-em ployed. Real com­

pensation per hour is com pensation

per

hour adjusted

by

the

C onsum er Price Index for All U rban C onsum ers.

Unit labor cost m easures the labor com pensation cost required to
produce one unit of o u tput and is derived by dividing com pensation
by o u tp u t. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, in­
terest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. T hey are com puted by
su b tractin g com pensation of all persons from the current dollar gross
dom estic pro d u ct an d dividing by output. In these tables, Unit

nonlabor costs contain all the com ponents of unit nonlabor paym ents
except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits and invento­
ry valuation ad ju stm en ts per unit of output.
T he implicit price deflator is derived by dividing the current dollar
estim ate of gross pro d u ct by the constant dollar estim ate, m aking the
deflator, in effect, a price index for gross product of the sector reported.

31.

In the private business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the
basis for the o u tput m easure em ployed in the com putation of outp u t
per hour is G ross D om estic P roduct rather than G ross N ational
P roduct. C om putation of hours includes estim ates of nonfarm and
farm proprietor hours.
O utput data are supplied by the Bureau of E conom ic Analysis, U.S.
D epartm ent of Com m erce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Q uarterly
m anufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of L abor
Statistics to annual estim ates of o u tp u t (gross product originating)
from the Bureau of E conom ic Analysis. C om pensation and hours data
are from the Bureau of Econom ic A nalysis and the Bureau of L abor
Statistics.
Beginning w ith the Septem ber 1976 issue of the R ev ie w , tables 3 1 34 were revised to reflect changeover to the new series— private busi­
ness sector and nonfarm business se cto r— which differ from the
previously published total private econom y and nonfarm sector in
th at o u tput im puted for ow ner-occupied dwellings and the household
and institutions sectors, as well as the statistical discrepancy, are
om itted. F o r a detailed explanation, see J. R. N orsw orthy an d L. J.
Fulco, “ New sector definitions for productivity series,” M o n th ly L a b o r
R ev ie w , O ctober 1976, pages 40—42.

Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1950-80

[1977 = 100]

Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor co s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
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 hour............................
Unit labor co s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor co s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
' Not available.


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

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

50.3
20.0
50.4
39.8
43.5
41.0

58.2
263
59.6
45.2
47.8
46.1

65.1
33.9
69.4
52.1
50.8
51.7

78.2
41.7
80.0
53,3
57.8
54.8

86.1
58.2
90.8
67.6
63.4
66.2

94.8
71.3
97.3
75.2
75.6
75.3

92.7
78.0
95.9
84.2
78.9
82.4

94.8
85.5
96.3
90.2
90.7
90.4

97.9
92.9
98.8
94.8
94.4
94.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100,0
100.0
100.0

99.8
108.4
100.7
108.6
105.1
107.4

99.4
119.2
99.5
119.9
110.9
116.9

r 99.1
131.1
96.4
r 132.3
r 118.4
127.6

56.2
21.8
55.0
38.8
42.8
40.2

62.7
28.3
63.9
45.1
47.9
46.0

68.2
35.6
73.0
52.3
50.5
51.7

80.4
42.8
82.2
53.2
58.2
54.9

86.7
58.6
91.5
67.6
64.0
66.4

95.3
71.7
97.7
75.2
71.9
74.1

93.1
78.4
96.4
84.3
76.1
81.6

95.0
86.0
96,8
90.5
88.9
89.9

98.1
93.0
99.0
94.8
94.0
94.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

99.8
108.5
100.7
108.7
103,6
107.0

99.0
118.8
99.2
120.0
108.5
116.2

'98.6
'130.5
'96.0
132.4
' 117.6
127.4

(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
<’ )
(’ )

(’)

(’ )
(’ )
(’ >

66.3
36.3
74.2
54.7
54.6
54.7

79.9
43.0
82.6
53.8
60.8
56.2

85.4
58.3
91.0
68.3
63.1
66.5

94.5
70.8
96.5
74.9
70.7
73.4

91.3
77.6
95.4
85.1
75.7
81.8

94.4
85.5
96.3
90.6
90.9
90.7

97.4
92.5
98,5
95.0
95.0
95.0

100.0
100.0
100,0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.4
108.2
100.5
107.8
103.8
106.4

