The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis i 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 — $26 domestic; $32.50 foreign. Single copy $5, domestic; $6.25, foreign. 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 April 30, 1987. Second-class postage paid at Washington, D.C. and at additional mailing addresses. 'N Regional Commissioners for Bureau of Labor Statistics R e g io n I - B o s to n : Anthony J. Ferrara 1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, Mass. 02203 Phone: (617) 223-6761 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont R e g io n II N e w Y o rk : Samuel M. Ehrenhalt 1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N.Y. 10036 Phone: (212) 944-3121 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands R e g io n III P h ila d e lp h ia : Alvin I. Margulis 3535 Market Street P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 Phone: (215) 596-1154 Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia R e g io n IV A tla n ta : Donald M. Cruse 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30367 Phone: (404) 8 81 -4 4 1 8 Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee R e g io n V C h ic a g o : William E. Rice 9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, III. 60604 Phone: (312) 353-1880 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin R e g io n V I D allas: Bryan Richey Second Floor, 555 Griffin Square Building, Dallas, Tex. 75202 Phone: (214) 767-6971 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas R e g io n s V II a n d V III K a n s a s C ity: Elliott A. Browar 911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106 Phone: (816) 374-2481 V II Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska V III Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming July coven “ Bridge Traffic 1883,” an ink drawing appearing in H a rp e r’s W eekly, May 26, 1883. “ It so happens,” wrote Montgomery Schuyler in H a rp e r’s on the occasion of the opening to traffic of the great Brooklyn Bridge, “ that the work which is likely to be our most durable monument and which is likely to convey some knowledge of us to the most remote posterity, is a work of bare utility; not a shrine, not a fortress, not a palace, but a bridge.” Cover design by Richard L. Mathews, Division of Audio-Visual Communication Services, U.S. Department of Labor. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis R e g io n s IX a n d X S an F ra n c is c o : D. Bruce Hanchett 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017, San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Phone: (415) 556-4678 IX American Samoa Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington ^f/f V*s |>fr $ ’% ? - P M O N TH LY LA BO R RE VIEW /-• JULY 1983 VOLUME 106, NUMBER 7 L IB R A R Y Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor AUG 1 5 1983 Koji Taira Jap an ’s unem ploym ent: eco n o m ic m iracle or statistical artifact? Japanese workers statistically move from employment to out of the labor force, bypassing unemployment; their rates are low, even when adjusted by U.S. concepts D. Hedger, D. Schmitt 11 M ajor m edical coverage during a period of rising costs Benefits Improved markedly in a cohort of employee health Insurance plans studied In 1974 and 1981; in latter year, more plans limited charges by employees Janice Neipert Hedges 17 Job com m itm ent in A m erica: is it w axing or w aning? Indicators of the work ethic show no evidence of Increasing or decreasing commitment; many workers still work more than the standard 40-hour week Frederick Englander 25 Helping ex-offenders enter the labor m arket Research on various labor market strategies casts doubt on programs designed to improve employment of ex-offenders REPORTS D. Shapiro, F.L. Mott C.R. Deitsch, D.A. Dilts https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Effects of selected variables on work hours of young women NLRB v. Yeshiva U niversity: a positive perspective DEPARTMENTS Labor month in review Research summaries Major agreements expiring next month Developments in industrial relations Book reviews Current labor statistics Labor M onth In Review EMPLOYEE BENEFITS. Dental in surance is a rapidly growing area of employee benefits. About two-thirds of the workers in medium and large firms had insurance for dental expenses in 1982, up from less than half in 1979 ac cording to surveys of employee benefits conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The fourth annual survey provides representative data for 21 million full time employees in a cross section of the Nation’s private industries in 1982. The survey’s scope generally was limited to establishments employing at least 100 or 250 workers, depending upon the in dustry. Here are some highlights: Health insurance. Employees’ health in surance plans virtually always paid par ticipants’ expenses for surgery, hospitalrelated services, and nonhospital diagnostic X-rays and laboratory exams. The vast majority of participants also were covered for private duty nursing, visits to the doctor’s office, and prescription drugs and mental health care outside the hospital. Other benefits were less frequently provided: dental care covered 68 percent of the workers and extended care 62 percent; treatment for alcohol, 50 percent, and drug abuse, 37 percent; vision care, 22 percent; and hearing care 9 percent. One participant in four was covered for a second surgical opinion. Ninety percent of health plan par ticipants were covered for expenses either wholly or partly through major medical insurance. This benefit usually places a ceiling on coverage and requires the employee to share expenses through deductibles and coinsurance. (For an analysis of trends in major medical coverage see the article beginning on p. 11.) 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Life insurance. Coverage for 64 percent of the insured was based on earnings, while 33 percent had a flat amount of coverage. About half of the production worker participants were covered by flat amounts, which seldom exceeded $20,000 and often were $10,000 or less. Earnings-based formulas, typicallly pay ing one or two times earnings, applied to about four-fifths of the professionaladministrative and technical-clerical workers. Retirement pension plans. Nearly seven- eighths of the workers were covered by retirement pension plans. Sixty-seven percent of the participants have plans with payment formulas based on earn ings, while 30 percent would receive benefits based on a specified dollar amount for each year of service. The most common earnings formula used the final years of employment (terminal earn ings formula) in the calculations. Forty-two percent of all private pen sion plan participants could not retire with full benefits until age 65; but, by then, there was usually no length of serv ice requirement. Thirty-one percent could retire from age 60 to 64, often with a requirement of 10 or 15 years of service; and 5 percent could retire from age 55 to 59, usually after 20 or 30 years. However, 13 percent of all participants could retire at any age if they had 30 years of service. The remaining 8 percent had plans that require a specific sum of age and service for normal retirement. Paid time off. Noncumulative sick leave plans that were not coordinated with sickness and accident insurance on the average allowed 26.4 days off per year with full pay after 1 year of service, 57.0 days after 10 years, and 71.7 days after 20 years. Plans that are similar, except that they allow year-to-year carry-over of unused sick leave, averaged 9.3 days after 1 year, 12.3 days after 10 years, and 14.8 days after 20 years. When days off are specified per disability, the numbers are 46.6 days after 1 year, 87.2 days after 10 years, and 129.0 days after 20 years. Among the other types of time off with pay discussed by the survey are: paid holidays and vacations, personal leave, paid lunch periods, and paid rest time. Detailed tabulations of the benefit provisions studied will be published in a bulletin, Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1982. □ Norwood begins second term Secretary of Labor Raymond J. Donovan last month administered the oath of office to Janet L. Norwood for a new term as Commissioner of Labor Statistics. The 4-year term runs to June 13, 1987. Norwood is the 10th Commis sioner in the history of the Bureau which has existed since June 27, 1884, when President Chester Arthur signed the bill creating the agency. The Bureau’s first budget was $25,000. Japan’s low unemployment: economic miracle or statistical artifact? Japanese workers statistically move from employment to out of the labor force, bypassing unemployment; their rates are still low even when the data are adjusted using U.S. concepts of unemployment K o ji T a i r a If official statistics on employment and unemployment are any guide to the degree of labor market efficiency, the per formance of the Japanese labor market is almost miraculous. In the late 1960’s, the official unemployment rate aver aged 1.1 percent. Even after the challenge of the o p e c oil embargo in 1973 which halved Japan’s economic growth rate and brought about drastic structural changes, the un employment rate has rarely risen above 2.5 percent. How ever, some people emphasize the doubling of the unem ployment rate within a few years after 1973. In fact, during much of the 1950’s when no one thought that Japan was in full employment, the official unemployment rate was similar to the rate after the o p e c embargo, slightly above 2 percent. Today, people readily discount the problem of unem ployment: thanks to the rise in individual incomes and the progress in social insurances, the same rate of unemploy ment today means much less hardship than before. But if the rate of unemployment indicates the degree to which an economy’s labor force is underutilized, anyone who re members the poor state of labor force underutilization during the 1950’s would consider today’s similar unemployment rate alarming. The mystery of Japan’s unemployment staKoji Taira is professor of economics and industrial relations at the Uni versity o f Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tistics is that they do not seem to reflect this alarming sit uation. In this article, we propose to shed some light on this mystery by examining the ways in which unemployment is defined and counted in Japan. Also included are brief dis cussions on male and female unemployment, unemployment by age, and labor redundancy. In recent years, the Japanese have become increasingly aware of possible inadequacies in the measurement tech niques that have produced the low, official unemployment rate. The monthly conventional labor force survey, although modeled after that of the United States, has acquired char acteristics that seem to understate the extent of unemploy ment. The Japanese survey techniques are simpler than those of the United States and are almost deliberately blunted on the edges of questions that should be more direct for eliciting answers which serve as the basis for unemployment statis tics. Workers “ statistically” move between employment and out of the labor force, bypassing unemployment. Sev eral recent studies in Japan have concluded that the statis tically hidden unemployment of Japan would double the “ official” unemployment rate to more than 4 percent.1 The Japanese Government responded to the demand for more reliable statistics on employment and unemployment by initiating a new survey called the “ Special Survey of 3 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Japan’s Low Unemployment Rate the Labor Force Survey” (referred to as the Special Labor Force Survey hereafter), undertaken annually at the end of March since 1977.2 Detailed questions in this survey yield information which can be used for recalculating Japan’s unemployment rates by internationally comparable con cepts. Unemployed workers may be found among the em ployed and the persons not in the labor force. At the same time, some of the unemployed may have to be excluded as “ non-unemployed” (a concept we shall explore). The American labor force criteria and methods are used in con junction with data from the Special Labor Force Survey. The conceptual gaps between the United States and Japan are discussed briefly by explaining attitudinal or cultural differences between the two countries. This experiment can be conducted only for 1977-80, because beginning in 1981, published survey data no longer contained the necessary information. Distinct labor force concepts Table 1 presents selected data from the Special Labor Force Survey. As will be seen in the following discussion, a few of the groups in the “ employed” or “ out of the labor force” categories should be included in the “ unemployed” category, and some of the “ unemployed” groups should be moved “ out of the labor force.” Layoffs. Workers on layoff and self-employed business peo ple who have temporarily closed down for economic reasons are considered employed and are categorized as “ with a job but not at work.” Although their number is very small, they represent the tip of a gigantic sociocultural iceberg. That these workers are not included in the unemployed is grounded in the Japanese philosophy of unemployment. Employment to the Japanese is a relationship between employer and em ployee; so long as that relationship is maintained, even though the employee does not report for work, he or she is considered employed. This concept is informal, not con tractual. But sociologically, the maintenance of the em ployment relationship is so important to the Japanese, even when there is nothing to do but to wait at home, that the first public employment policy in the wake of the 1973 recession was that of subsidizing hard-pressed employers so they could keep paying their laid-off employees. This policy made it easier for declining or cyclically sensitive industries to unload redundant workers (those who are no longer needed because of a decrease in the demand for labor— defined more rigorously later) with a minimum of socially undesirable side effects, that is, avoiding the impression that they were throwing unwanted workers out on the street— a traditional image of unemployment much feared and hated everywhere. Furthermore, by calling the otherwise unemployed workers employed, statistics help prevent the status deprivation of the jobless. It is also in conformity with this line of social philosophy that some of the jobless who would be included in the unemployed in 4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis other countries are statistically kept out of the labor force in Japan. Family workers. In the conventional labor force statistics, unpaid family workers are counted as employed if they worked 1 hour or more during the survey week. Fortunately, in the Special Labor Force Survey, information is available on the family workers who worked fewer than 15 hours a week. Many of these under-employed family workers may be looking for work, and can conceptually be reclassified as unemployed. We excluded them from the employed cat egory in the adjustment, and because of the lack of relevant information we did not attempt to reclassify them. Workers with jobs to report to. Those who have jobs to report to at a later date are not in the labor force according to the conventional labor force survey. These include an interesting group: recent graduates. Japan’s academic year ends in March, perhaps causing the total of persons in this category during March to be atypically high in contrast to other months. As table 1 shows, this group makes up roughly two-thirds of the total in March. By March 31, all students (barring a small number of failures) have earned their di plomas and have had their proper graduation ceremonies. Long before graduation, they were interviewing for jobs. During this time, the prospective graduates secured informal (and conditional) offers (naitei) from specified employers on jobs to report to after graduation. As a consequence, they are statistically “ unemployed” on March 31 for our adjustment. They are neither keeping house nor going to school. They are interested in work and preparing for it, but not working yet. In the United States, future jobs are not so definite because there is always the possibility that those who think they have a job will find, when the time comes, that employers have changed their minds. It there fore seems justified to treat a future job as a present equiv alent of joblessness. In Japan, informal promises may be much firmer than those in the United States, although with drawn offers are not unknown.3 Especially after the o p e c embargo, there was a high risk that the promises could not be kept. In any case, the graduates with jobs to report to in the future are technically no different from the jobless who are waiting for the results of past jobseeking activities. However, Japan treats the former as not in the labor force, and the latter as unemployed. Availability for work. Current availability for work distin guishes jobseekers who are unemployed from jobseekers who are not included in the unemployed. In the conventional labor force survey of Japan, availability was assumed for jobseekers, but no test was made for validity of this as sumption. However, the Special Labor Force Survey makes the issue explicit. After “ Do you want work?” is asked of those who were neither working nor looking for work during the survey week (and therefore are not in the conventional Table 1. Selected data from the Japanese labor force survey, 1977-80 [Numbers in thousands] Category 1977 1978 1979 1980 Total working-age population................... 85,870 86,790 87,790 88,480 Total labor force ....................................... 53,430 54,240 54,770 55,370 Employed .............................................. With a job, but not at w o rk .............. Layoff or closed down ...................... For less than 1 m onth................... For more than 1 m o nth ................. Family workers1 ............................... Unemployed ......................................... Non-unemployed............................... 52,160 1,340 100 60 40 400 1,270 330 52,830 1,760 140 60 80 580 1,410 420 53,420 1,390 140 60 80 490 1,350 370 54,130 940 0 () (2) 760 1,240 310 Total not in labor fo rc e ............................. 32,190 32,250 32,800 33,110 With a job to report t o ..................... Within 1 m o n th ............................. (Recent graduates) ................... After 1 m o n th ............................... Job sought in March ................... Currently available...................... Not currently available.............. Did not job search in M arch......... Discouraged3 ............................. Currently available................. 830 740 (2) 100 1,060 510 550 6,520 1,850 490 1,070 880 (520) 190 1,080 560 520 7,910 2,220 610 1,020 880 (560) 150 1,090 490 600 8,260 2,220 610 860 740 (550) 120 960 430 530 1,470 1,880 560 ’ Family workers working less than 15 hours a week. 2Not available. 3Those not in the labor force who do not look for work because they do not think they can find work. Note : level. All numbers are rounded to the nearest 10,000: rounding errors exist at this S ource: The Prime Minister’s Office, Bureau of Statistics, Rodoryoku chosa tokubetsu chosa hokoku (Report on the Special Survey of the Labour Force Survey), 1977-80. labor force), the survey asks, “ Do you intend to work im mediately if a job is found?” One of three answers should be chosen: “ immediately,” “ not immediately,” or “ do not know.” Answers can be cross-classified with answers to the next question: “ Why are you not seeking work now (meaning the reference week) despite your intention to work?” After this, another important question is asked: “ For the purpose of finding work, have you, during March, visited the public employment service, applied for jobs somewhere, asked your friends to find work for you, or done other things of similar nature?” Those who answered this question “ yes” and who also were currently (immediately) available for work (as the result of a previous question) can now be considered “ unemployed,” although they are not so con sidered in the conventional labor force survey. This leaves out those who looked for work during March but who did not say that they were immediately available. Why they should not be considered unemployed is a question of prior ity in the structure of judgment: that is, which is more important or overriding, jobseeking or current availability?4 In the U.S. labor force concepts, those who meet the criteria for being considered unemployed but who are not currently available for work because of “ temporary illness” are still unemployed. In the Japanese Special Labor Force Survey, “ temporary illness” is introduced at a different juncture. In the conventional labor force survey, the tem porarily ill are considered “ out of the labor force” because https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis they were not looking for work. In the Special Labor Force Survey, temporary illness is one of the answers to the ques tion “ why are you not looking for work . . . ?” Temporary illness is a legitimate reason for not looking for work during the reference week and, therefore, technically staying out of the labor force. Thus, there are those who looked for work in March, but not during the reference week because of temporary illness. This means that those who looked for work during March and are currently available for work (and so are considered “ unemployed” ) may include some of those who were unable to look for work during the ref erence week because of temporary illness. Thus, in Japan, temporary illness is not an exception to the current avail ability rule. The Japanese cannot stand the thought that a person should suffer double misfortunes: unemployment and illness. By classifying the temporarily ill as not in the labor force, the Japanese spare them the shame of having to be designated as unemployed. The logic is that “ unemploy ment” should be the last description of joblessness. Discouraged workers. Persons not in the labor force who do not look for work believing that they cannot find work because of discouraging economic conditions are “ dis couraged” workers. According to table 1, there are large numbers of them, easily surpassing the conventional ranks of unemployed. But not all of them are “ currently avail able” for work. In fact, most do not seem to be seriously interested in working. If they do not intend to work, it seems clear that they have decided either to withdraw from, or not participate in the labor force. The Special Labor Force Survey has generated infor mation on attitude toward work that indicates different types and degrees of interest in work. These attitudinal dimensions require expertise in Japanese social psychology for proper ordering and interpretation. For example, the “ yes” answer to “ do you want work?” can be either “ yes, any kind of work” or “ yes, if the terms are right.” When these different yeses are cross-tabulated with information on “ current (im mediate) availability for work,” it is a good question whether the reservation implied in “ yes, if terms are right” may not overshadow “ current availability” and actually turn it into “ not currently available.” Here one suffers from an em barras de richesses of information. Why people are dis couraged from looking for work is also related to several situations such as local labor markets, seasons, business cycles, and so forth. It is again a good question whether a person who does not look for work believing that there is no job in the local labor market is just as “ discouraged” as a person who does not look for work believing that the season is bad for jobseeking. These different perceptions and attitudes await further analysis. Adjusted unemployment The conventional Japanese philosophy of employment is disregarded for this experiment and the American criteria 5 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Japan’s Low Unemployment Rate are used to see how the Japanese unemployment rate is affected. In the adjustment, only the clearest cases are in cluded in the unemployed: those laid off; those self-em ployed who have temporarily closed down; those having jobs to report to within 1 month; and, most importantly, those who looked for work in March (including recent grad uates who are said to have obtained informal job offers5), but not during the reference week, and who were currently (immediately) available for work. These workers nearly double the official unemployment rate. The adjusted unemployment in table 2 is the closest ap proximation one can make to the coverage of the unem ployed used in the United States. Thus, from the standpoint of comparability in concepts and coverage, the results of this adjustment may be compared with the unemployment rates of the United States (noted at the bottom of table 2). The U.S. rates are still higher than the adjusted Japanese rates, but the difference is much smaller than that between the U.S. rates and the conventional Japanese rates. A closer look at jobseekers So far the discussion has focused on people who are not considered unemployed in Japan, but might be so considered by American criteria. But are those considered unemployed in Japan also considered unemployed in the United States? Before the publication of data from the Special Labor Force Survey, it was assumed that the unemployed in Japanese official statistics were just as unemployed as in American statistics and all that was needed to make the Japanese official unemployment statistics comparable to those in the United States was to add to them the groups in the categories “ employed” or “ not in the labor force” who would have been unemployed by American criteria. But, according to Japan’s Labor Ministry, Japanese unemployment includes those who would not be considered unemployed by U.S. criteria.6 This is an interesting byproduct of the debate on the reliability of the conventional unemployment figures. We now recount the unemployed taking this view into ac count. The questionnaire used for the Special Labor Force Sur vey asks “ Did you do any work at all during the last week in March?” This divides the respondents broadly into those who worked, even an hour, and those who did not work at all during the survey week. The latter responses are then classified into (1) temporarily absent from work, (2) seeking a job, (3) keeping house or going to school, and (4) other. Those seeking a job are persons currently available for work and who are making specific efforts to find a job or waiting for the results of past jobseeking activity. In the conventional labor force survey, those who marked “ seeking a job” are considered “ unemployed.” But the Special Labor Force Survey turns up an unusual group of jobseekers: persons who are classified as “jobseekers” under this definition, but who obviously did not seek a job during the survey week because they were waiting for the results of past jobseeking 6 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 2. The Japanese labor force adjusted to approximate U.S. concepts of unemployment, 1977-80 [Numbers in thousands] Category 1977 1978 1979 1980 Labor force, adjusted ............................... Employed (from table 1 ) ........................ Layoffs, self employed but closed down excluded............................... Family workers excluded2 ................. Employed, adjusted ............................... Unemployed (from table 1) .................... Non-unemployed excluded ............ Layoffs, employed but closed down With a job to report to within 1 month ........................................ Job search in March and currently available for work ...................... Unemployed, adjusted .......................... 53,950 52,160 54,680 52,830 55,280 53,420 55,490 54,130 100 400 51,660 1,270 330 100 140 580 52,110 1,410 420 140 140 490 52,790 1,350 370 140 (1) 760 53,390 1,240 310 (1) Unemployment rates (in percent) Japan: Conventional .................................. Adjustment .................................... United States...................................... 740 880 880 740 510 2,290 560 2,570 490 2,490 430 2,100 2.38 4.24 7.1 2.60 4.70 6.1 2.46 4.50 5.8 2.24 3.79 7.1 1Not available. 2Family workers working fewer than 15 hours a week. Source: The Prime Minister’s Office, Bureau of Statistics, Rodoryoku chosa tokubetsu chosa hokoku (Report on the Special Survey of the Survey), 1977-80. activities undertaken more than a month earlier.7 In the Special Labor Force Survey, “jobseekers” are asked a number of questions about their job-search activi ties. The first is “ what kind of methods are you taking for seeking a job?” Six answers are provided and the respondent is asked to circle any number of them and to circle the principal method twice. A subquestion asks “ when did you do the last request or application?” (referring to the em ployment exchange service, the prospective employer’s per sonnel department, or the school placement service). Three choices are offered: (1) during the last week of March (sur vey week), (2) during March, and (3) during February or earlier. For 1980, for example, more than 40 percent of the jobseekers chose ‘‘February or earlier. ’’ The Labor Ministry points out that these jobseekers would be considered “ out of the labor force” in other countries and that they should be excluded from Japan’s unemployment in the interest of better international comparability.8 It assumes that those who made their last request or application in February or earlier did not look for work during March. However, they could still be actively seeking work during the survey week or during March by “ collecting (want) ads,” “ consulting with acquaintances,” “ preparing to start a business” (which cannot be neglected in Japan, where self-employment is fairly extensive), or in “ other” ways. The waiting game. The cross-tabulation of answers to the question on jobseeking methods and answers to the question on the timing of some of those methods, such as making a request or application, must be interpreted carefully. For example, if those who answered the question on jobseeking methods by saying that they applied for a job at the Public Employment Office also answered that they applied in Feb- ruary or earlier, it may be legitimate to suspect (provided no other answers were given to the multiple choice question on jobseeking methods) that they may not have done any thing during March except wait for the results. Although they were not looking for work during March or the survey week, they considered themselves as jobseekers, because the Japanese definition of jobseeking includes “ waiting” without seeking. To say that one is doing something without actually doing it sounds inconsistent. But the fact that one can actually say so by defining “ doing” as inclusive of “ not doing” is one of the flexible properties of the Japanese language. While jobseeking is a prime test of unemploy ment, the U.S. labor force survey does count as unemployed some people who are not actively seeking a job. They are: “ persons waiting to start a new job within 30 days, and workers waiting to be recalled from layoff. ” 9 The first group of persons also exists in the Japanese labor force statistics as persons “ not in the labor force.” The second group would probably be considered as persons “ with a job but not at work” and thus, included in the employed category. In contrast to the American usage, the Japanese use of “ waiting” occurs with respect to the results of past job seeking activities. Why do some jobless persons perceive themselves as in the state of waiting? Are they waiting to be notified by their agencies or prospective employers? If so, do they have valid reasons to expect such notifications? Did they perhaps form favorable impressions about the chances for landing a job at the time of request or application? Waiting for notification on jobs in this way, is very close to waiting to be called in for work and, therefore, is very similar to the American concept of waiting as an exception to the jobseeking rule for unemployment. How long should one wait in order to be counted as unemployed rather than “ out of the labor force?” In the case of a job to report to, the waiting period is 30 days in the United States, and there is no specific limitation on the waiting period for a recall from layoff. Likewise, the Jap anese idea of open-ended waiting for the results of job seeking may be defensible. In Japan, in any area of life, more generous time is customarily allowed for responses to a request than in other countries. From this point of view, the Labor Ministry’s unemployment suggestion seems un usually strict because it excludes all the jobless who were waiting for results of their last request or application made in February or earlier. The structure and wording of the Japanese labor force questionnaire are unfortunately too ambiguous to permit a clearcut adjustment with respect to genuine waiting for the results of past jobseeking. The Labor Ministry restricts wait ing during the survey week (the last week of March) to the results of jobseeking between March 1 and the survey week. But if the reference period for jobseeking is expanded to 1 month from the conventional 1 week, anyone who looked for work during March, regardless of whether they were waiting for the results of those activities during the last week https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis of March, would be categorized as unemployed. Thus, wait ing becomes an unnecessary concept in this case. It is also a good question whether the expansion of the reference period for jobseeking to 1 month inevitably nullifies the need for the concept of waiting for the results of still earlier jobseeking activities (for example, waiting during March for the results of jobseeking undertaken in February or ear lier). The use of waiting in the American labor force con cepts seems to suggest that there may also be room for it in Japanese measurement of the labor force. The “ non-unemployed.” The cross-tabulations of the an swers to the question of jobseeking methods and the answers to the question on the last request or application suggest some way out of the waiting issue. Table 3 presents these cross-tabulations with special reference to the “ February or earlier” answers. The first three items refer to persons whose principal methods of jobseeking involved some kind of re quest or application and who made their last request or application in February or earlier. From this, one may doubt that these persons were seeking a job seriously during March. The original data suggest that some of those who used “ ap plication at the Public Employment Office” as their principal jobseeking method also resorted to secondary methods which did not involve requests or applications. This blunts the factoring-out process, but we disregard that for now and assume that they fail the 30-day jobseeking test. Thus, they can be excluded from unemployed as “ non-unemployed.” By contrast, jobseekers who made their last request or ap plication in February or earlier and whose principal jobsearch methods during the survey week were studying want ads or checking with friends, in no way discredit their status as jobseekers. Therefore, they are counted as unemployed. By similar reasoning, those preparing to start a business and all other jobseekers are also counted as unemployed. Table 3. Japanese unemployed who made their last request or application for a job in February or earlier, 1977-80 [Numbers in thousands]______________ ________________________ __ Category 1977 1978 1979 1980 Total ..................................................... 520 640 600 540 180 10 230 50 210 40 150 40 140 140 120 120 140 10 40 160 30 30 190 20 170 10 30 330 420 370 310 Principal jobseeking methods: Application at public employment o ffic e .............................................. Application at prospective employers. . Request with schools or acquaintances ............................... Studying want ads or consulting with acquaintances ............................... Preparing to start a business............ Other ................................................ Non-unemployed2 .................................. 1Not available. 2Non-unemployed = jobseekers who left applications at Public Employment Of fice + applications at prospective employers + requests with schools or acquaintances. S ource: The Special Labor Force Survey. 7 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Japan s Low Unemployment Rate The women’s problem The conventional unemployment rates tend to be lower for women than for men, but this tendency is reversed after adjustment. For example, in 1977, the unemployment rates for men were 2.44 percent and for women, 2.26 percent. When adjusted, the unemployment rates rose to 2.95 percent for men and 6.25 percent for women. The lower reported unemployment rates for Japanese women appear rather pe culiar in view of the widely observed fact that women usu ally suffer from higher unemployment rates than men (see U.S. figures in table 4). However, the expansion of the jobsearch period to 1 month and other adjustments made Jap anese female unemployment rates higher than those of males. This may suggest that the labor market disadvantages of women are at least similar in nature among Japan and other countries. The failure of the conventional unemployment rates to reflect this universal tendency is another reason to suspect the deficiencies of the conventional labor force sur vey. Quantitatively, the male-to-female differentials in un employment rates are much greater in Japan than in the United States. Generally, this would be considered sub stantial evidence of labor market discrimination against women, though in Japan there is no active concept of dis crimination in this sense— men and women simply accept their different roles in society and make no fuss about it. Why women’s unemployment rates tend to be lower than men’s in the official data owes much to the structure of questions in the survey questionnaire.10 A triennual employment survey Although the unemployment rate based on the labor force survey is the one that Japan presents to the rest of the world, very few Japanese take the labor force survey seriously. It is viewed as based on alien concepts of work that they find hard to understand. Thus, the Japanese government con ducts another employment survey every 3 years based on more popular concepts; that is, the Employment Status Sur vey. In this survey, a person 15 years or older is either “ usually employed’’ (for pay or on own account) or “ usu ally not-employed.” Although no one can be “ usually un unemployed” (because they would sooner or later drop out of the labor force), the persons “ usually not-employed” are Table 4. Japanese and American unemployment rates for men and women, 1977-80 Category 1977 1978 1979 1980 Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Japan: Conventional . . . . Adjusted.............. 2.44 2.95 2.26 6.25 2.74 3.57 2.44 6.58 2.50 3.26 2.40 8.86 2.19 2.75 2.32 5.20 United States .......... 6.3 8.2 5.3 7.2 5.1 6.8 6.9 7.4 Source: The Special Labor Force Survey. 8 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis questioned about their interest in employment. Thus, they can be classified into those interested in work and those not interested. The interested persons are then asked whether they are looking (or have looked) for work, and if they are immediately available for work if work is found. Persons “ usually not-employed” who are interested in work, look ing for work, and can start working if work is found may be considered unemployed. Hence, this survey also mini mizes use of the word “ unemployed.” Naohiro Yashiro estimates “ unemployment rates” for men and women from the Employment Status Survey of 1977.11 He first identifies persons “ usually not employed” who are interested in work and have looked or are looking for work as a percentage of the sum of these persons and those “ usually employed.” This yields 3.2 percent unem ployed for men and 12.9 percent for women. But when the current availability condition is added, the male unemploy ment rate comes down to 2.0 percent and the female, 6.34 percent. The male unemployment rate from the Employment Status Survey is quite similar to that from the conventional labor force survey, but the female unemployment rate here is much larger. Although the “ usual unemployment rate” is not extraor dinarily high, it suggests that Japan’s “ true” unemployment may be higher than the “ official” rate announced to the rest of the world on the basis of the conventional labor force survey. It also indicates that Japan’s unemployment is largely the women’s problem. In Japan, however, “ equal employ ment opportunity” has not yet arrived on the agenda for serious discussion.12 It is also commonly admitted by men and women alike that Japanese women, if discriminated against in the labor market, enjoy compensating advantages in other areas of life, for example, the family and household where the wife, or mother is said to be an unchallenged ruler for whom the husband, or father is little more than a “ working bee” (hataraki bachi, which can also be hu morously rendered into “ punishment at hard labor” ). Unemployment among the young and old Age is another personal factor that produces labor market disadvantages. In Japan, there is a greater willingness to admit the existence of age discrimination, which is partially indicated by higher unemployment rates among older per sons. Table 5 shows male unemployment rates by age groups. These are “ official” or conventional rates. As our recount ing previously showed, the adjusted unemployment figures for men are not greatly different from the conventional ones. For example, in table 4, men’s unemployment rose from conventional 2.44 percent to adjusted 2.95 percent for 1977, while women’s rates rose markedly from conventional 2.26 percent to adjusted 6.25 percent. The modest difference between the male conventional and adjusted unemployment rates enables us to make use of the readily available “ of ficial” disaggregation of men’s unemployment by age as shown in table 5, reasonably confident that the broad char- Table 5. Unemployment rates among Japanese men by age, 1976-1980 [In percent]_________________ ___ i_______ _______ _______ ______ |____ Age 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Average ......................................... 15-19 ......................................... 20-24 ......................................... 25-29 ......................................... 30-34 ......................................... 35-39 ......................................... 40-44 ......................................... 45-49 ......................................... 50-54 ......................................... 55-59 ......................................... 60-64 ......................................... 65 and over ............................... 2.2 5.5 3.2 2.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 3.3 4.4 2.4 2.1 5.6 3.6 2.1 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.6 3.3 4.6 2.2 2.4 6.8 3.8 2.4 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.9 3.5 5.3 2.3 2.2 5.4 3.2 2.4 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.8 3.7 5.4 2.3 2.0 5.5 3.6 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.5 3.1 4.6 2.2 Source: Ministry of Labor, Rodo tokei yoran [4 Handbook of Labor Statistics] ,1981, pp. 34-35. acteristics would not change much after adjustment. It is generally observed everywhere that the unemploy ment rates among young workers are higher than the national average. Japan should be an exception if the much touted lifetime employment hypothesis were true; young men would become employed immediately after graduation, giving them no time to be unemployed. However, table 5 implies that young men are vulnerable to fairly high unemployment upon entering the labor force or in the course of job changes. Japanese men begin to settle down with long-term jobs at around age 30 and stay with them until their 50’s. After age 50, unemployment rises to rates far above the national average. The middle-age bulge in unemployment rates is widely regarded as extraordinary by international stan dards.13 It reflects the unique Japanese practice of teinen, which means termination of employment for reasons of age. The prevailing age was 55 until recently. The proportion of firms using 60 as teinen has since increased. At the same time, firms are increasingly encouraging their employees to retire (quit) early. Thus, the formal extension obviously encourages management to find ways to bypass the formal rules. The net effect is that Japan fails to offer job security to workers age 55 years or older. Although the unemploy ment rates among men below 30 are caused in large part by their attempts to enter the labor force and their voluntary job changes, the unemployment of workers 50 and over is due more to involuntary job terminations and subsequent difficulties in finding new jobs. Age also affects earnings inversely. Men’s regular base pay reaches its peak, on average, by age 45 to 49 and decreases to about 70 percent of the peak by 60 to 64 years, according to wage statistics for 1979.14 It appears that sharper decreases in wages are needed to prevent middle-aged un employment from rising because it is during this life stage that unemployment among men is seen to rise. Also, if continued regular employment until age 65 is desired, earlier pay raises (before age 45) would have to be moderated to prevent wages from decreasing in later years (45-65). The https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis present pay system, linking increases with the length of service, (the so-called nenko wage system) was originally fashioned with the teinen of 55 in mind. Therefore, em ployers have for some time argued that raising this age limit would require a new (lower) earnings profile that will con tinue to increase over the longer employment period. This argument implies that men below age 50 would be worse off under an extended retirement age system than at present. Thus, a conflict of interest between generations is a powerful restraint on revising the retirement system. Absorption of labor redundancy In addition to the officially reported unemployment, the possibility of labor redundancies in Japanese firms was also a popular topic in the late 1970’s .15 Labor redundancy is defined as the excess of actual employment over optimal employment which is estimated from the level of output and labor productivity. Various formulae with different degrees of sophistication are employed for the purpose. The esti mated full-time equivalent redundancies for 1977 as per centages of the labor force ranged from a low of 4.4 percent to a high of 7.2 percent. Although the “ official” unem ployment rate for 1977 was slightly over 2 percent (our adjusted rate was somewhat above 4 percent), the Japanese economy was obviously holding a surprising amount of excess labor at the expense of productivity, but workers’ apparent willingness to forgo wage increases or even to take wage cuts helped employers reduce the costs of labor re dundancies. To summarize, the underutilization of Japan’s labor force after 1973 has been extensive. One might roundly put it at 10 percent or so for the late 1970’s. But this was estimated at 6 percent for redundant employment and 4 percent for adjusted unemployment. The deficiencies of the conven tional labor force survey also have helped soften the shock of discovery of the worsened labor market conditions by understating the extent of open unemployment. If the “ true” unemployment rates can be said to be double the official rates, Japan’s unemployment of the late 1970’s was roughly comparable to Western Europe’s, though somewhat lower than America’s. Even so, the fact that the excess labor amounting to 10 percent of the labor force produced an open unemployment rate of 4 percent is an interesting economic phenomenon. As demonstrated elsewhere, large enterprises unloaded their redundant labor rather efficiently, and labor absorption occurred in smaller firms and in the service sec tor. The factor that made this possible was the collapse of worker militancy and the moderation of real wage increases. There even was a decrease in average real wages in 1980. Workers were cowed by a great fear of joblessness, it seems.16 In other words, high open unemployment was avoided by the willingness of chastened workers to take any jobs for any wages. All this of course indicates that Japanese labor markets worked with remarkable efficiency. □ 9 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Japan’s Low Unemployment Rate FOOTNOTES A c k n o w l e d g m e n t : The author is grateful to the Japan-United States Education Commission for the opportunity to study in Japan, and to Ryohei Magota o f the Japan Wage Research Center for guidance in the intricacies o f Japan’s official statistics. 1See S p e c ia l R e s e a r c h R e p o r t N o . 2 2 (Mitsubishi Bank Research Ind uite, August 1981); Akira Ono, N ih o n n o r o d o s h ijo [J a p a n e s e L a b o r M a r k e ts ] (Tokyo, Tokyo Keizai Shinposha, 1981), Chapter 2. The Mit subishi report generated a political minicrisis in the summer of 1981. The Cabinet Council o f Ministers of State ordered a study of government statistics to dispel suspicions that the government was deceiving the nation by faulty statistics. In its wake, a spate of articles by government officials appeared in journals and newspapers in defense of the existing government statistics. See also Eiji Shiraishi, “ International Comparison in Unem ployment Conception,” M o n th ly L a b o u r S ta tis tic s a n d R e s e a r c h B u lle tin , March 1982, pp. 13-20. 7 For an earlier discussion of this issue, see Ryohei Magota and Hideshi Honda, K o y d to c h in g in [E m p lo y m e n t a n d W a g es] (Tokyo, Ichiryusha, 1974), Chapter 3. 8Shiraishi, “ International Comparison.” 9U .S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, H o w th e G o v e r n m e n t M e a s u r e s U n e m p lo y m e n t, p. 4. 10Yoko Sano, C h in g in to k o y d n o k e iza ig a k u [E c o n o m ic s o f W a g e s a n d E m p lo y m e n t ] (Tokyo, Chuo Keizaisha, 1981), Chapter 5. 11 Naohiro Yashiro, “ Wagakuni ni okeru shitsugyo gainen no saikento ” [A Reexamination of Our Country’s Concept of Unemployment], M o n th ly J o u r n a l o f th e J a p a n I n s titu te o f L a b o u r , February 1981, pp. 15-25. 12Eiko Shinotsuka laments the absence of real debate on this issue in her N ih o n n o jo s h i r o d o [J a p a n e s e W o m en W o rk e rs] (Tokyo, Toyo Keizai Shinposha, 1982), p. 72. 2 Prime Minister’s Office, Bureau of Statistics, R ô d ô r y o k u c h ô s a toku b e ts u c h ô s a h ô k o k u [R e p o r t on th e S p e c ia l S u r v e y o f th e L a b o u r F o r c e S u r v e y ] , March 1977 onward. l3Haruo Shimada, “ The Japanese Labor Market After the Oil Crisis: A Factual Report” (I and II), K e io E c o n o m ic S tu d ie s , Vol. 14, Nos. 1, 2. 3 There have even been litigations concerning the employer action re voking the “ informal” offer of employment. See “ Informal Offer o f Em ploym ent,” J a p a n L a b o r B u lle tin , January 1983, pp. 5 - 8 . o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s ] , 1981, p. 104. 4 On this point, see H o w th e G o v e r n m e n t M e a s u r e s U n e m p lo y m e n t, Report 418 (Washington, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1973), pp. 6 -7 . 5 The Special Labor Force Survey does not describe how firm these informal offers are or how new graduates with informal offers differ from other workers with jobs to report to. At least, their respective numbers are known. Better information may enable us to differentiate them in terms of labor force status. At the present stage of information, we are satisfied with treating them as the Special Labor Force Survey does under the common heading o f workers with jobs to report to. 6Shiraishi, “ International Comparison in Unemployment Conception.” 14See, for example, Ministry of Labor, R o d o to k e i y o r a n [A H a n d b o o k 15 Several well-known banks and research institutes announced their estimates of labor redundancies in the Japanese economy. A few examples were picked up by the Ministry o f Labor and published in its L a b o r W h ite P a p e r (1978). 16What is somewhat puzzling is why workers, if only for purposes of strategic maneuvers, did not seize upon the government’s insistence on the good performances of the Japanese economy based in part on the low “ official” unemployment rates and mount a strong offensive for wage increases appropriate to the advertised good economic conditions. One answer to this question is that workers are sympathetic toward the gov ernment’s efforts for putting up a good “ face” for the rest of the world, despite the really bad conditions at home. Blue Pencil Awards The Monthly Labor Review’s special issue on earnings (April 1982) won first place among one-color technical magazines in the 1982 Blue Pencil Publications Contest of the National Association of Government Com municators. The Association’s judges called the Review a “ handsome publication that invites the reader to browse . . . offers the researcher excellent research sources . . . gives the impression that it is designed to inform (rather than impress).” Another Bureau of Labor Statistics publication, the Occupational Out look Quarterly, Spring 1982, won second place among two- and threecolor technical magazines. More than 400 publications of Federal, State, and local government organizations were entered in the contest. 10 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Trends in major medical coverage during a period of rising costs Major medical benefits improved markedly in a cohort of employee health insurance plans during 1974-81; coinsurance rates remained largely unchanged, but more plans included a ceiling on charges to employees while providing higher levels of coverage D o u g la s H edger and D o n a l d S c h m it t Since their inception in 1949, major medical insurance plans have grown rapidly in popularity, and now cover more than 150 million individuals. These plans offer protection against the large expenses resulting from a major injury or serious illness, paying a substantial portion of hospital and physi cians’ charges after a deductible amount has been paid by the insured person. While the coinsurance rate applicable to the insured has remained relatively constant in recent years, major medical protection has been enhanced by lib eralization of other policy provisions, such as increases in maximum benefits and incorporation of curbs on expenses borne by insured individuals. Rapid increases in the cost of medical care probably have provided the main impetus for adjustments in major medical coverage. Between 1974 and 1981, yearly per capita na tional health expenditures more than doubled from $535 to $1,225.' During this period, the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers increased at an average 10.1-percent an nual rate.2 Increases in health care expenditures also resulted from costly new treatments generated by advances in med ical technology. Improvements in health insurance proviDouglas Hedger is an economist in the Division of Occupational Pay and Employee Benefit Levels, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Donald Schmitt is an economist formerly in the same division. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis sions also mirrored a general liberalization of supplementary benefits as parts of employee compensation during this pe riod. Finally, more attractive major medical benefits offered by insurance carriers may stem from the keen competition which has occurred among individual insurance companies and between the traditional insurance industry and alter native approaches to health care financing, such as self funding by employers and Health Maintenance Organiza tions.3 This article focuses on changes in major medical coverage over the 1974-81 period among a group of 166 employee health insurance plans either fully or partially paid for by employers. These plans covered approximately 5 million workers in 1979, the last year for which relatively complete employment counts are available. They comprise all plans included in both of two Bureau of Labor Statistics sample surveys: (1) a 1974 study of employment-related health plans with at least 26 participants, whose administrators reported to the U.S. Department of Labor, as required by the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act of 1958, as amended; and (2) a 1981 study of the incidence and characteristics of employee benefit plans in medium and large firms.4 The health insurance plans available for this analysis are mainly those of large employers; 87 percent of the plans covered 5,000 workers or more in 1979, with 31 percent covering at least 25,000 workers. They obviously are not a 11 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Trends in Major Medical Coverage representative sample of all health insurance plans; how ever, "because they cover a substantial number of workers, both union and nonunion, they do olfer insight into trends in major medical coverage during the 1974-81 period. Of the 166 plans studied, 147 included major medical provi sions in 1974. Eleven plans added such coverage within the next 7 years, while one dropped it, resulting in the total of 157 plans with major medical benefits in 1981 (table 1). Major medical insurance Major medical coverage is a relatively recent concept, introduced in 1949 by the Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.5 Previously, health insurance plans usually consisted of sep arate coverages for hospital, surgical, and medical (doctors’ charges) expenses. The emphasis in these “ basic” plans was on “ first-dollar” coverage; that is, an insured individual was not required to make an initial payment for care before insurance benefits were forthcoming. However, benefits generally were geared toward short-term care in a hospital with little, if any, coverage of expenses incurred elsewhere. In addition, basic plans typically contained internal limits on either eligible charges or duration of coverage for each type of expense or procedure. Benefits as a rule were in adequate to meet the costs of a chronic disability. Major medical coverage has altered the focus of health insurance plans. Major medical plans— geared toward pro tection against the cost of catastrophic illness or injury— typically have maximum payment limits substantially higher than those of basic benefit plans. To hold down insurance premiums, major medical plans eliminate first-dollar cov erage and call for cost-sharing by the employee through deductible and coinsurance provisions. The deductible is a specified amount that the insured individual must pay toward medical expenses before any charges are paid by the plan. Medical expenses in excess of the deductible are shared by Table 1. Types of major medical coverage in a cohort of employee health insurance plans, 1974 and 1981 Type of coverage All plans .................................. With major medical coverage . . Supplemental plan1 .......................... Comprehensive plan2 ................. Pure form ............................... Modified form .......................... With basic coverage o n ly .............. 1974 Number Percent 166 147 1981 Number Percent 100 166 100 110 37 10 27 89 66 22 6 16 157 113 44 15 29 95 68 27 9 17 19 11 39 5 ’ Supplemental plans, as the name indicates, supplement basic plans. They cover expenses that exceed the limits specified by the basic plans and cover some expenses that are not covered by the basic plans. Comprehensive plans stand alone, without basic coverage, and cover a wide range of medical expenses in a single package. In a pure comprehensive plan, all benefits are subject to the deductible and coinsurance provisions. In a modified comprehensive plan, some expenses (most commonly hospital charges) are covered without deductible or coinsurance requirements. includes one plan which replaced major medical coverage with extensive basic cov erage between 1974 and 1981. N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. 12 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Exhibit 1. plans Expenses typically covered by major medical Hospital room and board Hospital— miscellaneous services Physicians’ services— in hospital, office, or home Surgery and anesthesia Private-duty nursing Mental health care Laboratory tests Diagnostic X-rays Drugs and medicines Medical equipment— artificial limbs, crutches, braces Rental of wheelchair or hospital bed Physiotherapy Radiation therapy Treatment in outpatient department of hospital Local professional ambulance service the insured individual and the plan through a predetermined coinsurance formula; plans typically pay 80 percent of the covered charges while the insured pays the remaining 20 percent. Major medical plans, therefore, are consistent with traditional insurance goals: protection against infrequent and unpredictable large financial risks.6 As indicated in exhibit 1, major medical plans cover in one policy a wide range of medical expenses, subject to a single overall set of payment limitations. (As described later in this article, separate internal limits on benefits may apply to a few categories of health care, such as outpatient mental health care.) Non-accident related dental care, vision care, and care in a convalescent facility are more often covered through basic plans (table 2).7 Other expenses commonly excluded from major medical coverage pertain to eyeglasses, hearing aids, routine physical examinations, cosmetic surgery unless ne cessitated by an accident, employment-related injuries and injuries caused by war, and expenses due to an injury or illness which occurred immediately prior to joining a plan. (The “ pre-existing condition” clause normally expires after a 3-month period during which no expenses are incurred because of the condition, or 1 year after joining the plan, whichever comes first.) Major medical plans have caught on rapidly in the three decades of their existence. In 1951, 100,000 people in the United States— insured individuals and their covered de pendents— were under major medical policies.8 By the end of 1960, the total topped 32 million, and by the end of 1980 it reached 154 million.9 Nevertheless, the growing popularity of major medical insurance has not ended interest in basic benefits. Both types of insurance commonly are found within the same health care package (table 1). Of the 166 plans studied, only nine provided coverage solely through basic benefits in 1981. (Provisions of these nine plans are examined at the end of this article). The remaining 157 plans usually included major medical benefits as a supplement to basic benefits. Table 2 shows the frequency of basic and major medical coverages in the 166 plans by type of health care. Supplemental and comprehensive plans Major medical insurance is of two types— supplemental and comprehensive. The first type supplements basic plans that normally provide coverage for hospital, surgical, and in-hospital physicians’ care up to specified dollar amounts or days of treatment. Supplemental plans customarily cover expenses that exceed the limits in these basic plans; in ad dition, they provide protection against types of expenses not covered by the basic benefits, such as for private duty nursing and prescription drugs. After exhaustion of basic benefits, an insured individual is responsible for charges up to the amount of the deductible; additional expenses are then paid by the supplemental major medical plan on a coinsur ance basis. The second type of major medical plan stands alone and covers a wide range of medical expenses in a single package— hence the term “ comprehensive.” In the “ pure” form, all covered expenses are subject to deductible and coinsurance provisions. “ Modified” forms, in contrast, cover some in itial expenses— especially hospital-related— without de ductible or coinsurance requirements. For example, a plan might cover in full the first $5,000 of hospital expenses and 80 percent of additional hospital charges. All other types of expenses, however, would not be covered until after the specified deductible was met, at which time the plan would begin to pay 80 percent.*10 Table 2. Basic and major medical coverage of selected categories of health care, 166 employee health insurance plans, 1981 ________________________________ Category of health care Hospital room and board................. Hospitalization-miscellaneous services ....................................... Extended care1 ............................... Surgical care .................................. Physician visits— in hospital ......... Physician visits— o ffice ................... Diagnostic X-ray and laboratory3 . . . Hospital outpatient care................... Prescription drugs— nonhospital . . . Private-duty nursing........................ Mental health c a re ........................... Dental ca re ....................................... Vision c a re ....................................... Plans with coverage under Basic benefits Plans only Basic Major without and Cover medical cover major age benefits Full age medical with cover only benefits age limita tions 4 20 15 127 3 19 58 9 8 3 17 26 32 50 133 127 18 68 96 19 6 10 20 1 10 114 41 19 16 126 156 17 9 3 105 115 12 — 257 12 4 36 25 4 1 — 1 2 — 137 • ----- — 64 — — 7 — — 4 8 2 42 120 1Care provided by a nursing facility or home health care agency. 2Plans paying physician’s fee up to the “ usual and customary” charge for the procedure performed. 3Charges incurred in the outpatient department of a hospital and outside of the hospital. N ote: Dash indicates no plans in the category. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis As shown in table 1, about three-fourths of the major medical plans in 1974 and 1981 were supplemental plans.11 The 11 plans that initiated major medical protection between 1974 and 1981 all added supplemental coverage to existing basic plans. At the same time, a net increase of seven com prehensive plans occurred within existing major medical packages. The “ pure” form constituted a minority of the comprehensive plans in both 1974 and 1981, but did increase its share of the total over the 7-year period. Although supplemental plans outnumbered comprehen sive plans in this study, the trend may be toward the latter. The Health Insurance Institute has reported that, during the first three months of 1981, three-fourths of the new group major medical policies issued by insurance carriers were comprehensive rather than supplemental.12 Cost-sharing provisions As noted earlier, major medical plans are characterized by deductible and coinsurance provisions. The former hold down insurance premiums by eliminating numerous small claims, while both cost-sharing features may indirectly curb insurance costs by discouraging overuse of benefit provi sions. Deductibles. All of the major medical plans in this study specified deductibles. These deductibles are normally a uni form dollar amount for insured individuals or a variable amount based on employees’ earnings. Deductibles usually must be met once per calendar year by each covered indi vidual, although some plans require that a separate de ductible be met for each illness. In most plans, any expenses applied against the deductible in the last 3 months of a calendar year will also reduce the deductible for the next calendar year by that amount. Uniform flat dollar deducti bles were predominant in the plans studied, with the most common deductible being $100 (table 3). Relatively few of the plans had adjusted their flat amounts between 1974 and 1981, despite the rapid increases in medical care costs. Most plans limit the total number of deductibles that a family must pay in a year. No data are available from the 1974 study on family limits for deductibles, but 120 of the 157 major medical plans in 1981 had such a limit, usually two or three deductibles per family. Also, many plans re quire that only one deductible be met if two or more persons in a family incur expenses as a result of a single accident. Coinsurance. With few exceptions, major medical plans paid 80 percent of expenses above the specified deductible in both years studied. Nevertheless, there was a tendency to liberalize these coinsurance provisions during the inter vening period. Four plans paid less than 80 percent in 1974, but none did so in 1981; and, the number paying more than 80 percent increased from 5 in 1974 to 15 by 1981, most of which were comprehensive plans. A single coinsurance provision usually applies to all types 13 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Trends in Major Medical Coverage of expenses covered under a major medical plan. One com mon exception is out-of-hospital mental health care, which often is treated separately and covered at a lower coinsurance ratio, usually 50 percent. This pattern was reflected in the major medical plans studied (table 4). Plans that added this benefit during the 1974-81 period, however, tended to pro vide 80-percent coverage, the same coinsurance rate as for other covered illness.13 Limitations on payments Although expenses covered by major medical plans are shared by the insurance carrier and the insured individual, limits are often set on the amount either must pay. The insured may be protected against the costs of a catastrophic illness by limits on out-of-pocket expenses for deductibles and coinsurance. The major medical plan, however, gen erally sets an overriding limit on the amount to be paid to any individual. This plan maximum, usually cumulative for a lifetime, limits the claims against the insurer resulting from chronic illness or repeated surgical procedures. Once the plan maximum is reached, any out-of-pocket limit is Table 3. Cost-sharing provisions in a cohort of major medical plans, 1974 and 1981 Provision All plans .................................. 1974 Number Percent 1981 Number Percent 147 100 157 100 Total ......................................... 147 100 157 100 Uniform dollar amount ................. $ 2 5 ................................................... $ 5 0 ............................................ $ 7 5 .................................... $100 .................................... $150 ......................................... Other .................................. 121 4 37 3 66 6 5 82 3 25 2 45 4 3 142 4 40 9 81 4 4 90 3 25 6 52 3 3 26 17 9 18 12 6 15 10 5 10 6 3 147 100 157 100 4 138 3 2 3 94 2 1 142 8 7 90 5 4 10 7 79 50 7 2 5 1 1 1 14 39 19 7 9 25 12 4 Deductible1 Based on earnings............................. Flat percentage ................... Scheduled amount ................... Coinsurance2 T o ta l............................... 75 80 85 90 percent ............................. p e rce n t............................. p e rce n t............................... p e rce n t...................... Out-of-pocket limit3 Total .................................. Under $1,000 .......................... $1.000-$1,500 ........................ $1,501-$2,500 ...................... Over $2,500 ........................ _ 1The amount of medical expenses that an insured person must incur before benefits are payable by the plan. 2The ratio in which medical expenses are shared by the plan and the insured person. This table reports the percentage paid by the plan. 3A limit on the amount of medical expense employees must pay from their own funds in a 1- or 2-year period due to cost-sharing provisions. The plan pays the balance, up to any specified maximum. Note : Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Dash indicates no plans in the category. 14 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 4. Coinsurance provisions for out-of-hospital mental health care in a cohort of major medical plans, 1974 and 1981 Coinsurance provision All plans .................................... With coverage for out-of-hospital mental health care ......................................... Covered at same coinsurance level as other illnesses........................ Covered at lesser coinsurance level 50 percent .................................... Other percent ............................. Out-of-hospital mental health care not covered .............................................. 1974 Number Percent 1981 Number Percent 147 100 157 100 125 85 142 90 46 79 73 6 31 54 50 4 57 85 76 9 36 54 48 6 22 15 15 10 suspended, and the insured is liable for all additional ex penses. Out-of-pocket limits. When an individual is faced with an illness or injury that requires costly treatment— such as heart disease or cancer— the expenses necessitated by cost-shar ing requirements can be substantial. As a result, some plans limit the amount individuals have to pay in any 1- or 2-year period. Once this out-of-pocket limit is reached, the major medical plan is fully liable for all subsequent expenses in curred, up to the plan maximum. The individual is not responsible for additional covered expenses through the end of the year in which the illness occurred, or until the end of the following year, depending on the particular plan. One of the most significant developments in major med ical benefits during the 1974-81 period was the increase in the number of plans limiting employees’ out-of-pocket ex penses. In 1974, only 10 of the plans studied had this lim itation, but by 1981 the number had risen to 79, or onehalf of the total (table 3). In 1981, out-of-pocket limits were found in 41 percent of the supplemental major medical plans and in 75 percent of the comprehensive plans studied. Out-of-pocket limits in 1981 most commonly fell between $1,000 and $1,500 for each covered individual, although seven plans did contain limits exceeding $2,500.14 These ceilings on payments by plan participants tended to be higher than in 1974, but a reversal of this trend may have begun. The Health Insurance Institute reported that of the new group major medical policies issued by insurance carriers during the first 3 months of 1981, 90 percent limited insured in dividuals’ liability; two-thirds set limits under $1,000.15 Plan maximums. Limits on the insurer’s liability are usually expressed on a lifetime basis or per disability or per year. Lifetime limits are by far the most common. Over the period studied, there was a slight decrease in the proportion of plans that included specified ceilings on benefits, from 93 percent in 1974 to 89 percent in 1981. As shown below, there was also a pronounced shift toward lifetime maximums and away from per disability or per year limits. All major medical plans studied..................... 1974 1981 147 157 With specified maximum ................................ 136 Lifetime maximum only ................................ 82 Per disability or per year maximum o n ly ................................................................. 27 Lifetime and per disability or per year maximum ..................................................... 27 Without maximum ................................................ 11 139 108 9 22 18 Table 6. Method of funding in a cohort of major medical plans, 1974 and 1981_______________________________ Funding medium Table 5. Maximum coverage in a cohort of major medical plans with lifetime coverage limitations, 1974 and 1981 Maximum coverage 1974 Number Percent 1981 Number Percent .................................. 109 100 130 100 Under $50 000 .................................... 64 59 10 8 $50,000 ................................................ 23 21 15 12 2 2 23 18 9 7 All plans $75,000 ................................................ - - $150,000 .............................................. - $200,000 .............................................. - 4 4 $250,000 .............................................. Over $250,000 .................................... 17 18 $100,000 ....................................... - - 2 2 40 31 29 22 Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Dash indicates no plans in the category. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1981 Number Percent .................................. 147 100 157 100 Commercial insurer ............................. 128 87 110 70 Blue Cross-Blue Shield ........................ 15 10 15 10 Self-funded............................................ 4 3 31 20 1 1 All plans Other1 ................................................... One o f the most striking developments between 1974 and 1981 was the increase in the amount o f plan maximums. Of the major medical plans that were operative in both years, 85 percent had increased maximum benefits by 1981, while 7 percent had kept their 1974 ceilings. The remaining 8 percent o f the plans studied provided unlimited benefits in both years. Of the plans with lifetime maximums in 1974, 59 percent had ceilings under $50,000 (table 5). By 1981, the average ceiling had increased from just over $50,000 to about $250,000, and only 8 percent o f the plans had lifetime maximums under $50,000. The percent of plans with life time maximums of at least $250,000 increased from 4 per cent to 53 percent over the 7 years. Comprehensive major medical plans included in this study tended to include higher specified lifetime ceilings on ben efits than the supplemental plans. In 1981, only 1 of the 38 com prehensive plans had a lifetim e maximum below $100,000, compared with 26 of the 92 supplemental plans. Conversely, 69 percent o f the comprehensive plans set max imums at $250,000 or more, compared with 47 percent of the supplemental plans. Most major medical plans with a lifetime ceiling on ben efits also contain a reinstatement clause. This clause raises the dollar limit that potentially could be paid by the plan. An individual who has received major medical benefits often 1974 Number Percent - - ’ Partially insured through a commercial carrier and partially self-funded. N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Dash indicates no plans in the category. can obtain restoration of the full lifetime maximum by fur nishing satisfactory medical evidence of insurability. Re gardless of the individual’s physical condition, however, a typical plan will automatically restore up to $1,000 of the maximum each year. Internal limits. A key feature of major medical plans is their stress on a single overall limit on benefits, cutting across individual categories of health care. Nevertheless, major medical policies may include specific limits on coverage of such items as outpatient mental health care, extended care in a nursing home or by a home health care agency, private duty nursing, and dental care. These internal limits may be expressed as dollar amounts or days of coverage. For ex ample, the most common limitation in 1981 for outpatient mental health care was $1,000 a year. Funding The great majority of the major medical plans in this study were financed through commercial insurance com panies, which are responsible for both benefit payments and administrative services. Nearly 90 percent of the major med ical plans in 1974 were financed in this manner, with the remainder mainly provided through Blue Cross-Blue Shield contracts (table 6). By 1981, however, a substantial increase in self-funding by employers had dropped the proportion of commercially insured plans in the study to 70 percent. Large firms, with substantial financial and administrative re sources, are the most likely to choose self-funding. Among their objectives are economy in providing benefits and flex ibility in plan design. Companies able to assume the financial risk of self-fund ing are not always willing to devote resources to adminis tering benefit provisions. These firms can purchase “ Administrative Services Only” ( a s o ) contracts issued by insurance companies. Under these contracts, insurance com panies handle administrative procedures such as claims pro cessing, while the self-insured employers are responsible for benefit payments. The majority of the self-funded plans in this study had a s o contracts. 