100.3
118.6
990
118.2
108.3
114.8

'100.8
130.4
95.9
'129.4
'117.3
125.2

49,5
21.5
54.1
43.4
55.1
46.8

56.5
28.8
65.2
51.0
59.4
53.4

60.1
36.7
75.1
61.1
62.0
61.3

74.6
42.9
82.3
57.4
70.3
61.2

79.2
57.6
89.9
72.7
66.0
70.7

93.1
69.1
94.2
74.2
71.6
73.4

90.9
76.4
93.9
84.1
70.4
80.1

93.5
85.5
96.3
91.4
88.5
90.6

97.7
92.4
98.3
94.6
95.1
94.7

100.0
100,0
100.0
100,0
100.0
100.0

100.9
108.2
100.5
107.3
104.7
106.5

101.9
118.7
99.1
116.5
105.7
113.4

101.4
131.2
96.5
'129.4

(')
(M

(’ )
(')

r = revised.

91

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity
32.

Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1970-80

Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ...............................
Compensation per hour ..........................................
Real compensation per hour....................................
Unit labor cost..........................................................
Unit nonlabor payments...........................................
Implicit price deflator ...............................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ...............................
Compensation per hour ..........................................
Real compensation per hour....................................
Unit labor cost..........................................................
Unit nonlabor payments..........................................
Implicit price deflator ...............................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees...........................
Compensation per hour ..........................................
Real compensation per hour....................................
Unit labor cost..........................................................
Unit nonlabor payments..........................................
Implicit price deflator ...............................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ...............................
Compensation per hour ..........................................
Real compensation per hour....................................
Unit labor cost..........................................................
Unit nonlabor payments..........................................
Implicit price deflator ...............................................

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

0,9
' 7.4
1.4
6.4
0.7
4.5

3.6
6.6
2.2
2.9
7.6
4,4

3.5
6.5
3.1
2.9
4.5
3.4

2.7
8.0
1.7
5.2
5.9
5.4

-2.3
9.4
-1.4
11.9
4.4
9.4

2.3
9.6
0.4
7.2
15.0
9.7

3.3
8.6
2.7
5.1
4.1
4.7

2.1
7.7
1.2
5.5
5.9
5.6

-0.2
8.4
0.7
8.6
5.1
7.4

-0,4
9.9
-1.2
10.4
5.5
8.8

' -0.3
10.0
-3.1
r 10.3
'6.8
9.2

2.5
6.0
2.4
3.5
3.2
3.4

2.2
7.1
1.9
4.8
4.4
4.7

0.3
7.0
1.0
6.6
1.1
4.8

3.3
6.6
2.2
3.1
7.4
4.5

3.7
6.7
3.3
2.8
3.2
3.0

2.5
7.6
1.3
4.9
1.3
3.7

-2.4
9.4
-1.4
12.1
5.9
10.1

2.1
9.6
0.4
7.4
16.7
10.3

3.2
8.1
2.2
4.7
5.7
5.1

2.0
7.6
1.0
5.5
6.4
5.8

-0.2
8.5
0.7
8.7
3.6
7.0

-0.8
9.6
-1.5
10.4
4,8
8.6

' -0.4
'9.8
-3.3
'10.3
'8.3
'9.7

2.1
5.7
2.1
3.5
3.1
3.4

1.9
6.8
1,6
4.8
4.2
4.6

0.4
6.8
0.8
6.3
0.5
4.4

48
6.5
2.1
1.6
7.4
3.5

3.0
5.8
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.8

2.6
7.7
1.4
4.9
1.5
3.8

-3.4
9.7
-1.1
13.6
7.1
11.4

3.4
10.1
0.9
6.5
20.1
10.9

3.2
8.2
2,3
4.9
4.6
4,8

2.7
8.1
1.5
5.3
5.2
5.2

0.4
8.2
0.5
7.8
3.8
6.4

-0.1
9.6
-1.5
9.7
4.4
7.9

'0.5
'10.0
' -3.1
'9.5
'8 3
9.1

-0.2
6.8
0.8
7.0
-2.5
4.3

6.1
6.1
1.8
0.0
11.2
3.1

5.0
5.4
2.0
0.3
0.8
0.5

5.4
7.2
0.9
1.7
-3.3
0.3

-2.4
10.6
-0.3
13.3
-1.8
9.0

2.9
11.9
2.5
8.8
25.9
13.1

4.4
8.0
2.1
3.4
7.4
4.6

2.4
8.3
1.7
5.7
5.2
5.6

0.9
8.2
0.5
7.3
4.7
6.5

1.0
9.7
-1.4
8.6
0.9
6.4

0.5
10.5
-2.7
11.0
(' )

1 Not available.

33.

Annual rate
of change

Year

Item

1950-80

1960-80

(’>

2.0
6.7
1.5
4.6
3.8
4.3

( 1)

'2.4
5.6
2.0
3.1
4.6
4.5

2.4
6.7
1.5
4.2
8.3
7.6

(’ )

n
n
( 1)

n

r = revised.

Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted

[1977 = 100 ]

Item

Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ...............................
Compensation per hour ..........................................
Real compensation per hour....................................
Unit labor cost..........................................................
Unit nonlabor payments..........................................
Implicit price deflator ...............................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ...............................
Compensation per hour ..........................................
Real compensation per hour....................................
Unit labor cost..........................................................
Unit nonlabor payments..........................................
Implicit price deflator ...............................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees...........................
Compensation per hour ..........................................
Real compensation per hour....................................
Total unit costs ........................................................
Unit labor cost .................................................
Unit nonlabor costs..........................................
Unit profits ..............................................................
Implicit price deflator ........................ ......................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ...............................
Compensation per hour ..........................................
Real compensation per hour....................................
Unit labor cost..........................................................
1 Not available

Digitized 92
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Quarterly indexes

Annual
average

1978

1980

1979

1981

1979

1980

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

99.4
119.2
99.5
119.9
110.9
116.9

r 99.1
131.1
96.4
r 132.3
'118.4
127,6

100,0
109.4
100.5
109.4
106.7
108.5

99,9
111.9
'100.3
112.1
109.1
111.1

99.7
115.0
' 100.6
115.4
109.6
113.4

99.6
118.0
' 100 3
118.5
110.4
115.8

99.2
120.5
99.0
121.4
111.5
118.1

99.0
123.0
'97.8
124.2
112.3
120.2

99.3
126.0
96.5
127.0
115.3
123.0

98.8
129.7
'96.3
131.3
116,0
126.1

99.2
132.8
96.7
133.9
119.8
129.1

'98.9
135,5
'95.7
'137.0
'122.8
132.2

P95.7
p 139.5
p 125.2
p 134.7

99.0
118.8
99.2
120.0
108.5
116.2

' 98.6
' 130.5
'96.0
132.4
'117.6
127.4

99.9
109.4
100.5
109.5
105.1
108.0

99.8
111.9
' 100.3
112.2
107.0
110.5

99.5
114.9
100.4
115.4
107.1
112.6

99.1
117.6
'99,9
118.7
107.7
115.1

98.7
119.9
98,6
121.5
109.3
117.4

98.6
122.7
'97.6
124.4
110.2
119.7

98.6
125.6
96.2
127.4
114.0
122.9

97.9
129.0
95.7
131.8
115.2
126.3

98.8
131.9
96.1
133.5
119.2
128.8

'98.7
135.0
'95.4
'136.8
'122.1
131.9

p 99.6
P438.6
p 95.3
p 139.2
p 125.2
p 134.5

100.3
118.6
99.0
116.8
118.2
112.7
99.0
114.8

'100.8
130.4
95.9
' 129.7
'129.4
'130.2
'90.2
125.2

100.4
109.2
100.2
107.6
108.7
104.4
105.9
107.4

100,5
111.5
'99.9
109.6
111.0
106.0
108.9
109.6

100.6
114.5
100.1
112.2
113.8
107.8
105.6
111.5

100.6
117.5
'99.8
115.3
116.8
111.2
100.7
113.7

100.3
119.8
98.5
118.2
119.5
114.6
97.5
115.9

99.7
122.4
'97.3
121.3
122 8
117.2
92.2
118.1

100.0
125.3
95,9
124.2
125.4
120.9
95.5
121.0

99.8
128.9
'95.7
129.2
129.1
129.3
83.4
124.1

101.5
132.1
'96.2
131.1
130.2
133 8
89.1
126.4

p 101.5
0135.1
p95.4
p 134.1
p 133,1
p 136.9
P92.4
p 129.5

(’)

101.9
118.7
99,1
116.5

101.4
131.2
96,5
'129.4

101.7
109.1
100.2
107.3

102.0
111.5
' 100.0
109.3

101.4
114.5
' 100.2
112.9

102.3
118.5
' 100.7
115.9

101.9
119.7
98.4
117.5

101.9
122.0
'97.0
119.8

'102.0
125.0
95.7
'122.5

' 100.7
129.6
'96.2
'128.7

' 100.3
133.5
'97.2
'133.1

103,0
136.8
'96.7
132.8

r = revised.