15 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Trends in Major Medical Coverage Plans without major medical coverage While the proportion of plans with major medical cov erage increased from 89 percent to 95 percent over the 1974— 81 period, there were still 9 plans in the study without this coverage in 1981. These plans were, however, more com prehensive than the typical basic benefit plans. All but one offered at least 365 days of hospital coverage per illness. Seven of the nine provided full coverage of surgical ex penses,16 and the other two contained fairly liberal surgical schedules. Only one of the plans specified an overall plan maximum ($50,000). In a few cases, provisions for non hospital and outpatient expenses were limited, but coverage of the most costly medical expenses seemed to be the norm. All nine of the plans without major medical benefits were collectively bargained, which suggests a reluctance by some unions to accept the cost-sharing concepts inherent in major medical plans. D e s p i t e t h e w i d e s p r e a d p o p u l a r i t y of major medical plans, there is debate as to their merits. Supporters believe that major medical plans offer valuable protection against the expenses of a major illness, while at the same time discouraging overuse of medical services for trivial condi tions through the inclusion of cost-sharing requirements. However, critics claim that deductibles and coinsurance are barriers to effective health care because they deter early diagnosis of illness. This delay in seeking medical care may increase hospital usage, which in turn increases the cost of medical care. It is also contended that cost-sharing provi sions are ineffective in controlling the use of health care facilities, for physicians, not patients, determine the demand for medical services.17 Thus, critics often support compre hensive prepaid group practice plans— Health Maintenance Organizations— which stress coverage of first-dollar costs. Although some disagree with the cost-sharing concepts of major medical insurance, they cannot deny the marked improvement in benefits offered by these plans. Increases in maximum benefits, addition of limits on out-of-pocket expenses, and broadening of risks covered have all helped to improve insured individuals’ ability to cope with the high cost of medical care. Will further improvements be made if medical costs continue to rise as sharply as they have in the past decade, or will a reverse trend emerge in an effort to counter increases in insurance premiums? The answer to this question is still far from evident. □ FOOTNOTES 1As a percent o f gross national product, national health expenditures advanced from 8.1 to 9.8 percent over the 7-year period. See Robert M. Gibson and Daniel R. Waldo, “ National Health Expenditures, 1981,’’ H e a lth C a r e F in a n c in g R e v ie w , September 1982, p. 19. 2The annualized rate o f change was calculated from data presented in table 19, p. 66 o f this issue. 1 Regarding h m o s , see Allan Blostin and William Marclay, “ HMOs and other health plans; coverage and employee premiums,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , June 1983, pp. 2 8 -3 3 . 4 The latter study is part of a series of annual surveys conducted in private sector establishments in the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii, employing at least 50, 100, or 250 workers, depending on the industry. Industrial coverage includes: Mining; construction; manufactur ing; transportation, communications, electric, gas, and sanitary services; wholesale trade; retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and se lected services. Findings for 1981 are reported in E m p lo y e e B e n efits in M e d iu m a n d L a r g e F irm s, 1 9 8 1 , Bulletin 2140 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982). For information on the background and conduct of the survey, see Robert Frumkin and William Wiatrowski, “ Bureau of Labor Statistics takes a new look at employee benefits,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , August 1982, pp. 4 1 -4 5 . 8 Somers and Somers, D o c to r s , P a tie n ts , a n d H e a lth I n su ra n c e , p. 387. 9 S o u r c e B o o k o f H e a lth I n su ra n c e D a ta 1 9 8 1 - 8 2 (Washington, Health Insurance Institute, 1982), p. 16. Early b l s studies of major medical plans are reported in A n a ly s is o f H e a lth a n d I n su ra n c e P la n s U n d e r C o lle c tiv e B a r g a in in g , L a te 1 9 5 5 , Bulletin 1221 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1957); and H e a lth a n d I n su ra n c e P la n s U n d e r C o lle c tiv e B a r g a in in g : M a jo r M e d ic a l E x p e n s e B e n e fits , F a ll 1 9 6 0 , Bulletin 1293 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1961). 10 In preparing table 2, modified comprehensive major medical plans providing initial full coverage of expenses were considered as offering both basic and major medical benefits. One of the early comprehensive plans was that offered by the General Electric Co. in 1955. See E. S. W illis, “ GE’s Experience with Comprehensive Health Insurance,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , June 1958, pp. 6 2 1 -2 5 . 11 About three-fifths of the participants in major medical plans in medium and large firms were under supplemental plans. See E m p lo y e e B e n efits in M e d iu m a n d L a r g e F irm s, 1 9 8 1 , p. 5. 12 N e w G r o u p H e a lth I n su ra n c e P o lic ie s I s s u e d in 1 9 8 1 — C o m p le te T a b le s (Washington, Health Insurance Institute, 1981), tables 13, 18. 5Herman M. Somers and Anne R. Somers, D o c to r s , P a tie n ts , a n d H e a lth I n s u r a n c e (Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1961), p. 281. 13 Apart from mental health care, two o f the plans in the study varied the coinsurance rate for different categories of medical care; the most significant ratio in these plans was used in preparing the distribution in cluded in table 3. 6High-cost, or “ catastrophic,” illnesses are analyzed in C a ta s tr o p h ic M e d ic a l E x p e n s e s : P a tte r n s in th e N o n -E ld e r ly , N o n -P o o r P o p u la tio n 14 Some of the plans also contained overall limits on out-of-pocket ex penses for an entire family. (Congress o f the United States, Congressional Budget Office, December 1982). 15N e w G r o u p H e a lth I n s u r a n c e P o lic ie s I s s u e d in 1 9 8 1 , tables 13, 18. 16 All seven covered the surgeon’s 7 Dental and vision care coverage at times were provided by separate charge for the procedure performed. basic plans even where comprehensive major medical policies were in 17 For a more indepth look at some effect. Oral surgery, however, is generally covered by basic surgical ben see Bert Seidman, “ Bad Medicine efits or major medical plans. A m e r ic a n F e d e r a tio n is t, April-June 16 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis fee up to the “ usual and customary” criticisms o f cost-sharing provisions, for Health Care C ost,” A F L - C I O 1982, pp. 2 0 -2 8 . Job commitment in America: is it waxing or waning? An analysis of literature and popular indicators of the work ethic show no evidence of either increasing or decreasing commitment; many workers continue to work more than the standard 40-hour week Ja n i c e N e ip e r t H edges The degree of commitment Americans have to the work ethic continues to preoccupy both scholars and politicians. But, their discussions often are based on philosophical re flection and anecdotal evidence rather than data. This article examines some of the “ indicators” that have been used to assess job commitment; statistical series on absence from work, quits, and working part time by choice— phenomena generally associated with weak commitment— and multiple job-holding and overtime— often associated with strong commitment. In addition, comprehensive mea sures of worktime (scheduled, actual and preferred) and other possible indicators of job commitment are examined. Finally, the commitment of three worker groups— men of prime working age, women, and youth is discussed. Some indicators of commitment Absence among workers frequently is assumed to include a substantial element of ‘‘absenteeism’’ that arises from poor attitudes. In fact, much of the research on absence implies that workers are freer to decide whether or not to go to work than is the case. A model of attendance developed by Rich ard M. Steers and Susan R. Rhodes incorporates both ability Janice Neipert Hedges is a labor economist formerly with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A version of this article appears in Jack Barbash, ed., T h e W o rk E th ic -A n A n a ly tic a l V ie w , Industrial Relations Research Asso ciation, 1983. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and motivation to attend work.1 Health, family responsi bilities, and transportation are the principal determinants of ability in the model. The determinants of motivation are job satisfaction and several internal and external pressures, among which are organizational commitment and personal work ethic. In practice, absenteeism and legitimate, or unavoidable, absence are not easily separated. The difficulties arise in part from lack of agreement on definitions and on acceptable levels of absence.2 To circumvent these and other problems, attempts to identify absenteeism generally have focused on the duration or timing of an absence. For example, absences of a few days or less and those occurring just after the weekend (the “ Blue Monday Syndrome” ) often are as sumed to be avoidable. Such approaches neither exclude all legitimate absence nor capture all absenteeism. A slight decline in absence as unemployment rises can be observed in national data from the Bureau of National Affairs’ ( b n a ) survey of selected employers and from the Current Population Survey ( c p s ) of households covering all workers.3 This cyclical pattern is attributed by some to an improved work ethic as employees seek to protect their jobs. Alternative explanations include the fact that younger work ers and production workers, groups which tend to be absent more frequently, are among the first to be laid off.4 National data show no secular increase in absence that would support a thesis of weakening job commitment. De17 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Is Job Commitment Waxing or Waning? spite rapid growth in sick leave benefits, c p s data show that the incidence of absence attributed to illness or injury fluc tuated narrowly between 1968 and 1980, ranging from 2.3 to 2.5 percent a week for part-week absences, and from 1.5 to 1.7 percent for absences of a full week. Absences at tributed to miscellaneous reasons (including family respon sibilities, transportation problems, and personal business) generally remained at just under 2 percent for part-week absences, and under 1 percent for full- week absences. “ Quits, ” or resignations, are a legitimate concern only if they are excessive or occur for the wrong reasons. To insist that workers not change jobs would demand greater com mitment from employees than from employers. It would impede the efficient allocation of labor. The rising incidence of quits among production workers in the 1960’s, for ex ample, could be attributed in part to the wider diffusion of market information to a more educated and sophisticated work force. As Paul A. Armknecht and John F. Early ob served: “ Better knowledge of alternative opportunities made it possible for the worker to behave more like the classical economic man.” 5 The literature on the determinants of quits is extensive; the findings are diverse. The major factors identified by researchers were summarized by John R. Hinrichs as “ items external to the individual, such as pay, working conditions, and co-workers; factors associated with the employees’ per sonal characteristics, such as age and sex; and factors tied to the employees’ reactions to the job, such as job satis faction, involvement, and expectations.” 6 Hinrichs noted that organizational commitment (an em ployee’s expressed intent to remain with a firm) was emerg ing as a key variable. Allen I. Kraut, for example, held that, . . . a direct measure of intent to remain . . . is a more powerful predictor of . . . turnover than are other measures of job satisfaction.” 7 Kraut’s research was pred icated on the likelihood that the employee provides “ the best synthesis of attitudes toward his work situation, his opportunities elsewhere and other aspects of his life that bear on a decision to remain on the current job . . . ” 8 However, social psychological factors were assigned the role of intervening variables by James L. Price in a codi fication of the literature on organizational turnover.9 In his view, the determinants of turnover are structural: pay (the money, fringe benefits, and other commodities of financial value received in return for services), integration (the extent of workers’ participation in primary or quasi-primary groups, or both), communication (the degree to which information is transmitted), and centralization (the degree to which power is concentrated). Paul A. Armknecht found tenure and rel ative wages to be the leading variables in determining inter industry differences.10 The diversity of findings supports Hinrich’s conclusion that “ the search for some primary and overriding reason for turnover has not been particularly successful.” Mean 18 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis while, recent studies using improved models and techniques have found no significant secular trend in the quit rate. Voluntary part-time’s association with poor job commitment is refuted by managerial experience. Users of part-time em ployees report positively on their performance.11 The effort expended per hour at work, as assessed by workers them selves, is greater among part-time than full-time employees.1Z The work commitment of part-time employees is partic ularly noteworthy in view of their conditions of employ ment. Their median weekly earnings in 1981 were about three-tenths those of full-time workers, although their work weeks were almost half as long.13 The disadvantage in re lation to fringe benefits is even greater. For example, paid sick leave was available in 1978 to little more than half the part-time employees (usually prorated), compared with 19 of 20 full-time employees in the same firms.14 But the most severe test to the commitment of part-time workers may be management’s perception, as reported by Stanley D. Nollen and others, that “ [Part-time employees arel . . . outside normal career paths and not interested in, or in some cases eligible for, advancement or promotion.” 15 Notwithstand ing the terms of part-time employment, the same authors observed that: With few exceptions, employers in user organizations believe in the seriousness of purpose of part-time workers. Few man agers refer either to positive characteristics . . . such as maturity and stability, or to negative characteristics, such as lack of commitment. Neither are important issues for users. Overtime hours are worked by a highly diverse group, in cluding factory operatives and managers. About two-fifths of all employees who exceeded the standard 40-hour work week on their sole or primary job in May 1980 earned a premium wage for overtime.16 Overtime, even for a premium wage, receives a mixed reaction from workers. Richard Perlman observed that the typical worker (in a position of equilibrium wage income and leisure at a given work schedule) would always choose to work overtime hours at premium pay, as would all under employed workers.17 Some over-employed workers could be induced to work overtime if the premium pay were suf ficiently high, but others would refuse if given the option. About one-fifth of the employees who worked overtime in 1977 were unable to refuse without penalty.18 Both the right of refusal and the equal distribution of overtime are subjects of collective bargaining.19 When the freedom of male household heads to vary their hours of work in the early 1970’s was examined, it was found that nearly half of them (46 percent) would not have been paid for overtime. With few exceptions, these workers also lacked a definite marginal wage rate for reducing their usual weekly hours.20 Among the male family heads who were in jobs which paid for marginal work, well under one- fifth could vary their hours in either direction; about onefourth could either increase or decrease their hours; and the remainder were fully constrained. Edward Kalachek noted: “ . . . somewhat less than one-third of all blue collar workers and one-fifth of all white collar workers had jobs which provided both marginal pay for marginal work and some freedom for the worker to vary hours.” 21 Data on overtime for production workers in manufactur ing show a cyclical pattern, but no secular trend. Between 1960 and 1979, average weekly hours of overtime per worker ranged between 2.1 and 3.9 hours. Multiple jobholding is a solution to insufficient hours on the primary job for some workers. When hours on all jobs were totaled, about three-fourths of the multiple jobholders in 1980 exceeded the standard workweek.22 A small minority (about 5 percent of all workers) holds more than one job. The practice is most prevalent among husbands, least prevalent among wives (6.2 percent versus 3.4 percent in 1980). By occupation, multiple jobholding occurs most often among workers whose primary jobs are in professional or technical occupations. Such workers tend to have more marketable skills as well as more flexible work schedules. Protective service workers (police, guards, and firefighters) and farm workers also have above-average rates. Factory operatives, who have greater opportunity than most workers to work overtime for premium pay, and clerical workers, who are predominately women, are the least likely to hold more than one job. The conditions that have been identified as encouraging a worker to hold more than one job include little or no opportunity for overtime or extra hours on the primary job, a work schedule on the primary job that permits a second job, and a feeling that income is inadequate.23 Financial reasons are the principal motivation cited by the majority of multiple jobholders (55 percent in 1979) in the Current Population Survey. The second largest group (18 percent) explained that they enjoy the work,24 and Richard Perlman noted that some get more satisfaction from their second jobs, which are not their primary jobs only because of lower wages or limited hours of work.25 According to Paul Mott: . . . perhaps the most common motivation to moonlight arises from a complex set of conditions which impinge on the family’s economic planning. Every family pursues a certain style of life as a goal and every style . . . has its price tag. If the husband s wages are inadequate for obtaining the desired standard of living, then the family must make some decisions . . . One option is to reduce their economic aspirations . . . Another alternative is for the wife to take a job . . . Moonlighting is another option.26 A slight decline in multiple jobholding rates among hus bands in recent years (almost 1 percentage point from 1973 to 1979), coupled with employment growth among wives, suggests that more families may be choosing the second option. Edward S. Sekscenski pointed out: “ . . .the growth https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in the number of multi-earner families may have diminished the economic incentive for some husbands to hold more than one jo b .” 27 An increase in the prevalence of multiple jobholding among all employed women (from 2.7 percent in 1973 to 3.5 percent in 1979) is in sharp contrast to the decline among men. Rising rates for women may be ex plained in part by the growth in the proportion of women who are their families’ primary earners. To summarize, absence and turnover— two of three phe nomena often associated with weak job commitment— are poor indicators because they involve determinants which are unrelated to commitment. The third phenomenon— vol untary part-time work— attracts many persons who are highly motivated. Overtime work and multiple jobholding are associated with strong commitment. Overtime gets a mixed reaction from workers, some would prefer more hours of overtime than are offered, others seek the right to refuse overtime. The cyclical pattern in overtime hours, however, suggests that business conditions rather than worker preferences de termine the amount of overtime worked. Multiple jobhold ing is practiced by a small minority: financial reasons are most frequently the primary motivation, followed by “ enjoy the work.” The prevalence of multiple jobholding has been declining among men, but rising among women. Significance of worktime In weighing the extent to which workers’ hours decisions are restricted by institutional rigidities, Edward Kalachek observed that although employers normally set the work schedule they do not determine it: “ The employers’ offer curve merely represents one side of the market. The work ers’ supply curve represents the other side.” -8 For this rea son, trends in weekly schedules and leave benefits can provide insight into changes in the commitment that workers are prepared to make to a job. Bureau of Labor Statistics area wage surveys of employers in metropolitan areas and its analyses of major collective bargaining agreements provide such data.29 Neither source shows substantial growth in shorter schedules in recent years. Scheduled hours. Weekly schedules of 40 hours or more were in effect for 89 percent of the plant workers and 60 percent of the office workers in metropolitan areas who worked full-time weeks in 1979-81. Schedules of fewer than 40 hours had gained a modest 4-percentage points since 1960-61, rising from 7 percent to 11 percent of all full time schedules in plants and from 35 percent to 39 percent in offices. The continued dominance of 40-hour schedules probably can be attributed, at least partially, to the collision of forces: “ fixed costs, fringe benefits and payroll taxes encourage employers to offer longer workweeks until they encounter the penalty pay provisions of the f l s a [Fair Labor Standards Act].” 30 Nonetheless, had workers preferred more 19 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Is Job Commitment Waxing or Waning? leisure over higher earnings, shorter schedules would have spread more rapidly. One of the most significant developments in scheduled worktime during the past 20 years has been the narrowing gap between plant and office workers. Weekly schedules of 41 hours of more were relatively rare for office employees as early as 1960. In the ensuing two decades, the proportion of plant workers on such schedules declined from 11 to 6 percent. Differences between plant and office workers in average scheduled hours were almost halved, as average hours remained steady in offices (38.9 in 1960-61 and 38.8 in 1979-81) and declined in plants (from 40.5 to 39.7). Differences in paid time off also narrowed. At least 2 weeks of vacation were available by 1960-61 to most office workers with 3 years of service;31 between 1960-61 and 1978-81, the proportion of plant workers with such benefits rose from 63 to 88 percent. Holidays numbered the same for plant and office workers in 1978-81: just under 10 days a year. These trends toward equality in weekly schedules and leave entitlements should not be interpreted as a weak ening of the job commitment of plant employees, but rather as a healthy development. Shorter workweeks, more paid vacations and holidays, and earlier retirement have been part of organized labor’s strategy to improve job security. John Zalusky acknowl edged that “ part of the appeal for a shorter work week is a demand for more leisure time,” but he emphasized that “ . . . the strongest push comes for a desire to protect and increase jobs.” 32 Similarly, Howard Young explained the growth in paid personal holidays (which, in contrast to tra ditional holidays, keep firms open and operating): “ For some workers . . . [paid personal holidays] means a job opportunity. . . . In pre-bargaining conferences, the mem bership’s message was clear: jobs are the issue.” 33 Worktime reductions achieved under collective bargain ing have been modest for the most part in recent years. In 1980, nine-tenths of the major agreements which referred to specific weekly hours stipulated 40 hours; one-tenth, fewer than 40 hours. This was the same distribution as in 196667, despite organized labor’s often expressed support for shorter workweeks.34 In vacation entitlements, the largest gains were reserved for workers with substantial seniority. For example, 4 weeks or more paid vacation after 15 years of service was provided in three-fifths of the major collective bargaining agreements in 1980, four times the proportion in 1966-67. As John Zalusky pointed out: “ Vacation at the low end of the seniority list nears 100 percent entitlement while only a few workers would enjoy the extra week after 10 years’ service.” 35 Some workers, notably those whose jobs were particu larly threatened by automation, achieved substantial reduc tions in annual hours in recent years. Among employees covered by United Automobile Workers-General Motors agreements, for example, the average full-time, straighttime work year declined an estimated 104 hours between 20 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1967 and 1976, to 1,768 hours.36 More recently, leaders of the Auto Workers and other unions have negotiated “ giveback” clauses in efforts to lower employer costs and thus, hopefully, improve job security.37 Actual hours. Hours at work per week or per year can differ substantially from scheduled hours. Overtime, wages in lieu of holidays or vacations, and multiple jobholding can extend hours at work beyond scheduled worktime; hours cutbacks and unscheduled absences curtail them. Hours engaged in work (a concept that excludes formal and informal work breaks and on-the-job training) approximate actual hours of work even more closely than do hours at work. Weekly hours at work have declined substantially over the long term. At the turn of the century, persons employed in the civilian economy worked about 53 hours a week, on average. Their counterparts in the late 1970’s, before the prolonged slump that began in 1980, worked about 39 hours.38 Some researchers have observed, however, that the groups comprising the work force have had little or no net gain in leisure time since the end of World War II. John Owen disaggregated weekly hours at work by sex, marital status, school enrollment, and age, and found that the workweeks of non-student men were as long in 1975 as in 1948, even after adjustments for vacations and holidays.39 This finding was consistent with Thomas Kniesner’s con clusion on the weekly hours of adult men from 1948 to 1970.40 Shorter workweeks for women and longer weeks for male students in 1975 than in 1948, according to John Owen, reflected compositional changes within those groups: wives and mothers, who tend to put in fewer hours in paid jobs than other women, were a larger component of women workers in 1975, while older students, who tend to work more hours than younger students, were a larger component of employed students. Leisure, thus, had not increased in recent decades, but, Indeed, one could more reasonably interpret the increased em ployment of groups with extensive nonmarket work responsi bilities as tending to reduce free time. Students must go to school, attend classes, and prepare assignments . . . [Similarly] the shift from full-time housewife to employed wife . . . was probably associated with a decline [in] free time. Annual hours at work edged down about 40 hours from 1968 to the close of the 1970’s for full-time, nonagricultural employees as a whole. Shorter workweeks accounted for roughly two-thirds of the reduction; holidays, about onefourth; and liberalized vacation benefits, one-tenth. The highly publicized vacation gains for long-service employees had less impact than might have been expected. Earlier retire ments among men, an influx of women and youth into the labor force, and rising unemployment had further reduced the minority of workers with as much as 15 years of service from 19 percent to 14 percent.41 Hours engaged in work (that is, actually working) are significantly lower than hours at work. Work breaks and on-the-job training account for most of the difference. Morning and afternoon work breaks of from 10 to 15 minutes each were provided all employee groups in a ma jority of the companies which responded to a Bureau of National Affairs survey on work scheduling policies.42 Em ployees own records of their time use throughout a 24-hour period show that scheduled breaks (such as for “ coffee” ) averaged 16 minutes a day in 1976; unscheduled breaks (“ socializing,” personal business, and so forth), for another 27 minutes.43 In another survey, about one-third of the employees reported that talking to friends, doing personal business, or just relaxing accounted for 30 minutes or more of their average workday.44 Losses from these unscheduled breaks on this scale suggest weak job commitment. The amount of effort expended by workers probably would be a better indicator of job commitment than a measurement of hours. Alfred Marshall pointed out that “ . . . even if the number of [working] hours in the year were rigidly fixed, which it is not, the intensity of work would remain elas tic.” 45 Interest in the intensity of work effort has been di rected toward alternative methods of pay, such as piecework and incentives, in particular work settings. However, a scale of work intensity developed at the Institute for Social Re search provides some indication of the effort of various groups of workers.46 Changes in the ratio of output to hours of labor input (productivity measures) sometimes are cited as evidence of changes in the work ethic— particularly when productivity declines. However, such indexes reflect the interaction of many factors, including technology, capital investment, hu man resources (education and skill), energy, and raw ma terials. They have little relevance to the commitment of workers to their jobs. Preferred hours. The 40-hour reduction in annual worktime during the 1970’s absorbed roughly one-sixth of the de cade’s productivity gains. Apparently the taste for fewer hours of work, though stronger than in the 1960’s, was far weaker than the taste for additional goods and services. Workers in general seem to be satisfied with their weekly hours. However, some would prefer to work additional hours for higher earnings, while others would be willing to ex change earnings for a reduction in worktime. Working “ excessive hours” was considered a problem by less than one-tenth of those who reported a problem with their hours in 1977— fewer by far than complained of ‘in convenient hours.” 47 Evidence from a variety of sources suggests that the workers who desire additional hours of work per week are more numerous than those who view their worktime as excessive. For example, in a 1978 national survey, more than twice as many workers preferred addi tional hours and proportionately higher earnings than fa vored fewer hours and lower earnings: 28 percent versus 11 percent.48 Among male family heads surveyed in 1971, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis those who were free to vary their hours worked longer workweeks than those who were constrained.49 Choices between earnings and leisure were influenced, however, by the type of worktime reduction considered. In the 1978 survey, longer vacations were far more popular, for example, than shorter workweeks.50 Perhaps the most telling evidence of the desire to commit more hours to paid work is the large group of employees (as many as 5 million persons in 1981) who want full-time employment but work part time for economic reasons.51 The group includes black, white, and Hispanic men and women of every age and level of education. Although the prevalence of part-time work for economic reasons peaks during periods of recession, the proportion of employees in this situation gradually rose from 2.0 percent of all em ployees in 1969 to 3.2 percent in 1979. To summarize, analysis of worktime offers little support, on the whole, for the thesis of weakening job commitment. Reductions in scheduled worktime have been relatively modest in recent years, and have narrowed the gap between plant and office workers in weekly hours, vacations, and holidays. Job security has been the primary motivation for the re ductions in scheduled worktime sought by organized labor. While hours at work have declined overall, changes in the composition of the work force are largely responsible. Major groups of workers, including adult men and women, and students have experienced little or no net gain in leisure since World War II. Some evidence of insufficient job com mitment is found, however, in what appears to be excessive unscheduled work breaks reported by some workers. The commitment of selected groups Employed men o f prime-working age (25 to 54 years) are less likely to be suspect of weak job commitment than are other workers. Before the economic downturn in 1979, their workweeks approached 44 hours on average. Almost 7 per cent of them held more than one job. However, recent trends in worktime for these men differ markedly by marital status. Single men of prime working age were working slightly more hours per week in 1979 than in 1968. In contrast, weekly hours of married men had declined by about one-half hour. The reduction was largest for husbands 25-34 years (almost 1 hour on average), but fewer hours also were reported by married men 35-54 years. Men in both marital groups continued to exceed the standard workweek on average (44.5 hours for husbands and 41.8 hours for single men in 1979). The decline in weekly hours (as well as a drop in multiple jobholding rates) for married men of prime working age may be attributable, in part, to a tendency of workers in the growing underground economy to under-report hours, par ticularly those hours worked on second jobs. However, an important factor in reducing the weekly hours of married men probably was the rising prevalence of working cou21 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Is Job Commitment Waxing or Waning? pies.52 The same phenomenon also may explain the in creased time men were spending taking care of family responsibilities.53 Women workers as a group spend considerably less time than men at paid jobs. Women are far less likely than men to work year round (57 percent versus 71 percent in 1979). Moreover, in the weeks they work, their hours average substantially fewer than those of men (34.5 hours versus 41.6 hours in 1979). Marital status, however, has a dramatic effect on sex differences in paid worktime. Among single persons, women workers have about the same likelihood as men of working year round, full time (36 percent versus 38 percent in 1979), whereas the proportion of wives who make that time com mitment to a paid job is little more than half the proportion of husbands (43 percent versus 79 percent). Analysis of weekly hours by marital status shows a similar pattern: single women average about nine-tenths as many hours at work as single men (32.6 hours versus 35.9 hours in 1979), while wives work less than four-fifths as many hours as husbands (34.4 hours versus 43.8 hours in 1979).54 Although women spend less time in paid employment, work for pay plus work in family care is roughly the same for men and women: about 57 hours versus 56 hours in 1975.55 Economic theory holds that the hours supplied to paid work and to unpaid household work by individual fam ily members is determined by some consensus within fam ilies, based on the respective “ efficiencies” of the individuals in market production versus household production. Thus, with women’s hourly earnings substantially below those of men,56 fewer hours for women in paid work and more in household production are based in economic realities. The proportion of time at work actually spent working and the level of effort expended are reported to be higher for women than for men.57 Youth’s job commitment often is faulted, usually on the grounds of frequent job changes and work absences. Rel atively high rates of turnover among youth are both natural and beneficial. The part-time or seasonal work which young people typically find as their first jobs seldom leads to full time, year-round employment. Older youth may test a va riety of full-time jobs before finding the type of work and the environment in which they can function best. Moreover, young workers have not acquired the seniority-based ben efits that inhibit job changing among mature workers. Although absences are more frequent among workers lb 24 years than among those 25 years and older, they tend to be shorter. The proportion of scheduled work time lost in 1980 was the same for youth as for persons of prime working age (3.3 percent versus 3.2 percent), and substan tially less than for workers 55-64 years (4.0 percent). More over, youths’ record on absences should be considered in conjunction with their relatively limited vacation benefits. 