I

P99.8
p 139.2

(’ )
(’ )

C)
(’ )
V )

(’ )
(’ >
p 103.5
p 140.3

°96,5
p 135.6

34. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,
seasonally adjusted at annual rate
[1977 = 100]

Percent change from same quarter a year ago

Quarterly percent change at annual rate
Item

Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
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 hour........................
Unit labor co st............................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfinanclal corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Total unit costs ..........................................
Unit labor costs ......................................
Unit nonlabor costs..................................
Unit profits..................................................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor c o s t............................................
' Not available.


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

I 1980
to
II 1980

II 1980
to
III 1980

III 1980
to
IV 1980

IV 1980
to
I 1981

IV 1978
to
IV 1979

I 1979
to
I 1980

II 1979
to
II 1980

III 1979
to
III 1980

IV 1979
to
IV 1980

IV 1980
to
I 1981

Ill 1979
to
IV 1979

IV 1979
to
I 1980

-1.1
8.6
' -4.9
9.8
2.6
7.4

1.3
10.4
' -5.2
9.0
11.3
9.7

-1.9
12.2
' -0.8
14.4
2.6
10.5

1.5
9.7
' 1.8
8.1
13.6
9.8

' -1.2
8.4
-4.0
'9.7
'10.3
9.9

'3.9
'11.5
'0.1
'7.4
'8.2
'7.6

-0.9
9.9
-2.5
10.9
2.9
8.2

-0.4
9.6
' —4.1
10.0
5.2
8.4

-0.8
9.9
' -4.0
10.8
5.1
9.0

0.0
10.2
-2.3
10.3
7.4
9.4

'-0 .1
10.2
' -2.1
' 10.3
'9.4
10.0

»0.5
p 10.5
p -0.7
»9.9
»8.6
»9.5

-0.3
9.6
-4.0
9.9
3.3
7.8

0.0
9.9
' -5.7
9.9
14.6
11.3

-3.0
11.2
' -1.7
14.6
4.2
11.3

3.8
9.3
'1.4
5.3
14.9
8.2

' -0.4
9.6
'- 2 .9
'10.1
'10.0
10.0

'3.6
'11.3
'-0 .1
'7.5
'10.5
'8.4

-1.1
9.6
-2.7
10.9
3.0
8.3

-0.9
9.4
'- 4 .3
10.4
6.4
9.1

-1.2
9.7
'- 4 .2
11.0
6.9
9.7

0.1
10.0
'-2 .5
9.9
9.1
9.6

'-0 .1
10.0
'- 2 .3
'9.9
'10.8
10.2

p1.0
p 10.3
» -0.8
»9.3
»9.8
»9.5

-2.4
8.9
r -4.6
11.0
11.6
9.3
-20.2
7,8

1.2
9.8
' -5.7
9.8
8.6
13.5
15.3
10.3

-0.5
12.0
'- 1 .0
17.0
12.6
30.6
-41.9
10.5

6.9
10.3
'2.3
6.2
3.2
14.7
30.3
7.9

p -0.1
p9.2
p -3.2
p9.4
°9.4
p9.5
p 15.7
»9.9

( 1)
(’ )
(M
(’ )
<M
(’ )
n
n

-0.8
9.8
-2.6
10.7
10.7
10.6
-15.4
7.8

-0.6
9.5
' -4.2
10.6
10.1
12.2
-9.5
8.5

-0.7
9.7
-4.1
12.0
10.5
16.3
-17.2
9.1

1.2
10.3
'- 2 .3
11.0
8.9
16.8
-8.6
9.1

p1.8
»10.3
p -2.0
p 10 5
p8.4
p 16.8
»0.3
»9.6

( 1)
n
( 1)
( 1)
C)
(’ )
( 1)
( 1)

0.1
8.1
' -5.4
8.0

'0.6
10.1
' -5.6
r9.5

' -5.2
15.5
'2.1
'21.9

' -1.5
12.7
'4.6
'-14.5

'11.4
'10.2
'- 2 .4
' —1.1

»1.6
p10.6
p-0.8
»8.8

-0.1
9.4
-2.9
9.6

'- 0 .6
9.1
' -4.5
'8.5

' -1.6
9.3
-4.5
11.0

' -1.5
11.6
' -1.2
'13.3

1.1
12.1
'- 0 .4
10.8

»1.4
» 12.2
»0.8
»10.7

r

revised.