22 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The practice in the United States of tying vacation entitle ments to length of service provides young workers with little time off to make the adjustments from a generally less structured student life, and to cope with the demands placed on them as they set up their own households. Part-time employment for students has been widely en dorsed as a way to bridge the transition from school to work. This view is responsible in part for the employment growth among teenagers in the 1970’s. In October 1979, 38 percent of the 16- to 19-year-olds enrolled in school were employed, and an additional 7 percent were looking for jobs.58 The majority of student workers were at work 15 hours or more a week. Recent studies tend to support a rising concern that some youth may be over-committed to paid work. Students’ em ployment, particularly when it exceeds 15 or 20 hours weekly, has been found to entail costs as well as benefits. The costs include diminished involvement in school activities, in creased absenteeism from school, and possibly a decline in academic grades.59 The National Association of Secondary School Principals, noting that some students appear to be working excessive hours, has urged that a proper balance between job experience and class time be maintained.60 Conclusion: encouraging signs What is a reasoned assessment of the state of job com mitment? The phenomena frequently associated with weak com mitment prove largely unreliable indicators. Many absences, for example, are unavoidable. Job changes often are both necessary and desirable. As for employees who work part time voluntarily, managers attest to their commitment. When we turn to measures of worktime, we find that many employees continue to exceed the standard 40-hour week; some by working extra hours on their job (with or without premium pay), others by holding more than one job. Average scheduled worktime and hours at work have declined very modestly in recent years. Moreover, reduc tions in hours to some extent have been more apparent than real. Major groups of workers, including adult men, are working as many hours as they did several decades ago. Heralded gains in vacation benefits for extended service are available to a relatively small and declining group of work ers. Moreover, the impetus from organized labor for reduced worktime has risen more from a desire to protect and expand employment than to increase leisure. “ Hard” evidence of weak commitment rests largely on reports from a minority of workers that their unscheduled work breaks are of a length that most observers would con sider excessive. Because many workers are unable to increase or decrease their worktime (whether weekly hours or leave) freely, workers’ stated preferences for worktime are helpful in eval uating commitment. Surveys show that far more workers prefer longer workweeks and more pay than prefer fewer hours and less pay. However, workers are more willing to exchange earnings for longer vacations or sabbaticals than for shorter workweeks. If the data show major cause for concern, it is that the desire for hours of work seems greater than the hours avail able. Several million men and women of every age— whether black, Hispanic, or white— want to work full time but can obtain only part-time jobs. The group is growing in number and as a proportion of all workers. Some encouraging signs appear in the data. One is a small reduction in the weekly hours of married men, who tradi tionally have worked very long hours. It may be that the rising employment of wives is aiding husbands to move toward a little better distribution of their time between paid work and household responsibilities. The second encour aging sign is that weekly schedules and leave benefits of production workers are approaching those of office workers. Few are likely to read these changes as evidence of a weak work ethic among married men or production workers. □ FOOTNOTES The author thanks Paul O. Flaim, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. 'Richard M. Steers and Susan R. Rhodes, “ Major Influences on Em ployee Attendance: A Process M odel,” J o u r n a l o f A p p lie d P s y c h o lo g y , August 1978, pp. 3 9 1-407. A cknow ledgm ent: 2To illustrate, some researchers include alcoholism and drug abuse in their definition o f illness. See for example, John B. Miner and J. Frank Brewer, “ The Management of Ineffective Performance,” in Marvin D. Sunnett, e d ., H a n d b o o k o f I n d u s tr ia l a n d O r g a n iz a tio n a l P s y c h o lo g y (Chi cago, Rand McNally College Publishing C o., 1976). 3For BNA statistics on absence, see B N A ’s Q u a r te r ly R e p o r t o n J o b A b s e n c e a n d T u rn o v e r , various issues. CPS series on absence are included in L a b o r F o r c e S ta tis tic s D e r iv e d f r o m th e C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n S u r v e y : A D a ta B o o k , V o lu m e l (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), and E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s (Bureau of Labor Statistics, various issues). 4 For a discussion of absence and unemployment, see Steers and Rhodes, “ Major Influences on Employee Attendance.” 5 See Paul A. Armknecht and John F. Early, “ Quits in manufacturing: a study o f their causes,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , November 1972, pp. 3 1 -3 7 . For a further discussion of turnover and the allocation of labor, see Paul Armknecht, J o b M o b ility A m o n g A m e ric a n N o n a g r ic u ltu r a l I n d u s tr ie s (Dissertation, Washington, D C ., The Catholic University of America, 1982). 6John R. Hinrichs, C o n tr o llin g A b s e n te e is m a n d T u rn o ve r : H ig h lig h ts o f th e L ite r a tu r e (Scarsdale, N .Y ., Work in America Institute, Inc., 1980). 7 Allen I. Kraut, “ Predicting Turnover o f Employees from Measured Job Attitudes,” O rg a n iza tio n a l B e h a v io r a n d H u m an P erfo rm a n c e, April 1975, pp. 2 3 3 -4 3 . Turnover studies have focused so heavily on quits or resig nations that the terms turnover and quits are used interchangeably. Labor turnover in the full sense is comprised of voluntary separations (resignations or quits), involuntary separations (dismissals, layoffs, retirements, and deaths), and accessions. The question used to elicit an expression of intent was: “ If you have your own way, will you be working for (this company) 5 years from now (1-Certainly, 2-Probably, 3-Not sure one way or the other, 4-Probably not, 5-Certainly not).” 8 See James L. Koch and Richard M. Steers, “ Job Attachment, Satis faction, and Turnover Among Public Sector Em ployees,” J o u r n a l o f V o c a tio n a l B e h a v io r , February 1978, pp. 119-28; and Lyman W. Porter, Richard M. Steers, and Richard T. Mowday, “ Organizational Commit ment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians,” J o u r n a l o f A p p lie d P s y c h o lo g y , October 1974, pp. 6 0 3 -0 9 . 9 James L. Price, T h e S tu d y o f T u rn o v e r (Ames, Iowa, Iowa State Uni versity Press, 1977). 10 Armknecht, J o b M o b ility . "Stanley D. Nollen, Brenda Broz Eddy, and Virginia Hider Martin, P e r m a n e n t P a r t-T im e E m p lo y m en t: The M a n a g e r ’s P e r sp e c tiv e (New York, Praeger Publishers, 1978); and Comptroller General of the United States, P a r t-tim e E m p lo y m e n t in F e d e r a l A g e n c ie s : R e p o r t to th e C o n g r e s s (Wash ington, D .C ., U .S. Government Printing Office, 1976). l2Frank Stafford and Greg J. Duncan, T h e U s e o f T im e a n d T e c h n o lo g y b y H o u s e h o ld s in th e U n ite d S ta t e s , Working Paper Series (Ann Arbor, M ich., Institute for Social Research, 1979). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 13Earl F. Mellor and George D. Stamas, “ Usual weekly earnings: an other look at intergroup differences and basic trends,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , April 1982, pp. 15-24. 14Stanley D. Nollen and Virginia H. Martin, A lte r n a tiv e W o rk S c h e d u le s , Parts 2 and 3 (New York, a m a c o m , 1978). 15 Nollen, Eddy, and Martin, P e r m a n e n t P a r t-T im e E m p lo y m e n t. 16 Daniel E. Taylor and EdwardS. Sekscenski, “ Workers on long sched ules, single and multiple jobholders,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , May 1982, pp. 4 7 -5 3 . "Richard Perlman, L a b o r T h e o r y (New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969). 18 Robert P. Quinn and Graham L. Staines, Th e ¡ 9 7 7 Q u a lity o f E m p lo y m e n t S u r v e y (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1979). 19C h a r a c te r is tic s o f M a jo r C o lle c tiv e B a r g a in in g A g r e e m e n ts , J a n u a ry I , 1 9 8 0 , Bulletin 2095 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1981). An American Arbitration Association study in the 1960’s reported that employee claims that they were not given their rightful share of overtime ranked fourth as a cause of grievance, after discipline, seniority, and job content. See Sar A. Levitan and Richard S. Belous, S h o r te r H o u r s , S h o r te r W ee k s: S p r e a d in g th e W o rk to R e d u c e U n e m p lo y m e n t (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). 20 The marginal rate for a reduction in hours was considered to be the hourly rate for regular hours. This rate was obtained by the questions: “ Do you have an hourly wage rate for your regular work time?” The marginal rate for overtime was obtained by two questions “ if you were to work more hours than usual during some weeks, would you get paid for those extra hours?’ ’ (If yes) “ What would be your hourly rate for that overtime?’ ’ Jonathan Dickinson, “ Labor Supply of Family Members,” in James N. Morgan and others, eds., F iv e T h o u s a n d A m e r ic a n F a m ilie s : P a tte r n s o f E c o n o m ic P r o g r e s s , V o l. I (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1974). 21 Edward Kalachek, “ Workers and the Hours D ecision,” in Robert L. Clark, ed ., W o rk T im e a n d E m p lo y m e n t (Washington, National Commis sion for Manpower Policy, 1978), pp. 175-97. 22 Some multiple jobholders work less than a full-time workweek (defined as 35 hours or more). The hours distribution of multiple jobholders in May 1980 was as follows: 1 -34 hours, 15 percent; 3 5 -4 0 hours, 9 percent; 41 hours or more, 76 percent. 23 Paul E. Mott, Hours of Work and Moonlighting,” in Clyde E. Dankert, Floyd C. Mann, and Herbert R. Northrup, eds., H o u r s o f W o rk (New York, Harper and Row, 1965); Perlman, L a b o r T h e o r y ; and Nand K. Tandan, W o rk e rs w ith L o n g H o u r s , Special Labour Force Studies, Series A, Statistics No. 9 (Ottawa, Canada, Information Canada, 1972). 24Edward S. Sekscenski, “ W omen’s share of moonlighting nearly dou bles during 1 9 6 9 -7 9 ,” Monthly L a b o r R e v ie w , May 1980, pp. 3 6 -3 9 . 25 Perlman, L a b o r T h e o r y . 26Mott, “ Hours of work and moonlighting.” 27Sekscenski, “ W omen’s share of moonlighting.” 28Kalacheck, “ Workers and the Hours D ecision.” 29The Bureau’s area wage survey program covers selected plant and office occupations in firms located in metropolitan areas and employing a 23 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Is Job Commitment Waxing or Waning? minimum o f 100 workers. Scheduled hours are the weekly hours which a majority o f the full-tim e, day-shift employees in a firm are expected to work, whether they are paid straight-time or overtime rates. Major collective bargaining agreements are defined as those covering 1,000 workers or more. 30Kalachek, “ Workers and the Hours D ecision.” 31 In January 1981, 3.2 years was the average (median) length of time on the current job. See Francis W. Horvath, “ Job tenure of workers in January 1 9 8 1 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , September 1982, pp. 3 4 -3 6 . 32 John Zalusky, “ Shorter Hours— The Steady G ain,” a f l -c i o A m e ric a n F e d e r a tio n is t, January 1978. 33 Howard Young, “ Jobs, Technology, and the Hours of Labor: The Future o f Work in the U .S .,” H e a r in g s o f th e J o in t E c o n o m ic C o m m itte e ’s S p e c ia l S tu d y on E c o n o m ic C h a n g e , Washington, D.C. June 14, 1978. 34See for example, the AFL-CIO platform proposals presented to the 1980 Democratic and Republican national conventions. 35 John Zalusky, “ Vacations and Holidays: Tools in Cutting Work Time,” A m e r ic a n F e d e r a tio n is t, February 1977. a f l - c io 36Young, “ Jobs, Technology and the Hours of Labor.” 37See George Ruben, “ Collective bargaining in 1982: results dictated by the econom y,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , January 1983, pp. 2 8 -3 7 . 38 Hours data for 1979 are used predominately in this article to avoid the effects o f the subsequent economic downturn. Figures are for nonagricultural wage and salary workers in May (the traditional month for hours analysis) unless specified otherwise. The weekly hours cited here are annual averages for the civilian economy as a whole. 39 John D. Owen, “ Workweeks and leisure: an analysis of trends, 19487 5 ,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , August 1976, pp. 3 -8 . 40Thomas J. Kniesner, “ The Full-Time Workweek in the United States, 1900—1970,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v ie w , October 1976, pp 3 -1 5 . 41 Median years o f service declined from 3.8 years in 1968 to 3.2 years in 1981. 42 Bureau o f National Aifairs, W o rk S c h e d u lin g P o lic ie s , P e r s o n n e l P o l ic ie s F o ru m S u r v e y 118 (Washington, Bureau of National Affairs, August 1977). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 43Stalford and Duncan, T h e U se o f T im e. 44 Quinn and Staines, T h e 1 9 7 7 Q u a lity o f E m p lo y m e n t S u rv e y . 45 As cited by John H. Pencavel, “ Work Effort, On-the-Job Screening, and Alternative Methods of Remuneration,” in Ronald G. Ehrenberg, ed.. R e s e a r c h in L a b o r E c o n o m ic s , V o l. / (Greenwich, Conn., JA1 Press, 1977), pp. 2 2 5 -5 8 . 46 Stafford and Duncan, T h e U se o f T im e. 47 Quinn and Staines, T h e 1 9 7 7 Q u a lity o f E m p lo y m e n t S u rv e y. 48 Fred Best, E x c h a n g in g E a rn in g s f o r L e is u r e : F in d in g s o f a n E x p lo r a to r y N a tio n a l S u r v e y o n W o rk T im e P r e fe r e n c e s , R&D Monograph 79 (Washington, Superintendent of Documents, 1980). 49Dickinson, “ Labor Supply of Family Members.” 50 Best, E x c h a n g in g E a rn in g s f o r L e is u r e . In support of the validity of the attitudinal data, the author cites a case in which workers chose to sacrifice some earnings for fewer hours. 51 Robert W. Bednarzik, Marillyn Hewson, and Michael A. Urquhart, “ The employment situation in 1981: new recession takes its toll,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , March 1982, pp. 3 -1 4 . 52Howard Hayghe, “ Husbands and wives as earners: an analysis of family data,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , February 1981, pp. 4 6 -5 3 . 53 John P. Robinson, C h a n g e s in A m e r ic a n s ’ U se o f T im e: 1 9 6 5 - 1 9 7 5 : A P r o g r e s s R e p o r t (Cleveland, Ohio, Cleveland State University, 1977). 54 Janice Neipert Hedges, and Daniel E. Taylor, “ Recent trends in work time: hours edge downward,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , March 1980, pp. 3 -1 1 . 55 Robinson, C h a n g e s in A m e r ic a n s ' U se o f T im e. 56Mellor and Stamas, “ Usual Weekly earnings.” 57 Stafford and Duncan, T h e U s e o f T im e. 58 Anne McDougall Young, “ School and work among youth during the 1970’s , ” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , September 1980, pp. 4 4 -4 7 . 59Ellen Greenberger and Laurence D. Steinberg, P a r t-tim e E m p lo y m e n t o f I n -S c h o o l Y o u th : A n A s s e s s m e n t o f C o s ts a n d B e n efits (Washington, U .S. Department of Education, 1981); and Shelia Cole, “ Send Our Chil dren to Work?” P s y c h o lo g y T o d a y , July 1980, pp. 4 4 -6 8 . 60 National Association of Secondary School Principals’ resolutions for the consideration of its members at the 1983 convention in Dallas, Tex. Helping ex-offenders enter the labor market How beneficial are programs designed to improve employability and reduce recidivism? A review of research on various labor market strategies casts doubt on their effectiveness F r e d e r ic k E n g l a n d e r In a 1972 Monthly Labor Review article, Robert Taggart reviewed labor market strategies directed at improving the employability and reducing the recidivism of offenders and ex-offenders.1 The 10-year period following that investi gation has been characterized by a continued commitment toward the manpower strategies that Taggart reviewed and the development of several new efforts aimed at facilitating the labor market readjustment of offenders. This article re views the more recent research on labor market strategies for ex-offenders. The labor market strategies discussed here by no means exhaust the rehabilitative approaches that have been applied to offenders. Among the less manpower oriented approaches not reviewed here are probation, a less restrictive prison environment, noninstitutional rehabilitation settings, inten sive supervision of parolees, outright discharge in lieu of parole, individual counseling, group counseling, various medical therapies, and variations in the length of prison sentences. An analysis of each of these approaches found no consistent evidence to support the effectiveness of any one of them.2 There is a consensus that any labor market oriented pro gram for ex-offenders faces significant barriers. The inmate population is generally conceded to be unskilled, poorly Frederick Englander is associate professor of economics, Fairleigh Dick inson University, Rutherford, N.J. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis educated, and disproportionately composed of minorities and bachelors. Table 1 supports these claims.3 Offenders often have other characteristics which make them unattractive to potential employers. A profile of male participants in a number of manpower projects for offenders yields the following characterization of them and of the offender population in general. The typical male project participant:4 • Comes from an area characterized by a high crime rate and high residential mobility. • Emerges from a “ female-based” household harboring feelings of hostile dependency toward his parents. • Is a drop-out or push-out from high school. • Spends free time “ hanging around.” • Forms superficial peer group relationships. • Lacks “ middle-class” goals, aspirations, and values. • Is untrained, unskilled, and with no career potential. • Has a history of crime which started during the early teens. • Has a low self-concept and no self-confidence. • Has been socialized into a culture of failure. In addition, because ex-offenders are perceived to be se curity risks, employers avoid hiring them. Released inmates often face labor markets resistance to their employment, such as government service and many licensed occupations.5 25 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Helping Ex-Offenders Enter Labor Market Education and training The labor market oriented rehabilitation approach that has been most widely applied, in many variations, is to increase the human capital of inmates through prison education and training programs. Evaluations of the education and training programs have been found to lack sophistication, validity, quality, and effectiveness.6 However, there are several isolated examples of rigorously performed evaluations conducted in the past decade. In 1977, correctional administrators in the province of Ontario, Canada, conducted a comparative study of 781 released ex-offenders who completed their confinement in either an adult training center facility offering a full-time educational program with both academic and vocational training components or a correctional center facility having the normal mix of prison work and community work project assignments. The recidivism data collected through 1979 demonstrated no significant difference in the recidivism rates between the two groups.7 A 1977 Pennsylvania study included a 5- to 6-month follow-up of 128 released offenders (45 from adult basic education or general education programs, 35 from voca tional education, 13 from post-secondary education, and a control group of 35). The study was designed to determine the impact of program participation on employment status, parole violation, recidivism, and general social adjustment. Except for the result that the small group of participants had a better performance in the parole violation and recidivism index, no significant differences between the program par ticipants and control group were found for any of the out come measures.8 Table 1. Characteristics of male inmates of State and Federal prisons Characteristic 1950 1960 1970 Total male prison population (in thousands)............................... 174,300 217,806 192,118 Percent under age 25 ................... Percent nonwhite .......................... Nonwhites as percentage of total male U.S. population................. 27.9 34.5 27.6 37.7 34.3 42.0 10.2 11.2 12.3 Median education in years: Male prisoners, 25 and older . . . . Other males, 25 and older ............ 8.1 9.0 8.6 10.4 9.8 11.9 Percent with high school education: Male prisoners, 25 and older . . . . Other males, 25 and older ............ 9.7 31.5 15.2 38.1 24.6 40.0 Percent skilled or semiskilled (last occupation): Male prisoners, 14 and older . . . . Other males, 14 and older ............ (’ ) 78.5 38.7 79.6 44.2 80.7 Percent married: Male prisoners, 14 and older . . . . Other males, 14 and older ............ 38.6 67.6 39.5 68.7 34.5 64.2 1Data not available. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. This table originally appeared In Philip Cook, “ The Correctional Carrot: Better Jobs for Parolees,” Policy Analysis, Winter 1975, p. 17. 26 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The failure of education and training programs to facilitate the post-release adjustment of offenders has been explained by various analysts9 as attributable to: • Low administrative priority allocated to these programs relative to security needs and the overall management and scheduling of the inmate population. • Considerable turnover in inmate population. • Outdated equipment. • Limited supplies of practice materials. • A competition for amenable inmates for other prison pro grams. • Program coordination and standardization. • A selection of skill modules which is not sensitive to the external labor market. • Poor instructional staff. • A general lack of program accountability and evaluation. It may be noted that these potential problems in providing education and training may not be entirely responsible for the failure of these programs in facilitating offender post release adjustment. Research has been undertaken to eval uate the importance of preincarceration formal education on the ex-offender’s initial wage rate after release and his work stability after release. These studies did not find education to be a significant determinant of labor market success, as measured by initial wage or by work stability.10 The often indelible stigma of being an ex-offender and inadequate labor market experience may confine the vast majority of released ex-offenders to what has been defined as the “ secondary” labor market.11 Jobs in the secondary labor market are characterized by “ low wages and fringe benefits, poor working conditions, high labor turnover, little chance of advancement, and often arbitrary and capricious supervision.” It has been argued that once a worker has been consigned to the secondary labor market, his experi ences there reinforce his undesirability as a candidate for a more attractive jo b .12 In the face of this situation, there may be very little that inmate education or vocational training can do to vault the ex-offender into an environment where high wages and a stable work pattern are probable and a return to criminal activity may be avoided. Work release A work-release program provides an alternate approach to dealing with the problem of providing labor market skills as well as inculcating good work habits and providing ex offenders with money to facilitate their immediate post release adjustment. Ann Witte examined the post-release labor market ex perience and the post-release criminal activities of 641 re leased ex-offenders from North Carolina institutions in 1969 and 1971. She concluded that participants in the work-re lease program had higher wages, lower unemployment rates, more stable work patterns, and less serious criminal activity than a comparison group that did not participate. Witte also cited a successful California work-release program as further evidence of the efficacy of this strategy.13 However, when Witte and Pamela Reid used the same North Carolina data base to construct a regression model, which may improve control for differences among individuals, they found that initial post-release wages and work stability were not sig nificantly affected by whether the individual had participated in the work-release program.14 Another regression study by Peter Schmidt and Witte examining ex-offenders in North Carolina who were released in 1975 found that participation in work release was not related to recidivism, as measured by the length of time from release to reincarceration.15 In 1982, a review of 40 evaluations of work-release pro grams found an inverse relationship between work-release evaluations claiming success for that strategy and the meth odological quality of the evaluations. The most method ologically rigorous studies demonstrated the most negative results.16 Finally, isolated prison locations and poor trans portation often preclude a work-release program. Even when logistically practical, the prison staff is often unenthusiastic because of security problems.17 Intensive job placement services Another labor market oriented strategy that has been used to facilitate the readjustment process for ex-offenders is a special job placement service. The first several months fol lowing release are crucial for the ex-offender. The provision of intensive job placement services may be expected to increase the probability of situating the ex-offender in a more suitable and satisfying job which, in turn, would raise the opportunity cost of returning to criminal activities. In a controlled experiment conducted in Michigan during 1973 and 1974, the experimental group was assigned to employer contact specialists who provided ex-offenders with preemployment counseling, evaluations, job development, and follow-up service once they became employed.18 The treatment was not found to have a statistically significant impact on days employed, hours worked, gross earnings, or take home pay of participants. One of the most important controlled experiments per formed in recent years is the Living Insurance for Ex-Of fenders ( l i f e ) experiment carried out in the Baltimore area between 1971 and 1974. Although the primary ingredient of the program was the provision of financial aid to the participants, a secondary ingredient involved the provision of extensive job placement services.19 A 1-year follow-up revealed that the job placement component had no signifi cant lasting impact on employment20 or arrest rates.21 Another recent income maintenance experiment that con tained a job placement component was the Transactional Aid Research Project ( t a r p ) carried out in Georgia and Texas during 1976. Two hundred experimental group mem bers in each State received job placement assistance upon release and were allowed grants for up to $100 for the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis purchase of tools, work clothes, or other work-related items. At the end of 1 year, the recipients of this job placement assistance were not found to be significantly different from the control group with respect to property-related arrests, offenses against persons, weeks employed, or earnings.22 Community treatment centers Another strategy to assist ex-offenders in their readjust ment process is to channel inmates through community treat ment centers or half-way houses. Such centers provide participants with individual and group counseling and with community contact. However, the primary goal of such centers is job placement. The evidence on the success of the community treatment centers is mixed. One recent study involving a 1-year follow-up of center participants in 1978 found that the treatment group experienced more employ ment than a comparison group. The average daily wages were increased for minority but not for white participants. The program was found to reduce recidivism for minority members, but not for white participants.23 However, a sim ilar study of those placed in centers in 1976 found that, after 1 year, there was no significant difference between the experimental group and the comparison group with respect to days of employment or money earned when the data were adjusted to exclude the unemployment experienced by stu dents, retired persons, housewives, or the physically dis abled. Moreover, the program was found to have no significant impact on recidivism, as measured by arrest rates or severity of offenses.24 In a study of 262 community treatment center participants and 1,544 nonparticipants who were released in early 1970, a 6-year follow-up revealed no significant differences between the two groups in recidivism after con trolling for the individual characteristics of the released exoffenders.25 Supported work Perhaps the most carefully planned, well-monitored, and well-funded experiment affecting ex-offenders of the last decade is the “ supported work program” carried out from 1974 to 1978. The concept of supported work was stimulated by the apparent success of two similar experiments of the early 1970’s. Operation Pathfinder treated 173 youthful pa rolees by placing them in semi-skilled jobs with trained supervisors offering strong, positive, verbal reinforcement for all improvements in the participants’ job performance. The experimental group experienced greater probability of employment and longer job tenure relative to the control group.26 A supported work environment, featuring peer pressure and reinforcement, was also applied to an experimental group of ex-drug addicts in Project Wildcat. Participants were found to have higher employment and earnings levels and lower recidivism rates over the first 2 years of follow-up. However, the labor market advantages of the experimental group relative to the control group diminished over the 327 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Helping Ex-Offenders Enter Labor Market year follow-up. With respect to criminal activity, the ex perimental group was more likely to be arrested than the control group in the third year of follow-up. Moreover, there was no apparent difference between the two groups in drug or alcohol use during any part of the follow-up period.27 Sponsors of the supported work program believe that it would provide ex-offenders with the opportunity to work among peers, to receive gradually increased job perfor mance standards (graduated stress), and to obtain qualified supervision from people who understand their problems and concerns. Despite high expectations for the program, the results were discouraging. With respect to employment, hours worked, earnings, Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments, and food stamp benefits, there was an initial impact for the first 18 months following enrollment. However, for the 19- to 36-month follow-up period, there was no significant difference between the treatment group and the control group. Also, the supported work program appeared to have no significant impact at all on the arrest and conviction rates of the treatment group. It should be noted that one prominent explanation accounting for these poor results is that within the 6-month period following enrollment, the majority of the treatment group withdrew from the program complaining about work rules and low pay.28 Financial assistance Another strategy that has recently been the subject of experimentation is the provision of direct financial assis tance to released convicts. Newly released ex-offenders, suddenly forced to pay for their own food, shelter, and clothing are more likely to steal, but if they are given fi nancial assistance or employment they may become less likely to steal.29 The provision of such payments may relieve the immediate financial pressure such that released ex-offenders would have a greater opportunity to engage in a longer search for a more satisfying and monetarily rewarding job. Early experimentation with this approach was performed in California and Connecticut. California’s Direct Financial Assistance to Parolees Project randomly assigned 135 male offenders paroled in 1972 to an experimental group that received weekly payments of up to $80 for a period of 1 to 12 weeks. Their experiences were compared to those of a randomly selected control group of 118 offenders paroled in the same time period. Although 80 percent of the ex perimental group successfully remained on parole over a 6month follow-up period, compared with 71 percent for the control group, subsequent calculations demonstrated that the difference was not statistically significant.30 The Connecticut project designated as the experimental group the 45 men released from the State’s two major cor rectional institutions in early 1973. Each of these ex-offenders received a total of $470 over an 8-week period. The two comparison groups, selected from the same facilities, 28 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis were the 45 men released just prior to the experimental group and the 45 men released immediately subsequent to the experimental group. A 12-month follow-up revealed no sig nificant differences between those receiving financial assis tance and the two comparison groups with respect to frequency and nature of parole violations, arrest records, parole offi cers’ assessments, and employment.31 From 1971 to 1974, the Living Insurance for Ex-Of fenders experiment was performed for a group of released property crime offenders with an above average risk of rear rest. Two hundred and sixteen participants were provided a $60 per week stipend for 13 weeks. Income earned by participants would reduce the immediate stipend level, but the total $780 could then be spaced over a longer time horizon. Those receiving financial aid were significantly less likely to be arrested for theft than the control group (22 percent versus 30.5 percent in the first year following re lease). There was no significant difference in the arrest rates for other crimes. Among those arrested, the experimental group was, on average, arrested 7 weeks later than the control group. The 26-percent conviction rate of the ex perimental group was significantly less than the 32-percent conviction rate for the control group. There was a 7.9percent lower arrest rate among the experimental group in the second year following release. With respect to employ ment experience, by the 17th week following release, the two groups had equal employment rates. After the 24th week, the experimental groups had a higher employment rate than the control group.32 The success of the Living Insurance for Ex-Offenders experiment provided an impetus for the aforementioned Transactional Aid Research Project experiment carried out during 1976 and 1977 in Georgia and Texas. Experimental groups of randomly selected participants were established in each State. They were made eligible for unemployment insurance payments for either 13 or 26 weeks. Although some of these ex-offenders’ benefits would be reduced by only 25 percent for a given level of earned income, most of them saw their earned income reduce their financial as sistance on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Those facing the 25percent marginal tax rate did not understand this condition and thus believed they were subject to the same work dis incentive as the other experimental groups. Through the 1year follow-up period, there was no significant difference in the property crime or other criminal arrests between the experimental and control groups. The high marginal tax rate on assistance payments resulting from earned income did exert a strong work disincentive effect on the experimental group who worked fewer weeks than the control group, but had roughly the same earnings level. In their interpretation of these disappointing results, Peter Rossi, Richard Berk, and Kenneth Lenihan, developed a complex econometric model suggesting a rather complicated set of relationships among Transactional Aid Research Proj ect payments, employment, leisure, and property arrests. This model supported the view that the Transactional Aid Research Project payments, everything else held constant, reduced property arrests by 25 to 50 percent. However, this effect was offset by the fact that the work disincentives implicit in the program provided additional leisure time to plan and carry out crimes. However, the inability to test this model on additional data sets leaves its conclusions somewhat equivocal.33 Researchers have argued that financial assistance pro grams should be structured to avoid the increase in leisure time resulting from the high marginal tax rate on earnings.34 However, to the extent that the stipends afford released offenders an opportunity to postpone reentrance into the labor market, irrespective of the level of the marginal tax rate, the ex-offender may use his assistance to purchase more leisure time which in turn can be used to plan and carry out crimes. In the parlance of the labor economist, reducing the marginal tax rate would reduce the substitution effect which prods the ex-offender toward leisure. But the stipend itself still produces an income effect which influences the ex offender to take more leisure time. In sum, although there have been positive results forth coming from the financial assistance strategy, the evidence is still mixed. I n t h e p a s t 10 y e a r s , there has been expansion of, and experimentation with, various labor market strategies for rehabilitating ex-offenders. For the work-release, half-way house, supported work, and financial assistance strategies, successful experiments have been isolated and efforts to replicate them have generally failed. Experience with in tensive job placement services has been especially disap pointing. Taggart’s 1972 complaint that “ there is little comprehensive information about the effectiveness of prison education or training programs’’35 has been echoed often, but to no avail. It may be argued that administrators who have devised, implemented, or operated genuinely effective programs are seldom remiss in informing others of their achievements. The scattered available evidence on the ef fectiveness of prison employment and training programs does not support the efficacy of these efforts. Although it may still be premature to make such a judg ment, it seems appropriate to ask whether some of the dollars currently spent on faciliating the labor market adjustment of offenders could be better applied to increasing the edu cation and training of those young people with the least access to these services. Such efforts may well produce a greater return in reducing criminal activity and increasing the development and potential of our human resources. □ FOOTNOTES This research was supported in part by a grant from the New Jersey Department of Labor to Rutgers University, Center for Human Resources. The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Valerie Englander, Steven M. Director, Adam Kessler, and Frank Simonie for their helpfull comments on an earlier draft. A cknow ledgm ent: 1Robert Taggart, “ Manpower programs for criminal offenders,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , August 1972, pp. 17-23. This effort represented a synopsis o f his volume, T h e P r is o n o f U n e m p lo y m e n t: M a n p o w e r P r o g r a m s f o r O ffe n d e r s (Baltimore, M d., The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972). 