93

LABOR-MANAGEMENT DATA

M ajo r
c o l l e c t iv e
b a r g a in in 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 urrent Wage D evelopm ents, 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
D ata on wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry agree­
m ents covering 1,000 w orkers or m ore. D ata on wage and benefit
changes c o m b in e d apply only to those agreem ents covering 5,000
w orkers or m ore. First-year wage settlements refer to pay changes go­
ing into effect within the first 12 m onths after the effective date of

35.

the agreem ent. Changes over the life of the agreement refer to total
agreed upon settlem ents (exclusive of potential cost-of-living escalator
adjustm ents) expressed at an average annual rate. Wage-rate changes
are expressed as a percent of straight-tim e hourly earnings, while wage
and benefit changes are expressed as a percent of total com pensation.

Effective wage-rate adjustments going into effect in m ajor
bargaining units m easure changes actually placed into effect during the
reference period, w hether the result of a newly negotiated increase, a
deferred increase negotiated in an earlier year, or as a result of a costof-living escalator adjustm ent. A verage adjustm ents are affected by
w orkers receiving no adjustm ent, as well as by those receiving in­
creases or decreases.
Work stoppages include all know n strikes or lockouts involving six
w orkers or m ore and lasting a full shift or longer. D ata cover all
w orkers idle one shift or m ore in establishm ents directly involved in a
stoppage. They do not m easure the indirect or secondary effect on
o ther establishm ents whose em ployees are idle owing to m aterial or
service shortages.

Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1976 to date

[In percent]

Quarterly average

Annual average
Sector and measure
1977

1978

1979

1981 p

1980

1979
1976

1980
II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

I

Wage and benefit settlements, all Industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract......................

8.5
6.6

9.6
6.2

8.3
6.3

9.0
6.6

10.4
7.1

10.5
7.8

9.0
6.1

8.5
6.0

8.8
6.7

10.2
7.4

11.4
7.2

8.5
6.1

10.4
7.3

Wage rate settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract......................

8.4
6.4

78
5.8

7.6
6.4

7.4
6.0

9.5
7.1

8.9
7.2

6.8
5.1

6.3
5.3

8.2
6.5

9.1
7.3

10.5
7.4

8.3
6.5

9.0
7.7

Manufacturing:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................

8.9
6.0

8.4
5.5

8.3
6.6

6.9
5.4

7.4
5.4

9.7
8.1

6.3
4.7

5.6
4.2

7.2
5.7

6.7
5.1

8.4
5.6

7.8
5.8

9.0
6.7

Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction):
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................

8.6
7.2

8.0
5.9

8.0
6.5

7.6
6.2

9.5
6.6

8.5
5.8

9.4
6.5

7.8
7.4

9.4
7.6

10.3
8,5

9.5
5.9

8.2
6.8

8.3
7.6

Construction:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................

6.1
6.2

6.3
6.3

6.5
6.2

8.8
8.3

13.6
11.5

8.7
8.3

9.7
8.5

7.5
7.6

10.8
9.1

12.2
10.4

15.4
13.0

14.3
12.0

13.4
11.6

Digitized 94
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

36.

Effective wage adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units, 1976 to date

[In percent]

Average annual changes

Average quarterly changes

Sector and measure

1979
1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1980

1981»

I

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

I

Total effective wage rate adjustment, all industries ..............
Change resulting from
Current settlement................................................
Prior settlement....................................................
Escalator provision ..............................................

8.1

8.0

8.2

9.1

9.9

1.4

2.6

3.3

1.6

1.6

3.3

3.5

1.3

1.3

3.2
3.2
1.6

3.0
3.2
1.7

2.0
3.7
2.4

3.0
3.0
3.1

3.6
3.5
2.8

.2
.6
.6

1.1
1.0
.5

1.0
1.0
1.2

.5
.4
.7

,4
.5
.7

1.0
1.4
.8

1.7
1.2
.7

,5
.3
.6

.2
.5
.5

Manufacturing ............................................................
Nonmanufacturing ......................................................

8.5
7.7

8.4
7.6

8.6
7.9

9.6
8.8

10.2
9.7

1.5
1.4

2.3
2.8

3.2
3.4

2.4
1.0

2.0
1.3

3.4
3.2

2.9
4.0

1.7
1.1

1.6
1.0

NOTE: Because of rounding and compounding, the sums of individual items may not equal totals.