2 See Philip Cook, “ The Correctional Carrot: Better Jobs for Parolees,” 11-54; James Robison and Gerald Smith, “ The Effectiveness of Correctional Programs,” C rim e a n d D e lin q u e n c y , January 1971, pp. 67-80; Robert Martinson, “ What Works?— Questions and Answers About Prison Reform,” T h e P u b lic I n te r e s t, Spring 1974, pp. 2 2 -5 4 ; and Douglas Lipton, Robert Martinson, and Judith Wilks, T h e E ffe c tiv e n e s s o f C o r r e c tio n a l T r e a tm e n t (New York, Praeger Publish ers, 1975). P o l ic y A n a ly s is , Winter 1975, pp. 3Table 1 was taken from Philip Cook, “ The Correctional Carrot.” 4 Roberta Rovner-Pieczenik, A R e v ie w o f M a n p o w e r R & D P r o je c ts in th e C o r r e c tio n a l F ie ld (U .S. Department of Labor, Manpower Adminis tration, 1973). 5Mitchell Dale, “ Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders,” C rim e a n d D e lin q u e n c y , July 1976, pp. 322-337. 6 For a review o f education and training research evaluation, see Robert Martinson, “ What Works?” ; Raymond Ball and others, C o r r e c tio n a l E d u c a tio n P r o g r a m s f o r I n m a te s (U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute o f Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, June 1979); C o r r e c tio n a l I n s titu tio n s C a n D o M o r e T o I m p r o v e th e E m p lo y a b ility o f O ffe n d e rs (General Accounting Office, February 1979); and John Conrad, A d u lt O f f e n d e r E d u c a tio n P r o g r a m s (U .S. Department of Justice, National Institute o f Justice, 1981). 7 Sally Rogers, A n E x a m in a tio n o f A d u lt T r a in in g C e n te r s in O n ta r io — C o m m u n ity F o llo w -U p (Province of Ontario, Ministry of Correctional Ser vices, June 1980). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8 John Buttram and Russell Dusewicz, E ffe c tiv e n e s s o f E d u c a tio n a l P r o g r a m s in S ta te C o r r e c tio n a l I n stitu tio n s: A F o llo w - U p S tu d y o f E x -O f f e n d e r s , F in a l R e p o r t (Philadelphia, Pa., Research for Better Schools, September 1977). 9 Norman Holt, “ Problems and Prospects of Vocational Training in a Prison Setting,” in Leon Leiberg, e d ., C r im e a n d E m p lo y m e n t I s s u e s (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1978); James Beck, “ Evaluating Prison Programs Designed to Increase the Em ployability o f Federal Offenders: A Review o f the Literature” (Washington, U .S. Bureau of Prisons, 1978); General Accounting Office, C o r r e c tio n a l I n s titu tio n s ; and Raymond Ball and others, C o r r e c tio n a l E d u c a tio n . l0Einar Hardin, “ Human Capital and the Labor Market Success o f New Parolees,” 1 9 7 9 P r o c e e d in g s o f th e B u s in e ss a n d E c o n o m ic S ta tis tic s S e c tio n (Washington, American Statistical Association, 1975); and Ann Witte and Pamela Reid, “ An Exploration of the Determinants o f Labor Market Performance o f Prison R eleases,” J o u r n a l o f U rb a n E c o n o m ic s, August 1980, pp. 31 3 -3 2 9 . " S e e Ann Witte and Pamela Reid, “ An Exploration.” 12 Peter Doeringer and Michael Piore, I n te r n a l L a b o r M a r k e ts a n d M a n p o w e r A n a ly s is (Lexington, M ass., D.C. Heath & C o., 1971). 13Ann Witte, “ Earnings and jobs of ex-offenders: a case study,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , December 1976, pp. 31-39; Ann Witte, “ Work Release in North Carolina— A Program That Works!” L a w a n d C o n te m p o r a r y P r o b le m s , Winter 1977, pp. 230-237. 14Ann Witte and Pamela Reid, “ An Exploration.” 15 Peter Schmidt and Ann Witte, “ Evaluating Correctional Programs: Models of Criminal Recidivism and An Illustration of Their U se,” E v a l u a tio n R e v ie w , October 1980, pp. 585-600; and Robert Jeffrey and Stephen Woolpert, “ Work Furlough as an Alternative to Incarceration,” T h e J o u r n a l o f C r im in o lo g y , Vol. 65, No. 3, 1974, pp. 4 0 5-415. 16Jonathan Katz and Scott Decker, “ An Analysis of Work Release,” C r im in a l J u s tic e a n d B e h a v io r , June 1982, pp. 229-250. "Robert Taggart, T h e P r is o n o f U n e m p lo y m e n t. 29 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Helping Ex-Offenders Enter Labor Market 18 Michael Borus, Einer Hardin, and Patterson Terry, “ Job Placement Services for Ex-Offenders: An Evaluation of the Michigan Comprehensive Offender Manpower Program (COMP) Job Placement Efforts,” J o u r n a l o f H u m a n R e s o u r c e s , Spring 1976, pp. 391-401. 19Kenneth Lenihan, U n lo c k in g th e S e c o n d G a te , R&D Monograph 45 (U.S. Department o f Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1978). Department of Justice, Federal Prison System, August 1980). 26Philip Cook, “ The Correctional Carrot.” 27 Irvington Piliavin and Rosemary Gartner, T h e I m p a c t o f S u p p o r te d W o rk o n E x -O ffe n d e r s (Madison, W ise., University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty, 1981). 28 Piliavin and Gartner, I m p a c t o f S u p p o r te d W o rk . 20Lenihan, U n lo c k in g th e S e c o n d G a te . 21 Charles Mailer and Craig Thornton, “ Transitional Aid for Released Offenders: Evidence from the Life Experiment,” J o u r n a l o f H u m a n R e s o u r c e s , Spring 1978, pp. 208-236. 22Peter Rossi, Richard Berk, and Kenneth Lenihan, M o n e y , W ork , a n d C r im e : E x p e r im e n ta l E v id e n c e (New York, Academic Press, 1980). 23 James Beck, “ Employment, Community Treatment Center Placement and Recidivism: A Study o f Released Federal Offenders,” F e d e r a l P r o b a tio n , December 1981, pp. 3 -8 . 24James Beck, “ An Evaluation of Federal Community Treatment Cen ters,” F e d e r a l P r o b a tio n , September 1979, pp. 3 6 -4 0 . 25 Harriet Lebowitz, E v a lu a tin g T h e E ffect o f F e d e r a l C o m m u n ity T r e a t 30 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis m e n t C e n te r s o n R e c id iv is m : A S ix Y e a r F o llo w -U p (Washington, U.S. 29 Lenihan, U n lo c k in g th e S e c o n d G a te . 30 Scientific Analysis Corporation, D ir e c t F in a n c ia l A id to P a r o le e s P r o je c t R e s e a r c h E v a lu a tio n (San Francisco, Calif., Department of Corrections, 1973); and Malcolm Feeley, T h e E ffects o f I n c r e a s e d G a te M o n e y : F in a l o n th e P a r o le e R e in te g r a tio n P r o je c t (Hartford, Conn., Department of Corrections, 1974). 31 Malcolm Feeley, T h e E ffects o f I n c r e a s e d G a te M o n e y . 32Lenihan, U n lo c k in g th e S e c o n d G a te . 33Rossi and others, M o n e y , W o rk , a n d C rim e . 34 Rossi and others, M o n e y , W o rk a n d C rim e . 35Taggart, “ Manpower Programs.” A note on communications The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supple ment, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered for publication, communications should be factual and an alytical, not polemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statis tics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212. Research Summaries Effects o f selected variables on w o rk hours o f young women D a v id S h a p ir o and F rank L. M ott A young woman’s twenties are extremely significant in her life cycle: typically, schooling will have ended, and work careers, marriage, and family formation are all likely to begin. As part of an examination of the continuing increase in work attachment of young women, we analyzed the labor supply of respondents to the National Longitudinal Surveys of Young Women during two 5-year periods between 1968 and 1978— 1968-73 and 1973-78.1 Beginning with re spondents age 20 to 24 in 1968, we examined hours worked during 1968-73; and for those age 20 to 24 in 1973, we examined hours worked during 1973-78. In each case, hours of work are viewed as dependent upon schooling, marriage, and childbearing activities, as well as on some additional control variables. Important changes in the characteristics that influence the labor supply behavior of young women in their twenties took place during the 1970’s. Relative to earlier cohorts, more recent cohorts of young women have more schooling, are marrying and beginning to have children later, and are having fewer children. All of these changes contribute to greater work activity on the part of young women. At the same time, changes in attitudes toward women who work and in young women’s expectations of future work activity2 have resulted in increased work activity among women of given characteristics. Both changing characteristics and changing behavior have thus contributed to the continuing increase in work attachment of young women, and this analysis emphasizes the importance of each of these types of changes in accounting for the observed increase in labor supply. In addition, we seek to determine the extent to which changing behavior is associated with specific factors. For David Shapiro is assistant professor of economics. The Pennsylvania State University, and Frank L. Mott is associate project director. Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis a example, consideration of the secular trend in labor force participation rates of young mothers suggests that the in hibiting effect of young children on female labor supply has been smaller in more recent years than in earlier years.3 Similarly, the impact on labor supply of variations in wages or educational attainment may have changed over the 1970’s.4 The multivariate estimates of the determinants of hours of work among women in their twenties for the two periods 1968-73 and 1973-78 allow us to ascertain the nature of changes in the impacts of specific factors on labor supply. Empirical specification Conventional one-period labor supply equations are based on the notion from labor supply theory that a woman’s labor market activity will depend on a comparison of her market wage with her shadow price of time (the value the household attaches to the wife’s nonmarket time).5 Factors augmenting the market wage will be positively associated with labor supply, while factors increasing the shadow price of time will be inversely related to labor supply. Theoretical con siderations and previous empirical studies suggest that hours of work will be positively related to educational attainment and age— two important determinants of the market wage. Similarly, enrollment in school, the presence of a husband, higher husband’s earnings, and the presence of preschool children in the home all contribute to a higher value of a woman’s time in nonmarket activities and, hence, are ex pected to result in fewer hours worked, other things equal. Additionally, individuals with health problems that limit the amount or kind of work they can do, those who have mi grated from another area, and those residing in areas with high unemployment rates are all expected to work fewer hours, other things equal. A complicating factor here is that we are considering labor supply over a 5-year period, during which many of the important determinants of labor supply (for example, fer tility, marital, and school enrollment status) are likely to change. Thus, there will be variation in labor supply not only between women who had young children at home dur ing the interval and those who did not, but also among women with children at home— because for some women, children will have been present for the entire interval, while for others, children will have been present for, say, only 1 of the 5 years. Hence, for fertility status, marital status, and 31 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Research Summaries school enrollment status, we need to know how many years an individual had young children at home, was married, or was enrolled in school. Because only 3 years of data were available for the 1973-78 period,6 these variables are ex pressed as ratios indicating the proportion of years during which the respondent was characterized by a particular sta tus. The results Mean values of the variables for young women age 2024 at the outset of the 1968-73 and 1973-78 periods are shown separately by race and by presence of young children in table 1 for all respondents. The data confirm what was suggested earlier: those in the more recent cohort were more likely to have been in school and have greater educational attainment, and less likely to have been married or have children.7 These differences are distinctly sharper among blacks than among whites. A major difference between the two periods was in labor market conditions: average un employment rates were more than 2 percentage points higher during the 1973-78 period than during the 1968-73 period. Hours of work were higher in the later period by nearly 17 percent among whites and by 13 percent among blacks. Hours of work increased 30 percent for the white mothers, compared with 13 percent for the nonmothers. Proportion ately greater increases in hours worked among mothers are also apparent among blacks: average hours worked in creased by 19 percent for black mothers, but by only about 5 percent for black nonmothers.8 Hours worked equations were estimated separately for whites and blacks and, within each race group, the samples were further stratified according to whether there was a preschool child at home at any time during the 5-year period. The effects of the explanatory variables on hours of work for young women are shown in table 2. Almost all of the Table 1. estimated coefficients for whites had the expected signs, and most of the coefficients are statistically significant. Educa tional attainment, husband’s earnings, and fertility status are the most important determinants of hours worked.9 The equations for blacks, while based on distinctly fewer num bers of cases, also have coefficients whose signs largely conform to our a priori expectations and that are frequently significant. Educational attainment and fertility status are key determinants of hours worked among blacks. Health status of mothers and school attendance among nonmothers are also significant influences on labor supply of blacks throughout the decade. There is evidence of changing behavior for women with given socioeconomic or demographic characteristics. Con trary to our expectations, no significant change appears in the impact of young children on hours of work.10 Among whites, for both mothers and nonmothers, being married and husband’s earnings had significantly smaller inhibiting effects on a wife’s labor supply during the 1973-78 period. The impact of educational attainment on hours worked also changed significantly for both groups, but in opposite di rections: among those who were not mothers, schooling was less strongly related to hours worked in the later period, but among mothers, the coefficient was almost twice as large for 1973-78 as it was for 1968-73. Among blacks, the comparison across periods of the ef fects of particular factors on hours worked yields results that are similar to those for whites. No significant change appears in the impact of young children on hours of work, but differences in educational attainment became less im portant among nonmothers (significantly so) and more im portant among mothers. In addition, among nonmothers, the negative impact of husband’s earnings on hours worked during the early period had disappeared by the end of the later period. Mean values of variables for 20- to 24-year-old women, by race and presence of young children White Black No preschooler Preschooler No preschooler Preschooler Total present present present present 1968-73 1973-78 1968-73 1973-78 1968-73 1973-78 1968-73 1973-78 1968-73 1973-78 1968-73 1973-78 Total Variable Estimated hours worked ................................................ 4,987 5,833 6,426 7,241 2,973 3,851 5,192 5,860 6,489 6,846 4,459 5,307 Educational attainment .................................................. 12.7 12.9 13.5 13.8 11.5 11.7 11.2 12.0 12.0 12.7 10.7 11.6 Age 24.3 25.1 23.9 24.9 24.7 25.4 24.2 25.0 24.0 24.8 24.4 25.1 ................................................................................ Proportion of period enrolled in school........................... .069 .113 .106 .163 .019 .042 .043 .106 .070 .135 .028 .091 Proportion of years in period married, spouse present .. .741 .700 .628 .613 .901 .823 .551 .447 .380 .352 .647 .501 Proportion of years married times husband's average earnings (thousands).................................................. 10.3 9.7 8.5 8.4 12.7 11.6 5.0 4.8 3.8 3.7 5.6 5.4 Proportion of period with preschooler at^iome .347 .333 0 0 .832 .801 .532 .468 0 0 .833 .731 Health problem which limited amount or kind of work .179 .143 .157 .129 .211 .164 .217 .161 .220 .133 .215 .176 Migration across county lines during period ................. .473 .427 .565 .472 .343 .363 .289 .224 .370 .271 .243 .198 Average unemployment in a re a ...................................... 5.2 7.3 5.2 7.3 5.3 7.3 5.3 7.6 5.1 7.4 5.4 7.7 Sample size ................................................................... 931 1235 543 722 388 513 277 504 100 181 177 323 32 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ............ Table 2. Effects of variables on hours worked by 20- to 24-year-old women, by race and presence of young children [t-statistics in parentheses] White No preschooler present 1968-73 1973-78 Variable Black Preschooler present 1968-73 1973-78 No preschooler present 1968-73 1973-78 Preschooler present 1968-73 1973-78 Educational attainment .......................................................... 365.1 (5.30) 209.6 (3.69) 275.2 (2.94) 505.8 (5.43) 693.6 (5.65) 324.2 (3.49) 214.7 (1.77) 452.1 (4.34) Age ....................................................................................... 226.4 (2.16) 133.3 (1.51) 27.5 (0.23) 149.8 (134) 300.2 (1.38) 413.8 (2.38) -6 2 .4 (-0 .3 3 ) 111.0 (0.75) Proportion of period enrolled in school.................................. -2408.7 (-2 .9 2 ) -822.1 (-1 .5 7 ) 799.2 (0.39) 357.8 (0.31) -5843.9 (-3 .5 7 ) -2657.4 (-2 .4 9 ) 3355.5 (1.28) -1808.8 (-1 5 3 ) -209.0 (-1 0.47 ) -111.6 (-7 .1 3 ) -202.3 (-7 .5 5 ) -123.6 (-5 .9 7 ) -1 49 .2 (-2 .2 0 ) 4.9 (0.11) -1 2 .9 (-0 .2 2 ) - 0 .4 (-0 .0 1 ) -3038.2 (-3 .8 5 ) -2717.8 (-4 .7 9 ) — -3255.9 (-2 .6 0 ) -3604.1 (-5 .2 0 ) Proportion of years married times husband's average earnings............................................................................. Proportion of period with preschooler at home ................... — — — Health problem which limited amount or type of w o rk ......... -525.6 (-1 .3 9 ) -825.1 (-2 .2 6 ) -315.4 (-0 .8 1 ) -470.7 (-1 .1 4 ) -398.1 (-0 .5 4 ) -1209.3 (-1 .6 4 ) -2004.4 (-3 .0 4 ) -2302.9 (-4 .3 6 ) Migration across county lines during period ........................ -1297.6 (-4 .6 9 ) -404.7 (-1 6 3 ) 212.6 (0.63) - 322.8 (-1 .0 1 ) -318.8 (-0 .5 0 ) -1274.7 (-2 .3 3 ) 600.4 (0.96) -739.5 (-1 .4 4 ) Average unemployment rate in a re a ...................................... 96.3 (0.96) -199.4 (-2 .5 2 ) 4.8 (0.05) -215.0 (-2 .2 0 ) -1 86 .9 (-0 .8 0 ) - 88.2 (-0 .6 1 ) -246.1 (-1 .4 8 ) -1 74 .7 (-1 .6 1 ) Constant ............................................................................... -1560.9 3837.2 4170.3 -505.9 -6906.8 - 6060.3 7984.0 1980.1 R2 ......................................................................................... .212 .090 .158 .146 .300 .130 .123 .168 F ra tio .................................................................................... 21.87 11.21 10.04 11.96 7.08 4.84 4.09 9.13 Sample size ........................................................................... 543 722 388 513 100 181 177 323 Among both whites and blacks, then, there is a pattern of reduced impact on wife’s labor supply of being married and husband’s earnings, lesser effect of educational attain ment among nonmothers, and greater effects of schooling among mothers. Several factors should be noted in this regard. Trends in divorce in the United States have sharply reduced the likelihood that young women will spend vir tually all of their adult lives as married women. As increas ing proportions of young women recognize that they may be required to support themselves as adults, their incentive to retain close ties to the labor market after marriage grows. From this perspective, then, trends toward greater marital instability should result in a weaker influence of marriage or of a husband’s high earnings on a woman’s labor sup ply.11 The diverse changes in the impact of schooling on young women’s hours of work reflect the fact that a major role of the schooling variable in the estimated labor-supply equa tions is to serve as a proxy for the market wage. Viewing educational attainment as a proxy for the wage implies that the labor supply of nonmothers is becoming more inelastic with respect to their wages, while labor supply of mothers is becoming more elastic. The lesser responsiveness to wages of hours of work of nonmothers means that women without children are behaving increasingly like men (whose labor supply is typically rather inelastic with respect to their wages). Among mothers, by contrast, traditional patterns of exten sive withdrawal from the labor market associated with child https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis bearing and child rearing are breaking down.12 Hence, whereas in the past, the labor supply of young mothers was quite low and relatively insensitive to wage rates, the results here suggest that not only is the general level of labor supply of young mothers rising, but also the sensitivity (that is, re sponsiveness) to wages is rising. Thus, while there is an obvious trend toward greater work activity among mothers, it is the better-educated— that is, the high-wage— mothers who are leading the way. To the extent that schooling also proxies for important nonwage attributes of work (for ex ample, more pleasant or more interesting jobs), the tendency for better-educated young mothers to work is further rein forced. This is particularly likely to be the case if (as seems plausible) governmental efforts during the past decade aimed at reducing labor market discrimination against women have been more successful in enhancing opportunities for bettereducated women, compared with their lesser-educated counterparts.13 □ ---------- F O O T N O T E S ---------A c k n o w l e d g m e n t : The authors gratefully acknowledge the excellent assistance of Mark Bils and Mary G. Gagen. This paper was prepared under a contract with the Employment and Training Administration. U.S. Department of Labor, under authority of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. Interpretations or viewpoints expressed herein do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of the Department of Labor. Responsibility for the contents of this paper rests solely with the authors. 1The National Longitudinal Surveys of Young Women began in 1968, 33 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Research Summaries covering a panel o f more than 5,000 young women age 14-24 in 1968. By 1978, more than 75 percent of the original panel were still being interviewed. For further information, see T h e N a tio n a l L o n g itu d in a l S u r v e y s H a n d b o o k (Columbus, Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1982). This paper is a condensed version of a longer report entitled, “ Trends in the Employment of Young Women: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Surveys,” which is available from the Center for Human Resource Research. a reduction in the impact of young children on labor supply. However, it is clear from the equations in which mothers and nonmothers were pooled that there is no evidence of such a reduction, either among whites or among blacks. 2See Frank L. Mott, “ The Changing Roles of W om en,” in Frank L. Mott, ed., T h e E m p lo y m e n t R e v o lu tio n (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1982); David Shapiro and Joan E. Crowley, “ Aspirations and Expectations of Youth in the United States, Part 2: Employment A ctivity,” Y ou th a n d S o c ie ty 1 4 , September 1982, pp. 33-58; and Linda J. Waite, “ Projecting Female Labor Force Participation from Sex Role Attitudes,” in Ralph E. Smith, ed .. W o m en in th e L a b o r F o r c e in 1 9 9 0 (Washington, The Urban Institute, 1979). 12For evidence in this regard, see David Shapiro and Frank L. Mott, “ Labor Supply Behavior of Prospective and New Mothers,” D e m o g r a p h y , May 1979, pp. 199-208; and Frank L. Mott and David Shapiro, “ Com plementarity of Work and Fertility Among Young American Mothers,” P o p u la tio n S tu d ie s 3 7 , July 1983. 3 For documented research on how a woman’s attitudes toward employ ment condition the likelihood of her being employed when she has small children, see Frank L. Mott, Anne Statham, and Nan L. Maxwell, “ From Mother to Daughter: the Transmission of Work Behavior Patterns Across Generations,” in Frank L. Mott, ed., Th e E m p lo y m e n t R e v o lu tio n (Cam bridge, MIT Press, 1982). 4 Such an effect might be linked to governmental efforts aimed at reducing labor market discrimination against women. For example, see David Shap iro and Lois B. Shaw, “ Growth in the Labor Force Attachment of Married Women: Accounting for Changes in the 1970’s ,” S o u th e rn E c o n o m ic J o u r n a l 5 0 , forthcoming. 5 For example, see James J. Heckman, “ Shadow Prices, Market Wages, and Labor Supply,” E c o n o m e tr ic a 4 2 , July 1974, pp. 6 7 9 -9 4 . 6 While data are available from annual interviews to cover each year between 1968 and 1973, the less frequent schedule of interviews after 1973 resulted in gaps in the available work histories. In particular, for the period from 1973 to 1978, data are available only for 3 years (1974-75 and 197678). Consequently, not only were ratios used for certain variables (as described in the text), but in addition, estimated total hours worked over the 5-year period 1973-78 were calculated by multiplying hours worked during the three available years by 5/3 (so as to provide a 5-year measure comparable to that for the 1968-73 period). 7 Because the data for the 1973-78 period are drawn from interviews at the end o f years 2, 4 and 5 rather than from all 5 years, the average age is higher for those in the 1973-78 period. This age difference biases somewhat the comparison of marital, fertility, and enrollment statuses, underestimating the changes in each of these variables. That is, had data been available for each year during the 1973-78 period, the average age and, consequently, the proportion of years married and proportion of years with children all would have been lower, while the proportion of years in school would have been higher. By the same token, the age difference serves to exaggerate slightly the change in educational attainment. 8 Data on the percentage of individuals within each race/fertility status group who did not work at all are consistent with the data on mean hours worked among whites. For the 1968-73 period, 27 percent of white moth ers and 5 percent o f white nonmothers did not work; the comparable figures for the 1973-78 period were 22 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Among blacks, by contrast, there were slight increases over time in the percentages o f nonworkers: while 15 percent of mothers and 4 percent of nonmothers did not work during the 1968-73 period, the corresponding figures were 17 percent and 8 percent, respectively, for the 1973-78 period. 9 Chow tests confirmed that the sets of coefficients of the hours worked equations differ significantly by fertility status. 10 Statements about statistically significant changes in coefficients across periods are based on a formal statistical test for such changes in which a pooled equation with interaction terms was estimated for each fertility status group. In addition to the significant changes mentioned in the text, we also found that for the childless white women, there were statistically significant changes in the coefficients of the migration and unemployment variables, while for the black mothers the change in the coefficient of the enrollment variable is statistically significant. This conclusion concerning the absence of a change in the effect of young children on work hours holds also in equations covering the total sample (that is, not stratifying by fertility status). One might argue that estimation o f separate equations for mothers and nonmothers could mask 34 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis "T he evidence indicating that marital status/husband’s earnings is less important among blacks than among whites is quite consistent with the argument here because, traditionally, marital instability has been higher among blacks. 13 It is important to note that, to a considerable degree, the increase in hours due to demographic changes was, for most of the groups in this analysis, counterbalanced by a depressing effect on hours worked due to the changing impact of areal unemployment between the two 5-year pe riods. If the economy had been as strong during 1973-78 as it had been during 1968-73, the trend in hours of work might well have been sharper and more dramatic than it actually was. N L R B v. Y e sh iv a U n iv e rsity : a positive perspective C larence R. D e it s c h a n d D a v id A. D il t s NLRB v. Yeshiva University1 may soon stand beside such other landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions as Loewe v. Lawlor2 and United States v. Hutcheson3 both in terms of controversy provoked and the number of resulting learned articles written by labor relations scholars and practitioners. The articles have, for the most part, either focused upon the normative issues of whether the Court erred in its rea soning and why,4 or upon the closely related issue of the proper tack the National Labor Relations Board should have taken in its arguments before the Court.5 This report ex amines the Yeshiva decision from a positive perspective; the debate as to whether Justice Lewis Powell and the Court were right or wrong is put aside in order to analyze the impact of the decision upon union organization of privatesector institutions of higher education. Union membership: a rational decision Students of labor relations have long recognized that the secular behavior of trade union membership is influenced by a number of different variables, including the economic ones that determine the benefits and costs associated with union membership. Thus, an employee’s decision to join a labor organization can be assumed to be rational and de pendent “ upon his subjective assessment of the expected benefits to be obtained from union membership as against Clarence R. Deitsch is an arbitrator and professor of economics at Ball State University, and David A. Dilts is an arbitrator and associate professor o f labor relations at Kansas State University. his subjective assessment of expected costs of member ship.” 6 In short, an employee generally will join a labor organization if the perceived benefits exceed the perceived costs. Another way of viewing the foregoing decision is in terms of a choice between two bundles of goods: a nonunion bundle, consisting of those items available without union membership, and a union bundle, consisting of items avail able as a result of union membership. The union bundle will be selected if it contains more of one item and at least as many units of the other items as the nonunion bundle does. If selection of the union bundle containing additional units of one or more goods entails the sacrifice of units of the other goods making up the bundle, the decision (that is, choice) is no longer costless. Whether the substitution (that is, exchange) will be made hinges upon the relative subjective values placed upon the goods to be substituted. If what has to be given up is of greater value than what is received in trade, no exchange will occur; the individual will not become a union member.7 Faculty priorities and concerns Bargaining topics in higher education may be classified into one of four categories: academic, faculty status (that is, personnel), economic, and other matters. Academic mat ters, according to John A. Gray, “ include determinations of overall curriculum requirements, course mixes for ma jors, and academic admission. They relate directly to the educational process and educational opportunities that the institution exists to provide . . .” 8 Decisions affecting ac ademic matters therefore influence the nature of the product provided and the clientele (that is, market) served by insti tutions of higher learning. Faculty status matters encompass topics affecting the number and qualifications of teaching personnel— such items as initial appointment, reappoint ment, promotion, and tenure criteria— the usual personnel topics. Economic matters cover the traditional salary and fringe benefit areas. The final category, other matters, in cludes all issues, subjects, topics, and items not falling within the first three, for example, building usage, parking privileges, and so forth. A long-recognized difference between blue-collar and professional employees is that the latter distinguish between professional and economic bargaining goals and attach greater priority to the former goals.9 Therefore, as professionals, faculty members also attach greater importance to profes sional concerns (to topics falling within the academic and faculty status bargaining categories noted above). Joseph W. Garbarino has noted that professional concerns are so important to educators that the impetus for organization and bargaining in higher education usually stems from a deep concern over professional matters rather than from a concern about economic issues.10 In short, the probability of union ism is greatest where faculty members believe professional prerogatives to be threatened. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A recent study undertaken by Sahab Dayal at Central Michigan University lends significant support to the con clusions of the preceding paragraph.11 Dayal’s objective was the examination of “ the unionized faculty’s perceptions of bargaining goals and their attitudes and opinions of bar gaining priorities . . .” 12 Faculty members were presented an undifferentiated list of professional and economic bar gaining issues and were asked to rank in priority order their top five bargaining concerns. Respondents ranked the professional issues of academic freedom first; hiring stand ards, fourth; and reappointment criteria, fifth. The economic issues of salary and inflation-based compensation were slot ted second and third.13 Although Dayal’s research indicates a high priority as signed by educators to professional concerns in collective bargaining, in all probability, the study underestimates the importance faculty members attach to these issues. Profes sional matters may be of greater concern than indicated by Dayal’s survey because many faculty members may believe that collective bargaining is an inappropriate vehicle for the determination of professional issues. Having an alternative governance mechanism available for this purpose— “ an ac ademic senate in which faculty participation is required from each academic department” 14— faculty members holding the aforementioned viewpoint may not have ranked profes sional issues as high priority bargaining items. Yet, denied an alternative governance mechanism, these same individ uals may very well have given a high priority ranking to professional matters. Thus, the Central Michigan study tends to underestimate the importance of professional goals to faculty members. These results cannot be dismissed as unique to the Central Michigan University campus. As noted by Dayal: “ . . . interviews with key officials of the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, and American Association of University Professors seem to indicate that this is widely representative of higher education faculty across campuses today.” 15 In addition, there is no reason to believe that faculty attitudes differ from public to private 4-year colleges and universities. The Yeshiva decision The Supreme Court’s decision in Yeshiva established a two-pronged test for purposes of determining faculty status under Taft-Hartley: whether faculty members were simply professional employees entitled to the protective features of Federal labor law or whether they were also managerial employees and thereby excluded from Taft-Hartley. Ac cording to Powell and the Supreme Court majority, the determination was and is dependent upon two factors; the nature of faculty input to an institution’s decisionmaking process, and the weight assigned to these faculty decisions. When the decisions concern “ the academic product” and “ the academic market” of the institution and are control ling, they are managerial in nature; those making the de cisions assume managerial attributes and qualities. John A. 35 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Research Summaries Gray succinctly described the Court’s position in the fol lowing terms: For the Supreme Court majority, as long as an individual faculty member’s responsibilities are restricted to teaching assigned courses, evaluating students’ academic performances, and in dividual research and scholarship, then the individual faculty member is clearly a professional employee with [National Labor Relations Act] rights. However, as soon as this individual leaves the classroom or office to meet with colleagues to decide broader academic matters and where their collective academic recom mendations are normally determinative, then the same faculty member has been transformed into a “ managerial employee” without [National Labor Relations Act] rights.16 In short, the Court held that faculty members are managers when their decisions are normally determinative of what the institution will offer (that is, “ the academic product” ) and to whom it will be offered (that is, “ the academic market” ). Case effects on union membership As noted earlier, the individual faculty member’s con templated decision concerning union membership may be viewed in terms of a choice between two bundles of goods: a nonunion bundle, consisting of those items available with out joining a union, and a union bundle, consisting of items available as a result of union membership. The membership decision for faculty members at private institutions during the pre-Yeshiva years might appropriately be labeled a “ nondecision.” The choice was reduced to one where the faculty member was asked to decide between nonunion and union bundles of goods— the union bundle containing more of one good (that is, input on economic matters) and the same amount of another good (that is, input on professional matters) in comparison to the nonunion bundle. Selection of the union bundle was the only rational action open to faculty members, involving, as it did, the acquisition of more of one good with no sacrifice of other goods. Union membership was perceived as productive of benefits at es sentially little or no cost. This was also the case for faculty members employed by public institutions operating under similarly structured and interpreted State statutes. Given the costless nature of the union membership decision during the pre-Yeshiva years, quite possibly the sole prerequisite for rapid organization of faculty members was their popular belief that collective bargaining provided some additional input, however marginal, in the determination of economic matters. The rapid growth in collective bargaining chroni cled by Joseph W. Garbarino17 during 1966-79 can thus be explained on the basis of long-understood decision prin ciples18 without recourse to a theory of faculty “ proletar ianization” such as that expounded by Marina Angel.19 NLRB v. Yeshiva University made the union membership decision by faculty members of private-sector institutions of higher education more complex. The Yeshiva decision introduced a significant cost factor to the decisionmaking process; National Labor Relations Act coverage (that is, union membership) required faculty members to forgo de 36 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis terminative input concerning the nature of “ the academic product” and “ the academic market.” Faculty members tend to view such a sacrifice: . . . as creative of a semiprofessional status denying them their proper professional ‘primary voice’ in academic and faculty status matters and as not allowing them to exercise the full scope of their professional responsibilities. Faculties probably read the Yeshiva decision as saying that semiprofessional fa culties have [National Labor Relations Act] rights, but fully professional faculties do not.20 Thus, the choice of union membership may no longer be costless. The impact of Yeshiva upon union membership growth at private institutions critically depends upon the relative magnitudes of the benefits and costs associated with union membership. If, as Marina Angel claims, there has occurred an emasculation of the faculty member’s role in determi native decisionmaking concerning academic and faculty sta tus matters brought on by “ the lean years of the 1960’s and 1970’s,” 21 the decision to become a union member is cost less— the faculty member has already been transformed to semiprofessional status. Consequently, Yeshiva would have little, if any, impact upon the growth of unions and collec tive bargaining in higher education. If the “ proletarianization” of higher education has not occurred to the extent cited by Angel and others, the Yeshiva decision takes on added importance as an obstacle to the continued organization of private colleges and universities. Given the priority assigned to professional status by indi vidual faculty members, the decision drastically increases the cost of union membership by requiring faculty members to become semiprofessionals. However, despite the in creased cost, faculty members would continue to join unions as long as economic benefits exceeded the costs or what had to be forgone to achieve collective bargaining (that is, sacrifice of professional status) could be regained through collective bargaining, or both. Prospects for the realization of either of these conditions are limited. With regard to the impact of faculty bargaining upon economic variables, re cent studies tend to indicate that faculty salaries have not been affected by unionization and collective bargaining.22 Indeed, even the critical issue of reduction in academic staff (that is, job security) has remained relatively insulated from the influence of faculty bargaining. Lawler reports that of 22 contracts sampled, all of which had been negotiated since 1978, none contained retrenchment provisions for faculty input regarding the determination of financial exigency or the allocation of budget cuts. In the area of the allocation of layoffs, only 22 percent of the contracts contained lan guage which could be construed as providing faculty input, and in those in the area of the right to interdepartmental transfer, 32 percent.23 Although Lawler’s sample was re stricted to public-sector institutions, it can be roughly in terpreted as indicative of the limited success that labor organizations generally have had in bargaining strong con- tractual retrenchment provisions. As for reacquiring professional status through collective bargaining the outlook is similarly bleak. D. Alder, in a followup survey to one conducted by the American Asso ciation of University Professors in 1970 covering a thousand institutions, found little or no evidence that faculty bar gaining increases input into institutional governance over what it would have been in the absence of bargaining.24 One aspect of the Yeshiva decision that,has a direct bearing upon a labor organization’s ability to reestablish input on academic matters and which has gone unnoticed until now concerns the categories of bargaining topics. Not all subjects are mandatory topics for good-faith bargaining. The Na tional Labor Relations Board, with Court approval, has es tablished three categories of bargaining subjects: illegal, voluntary, and mandatory. Only the last must be bargained in good faith.25 Given Yeshiva, consistency would appear to leave the Board and Court no alternative but to adhere to the Borg-Warner classification scheme and designate ac ademic matters (that is, issues affecting the nature of “ the academic product’’ and the breadth of “ the academic mar ket” ) as voluntary bargaining topics, nonbargainable if em ployers d e sire .26 Thus, not only have faculty labor organizations failed in the past to augment faculty deci sionmaking authority, but the Yeshiva decision, in context of the Borg-Wamer bargaining categories, appears to se riously limit, if not preclude, this possibility in the future, at least in the area of academic matters. and courts follow the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court, the same impact may occur in the public sector— a sort of spillover effect. □ ---------- F O O T N O T E S ---------'4 4 4 U .S. 672 (1980). 2208 U .S. 274 (1908). 3 321 U .S. 219 (1941); also see “ Significant Decisions In Labor C ases,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , April 1980, pp. 5 7 -5 8 . 4 Marina Angel, “ White-Collar and Professional Unionization,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l, February 1982, pp. 82-1 0 1 . 5John A. Gray, “ Managerial Employees and the Industrial Analogy: N L R B v. Y e s h iv a U n iv e r s ity ,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l, July 1982, pp. 3 9 0 - 408. 6Orley Ashenfelter and John H. Pencavel, “ American Trade Union Growth: 1 9 0 0 -1 9 6 0 ,” Q u a r te r ly J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic s , August 1969, pp. 4 3 4 -4 8 . 7 Whether this individual is represented by a union, however, depends upon the collective choice o f those in the bargaining unit. 8John A. Gray, “ Managerial Employees and the Industrial A nalogy.” p. 397. 9For example, see Alan Edward Bent and T. Zane Reeves, C o lle c tiv e B a r g a in in g in th e P u b lic S e c to r (Menlo Park, Calif., The Benjamin Cum m ings’ Publishing C o., Inc., 1978), chapter 2; Allen Ponak, “ Unionized Professionals and the Scope of Bargaining: A Study of Nurses,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v ie w , April 1981, pp. 396-407. 10Joseph W. Garbarino, F a c u lty B a r g a in in g : C h a n g e a n d C o n flic t (New York, McGraw-Hill Book C o., 1975), chapter 4. "Sahab Dayal, “ Faculty Unionism and Bargaining Unit Attitudes and Perceptions: A Case Study o f Central Michigan University,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l, August 1982, pp. 5 5 4 -6 0 . n I b id , p. 555. 13Ib id , pp. 5 5 7 -5 8 . have chosen the normative ap proach to examine NLRB v. Yeshiva, arguing the pros and cons of the Court’s decision itself. By contrast, this report has examined the likely impact of the Court’s ruling upon union organization of private-sector colleges and universi ties through its impact upon the benefits and costs associated with union membership. Given the basically rational nature of the union membership decision, the high priority attached by faculty members to matters relating to professional status, the consequent high cost of union membership imposed by Yeshiva (that is, potential loss of professional status), the limited success that faculty bargaining has had regarding economic and governance matters, and the likelihood that academic topics will be classified as voluntary bargaining items (nonbargainable in most instances), only one conclu sion appears reasonable: Yeshiva will severely hinder union organization of private colleges and universities. In purely positive terms, the case may have rendered union mem bership prohibitively expensive (that is, costs may far ex ceed benefits) for most faculty members of these private institutions. To the extent that State administrative agencies m o st a u th o r s to d a te https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ]4I b id , pp. 5 5 9 -6 0 . 15I b id , p. 559. l6John A. Gray, “ Managerial Employees and the Industrial A nalogy,” p. 391. 17Joseph W. Garbarino, “ Faculty Unionization: The Pre-Yeshiva Years, 1 9 6 6 -1 9 7 9 ,” I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s , Spring 1980, pp. 221-3 0 . 18 Robert S. Main and Charles W. Baird, E le m e n ts o f M ic r o e c o n o m ic s (St. Paul, Minn., West Publishing C o., 1981), chapter 2. l9Marina Angel, “ White-Collar and Professional Unionization,” pp. 8 4 -8 9 . 20John A. Gray, “ Managerial Employees and the Industrial Analogy,” pp. 3 9 1 -9 2 . 21 Marina Angel, “ White-Collar and Professional Unionization,” p. 85. 22 J. Marshall, “ The Effects of Collective Bargaining on Faculty Salaries in Higher Education,” J o u r n a l o f H ig h e r E d u c a tio n , May 1979, pp. 310— 22 . 23 John J. Lawler, “ Faculty Unionism in Higher Education: The Public Sector Experience,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l, August 1982, pp. 4 7 5 -8 0 . 24 D. Adler, G o v e r n a n c e a n d C o lle c tiv e B a r g a in in g in F o u r -Y e a r In s titu tio n s 1 9 7 0 - 7 7 (Washington, Academic Collective Bargaining Infor mation Service, 1977). 25N L R B v. W o o s te r D iv is io n o f B o r g - W a r n e r C o r p o r a tio n . 356 U.S. 342 (1958). 26See, R. A. Gorman, B a s ic T e x t o n L a b o r L a w — U n io n iza tio n a n d C o lle c tiv e B a r g a in in g (St. Paul, Minn., West Publishing C o., 1976), pp. 5 2 3 -2 9 . M ajor Agreements Expiring Next M onth This list of selected 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. E m p lo y e r a n d lo c a tio n A irc o n d itio n in g C a lifo rn ia , A lu m in u m and R e frig e ra tio n C o n tra c to rs A s s o c ia tio n In c . (C a lifo rn ia ) C om pany A m e ric a n o f A m e r i c a ( V e r n o n , C a l i f . ) ........................................................................ A m e ric a n T e le p h o n e a n d T e le g ra p h G u ard A s s o c ia te d and U n d erg ro u n d F ib e rs, In c . B abcock I n d ia n a ) L in e s D e p a rtm e n t 1 ,4 0 0 C o n s tru c tio n .................................................... P lu m b e rs ............................................................ P rim a ry m e t a l s ................................................ A u to W o r k e r s ................................................................................ 1 ,0 0 0 P r im a r y m e t a l s ................................................ S t e e l w o r k e r s .................................................................................... 4 ,0 0 0 C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs ............................................ 2 3 ,3 0 0 ................................................................ 6 ,0 0 0 ........................................................................................................................................ ....................................... A s s o c ia te d A v te x C o ., L o n g N um ber o f w ork ers L a b o r o r g a n iz a tio n 1 o f S o u th e rn ................................................................................................................................ S te e l F o u n d rie s (O h io , Illin o is , a n d (In te rs ta te ) I n d u str y and P a t r o l A g e n c i e s , I n c . ( I l l i n o i s ) ................................................................ C o n tra c to rs , In c . (M ic h ig a n ) ............................................................ ( P e n n s y l v a n i a ) ............................................................................................................... W ilc o x C o ., T u b u la r P r o d u c ts D iv is io n ( P e n n s y l v a n i a ) .................... S e rv ic e s ................................................................ C o n s tru c tio n C h e m ic a ls P r im a r y .................................................... ............................................................ m e t a l s ................................................ S e rv ic e E m p lo y e e s O p e ra tin g C lo th in g E n g in e e rs a n d T e x tile ............................................................ W o rk e rs ................................ S t e e l w o r k e r s ............................................................................ B e ll T e le p h o n e C om pany o f P e n n s y l v a n i a ( P e n n s y l v a n i a ) .................................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ P e n n s y lv a n ia T e le p h o n e G u ild B e ll T e le p h o n e C om pany o f P e n n s y l v a n i a ( P e n n s y l v a n i a ) .................................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ F e d e ra tio n B e ll T e le p h o n e C om pany o f P e n n s y l v a n i a ( P e n n s y l v a n i a ) .................................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs B e ll T e le p h o n e L a b o ra to rie s , In c . (Illin o is a n d o f T e le p h o n e ( In d .) . . . . W o rk e rs o f 1 ,6 5 0 3 ,2 0 0 4 ,1 0 0 3 ,3 5 0 1 1 ,9 5 0 P e n n s y lv a n ia ( In d .) C a m e ro n Iro n C h esap eak e and and .................................... (IB E W ) C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs ........................................ 4 ,0 5 0 ............................................ 1 ,7 0 0 M a c h in is ts ................................................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs ............................................ K e n t u c k y ) ................................................................................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs .................................... C o . (In te rs ta te ) ............................................................................................................ E n g in e e rin g , In c . (C h a tta n o o g a , T e n n .) C o o p e r In d u s trie s . I n c ., C o o p e r E n e rg y P a .) E le c tr ic a l p r o d u c ts M a c h i n e r y ............................................................ P o to m a c T e le p h o n e C o . (In te rs ta te ) C liff s Iro n C o m b u s tio n J e r s e y ) ............................................ W o r k s , I n c . ( T e x a s ) .................................................................................................................... C in c in n a ti B e ll In c . ( O h io C le v e la n d N ew ................................................................ S e rv ic e s D iv is io n (G r o v e C ity , M in in g .................................................................... F a b r ic a te d m e t a l p r o d u c t s ................ ................................................................................ 4 ,0 0 0 3 3 ,0 5 0 3 ,8 5 0 S t e e l w o r k e r s ................................................................ 3 ,4 0 0 B o ile rm a k e rs 2 ,3 0 0 ................................................................................. M a c h i n e r y ............................................................ S t e e l w o r k e r s .................................................................... 1 ,3 0 0 C o m m u n ic a tio n U n ite d T e le p h o n e 1 ,2 0 0 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... D ia m o n d S ta te T e l e p h o n e C o . ( D e l a w a r e ) ................................................................................................ ............................................ W o rk e rs o f D e la w a re (In d .) F irs t W is c o n s in N a tio n a l B a n k ( M ilw a u k e e , W i s . ) ........................................................ ... F in a n c e .................................................................... F irs t W is c o n s in A s s o c ia tio n F i s h e r C o n t r o l s C o . ( M a r s h a l l t o w n . L a . ) .................................................................................................... F a b r ic a te d G e n e ra l T e le p h o n e C o m m u n ic a tio n G la s s P a c k in g G ru m m a n C o . o f P e n n s y lv a n ia (P e n n s y lv a n ia ) In s titu te F lx ib le C o. (In te rs ta te ) ........................................................ .................................................................................................................... ( O h i o ) .................................................................................................................................... G u lf R e s o u r c e s a n d C h e m ic a l C o r p ., B u n k e r H ill C o . s u b s id ia r y (K e llo g , m e t a l p r o d u c t s ................ ............................................ S to n e , c la y , a n d g la s s p ro d u c ts T ra n s p o rta tio n e q u ip m e n t ................ A u to N a tio n a l B a n k E m p lo y e e s 1 ,1 0 0 ( In d .) W o rk e rs ( In d .) ................................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs F lin t G la s s W o rk e rs ........................................ ................................................ 1 ,7 0 0 2 ,0 5 0 4 ,0 0 0 S t e e l w o r k e r s ................................................................ 1 ,8 0 0 M in in g .................................................................... S t e e l w o r k e r s .................................................................... 1 ,5 0 0 M in in g .................................................................... S t e e l w o r k e r s ................................................................ 1 ,5 0 0 S t e e l w o r k e r s .................................................... 2 ,3 0 0 H o te l E m p lo y e e s a n d 6 ,0 0 0 Id ah o ) H anna M in in g C o. and H a m is c h fe g e r C o rp . 3 o t h e r s ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ........................................................................................... ( M ilw a u k e e , W is .) H o te l E m p lo y e rs A s s o c ia tio n o f S a n .................................................................................................... F ra n c is c o (C a lifo rn ia ) ............................................ M a c h in e r y . - ........................................................ H o t e l s ........................................................................ R e s ta u ra n t E m p lo y e e s Illin o is B e ll T e le p h o n e C o : C o m m e rc ia l a n d M a rk e tin g D e p a r t m e n t s ............................................................................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ T e le p h o n e C o m m e r c ia l E m p lo y e e s U n io n 2 ,5 0 0 T e le p h o n e C o m m e rc ia l E m p lo y e e s U n io n 2 ,2 0 0 (In d .) C o m m e rc ia l O p e ra tio n s a n d o th e rs ............................................................................................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ ( In d .) C o m p tro lle rs a n d 3 o th e rs (Illin o is a n d I n d i a n a ) ........................................................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ E le c tric a l W o rk e rs . . . .................................................................................................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs ............................................................................................................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ E le c tric a l W o rk e rs C o . , I n c . ( I n d i a n a ) ............................................................................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs T ra ffic D e p a rtm e n t (Illin o is ) M ilita ry In d ia n a Jo y A g re e m e n t (Illin o is ) B e ll T e le p h o n e M a n u fa c tu rin g C o . (F r a n k lin , P a .) S e e f o o tn o te s a t e n d o f ta b le . 38 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ........................................................................................................ M a c h i n e r y ............................................................ M a c h in is ts (IB E W ) ........................................ 1 ,2 0 0 ............................................ 5 ,5 0 0 ........................................ 1 3 ,8 0 0 ............................................ 6 ,9 0 0 ........................................................................................ 1 ,6 0 0 (IB E W ) Continued—Major Agreements Expiring Next Month L a tro b e S te e l C o . ( L a tro b e , P a .) ........................................................................................................................ L u k e n s S te e l C o . ( C o a te s v ille , P a .) M ic h ig a n B e ll T e le p h o n e C o ., P la n t D e p a rtm e n t ( M ic h ig a n ) M ic ro d o t I n c ., M o o re V a lle y M c C o rm ac k M o u n ta in N a b isc o ............................................................................................................... M o u ld and Iro n C o . D iv is io n (O h io a n d C o ., P ic k a n d s M a th e r a n d C o . s u b s id ia ry S ta te s T e le p h o n e a n d T e le g ra p h F o o d s C o ., N a b isc o C o . (In te rs ta te ) ........................................ Illin o is ) . . . . ( M in n e s o ta ) ................................................ B r a n d s I n c . ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ................................................................ P rim a ry m e t a l s ................................................ S t e e l w o r k e r s .................................................................................... 1 ,0 0 0 P r im a r y m e t a l s ................................................ S t e e l w o r k e r s .................................................................................... 2 ,1 5 0 C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs ............................................ 2 0 ,0 0 0 P r im a r y m e t a l s ................................................ S t e e l w o r k e r s .................................................................................... 1 .0 0 0 M in in g .................................................................... S t e e l w o r k e r s .................................................................................... 2 ,9 0 0 C o m m u n ic a tio n Food p ro d u c ts C o n s tru c tio n N a tio n a l E le c tric a l C o n tra c to rs A s s o c ia tio n , 2 a g re e m e n ts (M a s s a c h u s e tts N um ber o f w ork ers L a b o r o r g a n iz a tio n 1 In d u str y E m p lo y e r a n d lo c a tio n ............................................ ................................................ .................................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs B a k ery and T obacco ............................................ W o rk e rs E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) 2 9 ,2 0 0 ................................ 1 0 ,3 0 0 ........................................ 5 ,6 0 0 and T exas) N a tio n a l F o rg e C o . ( I r v i n e , P a . ) ........................................................................................................................... P r im a r y m e t a l s ................................................ In d e p e n d e n t U n io n o f N a tio n a l F o r g e 1 ,2 5 0 E m p lo y e e s ( In d .) N ew E n g la n d M e c h a n ic a l C o n tra c to r s A s s o c ia tio n , In c . (B o s to n , M a s s .) N ew E n g la n d T e le p h o n e a n d T e le g ra p h C o . C o n s tru c tio n .................................................... P lu m b e rs ............................................................................................ 1 ,0 0 0 P l a n t D e p a r t m e n t ....................................................................................................................................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) ........................................ A c c o u n tin g ................................................................................................................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) ........................................ 1 ,4 0 0 D e p a r t m e n t ................................................................................................................................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) ........................................ 6 ,3 0 0 D e p a r t m e n t s .................................................................................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) ........................................ 1 1 ,4 5 0 T r a f f i c D e p a r t m e n t ................................................................................................................................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs ............................................ 4 ,6 0 0 C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) T ra ffic N ew . . . (In te r s ta te ) : Je rse y E n g in e e rin g P r e s i d e n t a n d C o m p t r o l l e r a n d G e n e r a l D e p a r t m e n t s .................................... ........................................ 1 ,2 5 0 ............................................ 3 ,7 0 0 ( I n d . ) ................................ 3 ,0 5 0 C o m m e rc ia l a n d M a rk e tin g D e p a rtm e n ts ................................................................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs C o m m e rc ia l a n d M a rk e tin g D e p a rtm e n ts .................................................................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ T e le p h o n e T ra ffic U n io n C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ U n io n E m p lo y e e s O rg a n iz a tio n C o m m e r c ia l U n io n N ew 1 6 ,0 0 0 B e ll T e le p h o n e C o .: P la n t a n d V ic e D e p a rtm e n t Y o rk T e le p h o n e C o .: C o m m e r c ia l, D ir e c to r y , P u b lic T e le p h o n e , S a le s , a n d D e p a rtm e n ts (D o w n s ta te ) A c c o u n tin g D e p a rtm e n t (N e w Y o rk C o m m e r c ia l, S a le s , a n d D ire c to ry E m p ire C ity S ubw ay C o. 8 .0 0 0 H e a d q u a rte rs ........................................................................................................................ (N e w A re a ) A re a ) W o rk e rs ( In d .) C o m m u n ic a tio n ................................ .................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ T e le p h o n e ............................................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs ................................................................................ D e p a rtm e n ts ( U p s ta te ) Y o rk C ity o f T e le p h o n e T e le p h o n e ................ (In d .) 3 ,0 0 0 ( I n d . ) ................ 2 ,4 0 0 ............................................ 4 2 ,4 0 0 4 ,0 0 0 O h io B e ll T e le p h o n e C o . (O h io ) P a c ific T e le p h o n e a n d T e le g r a p h and ....................................................................................................................... C o. and 1 o th e r, 2 a g re e m e n ts (C a lifo rn ia C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs a n d E le c tr ic a l 1 8 ,0 0 0 6 9 ,2 5 0 W o rk e rs (IB E W ) N evada) R a y th e o n C o . ............................................ (M a s s a c h u s e tts ) ............................................................................................................................... E l e c t r i c a l p r o d u c t s .................................... E l e c t r i c a l W o r k e r s .................................................................... C o n s tru c tio n R o o fe rs 9 ,0 0 0 2 ,9 0 0 R o o f in g C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia tio n o f S o u th e r n C a lif o r n ia , In c . ( C a lif o rn ia ) .................................................... ................................................................................................ 1 ,5 0 0 ............................................ 5 0 ,0 0 0 C o . ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ........................................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs T e l e p h o n e C o . ( C o n n e c t i c u t ) ................................................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o n n e c tic u t U n io n o f T e le p h o n e S o u th e rn B e ll T e le p h o n e a n d T e le g r a p h S o u th e rn N ew E n g la n d . . W o rk e rs, 1 0 ,0 0 0 In c . ( In d .) S o u th w e s te rn T e le d y n e B e ll T e le p h o n e W ah C hang C o . (In te rs ta te ) (A lb a n y , O re .) .................................................................................... ........................................................................................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n P r im a r y ............................................ m e t a l s ................................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs ............................................ 1 ,0 5 0 3 ,6 5 0 A r k a n s a s ) ................................................................ E l e c t r i c a l p r o d u c t s .................................... E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) a n d T e le ty p e ( C a n t o n , O h i o ) ....................................................................................................................................... M a c h i n e r y ............................................................ S t e e l w o r k e r s .................................................................................... T e le ty p e C o r p ., 2 a g re e m e n ts (Illin o is a n d E m p lo y e e s ’ In d u s tr ia l U n io n T im k e n W e s te rn C o. 6 4 ,5 5 0 S t e e l w o r k e r s .................................................................................... ( In d .) 7 ,8 0 0 E le c tric C o .: ( P e n n s y l v a n i a ) ........................................................................................................... E le c tr ic a l p ro d u c ts .................................... E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) W o r k s ( M a r y l a n d ) ........................................................................................................................ E le c tr ic a l p r o d u c ts .................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n C o l u m b u s W o r k s ( O h i o ) ................................................................................................................................... E le c tr ic a l p r o d u c ts .................................... E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) ........................................ 3 ,9 0 0 D e n v e r W o r k s ( C o l o r a d o ) ............................................................................................................................... E le c tr ic a l p r o d u c ts .................................... E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) ........................................ 2 ,3 0 0 H a w th o rn e ................................................................................ E le c tric a l p r o d u c ts .................................... E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) ........................................ 6 ,1 0 0 ................................................................................................................... E le c tric a l p r o d u c ts .................................... E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) ........................................ 5 ,7 5 0 ............................................ 1 4 ,0 0 0 E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) ........................................ 4 ,9 0 0 E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) ........................................ 2 ,0 5 0 E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) ........................................ 2 2 ,6 5 0 E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) ........................................ 3 ,9 5 0 E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) ........................................ 3 ,3 0 0 A lle n to w n B a ltim o re W o rk s ........................................ E q u ip m e n t W o rk e rs In c. 3 ,2 5 0 4 ,6 5 0 ( In d .) W o rk s , 2 a g re e m e n ts (Illin o is ) In d ia n a p o lis W o rk s In s ta lla tio n K e a rn y (In d ia n a ) D e p a rtm e n t (In te rs ta te ) W o rk s (N e w M e rrim a c k V a lle y .................................................................................................... J e r s e y ) ........................................................................................................................ W o rk s ( M a s s a c h u s e tts ) ................................................................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ E le c tr ic a l p r o d u c ts E le c tr ic a l p r o d u c ts .................................... .................................... C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs E l e c l t r i c a l W o r k e r s ( I B E W ) ........................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs E le c tr ic a l W o rk e rs ( IB E W ) 2 ,1 5 0 ............................................ 1 4 ,7 5 0 ........................................ 5 ,7 0 0 . . . .’ ............................ 6 ,2 5 0 1 ,0 5 0 W is c o n s in T e le p h o n e 'A f f i l i a t e d w ith C o . (W is c o n s in ) A F L -C IO https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ....................................................................................................... e x c e p t w h e re n o te d C o m m u n ic a tio n ............................................ C o m m u n ic a tio n s W o rk e rs a s i n d e p e n d e n t ( I n d . )- 39 Developments in Industrial Relations Airline settlements Settlements in the airline transportation industry showed mixed results: some unions negotiated improvements in pay and benefits, others won restoration of pay cuts that had been negotiated earlier to aid the carriers in weathering financial difficulties, and still others accepted cuts to help offset continuing difficulties. The financial difficulties the major “ old line” carriers have been experiencing in recent years are generally attributed to the deregulation of the in dustry which resulted in an influx of nonunion companies offering lower fares, to higher taxes and fuel costs, and to a decline in passengers because of general economic con ditions. At Eastern Airlines, the Machinists ended 19 months of negotiations by accepting a 3-year contract that just averted a scheduled strike. One of the major issues in the talks was the union s contention that the 13,500 mechanics, baggage handlers, and other ground service workers in the bargaining unit were paid less than their counterparts the union rep resents at other carriers. In addition, the union wanted the initial wage increase to be retroactive to the January 1, 1982, termination date of the prior contract. Eastern contended that it could not meet these demands because it had lost $44.1 million in the first 2 months of 1983 and $158.2 million in the preceding 3 years. The new contract, which terminates on December 31, 1984, provides for a 21-percent pay increase retroactive to January 1, 1983, followed by increases of 2.1 percent on July 1, 1983, 3.4 percent on January 1, 1984, and 3.6 percent on July 1, 1984. The increases will bring the top rate for mechanics to $17.40, 30 cents higher than the 1983 rate at Delta Air Lines, one of Eastern’s major competitors. (Delta s mechanics and other ground service workers are not represented by a union.) Other wage provisions included suspension of the provision for automatic cost-of-living pay adjustments; a two-stage increase in afternoon, evening, and odd or relief shifts, to 51, 58, and 61 cents an hour by April 1, 1984; and several increases in the premium for each Federal Aviation Administration license held by mechanics, “ Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben of the staff of the Division o f Developments in Labor-Management Relations, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from sec ondary sources. 