37.

Work stoppages, 1947 to date
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)

(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

11
13

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

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
1979

5,648
5,506
4,230
4,827

2,420
2,040
1,623
1,727

37 859
35 822
36 922
34 754

15

2,579
2,099
2,441
3,954
3,079
3,407
2,195
1,110
617
614
647
1,419
5,117

14
.10
.13
.21
.15
.20
.11
.06
03
.03
.04
.07
.25

1980p: April........
M ay........
June
J u ly ........
August , . ,
September
October .
November
December
1981p: January
February ,
March . . .
April........


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

357
388
385
414
374
420
347
201
66
253
347
314
371

.

649
704
699
733
704
724
630
427
247
297
517
545
560

98
116
173
241
80
126
90
52
18
50
90
271
101

218
172
224
336
211
247
200
101
48
68
136
336
273

15
15

24
37

17

95

How to order BLS publications
PERIODICALS
Order from (and make checks payable to) Su­
perintendent of Documents, Washington, D C.
20402. For foreign subscriptions, add 25 percent.

Monthly Labor Review. 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. $21
a year, single copy, $3.00.
Employment and Earnings. A comprehensive
monthly report on employment, hours, earn­
ings, and labor turnover by industry, area,
occupation, et cetera, $28 a year, single copy
$3.25.
Occupational Outlook Quarterly. A popular
periodical designed to help high school stu­
dents and guidance counselors assess career
opportunities. $7 for four issues, single copy
$2.50.
Current Wage Developments. A monthly re­
port about collective bargaining settlements
and unilateral management decisions about
wages and benefits; statistical summaries.
$13 a year, single copy $2.25.
Producer Prices and Price Indexes. A com­
prehensive monthly report on price move­
ments of both farm and industrial commodi­
ties, by industry and stage of processing. $18
a year, single copy $2.75.
CPI Detailed Report. A monthly periodical
featuring detailed data and charts on the
Consumer Price Index. $18 a year, single
copy $3.
PRESS RELEASES

BULLETINS AND HANDBOOKS
About 140 bulletins and handbooks published each year are for sale by regional
offices of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see inside front cover) and by the Su­
perintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. 20402. Orders can be charged to
a deposit account number or checks can be made payable to the Superintendent
of Documents. Visa and MasterCard are also accepted; include card number
and expiration date. Among the bulletins and handbooks currently in print:

Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1980-81 Edition. Bulletin 2075. A
useful resource supplying valuable assistance to all persons seeking satis­
fying and productive employment. $8, paperback; $11 cloth cover.
BLS Handbook of Labor Statistics. Bulletin 2070, December 1980. A
490-page volume of historical data on the major BLS statistical series.
$9.50.
Handbook of Methods. Bulletin 1910. Brief technical account of each
major statistical program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. $3.50.
BLS Measures of Compensation. 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.
Occupational Projections and Training Data. Bulletin 2052. Presents
both general and detailed information on the relationship between occu­
pational requirements and training needs. (Updates Bulletin 2020
published in 1979.) $4.75.
Exploring Careers. Bulletin 2001. A new career guidance resource
designed for junior high school students but useful for older students as
well. Includes occupational narratives, evaluative questions, suggested ac­
tivities, career games, and photographs. $10.
Profile of the Teenage Worker. Bulletin 2039. Focuses on the labor mar­
ket experience of 16- to 19-year-olds. Based on data from the Current
Population Survey, the bulletin reviews past trends and explores the
problems of youth unemployment and the transition from school to
work. $3.25.
Profiles of Occupational Pay: A Chartbook. 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 PAMPHLETS
Single copies available free from the BLS regional offices or from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212.

Major Programs of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Report 552. A sum­
mary of the Bureau’s principal programs, including data available,
sources, uses, and publications.

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.

Employment in Perspective: Minority Workers. A quarterly report series
presenting highlights of current data on blacks and persons of Hispanic
origin in the labor force.

Regional. 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.

Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment, 1979. Report
619. Latest report in a series presenting geographic labor force data from
the Current Population Survey. Provides 1979 annual average demo­
graphic and economic characteristics of the labor force for States and
similar data for 30 large s m s a ’s and 11 large cities.


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

Employment in Perspective: Working Women. A quarterly report series
presenting highlights of current data on women in the labor force.

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

U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20212
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED


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

Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
Lab-441