40 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reaching 50 cents an hour for each license (maximum two) held on November 1, 1984. Eastern’s Variable Earnings Plan, which had been in ex istence since 1977, was replaced by an Investment Bonus Agreement running from July 4, 1982, to June 30, 1984. Under the plan, 3.5 percent of each employee’s pay will be retained by Eastern each year. If the carrier earns a profit of 2 percent of sales, the withheld amount is returned to the workers, along with 10 percent interest. If the profit is greater than 2 percent, the employees will receive one-third of the excess. If the profit is less than 2 percent or if Eastern loses money, the employees receive only the amount with held from their pay plus the 10 percent interest. Previously, part or all of the 3.5 percent that was withheld from em ployees was permanently retained by Eastern if needed to attain the 2-percent profit goal, and the employees did not receive interest on any money returned to them. The union agreed to some cost reduction measures, such as reducing the size of the crews that move airplanes, and giving Eastern greater flexibility in scheduling work. Eastern President Frank Borman expressed “ grave con cern” over the cost of the settlement, saying that the carrier was forced to accept the terms because a strike “ would have so weakened this company as to jeopardize its future.” Immediately after the Machinists announced approval of the accord, Borman announced that 1,600 employees would be laid off on May 1, including some members of the Ma chinists union, reducing Eastern’s work force to 37,600. Meanwhile, the Air Line Pilots Association’s Master Ex ecutive Council decided that Eastern’s flight officers should revote on a decision to defer for 1 year a 9.5-percent pay increase scheduled for April 1983, and a 4.5-percent in crease scheduled for August 1983. The flight officers had approved the deferral, but the vote results were invalid be cause some ballots had not been counted. Members of the council said that the revote decision was motivated by their concern that the expected $30 million savings from the deferral would have been used to subsidize the wage-andbenefit gains negotiated by the Machinists. In the re vote, the 4,200 flight crew members rejected the wage deferral plan. The Air Line Pilots and Eastern then renewed negotiations, which resulted in a 2-year settlement. The accord provided for 17.5 percent (the 9.5 and 4.5 per cent pay increase plus the 3.5 percent of earnings that had been going into the Variable Earnings Plan) of total pay to be taken in the form of subordinated debentures paying 5 percent interest. The debentures will be convertible into Eastern common stock—at the employee’s option—at $16 a share, beginning with 25 percent of the debentures in April 1985. The remainder will be converted over the following 3 years. Other terms included an increase in monthly flight time to 85 hours, from 80, and a 20-percent reduction in re maining 1983 vacation time and a 25-percent reduction in 1984 vacation time. After this accord, the company’s 16,000 nonunion em ployees— who had recently received a 10- to 15-percent pay increase— voted to follow the Machinists’ lead by diverting 3.5 percent of their pay into the investment bonus plan, and to take another 6.5 percent of their pay in the form of convertible debentures. The Machinists also agreed to permit individual members to decide if they want to take part of their just-negotiated pay increases in convertible debentures. Negotiations also were under way with the Transport Workers on a new con tract, including a possible pay-for-securities provision for 5,500 flight attendants. One of the other carriers involved in the round of bar gaining in the airline industry was Pan American World Airways, which settled with the Teamsters and the Transport Workers unions. Its 2-year contract withlthe Teamsters covered 7,200 cler ical and ground service workers. The accord provided for elimination of a 10-percent pay cut that was effective on September 15, 1981; on April 1, 1983, the workers’ pay rates were increased to 95 percent of the rates that prevailed just before the cut, and the balance will be restored on January 1, 1984. Other items included a further deferral for 2 years of a 25-cent-an-hour automatic cost-of-living pay adjustment that was scheduled for January 1982, but had been deferred to January 1, 1983; and adoption of a profitsharing plan. The Transport Workers’ 3-year contract, covering 6,000 mechanics and other ground service employees, provided for half of their existing 10 percent pay cut to be restored on April 1, 1983, and the balance on January 1, 1984. The cut, negotiated in 1981, had been scheduled to be restored on January 1, 1983. The 1983 settlement also provided for payment on January 1, 1985, of the following increases that had been deferred under the 1981 settlement: 4 percent, plus a 25-cent cost-of-living adjustment originally scheduled for January 3, 1982; 4 percent originally scheduled for July 4, 1982; and 2 percent, plus a 25-cent cost-of-living adjustment originally scheduled for January 2, 1983. The Transport Workers also settled with American Air lines for 10,500 ground service and related employees. The 3-year accord raised wages by 7 percent, retroactive to Sep tember 1, 1982, 6 percent on September 10, 1983, and 7 percent on September 8, 1984. Other terms included elim https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ination of the provision for automatic cost-of-living pay adjustments; a 36- to 40-percent cut in starting rates for new hires, and a stretching to 12 years of the time required for them to progress to top pay rates; a $l-an-hour maximum limit on license premium pay (was 65 cents); a 51-, 58-, and 61-cent an hour shift differentials (was 21, 28, and 31 cents); and a special one-time retirement package for em ployees eligible to retire on or before April 1, 1983. At Trans World Airlines, a 3-year contract negotiated by the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants called for pay increases of 10 percent retroactive to August 1, 1981, 10 percent retroactive to August 1, 1982, 4 percent on April 1, 1983, and 3 percent on December 1, 1983, and July 2, 1984. The cost-of-living clause also was continued, pro viding for an adjustment of up to $12 a month on September 1, 1983. Benefit changes included company assumption of the full cost of the pension plan and refunds of past employee contributions, increased credits for past service, and a $150a-month increase (to $250) in the temporary supplement to basic pensions. Auto Workers delegates bid Fraser farewell An era closed at the Auto Workers’ 27th constitutional convention, as Douglas Fraser ended his career as head of the union. Fraser, 66, was the last of the union’s leaders associated with the late Walter Reuther after the founding of the union and the successful organizing efforts at the major automobile manufacturers in the 1930’s. Fraser’s 6year tenure as leader of the union was marked by a coop erative relationship with the auto producers to aid them in countering the increasing inroads of foreign producers. The first important result of this new approach occurred in late 1979, when the union broke its tradition of pattern bar gaining in the industry by settling with ailing Chrysler Corp. on a less costly contract than with General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. Subsequently, the union agreed to further concessions at Chrysler, and at Ford, General Mo tors, American Motors Corp., and Volkswagen of America. In late 1982, Chrysler’s condition had improved enough to permit some narrowing of the pay and benefit disparity that had developed between Chrysler workers and those at Ford and g m . UAW Vice President Owen Bieber, who was elected to succeed Fraser, faces the challenge of steering the union between increasing membership demands for restoration of pay and benefit cuts in view of the auto producers’ return to profitability, and the producers’ insistence that they are still operating at a severe cost disadvantage in relation to Japanese and other foreign producers. Bieber, age 53, and a u a w member since 1948, also faces the challenge of reversing a decline in u a w membership to 1.1 million, from 1.5 million in 1979. In another leadership change, Vice President Martin Ger ber retired and was replaced by Billy Casstevens, a regional 41 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Developments in Industrial Relations official from Ohio. All of the other vice presidents and Secretary-Treasurer Raymond Majerus were elected to new 3-year terms. Vice President Donald Ephlin was chosen to succeed Bieber as head of the union’s General Motors De partment. Ephlin’s position as head of the Ford Department was then filled by Vice President Stephen Yokich. Auto Workers end strike against Caterpillar Members of 10 locals of the Automobile Workers ratified a settlement with Caterpillar Tractor Co. in mid-April, end ing the longest multiplant strike over national issues in the union’s history. The 7-month stoppage began on the October 1, 1982, termination date of the prior contract. The major issue in the dispute was a company demand for wage-andbenefit cuts it said were necessary for a return to profita bility. Caterpillar, which lost $180 million in 1982 and $172 million in the first quarter of 1983, attributed its difficulties to a severe slump in demand for construction equipment and diesel engines and to intensified competition from for eign companies. In recommending acceptance of the 37 Vi month agree ment, Auto Workers’ Vice President Stephen Yokich said that “ to continue the strike would not result in further im provements in the settlement which has been negotiated.” The agreement did not provide for any specified wage increase, but the provision for automatic quarterly cost-ofliving pay adjustments was retained, with the first adjust ment to be effective in June 1983. The total 11 cents an hour that the employees would have received had there been adjustments in December 1982 and March 1983 was di verted into the Supplemental Unemployment Benefits fund, beginning on the effective date of the new contract. This increase in financing will continue for the life of the contract, regardless of the level of the fund. The s u b fund also was strengthened by establishing a procedure under which Cat erpillar will advance money to pay benefits when the fund drops below a specified level. Maximum benefit levels also were changed, to $100 a week when the fund is below 35 percent of the designated maximum fund level, to $150 when the fund level is between 35 and 50 percent, and to 95 percent of weekly after-tax pay, less $12.50, when the fund exceeds 50 percent of its maximum level. A new 4-year profit-sharing plan provides for the workers to receive possible distributions in April of each year if Caterpillar’s worldwide pretax profits exceed a 4.5-percent return on its average sales and beginning-of-the-year net assets. The distribution will be 1 cent for each hour worked in the preceding year if the return is 4.5 to 5.0 percent, increasing by 1 cent for each 0.5-percentage point rise in the return, up to a total of 11 percent, and for each 0.3percentage point rise above that level. The first distribution, in April 1985, is guaranteed to be at least 31 cents for each hour worked in 1984, regardless of Caterpillar’s perfor mance. The employees will have the option of taking the 42 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis distributions in Caterpillar stock to be turned over to them when they leave the company. In the areas of job security and employment opportunities, several changes were won by the union, including estab lishment of a master recall list; preferential hiring and recall provisions; requirements for advance notice and mutual dis cussions prior to partial or complete plant shutdowns or outsourcing (subcontracting of work); special early retire ment benefits and extended insurance coverage for workers affected by plant shutdowns; and outplacement assistance. Changes favorable to Caterpillar were concentrated in the area of paid time off. Under a new attendance bonus pro gram, employees will receive 1 hour of extra pay for perfect attendance during each normal 5-day 40-hour workweek. Under the prior program, they received 1.5 hours for each week of perfect attendance, and when they accumulated 8 bonus hours, they could either be paid for the hours, or use them in the form of paid time off. In a change in holidays, July 5 and December 23, 1985, were added as paid days off, and the annual paid Sunday holiday— a day for which employees simply received hol iday pay without taking off the following day— was ter minated. The agreement, which was ratified by a 10,703 to 5,144 vote, runs to June 1, 1986. It covers 21,000 active em ployees, and 15,000 on layoff. The covered plants are in Peoria, Aurora, Decatur, and Pontiac, 111.; Davenport and Burlington, Iowa; York, Pa.; Meritor, Ohio; Denver, Colo.; and Memphis, Tenn. Xerox can contract out to save labor costs Xerox Corp., which intensified its cost control efforts in 1982 by cutting employment through layoffs and retirement inducements, made further progress in 1983 by negotiating a new contract designed “ to increase productivity and make Xerox more competitive,” according to an announcement by the company and the Clothing and Textile Workers Union. The company also offered retirement inducements to some nonunion employees. In return for accepting smaller wage and benefit gains than in the prior contract, the 3,250 covered workers in the Rochester, N.Y., area were guaranteed their jobs for the 3year term. The contract calls for a 1-percent wage increase in 1984 and 2 percent in 1985, compared with 3 percent annual raises in the prior 3-year contract. Possible automatic cost-of-living adjustments in the second and third years will be limited to 6 percent in each year. Under the previous unlimited formula, adjustments totaled $2.26 an hour, or about 23 percent. The workers also will have to pay a larger portion of the cost of a new medical and dental plan. The company was given greater freedom in subcontract ing work outside the plant. Previously, only work for which the company did not possess the necessary in-house skills could be sent out. Now, Xerox can send out work simply to save money, but only after a joint quality-of-worklife committee attempts to find ways to retain the work. Em ployees displaced by contracting out of work will be moved to other jobs and assured their existing pay rates. New provisions allow Xerox to fire employees involved in four or more unauthorized absences from work in a year, or more than six during 2 consecutive years. Xerox offered salary continuance ranging from 1 to 12 months of pay to nonunion employees in certain operations, who volunteer to leave the company. For those 51 Vi years or older with 8 years or more of service, the continuance amounts to 15 months of pay which can be stretched out to last until the employee becomes eligible for a pension at age 55. Workers’ rights strengthened at J.P. Stevens J. P. Stevens & Co. and the Clothing and Textile Work ers, whose initial labor contract in 1980 ended years of strife, negotiated a renewal contract. Union president Mur ray H. Finley said the settlement reflected “ a maturing of the collective bargaining process in which both parties dem onstrated a willingness to live with each other.” The 25-month accord was limited to noneconomic matters and covered 3,500 workers at 9 plants in Roanoke Rapids and High Point, N.C., and Allendale, S.C. The accord will expire on May 28, 1985, the same date as the union’s contract for the 500 employees it represents at a Stevens plant in Wallace, N.C. Overall, Stevens has about 40,000 employees and 70 plants. The settlement strengthened worker seniority rights in job bidding and shift selection; layoff and job “ bumping” pro cedures; grievance and arbitration procedures; and shop stewards’ rights and responsibilities. Wages and benefits will be negotiated in late spring, when Stevens and other textile firms generally begin considering possible wage and benefit change for their nonunion em ployees. ployee quits or retires. At that time, the employee will have the option of retaining the stock or selling it back to Coors. A Coors official said the company would not incur any significant costs for the new plan because the purchases will be a tax deductible business expense. Communications workers tested for job bank The Communications Workers union has established a program to test the skills of its members and to then match the workers with available jobs in the fast-changing com munications industry. The first test, to certify members as “ communications technicians I,” was taken by 300 people, each of whom paid $29. Those who passed received a cer tificate and their names were entered in the computerized job bank. Those who failed received an analysis of the test results indicating the skills they need to improve. To aid workers who fail a test or want to prepare before taking a test, training will be offered by the union at eight locations throughout the country. Legal action against Teamsters pension fund ends Coors employees to receive company stock The Department of Labor reached a settlement with the Teamsters Central States Pension and Health and Welfare Funds, ending legal actions which began in 1981 against the fund and their current trustees. Under the settlement, the trustees will repay the funds $6.5 million for alleged overpayments to a firm that processed benefit claims for the funds, the purchase price and operating costs of a jet aircraft the trustees are now required to sell, and for fees paid for the legal defense of twc former trustees. Actually, the $6.5 million will be paid by insurance firms that protected the trustees against such civil liabilities. In September 1982, the Department and the current trust ees entered into a consent agreement which placed the pen sion fund under the supervision of an independent financial supervisor and an independent special counsel. (See Monthly Labor Review, November 1982, p. 50.) The current settle ment extends the same arrangement to the health and welfare fund. About 10,000 employees of the Adolph Coors Co. will be receiving shares of company stock under a plan an nounced by the brewer. At the end of each year, Coors will buy the necessary shares of stock and will credit them to individual employee accounts at the rate of 0.5 percent of their annual base pay. According to a company official, this would amount to $140 a year based on average base pay of $28,000. The stock will be held by a trustee until the em Meanwhile, the department was proceeding with legal actions against former trustees of the funds, who resigned as part of a 1977 settlement with the Government. (See Monthly Labor Review, May 1977, p. 57.) According to the department, the former trustees’ liability for alleged misuse of money exceeds $35 million, with only $2 million covered by their insurance. One of the defendants is Teams ters President Jackie Presser. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 43 Book Reviews The other Japan Japan’s Wasted Workers. By Jon Woronoff. Totowa, N.J., Allanheld, Osmun & Co., 1983. 296pp. $19.95, cloth; $10.95, paper. In contrast to much of the recent literature dealing in flattering terms with the Japanese model of labor-manage ment relations, this volume focuses on what is wrong with work in Japan. Jon Woronoff is an American economic journalist who has resided in Japan for nearly a decade, and speaks with considerable first-hand knowledge of its indus trial scene. The volume, originally published in Japanese, is clearly designed as an antidote to the numerous publi cations, mainly by Westerners, which tend to portray Jap anese workers and managers as “ one big happy family,” all diligently dedicated to increasing efficiency in a climate of shared responsibility and shared rewards. The central theme that all is not well in the Japanese labor force is expounded over some 10 chapters, dealing with such diverse subjects as the limitations of the bureaucratic style of Japanese management, the plight of older workers forced into premature retirement, the pervasive pattern of discrimination against Japanese women workers, the emerg ing surplus of college graduates, and the extent of disguised unemployment not reflected in the official statistics. The author’s style is nontechnical and somewhat polemical. A number of key generalizations, such as the alleged need for more specialist training, are not adequately documented. Despite these shortcomings, for those interested in a more realistic portrayal of the Japanese work climate, this volume fills an important gap in the available descriptive literature. It highlights the marked duality between Japan’s highly sophisticated large-scale manufacturing sector and much of the rest of the Japanese economy. Japan’s remarkable eco nomic growth rates and high productivity in the former fields are attributed primarily to the rapid rate of the introduction of new machinery and technology, and only secondarily to labor-management factors. Conversely, the author cites nu merous illustrations of overstaffing and outmoded personnel practices in sectors such as public service and retail trade. Among the more obvious of these— even to the casual vis itor— is the much higher ratio of sales personnel to custom ers in Japanese department stores than in their American 44 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis counterparts: “ To make the customers feel like royalty, there is one young lady, dressed in a fancy uniform, to help him (or more likely her) into the elevator, another to push the button and call out the floors, and a third to bow low over the escalators” . The sectors of the Japanese economy singled out by the author as most inefficient are, not coincidentally, those which include large proportions of female employees. Women— even those with college degrees— are rarely regarded as permanent employees, because of the persistence of tradi tional attitudes that they will discontinue work upon mar riage or even in advance of marriage, to enter “ bridal training.” Although an increasing proportion of the youn ger, better educated women now aspire to lifetime work careers, very few are given the much vaunted protections of “ lifetime employment,” afforded by the larger compa nies to regular male employees with similar qualifications. Women are also systematically discriminated against, ac cording to the author, in terms of pay, and in being deprived of equal training, job assignments, and opportunities for promotion. The more peripheral attachment of Japanese women to the labor force, in turn, has contributed to what the author considers to be a substantial undercount of unemployment in the official statistics, which have indicated exceptionally low unemployment rates, of about 2 percent, even during periods of recent economic slowdown. Noting that labor force participation rates— particularly for women— dropped significantly during the 1973-75 recession, Woronoff es timates that 2 million or more potential workers “ disap peared” from the labor force because of the discouragement effect. He also cites estimates that an additional 2 to 3 million workers were retained on company payrolls, rather than being laid off, even though redundant to current labor needs. Allowance for these categories of hidden or disguised unemployment would, he claims, have raised the Japanese unemployment rates to levels more comparable to those then reported in the United States and other advanced industrial nations. — H ar o ld W ool Bethesda, Md. Work and economic security in Japan Wages in Japan Today. By Makoto Sakurabayshi. West Berlin, Germany, Free University of Berlin, 1982. 86 pp. In recent years, many English language publications have promised to inform the reader about Japan’s economic suc cess, first in its 20 years of rapid growth, 1955-75, and, subsequently, in responding more successfully than many Western countries to the oil shocks and world recession. These explanations sometimes place great emphasis on a single factor which, while important, is not the entire story. Makoto Sakurabayshi’s brief monograph provides a wel come change as he describes the Japanese employment and wage systems and assesses their strengths and weaknesses. The books’ six chapters are: Employment System, Wage Administration, Union Impact, Wage Growth, Wage Gap, and Part-Time Employees’ Wages. Professor Sakurabayshi, who teaches at Teikyo University in Tokyo, had as his objective a book which would explain how the Japanese wage and employment systems have contributed to Japan’s ability to enjoy simultaneously a high rate of growth in real wages and a tendency toward lower unit wage costs. He was also interested in whether authors of other studies were correct in their observations that the Japanese systems fa cilitate technical innovation and an optimal use of labor. The words “ permanent employment,” coined by James Abegglen some 25 years ago, are widely associated with the employment relationship in Japan. What does the con cept really mean? There are a variety of interpretations with no clear consensus, even among Japanese scholars. In this book, the concept is as follows: (1) new hires are limited to individuals who have recently graduated from school; (2) the employee anticipates that the employer will provide employment until the employee reaches retirement age— somewhere between the ages of 55 and 60; and (3) there is a “ flexible seniority,” which means if individuals must be removed from the payroll because of an economic slump (a) they will be chosen from among the older employees; (b) they will be discharged rather than laid off; and (c) they will be chosen for discharge through use of a merit-rating plan. The pattern of real wage growth is presented as a complex interaction between corporate ability to pay (measured by levels of productivity or profits), and the level of effective demand and supply for labor (measured by the ratio of job offers and applicants at the Public Employment Service). Once the level of wages has been determined, it is up to the principles of wage determination to allocate amounts to specific workers. An individual’s income is centered upon basic wages and a semiannual bonus plus some small al lowances for various items. Basic wages depend on the worker’s age, education, years of service with the firm, and job skills. The amount of income stemming from years of service with the firm will vary with the worker’s merit, a https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis concept that has more to do with attendance and loyalty than with specific abilities. Wage differences between large and small firms can be substantial, especially for older well-educated white-collar employees. For example, in 1981, the wage for a worker 50 to 54 years of age employed in a large firm (1,000 employees or more) was 1.35 times the amount received by a similarly educated man of the same age in a small firm (10 to 99 employees). In part, this is because a greater proportion of men in the large firms have many years of continued service. If service is held constant at 25 to 30 years, there would be a difference of 16 percent in favor of those in large firms. If bonuses are included, then the dif ference is 37 percent. Sakurabayshi explains these differ ences using the same variables he used for wage growth. He explains the failure of the differential to completely close on the basis of a shortage of physical capital, leading to differences in value-added productivity in the different-sized firms. This initially results in the large firm employing the best workers. Combined with the differences in physical capital, the smaller firm is prevented from catching up with the larger firm in terms of both human and physical capital, and, therefore, must always pay less. The chapter on part-time workers is of special interest because these workers are not usually discussed in other studies. According to the author, they have lower supply prices and therefore receive lower wages. Their lower wages and lack of regular status provide a degree of flexibility to the employment relationship, but allow a less flexible sys tem for regular employees. In this sense, the part-time worker is a substitute for temporary, seasonal, and subcontract workers in the principal employer’s plant, classes of workers who in earlier years provided flexibility for the Japanese econ omy. This monograph provides an assessment of the wage and employment systems in the current Japanese economy. The author points out the advantages which these personnel sys tems have given to the Japanese economy, primarily in facilitating rapid introduction of technological change and emphasis on quality control at the initial work station. The book notes that the principal beneficiaries of these systems are well-educated male employees in large enterprises. As a counterweight, the author considers some of the disad vantages to society and to individuals. If read as a supplement to a more generalized book on the Japanese economy, this monograph can be quite valu able, but its range is too narrow for it to be used as an introduction to the labor economy of Japan. The book is largely institutional and descriptive and some readers will require additional documentation and analysis of some pro posed interrelationships. Indeed, the monograph’s weak point is that it does not provide more in the way of analysis, especially because the cited literature, which in some cases would provide more of the analysis, is in Japanese and not available to most readers of the book. Still, the institutional 45 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Book Reviews material should be quite valuable to the reader who wishes to know more about these aspects of the Japanese economy. — R o b e r t E v a n s , Jr . Atran Professor of Labor Economics Brandeis University and Visiting Professor, Keio Economic Observatory Keio University, 1982-83 P ublications received Economic growth and development Braithwaite, Carlton, T h e I m p a c t o f I n v e s tm e n t I n c e n tiv e s o n C a n a d a ’s E c o n o m ic G r o w th . Ottawa, Economic Council of Can ada, 1983, 128 pp., bibliography. $8.95, Canada; $10.75, other countries. Available from the Canadian Government Publishing Center, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa. Feingold, S. Norman and Norma Reno Miller, E m e r g in g C a r e e r s : N e w O c c u p a tio n s f o r th e Y e a r 2 0 0 0 a n d B e y o n d . Garrett Park, M d ., Garrett Park P ress, 1983, 172 pp. $ 1 0 .9 5 . Lim, David, “ Fiscal Incentives and Direct Foreign Investment in Less Developed Countries,” T h e J o u r n a l o f D e v e lo p m e n t S tu d ie s , January 1983, pp. 207-12. Millerd, Frank W., “ Canadian Urban Industrial Growth from 1961 to 1971,” G r o w th a n d C h a n g e , January 1983, pp. 20-26. Economic and social statistics Riche, Martha Farnsworth, “ Data Companies 1983,” A m e r ic a n D e m o g r a p h ic s , February 1983, pp. 28-39. U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources, T h e R e g is t e r e d N u r s e P o p u la tio n : A n O v e r v ie w (F r o m N a tio n a l S a m p le o f Rev. November 1982. Prepared by Evelyn B. Moses, assisted by William E. Spencer and Rosalyn Roman. Washington, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Health Re sources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health Professions, Office of Data Analysis and Management, 1983, 55 pp. (DHHS Publication No. HRS-P-OD-83-1.) R e g is t e r e d N u r s e s , N o v e m b e r ¡ 9 8 0 ) . Health and safety Fielding, Jonathan E. and Lester Breslow, “ Health Promotion Programs Sponsored by California Employers,” A m e r ic a n J o u r n a l o f P u b lic H e a lth , May 1983, pp. 538-42. U.S. Department of Labor, I n ju r y a n d I lln e s s D a t a A v a il a b l e f r o m 1 9 8 0 W o r k e r s ’ C o m p e n s a tio n R e c o r d s . Washington, 1983, 5 pp. (Announcement, 83-1.) Yelin, Edward H., Jane S. Kramer, Wallace V. Epstein, “ Is Health Care Use Equivalent Across Social Groups? A Di agnosis-Based Study,” A m e r ic a n J o u r n a l o f P u b lic H e a lth , May 1983, pp. 563-71. Industrial relations Chiplin, Brian and Peter J. Sloane, T a c k lin g D is c r im in a tio n a t th e W o r k p la c e : A n A n a ly s is o f S e x D is c r im in a tio n in B r ita in . New York, Cambridge University Press, 1982, 156 pp. $29.95. Cottle, Rex L., Hugh M. Macaulay, Bruce Yandle, L a b o r a n d P r o p e r t y R ig h ts in C a lif o r n ia A g r ic u ltu r e : A n E c o n o m ic A n a l y s i s o f th e C A L R A . College Station, Texas A&M University 46 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Press, 1982, 116 pp., bibliography. $18.50. Fox, Sanford, J., “ Child Labor Law: Reform Goals and the New Reality,” N e w G e n e r a tio n , Winter 1983, pp. 4-8. Goldberg, Roberta, O r g a n iz in g W o m e n O ffic e W o r k e r s : D i s s a t is f a c tio n , C o n s c io u s n e s s , a n d A c tio n . New York, Praeger Publishers, 1983, 152 pp., bibliography. $25.95. Harrison, Michael I. and Ephraim Tabory, “ Professionalism and Unionism: The Case of Faculty Unions in Israeli Universi ties,’ ’ J o u r n a l o f C o l l e c t i v e N e g o tia tio n s in th e P u b lic S e c to r , Vol. 12, No. 1, 1983, pp. 57-69. Herrick, John Smith, “ Labor Arbitration as Viewed by Labor Arbitrators,” T h e A r b itr a tio n J o u r n a l, March 1983, pp 3948. Isaac, J. E., “ Economics and Industrial Relations,” J o u r n a l o f I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s , December 1982, pp. 495-516. Lawrence, Anne and Paul Chown, P la n t C lo s in g s a n d T e c h n o l o g i c a l C h a n g e : A G u id e f o r U n io n N e g o tia to r s . Berkeley, University of California, Institute of Industrial Relations, Center for Labor Research and Education, 1983,54 pp. (Labor Train ing Series, Pt. II.) $6. Levitan, Sar and Alexandra B. Noden, W o r k in g f o r th e S o v e r e ig n : E m p lo y e e R e la tio n s in th e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t. Baltimore, Md., The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983, 152 pp. $14.95. Markey, Ray, “ New Technology, the Economy and the Unions in Britain,’ J o u r n a l o f I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s , December 1982, pp. 557-77. “ No Time for Changes: Easing of Child Labor Laws Proposed,” N e w G e n e r a tio n , Winter 1983, pp. 1-3. Purcell, John, “ The Management of Industrial Relations in jthe Modern Corporation: Agenda for Research,” B r itis h J o u r n a l o f I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s , March 1983, pp. 1-16. Roukis, George S., “ Should the Railway Labor Act Be Amended?” T h e A r b itr a tio n J o u r n a l, March 1983, pp. 16-20. Smith, Susan Kay, “ Faculty Collective Bargaining at Central Michigan University: A Prototype?” J o u r n a l o f C o l le c tiv e N e g o tia tio n s in th e P u b lic S e c to r , Vol. 12, No. 1, 1983 pp 45-55. Wilson, Bennie J. Ill, William H. Holley, John S. Martin, “ Ef fects of Faculty Unions on Administrators’ Attitudes Toward Issues in Higher Education,” J o u r n a l o f C o ll e c t i v e N e g o t i a tio n s in th e P u b lic S e c to r , Vol. 12, No. 1, 1983 pp 3344. International economics Bond, Eric and Douglas Mitchell, “ On the Destabilizing Effects of Balance of Payments Sterilization,” A u s tr a lia n E c o n o m ic P a p e r s , December 1982, pp. 345-51. de Menil, George and Anthony M. Solomon, E c o n o m ic S u m m itr y . New York, Council on Foreign Relations, Inc., 1983, 88 pp $8.95. Great Britain, Department of Employment, “ Monitoring Labour Standards, by John Wood, E m p lo y m e n t G a z e tte , April 1983, pp. 135-38. Jones, Michael, “ International Liquidity: A Welfare Analysis,” T h e Q u a r te r ly J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic s , February 1983, pp 123. Kapur, Basant, K., “ Optimal Financial and Foreign-Exchange Liberalization of Less Developed Economies,” T h e Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic s , February 1983, pp. 41-62. Kohli, Ulrich R., “ Beginning- and End-of-Period Specifications of Asset Demand Functions in Balance-of-Payments Theory,” A u s tr a lia n E c o n o m ic P a p e r s , December 1982, pp. 332-44. Lawrence, Colin and Pablo T. Spiller, “ Product Diversity, Econ omies of Scale, and International Trade, ’ ’ T h e Q u a r te r ly J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic s , February 1983, pp. 63-83. Levitt, Theodore, “ The Globalization of Markets,” H a r v a r d B u s i n e s s R e v ie w , May-June 1983, pp. 92-102. Lodge, George Cabot and William R. Glass, “ U.S. Trade Policy Needs One Voice,” H a r v a r d B u s in e s s R e v ie w , May-June 1983, pp. 75-83. Sender, Henriette, “ The Decline and Fall of OPEC,” D u n ’s B u s i n e s s M o n th , March 1983, pp. 50-53. “ The Middle East, 1983,” C u r r e n t H is to r y , January 1983, pp. 1-42. Labor and economic history Milton, David, T h e P o li t i c s o f U .S . L a b o r : F r o m D e p r e s s io n to th e N e w D e a l. th e G r e a t New York, Monthly Review Press, 1982, 189 pp. $18. Soltow, Martha Jane and Susan Gravelle, W o r k e r B e n e fits — I n d u s tr ia l W e lfa r e in A m e r ic a , 1 9 0 0 - 1 9 3 5 : A n A n n o ta te d B i b lio g r a p h y . Metuchen, N.J., The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1983, 242 pp. $16.50. Labor force Albeda, Wil, “ Reflections on the Future of Full Employment: Part I,” L a b o u r a n d S o c ie ty , October-December 1982, pp. 35581. Duncan, Joseph, “ The Job Market Looks Up,” D u n ’s B u s in e s s M o n th , April 1983, pp. 60-61. Grais, Bernard, L a y -O ffs a n d S h o rt-T im e W o rk in g in S e le c te d O E C D C o u n tr ie s . Paris, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1983, 145 pp. $11.95. Available in the United States from the Washington Branch of OECD. Great Britain, Department of Employment, “ Labor Market for Young People in Scotland,” by Andrew MacLeod, Brian Main, David Raife, E m p lo y m e n t G a z e tte , March 1983, pp. 96-101. Gregory, R. G., “ Work and Welfare in the Years Ahead,” A u s tr a lia n E c o n o m ic P a p e r s , December 1982, pp. 219-43. Kalleberg, Arne L. and Karyn A. Loscocco, “ Aging, Values, and Rewards: Explaining Age Differences in Job Satisfaction,” A m e r ic a n S o c i o l o g i c a l R e v ie w , February 1983, pp. 78-90. Main, Brian G. M. and David Rafife, “ Determinants of Employ ment and Unemployment Among School Leavers: Evidence from the 1979 Survey of Scottish School Leavers,” S c o ttis h J o u r n a l o f P o li t i c a l E c o n o m y , February 1983, pp. 1-17. Paukert, Liba, “ Personal Preference, Social Change or Economic Necessity? Why Women Work?” L a b o u r a n d S o c ie ty , Oc tober-December 1982, pp. 311-31. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, W o r k in g W o m e n a n d C h ild b e a r in g : U n ite d S ta te s ( D a ta f r o m th e N a tio n a l Hyattsville, Md., U.S. Depart ment of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, Office of Health Re search, Statistics, and Technology, 1983, 53 pp. (DHHS Pub lication No. (PHS) 82-1985, Series 23, No. 9.) Available from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. S u r v e y o f F a m ily G r o w th ) . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Management and organization theory Barra, Ralph, P u ttin g Q u a lity C ir c le s to W o r k : A P r a c t i c a l S t r a t New York, McGrawHill Book Co., 1983, 200 pp. $19.95. “Compensation and Benefits,” P e r s o n n e l A d m in is tr a to r , May 1983, pp. 37-82. Great Britain, Department of Employment, “ Workers’ Involve ment in a Changing World: Quality Circles,” E m p lo y m e n t G a z e tte , March 1983, pp. 102-04. Marsland, Stephen and Michael Beer, “ The Evolution of Japanese Management: Lessons for U.S. Managers,” O r g a n iz a tio n a l D y n a m ic s , Winter 1983, pp. 49-67. Martin, Shan, M a n a g in g W ith o u t M a n a g e r s : A lte r n a tiv e W o r k A r r a n g e m e n ts in P u b lic O r g a n iz a tio n s . Beverly Hills, Calif., Sage Publications, 1983, 200 pp. (Sage Library of Social Research, Vol. 147.) $22, cloth; $10.95, paper. Nadler, David A. and Edward E. Lawler III, “ Quality of Work Life: Perspectives and Directions,” O r g a n iz a tio n a l D y n a m ic s , Winter 1983, pp. 20-30. Zorn, Theodore E., Jr., T h e M a n a g e r ’s R o le In D e v e lo p in g S u b o r d in a te s . New York, American Management Associations, AMA Membership Publications Division, 1983, 49 pp. $7.50 AM A members; $10, nonmembers. Zussman, Yale M., “ Learning from the Japanese: Management in a Resource-Scarce World,” O r g a n iz a tio n a l D y n a m ic s , Winter 1983, pp. 68-70. e g y f o r B o o s tin g P r o d u c tiv ity a n d P r o fits . Monetary and fiscal policy Brems, Hans, F is c a l T h e o r y : G o v e r n m e n t, I n fla tio n , a n d G r o w th . Lexington, Mass., D. C. Heath and Co., Lexington Books, 1983, 182 pp. $22.95. Hausman, Jerry A., T a x e s a n d L a b o r S u p p ly . Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1983, 84 pp. (NBER Working Paper Series, 1102.) $1.50. Mitchell, Karlyn, “ Trends in Corporation Finance,” E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, March 1983, pp. 3-15. Roth, Howard L. and Diane Seibert, “ The Effect of Alternative Discount Rate Mechanisms on Monetary Control,” E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, March 1983, pp. 16-29. Wilson, Marilyn, “ Deficits: The $200 Billion Question,” D u n ’s B u s in e s s M o n th , March 1983, pp. 28-30. Productivity and technological change Ledebur, Larry C. and Ronald L. Moomaw, “ A Shift-Share Anal ysis of Regional Labor Productivity in Manufacturing,” G r o w th a n d C h a n g e , January 1983, pp. 2-9. Shetty, Y. Krishma and Vernon M. Buehler, eds., Q u a lity a n d P r o d u c tiv ity I m p r o v e m e n ts : U .S . a n d F o r e ig n C o m p a n y E x Chicago, Manufacturing Productivity Center, 1983, 332 pp., bibliography. $15. p e r ie n c e s . Urban affairs Bradbury, Katharine L., Anthony Downs, Kenneth A. Small, U r b a n D e c lin e a n d th e F u tu r e o f A m e r ic a n C itie s . Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1982, 309 pp. $26.95, cloth; $10.95, paper. Murray, Thomas J., “ Housing Leads the Way Again,” D u n 's B u s in e s s M o n th , March 1983, pp. 53-54. 47 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Book Reviews Wages and compensation Cappelli, Peter, “ Comparability and the British Civil Service,” B r itis h J o u r n a l o f I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s , March 1983, pp. 3345. Goldfarb, Robert S., Anthony M. J. Yezer, Sebastian Crewe, “ Some New Evidence: Have Regional Wage Differentials Really Disappeared?” G r o w th a n d C h a n g e , January 1983, pp. 48-51. Great Britain, Department of Employment, “ Case Study: Alternate Week Working,” by Auriol Blandy, E m p lo y m e n t G a z e tte , March 1983, pp. 125-28. ----------“ Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination,” E m p lo y m e n t G a z e tte , April 1983, pp. 165-69. ----------“ Women’s Pay in Informal Payment Systems,” by Chris tine Craig, Elizabeth Garnsey, Jill Rubery, E m p lo y m e n t G a z e tte , April 1983, beginning on p. 139. Papier, William, U n e m p lo y m e n t B e n e fit F r a u d in O h io . Colum bus, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, Division of Re search and Statistics, 1983, 30 pp. Penn, Roger, “ The Course of Wage Differentials Between Skilled and Nonskilled Manual Workers in Britain Between 1856 and 1964,” B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s , March 1983, pp. 69-90. State of New York, Department of Labor, A n n u a l R e p o r t o f th e S ta te A d v is o r y C o u n c il o n E m p lo y m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t In su ra n ce. New York, State Department of Labor, Advisory 48 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Council on Employment and Unemployment Insurance, 1982, 80 pp. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, T h e F e m a le - M a le E a r n in g s G a p : A R e v ie w o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s I s s u e s . By Janet L. Norwood, Washington, 1983, 10 pp. (Report 673.) Welfare programs and social insurance Brodkin, Evelyn and Michael Lipsky, “ Quality Control in AFDC as an Administrative Strategy,” S o c ia l S e r v ic e R e v ie w , March 1983, pp. 1-34. Chakravarty, Satya Ranjan, “ Ethically Flexible Measures of Pov erty,” C a n a d ia n J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic s , February 1983 pp 74-85. Mudrick, Nancy R., “ Income Support Programs for Disabled Women,” S o c ia l S e r v ic e R e v ie w , March 1983, pp. 125-36. National Commission on Social Security Reform, R e p o r t o f th e N a tio n a l C o m m is s io n o n S o c ia l S e c u r ity ’ R e fo r m . Washing ton, 1983. Various pagings. Stock No. 040-000-00463-7. $7.50, Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. Worker training and development Great Britain, Department of Employment, “ The Youth Training Program in Northern Ireland,” by Boyd Black and Garry Foster, E m p l o y m e n t G a z e t t e , April 1983, pp. 153-57. Raffa, Frederick A., Clyde A. Haulman, Djehane A. Hosni, comps.. U n ite d S ta te s E m p lo y m e n t a n d T r a in in g P r o g r a m s : A S e l e c t e d A n n o ta te d B ib lio g r a p h y . Press, 1983, 154 pp. $27.95’. Westport, Conn., Greenwood □ Current Labor Statistics Notes on Current Labor Statistics 50 Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series 50 Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes 51 1. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, selected years, 1950-82 ........................................................................... 2. Employment status of the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex,seasonally adjusted . . . . 3. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin,seasonally ad ju sted............................ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Selected employment indicators, seasonally ad ju sted ............................................................................................................................. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally ad ju sted .................................................................................................................. Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted .................................................................................................................. Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally ad ju sted ......................................................................................... Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted............................................................................................................................... Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes 51 52 53 54 55 56 56 56 57 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Employment by industry, selected years, 1950-82 ............................................................................................................................... Employment by State ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ............................................................... Hours and earnings, by industry division, selected years, 1950-82 .................................................................................................. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ........................................................... 58 58 59 60 61 14. 15. 16. 17. Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................................... Hourly Earnings Index, by industry division ........................................................................................................................................... Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................................... Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment in creased ......................................................................................................... 62 62 63 63 Unemployment insurance data. Definitions 18. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations .................................................................................................... Price data. Definitions and notes 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Consumer Price Index, 1967-82 ........................................................................................................................................................... Consumer Price Index, U .S. city average, general summary and selected i t e m s .................................................................... Consumer Price Index, cross-classification of region and population size c l a s s ....................................................................... Consumer Price Index, selected areas ................................................................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing ...................................................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings .................................................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings............................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product .................................................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries ....................................................................................................... Productivity data. Definitions and notes 28. 29. 30. 31. 74 75 77 78 79 79 80 80 81 82 Employment Cost Index, total compensation, by occupation and industry group ......................................................................... Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group ........................................................................ Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size .............................................. Wage aqd compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1978 to d a te .............................................................. Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1978to date ............................. Work stoppage data. Definition 37. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date ................................................................................................ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 65 66 66 72 73 Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1950-82 ................................ Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1972-82 .......................................................... Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted ..................................... Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and p r ic e s..................... Wage and compensation data. Definitions and notes 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 64 64 83 84 85 86 86 87 87 49 NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS This section of the R e v ie w presents the principal statistical series collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A brief introduction to each group of tables provides definitions, 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 cover of this issue of tht R e v ie w . Some general notes applicable to several series are given below. o f the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given a current hourly Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is $2 ($3/150 x 100 = $2). The eliminate the effect o f such factors as climatic conditions, industry pro resulting values are described as “ real,” “ constant,” or “ 1967” dollars. Price Index series. Flowever, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U .S. average All Items CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are available for this series. Adjustments for price changes. Some data are adjusted to eliminate the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate component wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of 150, where 1967 = 100, duction schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short-term movements Availability of information. Data that supplement the tables in this section o f the statistical series. Tables containing these data are identified as “ sea are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of sources. sonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated on the basis of past Press releases provide the latest statistical information published by the experience. When new seasonal factors are computed each year, revisions Bureau; the major recurring releases are published according to the schedule may affect seasonally adjusted data for several preceding years. given below. More information from household and establishment surveys Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 3 - 8 were revised in the February 1983 issue o f the R e v ie w , to reflect experience through 1982. is provided in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , a monthly publication o f the Bureau. Comparable household information is published in a two-volume Beginning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major modifications data book - L a b o r F o r c e S ta tis tic s D e r iv e d F ro m th e C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the S u r v e y , Bulletin 2096. Comparable establishment information appears in data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure called X -11/ two data books - 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 ARIMA, which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of the m e n t a n d E a rn in g s , S ta te s a n d A r e a s , and their annual supplements. More standard X -l 1 method. A detailed description of the procedure appears in detailed information on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining T h e X - l l A R IM 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 Dagum appears in the monthly periodical, C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts . More (Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 12-564E, February 1980). The second detailed price information is published each month in the periodicals, the change is that seasonal factors are now being calculated for use during 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 r ic e s a n d P r ic e I n d e x e s . first 6 months o f the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at mid-year for the July-December period. Revisions of historical Symbols data continue to be made only at the end of each calendar year. Annual revision o f the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in tables p = preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series, pre 11, 13, and 15 were made in August 1981 using the X -11 ARIMA seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for productivity data in liminary figures are issued based on representative but in complete returns. tables 29 and 30 are usually introduced in the September issue. Seasonally r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availability of adjusted indexes and percent changes from month to month and from quarter to quarter are published for numerous Consumer and Producer later data but may also reflect other adjustments, n .e.c. = not elsewhere classified. Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series July releases Period covered August releases Period covered Employment situ a tio n ................................ July 8 June August 5 Producer Price In d e x ................ July 15 June Series Consumer Price Index ................ September releases Period covered July September 2 August 1-11 August 12 July September 9 August 23-27 MLR table number July 22 June August 23 July September 23 August 19-22 Real earnings ......................... July 22 June August 23 July September 23 August 12-16 Major collective bargaining settlements . . July 28 1st half July 29 2nd quarter 35-36 Productivity and costs: Nonfarm business and manufacturing . . Nonfinancial corporations ...................... Employment Cost Index ............................ 50 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 28-31 August 26 2nd quarter August 4 2nd quarter 32-34 EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 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 selected to represent the U.S population 16 years of age and older. House holds are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months. E m p l o y m e n t d a t a Definitions Employed persons include (1) all civilians who worked for pay any time during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. Members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States are also included in the em ployed total. A person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at which he or she worked the greatest number of hours. Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look for work because they were on layolf or waiting to start new jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed. The overall unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The unemployment 1. rate for all civilian workers represents the number unemployed as a percent o f the civilian labor force. The labor force consists of all employed or unemployed civilians plus members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Persons not in the labor force are those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes persons retired, those engaged in their own housework, those not working while attending school, those unable to work because of long-term illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle. The noninstitutional population comprises all persons 16 years of age and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions, sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy, and members o f the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. The labor force participation rate is the proportion of the noninstitutional population that is in the labor force. The employment-population ratio is total employment (including the resident Armed Forces) as a percent of the noninstitutional population. Notes on the data From time to time, and especially after a decennial census, adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These adjustments affect the compara bility o f historical data presented in table 1. A description of these ad justments and their effect on the various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s . Data in tables 2 - 8 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal ex perience through December 1982. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-82 [N um bers in thousands] Labor force Employed Year Noninstitutional population Number Percent of population Unemployed Civilian Total Percent of population Resident Armed Forces Total Agriculture Nonagricultural Industries Number Percent of labor torce Not In labor force 1950 1955 1960 ................ ................ ................ 106,164 111,747 119,106 63,377 67,087 71,489 59.7 50.0 60.0 60,087 64,234 67,639 56.6 57.5 56.8 1,169 2,064 1,861 58,918 62,170 65,778 7,160 6,450 5,458 51,758 55,722 60,318 3,288 2,852 3,852 5.2 4.3 5.4 42,787 44,660 46,617 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 128,459 130,180 132,092 134,281 136,573 76,401 77,892 79,565 80,990 82,972 59.5 59.8 60.2 60.3 60.8 73,034 75,017 76,590 78,173 80,140 56.9 57.6 58.0 58.2 58.7 1,946 2,122 2,218 2,253 2,238 71,088 72,895 74,372 75,920 77,902 4,361 3,979 3,844 3,817 3,606 66,726 68,915 70,527 72,103 74,296 3,366 2,875 2,975 2,817 2,832 4,4 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.4 52,058 52,288 52,527 53,291 53,602 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 139,203 142,1 ;89 145,939 148,870 151,841 84,889 86,355 88,847 91,203 93,670 61.0 60 7 60.9 61.3 61.7 80,796 81,340 83,966 86,838 88,515 58.0 57.2 57.5 58.3 58.3 2,118 1,973 1,813 1,774 1,721 78,678 79,367 82,153 85,064 86,794 3,463 3,394 3,484 3,470 3,515 75,215 75,972 78,669 81,594 83,279 4,093 5,016 4,882 4,355 5,156 4.8 5.8 5.5 4.8 5.5 54,315 55,834 57,091 57,667 58,171 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 154,831 157,818 160,689 153,541 166,460 95,453 97,826 100,665 103,882 106,559 61.6 62.0 62.6 63.5 64.0 87,524 90,420 93,673 97,679 100,421 56.5 57.3 58.3 59.7 60.3 1,678 1,668 1,656 1,631 1,597 85,845 88,752 92,017 96,048 98,824 3,408 3,331 3,283 3,387 3,347 82,438 85,421 88,734 92,661 95,477 7,929 7,406 6,991 6,202 6,137 8.3 7.6 6.9 6.0 5.8 59,377 59,991 60,025 59,659 59,900 1980 1981 1982 ................ ................ ................ 169,349 171,775 173,939 108,544 110,315 111,872 64.1 65.2 64.3 100,907 102,042 101,194 59.6 59 4 58.2 1,604 1,645 1,668 99,303 100,397 99,526 3,364 3,368 3,401 95,938 97,030 96,125 7,637 8,273 10,578 7.0 7.5 9.5 60,806 61,460 62,067 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 51 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data 2. Employment status of the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex, seasonally adjusted [N um bers in thousands] Employment status and sex Annual average 1982 1983 1981 1982 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 171,775 110,315 64.2 102,042 59.4 1,645 100,397 3,368 97,030 8,273 7.5 61,460 173,939 111,872 64.3 101,194 58.2 1,668 99,526 3,401 96,125 10,678 9.5 62,067 173,691 112,043 64.5 101,659 58.5 1,665 99,994 3,446 96,548 10,384 9.3 61,648 173,854 111,811 64.3 101,345 58.3 1,664 99,681 3,371 96,310 10,466 9.4 62,043 174,038 112,090 64.4 101,262 58.2 1,674 99,588 3,445 96,143 10,828 9.7 61,948 174,200 112,303 64.5 101,372 58.2 1,689 99,683 3,429 96,254 10,931 9.7 61,897 174,360 112,528 64.5 101,213 58.0 1,670 99.543 3,363 96,180 11,315 10.1 61,832 174,549 112,420 64.4 100,844 57.8 1,668 99,176 3,413 95,763 11,576 10.3 62,129 174,718 112,702 64.5 100,796 57.7 1.660 99,136 3,466 95,670 11,906 10.6 62,016 174,864 112,794 64.5 100,758 57.6 1,665 99,093 3,411 95,682 12,036 10.7 62,070 175,021 112,215 64.1 100,770 57.6 1,667 99,103 3,412 95,691 11,446 10.2 62,806 175,169 112,217 64.1 100,727 57.5 1,664 99,063 3,393 95,670 11,490 10.2 62,952 175,320 112,148 64.0 100,767 57 5 1,664 99,103 3,375 95,729 11,381 10.1 63,172 175,465 112,457 64.1 101,129 57 6 1 671 99,458 3 371 96,088 11 328 10 1 63,008 175 622 112 418 64.0 101 226 57 fi 1 669 99 557 3 367 96 190 11 192 10 0 63,204 82,023 63,486 77.4 58,909 71.8 1,512 57,397 4,577 7.2 83,052 63,979 77.0 57,800 69.6 1,527 56,271 6,179 9.7 82,929 64,172 77.4 58,251 70.2 1,527 57,724 5,921 9.2 83,006 63,8951 76.9 57,775 69.5 1,526 56,249 6,076 9.5 83,097 63,989 76.9 57,664 69.4 1,537 56,127 6,234 9.8 83,173 64,055 77.0 57,710 69.4 1,551 56,159 6,345 9.9 83,231 64,301 77.3 57,598 69.2 1,526 56,072 6,703 10.4 83,323 64,300 77.2 57,456 69.0 1,524 55,932 6,844 10.6 83,402 64,414 77.2 57,408 58.8 1,516 55,892 7,006 10.9 83,581 64,384 77.0 57,338 68.6 1,529 55,809 7,046 10.9 83,652 63,916 76.4 57,283 68.5 1,531 55,752 6,633 10.4 83,720 63,996 76.4 57,234 68.4 1,528 55,706 6,762 10.6 83,789 63,957 76 3 57,300 68 4 1,528 55,772 6,657 10.4 83,856 64 207 76 6 57 476 68 5 1,530 55,946 6 731 10.5 83 931 64 276 76 6 57 656 68 7 1,528 56 128 6 620 10.3 89,751 46,829 52.2 43,133 48,1 133 43,000 3,696 7.9 90,887 47,894 52.7 43,395 47.7 139 43,256 4,499 9.4 90,762 47,871 52.7 43,408 47.8 138 43,270 4,463 9.3 90,848 47,960 52.8 43,570 48.0 138 43,432 4,390 9.2 90,941 48,192 53.0 43,598 47.9 137 43,461 4,594 9.5 91,027 48,248 43.0 43,662 48.0 138 43,524 4,586 9.5 91,129 48,227 52.9 43,615 47.9 144 43,471 4,612 9.6 91,226 48,120 52.7 43,388 47.6 144 43,244 4,732 9.8 91,316 48,288 42.9 43,388 47.5 144 43,244 4,900 10.1 91,283 48,410 43.0 43,420 47.6 136 43,284 4,990 10.3 91,369 48,299 52.9 43,486 47.6 136 43,350 4,813 10.0 91,449 48,220 52.7 43,493 47.6 136 43,357 4,727 9.8 91,532 48,191 52.6 3,467 47 5 136 43,331 4,724 9.8 91,609 48,251 52 7 43,653 47 7 141 43,512 4 597 9.5 91 691 48 142 52 5 43 569 47 5 141 43,428 4 572 9.5 Total Noninstitutional population1' 2 ......................... Labor force2 ................................................... Participation rate3 ......................... Total employed2 Employment-population4 ................ Resident Armed Forces1 ................... Civilian e m p lo y e d ............................. Agriculture ......................................... Nonagricultural in d u s trie s ................ U n e m p lo ye d ................................... Unemployment rate5 ......................... Not in labor force ......................................... Men. 16 years and over Noninstitutional population1' 2 .......................... Labor force2 ................................................ Participation rate3 ............................. Total employed2 ......................................... Employment-population rate4 . . . . Resident Armed Forces1 ...................... Civilian e m p lo y e d ................................... U n e m p lo ye d ................................ Unemployment rate5 ......................... Women. 16 years and over Noninstitutional population1' 2 .......................... Labor force2 ....................................... Participation rate3 .......................... Total employed2 .......................................... Employment-population rate4 . . . . Resident Armed Forces1 ...................... Civilian e m p lo y e d ................................... U n e m p lo ye d ............................................. Unemployment rate5 ......................... ’ The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation. ¿Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. 4 Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population. 52 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population 5 Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (including the resident Armed Forces) 3. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, seasonally adjusted [N um bers in thousands] 1982 Annual average 1983 1981 1982 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 170,130 108,670 63.9 100,397 59.0 33,68 97,030 8,273 7.6 61,460 172,271 110,204 64.0 99,526 57.8 3,401 96,125 10,678 9.7 62,067 172,026 110,378 64.2 99,994 58.1 3,446 96,548 10,384 9.4 61,648 172,190 110,147 64.0 99,681 57.9 3,371 96,310 10,466 9.5 62,043 172,364 110,416 64.1 99,588 57.8 3,445 96,143 10,828 9.8 61,948 172,511 110,614 64.1 99,683 57.8 3,429 96,254 10,931 9.9 61,897 172,690 110,858 64.2 99,543 57.6 3,363 96,180 11,315 10.2 61,832 172,881 110,752 64.1 99,176 57.4 3,413 95,763 11,576 10.5 62,129 173,058 111,042 64.2 99,136 57.3 3,466 95,670 11,906 10.7 62,016 173,199 111,129 64.2 99,093 57.2 3,411 95,682 12,036 10.8 62,070 173,354 110,548 63.8 99,103 57.2 3,412 95,691 11,446 10.4 62,806 173,305 110,553 63.7 99,063 57.1 3,393 95,670 11,490 10.4 62,952 173,656 110,484 63.6 99,103 57.1 3,375 95,729 11,381 10.3 63,172 173,794 110,786 63.7 99,458 57.2 3,371 96,088 11,328 10.2 63,008 173,953 110,749 63.7 99,557 57.2 3,367 96,190 11,192 10.1 63,204 72,419 57,197 79,0 53,582 74.0 2,384 51,199 3,615 6.3 73,644 57,980 78.7 52,891 71.8 2,422 50,469 5,089 8.8 73,499 58,008 78.9 53,190 72.4 2,446 50,744 4,818 8.3 73,585 57,959 78.8 52,943 71.9 2,424 50,519 5,016 8.7 73,685 58,055 78.8 52,905 71.8 2,462 50,443 5,150 8.9 73,774 58,064 78.7 52,832 71.6 2,433 50,399 5,232 9.0 73,867 58,354 79.0 52,776 71.4 2,436 50,340 5,578 9.6 73,984 58,363 78.9 52,649 71.2 2,444 50,205 5,714 9.8 74,094 58,454 78.9 52,589 71.0 2,434 50,155 5,865 10.0 74,236 58,443 78.7 52,534 70.8 2,389 50,145 5,909 10.1 74,339 58,048 78.1 52,452 70.6 2,426 50,025 5,597 9.6 74,434 58,177 78.2 52,428 70.4 2,374 50,054 5,749 9.9 74,528 58,170 78.1 52,589 70.6 2,420 50,169 5,581 9.6 74,611 58,454 78.3 52,752 70.7 2,404 50,348 5,702 9.8 74,712 58,506 78.3 52,901 70.8 2,443 50,458 5,605 9.6 81,497 42,485 52.1 39,590 48.6 604 38,986 2,895 6.8 82,864 43,699 52.7 40,086 48.4 601 39,485 3,613 8.3 82,707 43,632 52.8 40,064 48.4 614 39,450 3,568 8.2 82,811 43,819 52 9 40,254 48.6 586 39,668 3,565 8.1 82,926 43,983 53.0 40,311 48.6 598 39,713 3,672 8.3 83,035 44,039 53.0 40,368 48.6 590 39,778 3,671 8.3 83,152 43,996 52.9 40,286 48.4 588 39,698 3,710 8.4 83,271 43,936 52.8 40,112 48.2 578 39,534 3,824 8.7 83,385 44,112 52.9 40,123 48.1 590 39,533 3,989 9.0 83,383 44,286 53.1 40,215 48.2 628 39,587 4,071 9.2 83,490 44,201 52.9 40,238 48.2 625 39,613 3,963 9.0 83,593 44,216 52.9 40,291 48.2 c657 39,634 3,925 8.9 83,699 44,166 52.8 40,277 48.1 647 39,630 3,889 8.8 83,794 44,238 52.8 40,509 48.3 622 39,886 3,729 8.4 83,899 44,228 52.7 40,484 48.3 597 39,887 3,744 8.5 16,214 8,988 55.4 7,225 44.6 380 6,845 1,763 19.6 15,763 8,526 54.1 6,549 41.5 378 6,171 1,977 23.2 15,820 8,738 55.2 6,740 42.6 386 6,354 1,998 22 9 15,794 8,369 53.0 6,484 41.1 361 6,123 1,885 22.5 15,753 8,378 53.2 6,372 40.4 385 5,987 2,006 23.9 15,702 8,511 54.2 6,483 41.3 406 6,077 2,028 23.8 15,671 8,508 54.3 6,481 41.4 339 6,142 2,027 23.8 15,625 8,453 54,1 6,415 41.1 391 6,024 2,038 24.1 15,579 8,476 54,4 6,424 41.2 442 5,982 2,052 24.2 15,580 8,400 53 9 6,344 40.7 394 5,950 2,056 24.5 15,525 8,299 53.5 6,413 41.3 361 6,052 1,886 22.7 15,478 8,160 52.7 6,345 41.0 362 5,983 1,815 22.2 15,429 8,148 52.8 6,237 40.4 308 5,929 1,911 23.5 15,389 8,094 52.6 6,197 40.3 344 5,853 1,897 23.4 15,342 8,015 52.2 6,172 40.2 327 5,845 1,843 23.0 147,908 95,052 64.3 88,709 60.0 6,343 6.7 149,441 96,143 64.3 87,903 58.8 8,241 8.6 149,250 96,405 64.6 88,350 59.2 8,055 8.4 149,429 96,165 64.4 88,089 59.0 8,076 8.4 149,569 96,385 64.4 88,021 58.8 8,364 8.7 149,536 96,375 64.4 87,979 58.8 8,396 8.7 149,652 96,640 64.6 87,872 58.7 8,768 9.1 149,838 96,453 64.4 98,477 58.4 8,976 9.3 149,887 96,719 64.5 87,435 58.3 9,284 9.6 150,056 96,864 64.6 87,443 58.3 9,421 9.7 150,129 96,176 64.1 87,466 58.3 8,711 9.1 150,187 95,987 63.9 87,194 58.1 8,793 9.2 150,382 95,996 63.8 87,324 58.1 8,672 9.0 150,518 96,287 64.0 87,709 58.3 8,577 8.9 150,671 96,362 64.0 87,777 58.3 8,585 8.9 18,219 11,086 60.8 9,355 51.3 1,731 15.6 18,584 11,331 61.0 9,189 49.4 2,142 18.9 18,542 11,318 61.0 9,209 49.7 2,109 18.6 18,570 11,267 60.7 9,171 49.4 2,096 18.6 18,600 11,341 61.0 9,211 49.5 2,130 18.8 18,626 11,400 61.2 9,220 49.5 2,180 19.1 18,659 11,443 61.3 9,172 49.2 2,271 19.8 18,692 11,398 61.0 9,102 48.7 2,296 20.1 18,723 11,475 61.3 9,159 48.9 2,316 202 18,740 11,522 61.5 9,127 48.7 2,395 20.8 18,768 11,542 61.5 9,142 48.7 2,400 20.8 18,796 11,548 61.4 9,276 49.4 2,271 19.7 18,823 11,554 61.4 9,253 49.2 2,302 19.9 18,851 11,631 61.7 c9,209 48.8 2,423 20.8 18,880 11,672 61.8 9,270 49.1 2,402 20.6 9,310 5,972 64.1 5,348 57.4 624 10.4 9,400 5,983 63.6 5,158 54.9 825 13.8 9,297 6,004 64.6 5,182 55.7 822 13.7 9,428 5,965 63.3 5,155 54.7 810 13.6 9,521 5,972 62.7 5,136 53.9 836 14.0 9,689 6,045 62.4 5,162 53.3 883 14.6 9,464 5,961 63.0 5,097 53.9 864 14.5 9,474 5,973 63.0 5,075 53.6 898 15.0 9,355 5,923 63.3 5,012 53.6 911 15.4 9,301 5,898 63.4 4,998 53.7 900 15.3 9,328 5,981 64.1 5,053 54.2 929 15.5 9,368 5,992 64.0 5,042 53.8 950 15.8 9,551 6,074 63.6 5,088 53.3 986 16.2 9,665 6,206 64.2 5,304 54.9 902 14.5 9,747 6,167 63.3 5,318 54.6 849 13.8 TOTAL Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ Civilian labor f o r c e ......................................... Participation r a t e ................................ Employed ................................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . A gricu lture............................................. Nonagricultural industries ................... U n e m p lo ye d ................................................ Unemployment rate ......................... Not in labor force ......................................... Men, 20 years and over Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ Civilian labor f o r c e .......................................... Participation r a t e ................................ Employed ................................................ Employment-population ratio2 . . . . A gricu lture................................................ Nonagricultural industries ................... U n e m p lo ye d ................................................ Unemployment rate ......................... Women, 20 years and over Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ Civilian labor f o r c e ......................................... Participation r a t e ................................ Employed ................................................ Employment-population ratio2 . . . . A gricu lture ................................................ Nonagricultural industries ................... U n e m p lo ye d ................................................ Unemployment rate ......................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 years Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ Civilian labor f o r c e ......................................... Participation r a t e ................................ Employed ................................................ Employment-population ratio2 . . . . A gricu lture................................................ Nonagricultural industries ................... U n e m p lo ye d ................................................ Unemployment rate ......................... White Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ Civilian labor f o r c e ......................................... Participation r a t e ................................ Employed ................................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . U n e m p lo ye d ................................................ Unemployment rate ......................... Black Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ Civilian labor f o r c e ......................................... Participation r a t e ................................ Employed ................................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . U n e m p lo ye d ................................................ Unemployment rate ......................... Hispanic origin Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................ Civilian labor f o r c e ......................................... Participation r a t e ................................ Employed ................................................ Employment-population ratio2 . . . . U n e m p lo ye d ................................................ Unemployment rate ......................... 1 The population figures are not seasonally adjusted. C iv ilia n employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. c = corrected. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals because data for the “ other races" groups are not presented and Hispanics are included in both the white and black population groups. 53 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data 4. Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted [N um bers in thousands] Annual average Selected categories 1982 1981 1982 May June ...................... 100,397 99,526 99,994 M e n ......................................................... W o m e n ......................................... Married men, spouse p re s e n t............................ Married women, spouse present . . . . Women who maintain families ......................... 57,397 43,000 38,882 23,915 4,998 56,271 43,256 38,074 24,053 5,099 56,724 43,270 38,274 24,112 4,991 Agriculture: Wage and salary workers ............................. Self-employed workers ...................................... Unpaid family w o rk e rs ...................................... 1,464 1,638 266 1,505 1,636 261 Nonagricultural industries: Wage and salary workers ................................... G overnm ent................................................ Private in d u s trie s ......................................... Private households ............................ O n e r ...................................................... Self-employed workers ................................ Unpaid family w o rk e rs ......................................... 89,543 15,68 73,853 1,208 72,645 7,097 390 91,377 74,339 4,499 1,738 2,761 12,539 1983 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 99,581 99,588 99,683 99,543 99,176 99,136 99,093 99,103 99,063 99,103 99,458 99,557 56,249 43,432 38,254 24,331 5,120 58,127 43,461 38,177 24,173 5,200 56,159 43,524 38,121 24,235 5,208 56,073 43,471 37,998 24,159 5,118 55,932 43,244 37,852 24,081 5,107 55,892 43,244 37,641 23,985 5,025 55,809 43,284 37,507 24,155 4,985 55,752 43,350 37,450 24,205 5,038 55,706 43,357 37,428 24,070 5,050 55,772 43,331 34,452 24,171 5,097 55,946 43,512 37,523 24,371 4,944 56,128 43,428 37,560 24,229 4,942 1,530 1,679 251 1,457 1,681 254 1,523 1,655 254 1,548 1,620 255 1,537 1.569 254 1,576 1,621 229 1,584 1,628 241 1,547 1,627 224 1,637 1,587 231 1,624 1,541 223 1,515 1,585 260 1,560 1,607 28 1,595 1,558 229 88,462 15,516 72,945 1,207 71,738 7,262 401 88,872 15,454 73,418 1,204 72,214 7,262 392 88,548 15,514 72,934 1,205 71,729 7,301 398 55,491 15,471 73,020 1,200 71,820 7,286 393 88,576 15,562 73,014 1,227 71,787 7,338 408 88,562 15,681 72,881 1,220 71,661 7,422 378 88,064 15,436 72,628 1,216 71,412 7,332 403 87,936 15,514 72,422 1,221 71,201 7,349 382 87,976 15,477 72,499 1,163 71,336 7,335 383 87,813 15,386 72,427 1,162 71,265 7,465 380 87,794 15,501 72,293 1,232 71,061 7,385 353 87,912 15,452 72,459 1,235 71,225 7,453 342 88,187 15,518 72,668 1,205 71,463 7,528 353 88,395 15,523 72,872 1,228 71,644 7,408 335 90,552 72,245 5,852 2,169 3,683 12,455 91,082 72,869 5,731 2,195 3,536 12,482 90,917 72,545 5,561 2,126 3,435 12,811 90,414 72,288 5,577 2,047 3,530 12,549 90,486 72,045 5,820 2,100 3,720 12,621 90,884 71,723 6,495 2,519 3,976 12,666 90,232 71,394 6,903 2,381 4,022 12,435 90,238 71,442 6,411 2,228 4,183 12,385 90,219 71,499 6,425 2,153 4,272 12,295 90,903 71,786 6,845 90,207 71,564 6,481 2,097 4,384 12,162 90,271 71,878 92,267 73,594 6,082 1,871 4,21 12,592 90,941 72,975 5,928 1,685 4,243 12,038 CHARACTERISTIC Civilian employed, 16 years and over MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS OF WORKER PERSONS AT W 0 R K 1 Nonagricultural in d u s trie s ...................................... Full-time schedules ...................................... Part time for economic reaso ns......................... Usually work full time ................................ Usually work part t im e ................................ Part time for noneconomic reasons................... » 1 Excludes persons “ with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes. 54 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2,200 4,645 12,271 6,202 1,927 4,275 12,191 5. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted [U nem ploym ent rates] 1982 Annual average Selected categories 1983 1981 1982 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Total, all civilian w o rk e r s ............................................ Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a r s ................................ Men, 20 years and o v e r ...................................... Women, 20 years and o v e r ................................ 7.6 19.6 6.3 6.8 9.7 23.2 8.8 8.3 9.4 22.9 8.3 8.2 9.5 22.5 8.7 8.1 9.8 23.9 8.9 8.3 9.9 23.8 9.0 8.3 10.2 23.8 9.6 8.4 10.4 24.1 9.8 8.7 10.7 24.2 10.0 9.0 10.8 24.5 10.1 9.2 10.4 22.7 9.6 9.0 10.4 22.2 9.9 8.9 10.3 23.5 9.6 8.8 10.2 23.4 9.8 8.4 10.1 23.0 9.6 8.5 White, t o t a l............................................................ Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ...................... Men, 16 to 19 years ......................... Women, 16 to 19 years ................... Men, 20 years and o v e r ............................ Women, 20 years and over ...................... 6.7 17.3 17.9 16.6 5.6 5.9 8.6 20.4 21.7 19.0 7.8 7.3 8.4 19.9 20.9 18.7 7.5 7.2 8.4 19.7 21.2 18.0 7.7 7.1 8.7 20.9 22.5 19.1 7.9 7.3 8.7 20.8 22.5 18.9 8.0 7.2 9.1 20.7 22.2 19.1 8.6 7.5 9.3 21.5 23.0 19.9 8.8 7.6 9.6 21.2 22.6 19.8 9.1 8.0 9.7 21.6 22.8 20.4 9.2 8.1 9.1 20.0 21.2 18.7 8.4 7.8 9.2 19.7 21.1 18.2 8.7 7.7 9.0 21.4 22.9 19.7 8.5 7.4 8.9 20.4 21.7 19.0 8.6 7.2 8.9 19.8 20.2 19.4 8.6 7.3 Black, total ............................................................ Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ...................... Men, 16 to 19 years ......................... Women, 16 to 19 years ................... Men, 20 years and o v e r ............................. Women, 20 years and over ...................... 15.6 41.4 40.7 42.2 13.5 13.4 18.9 48.0 48.9 47.1 17.8 15.4 18.6 49.4 49.7 49.1 17.1 15.3 18.6 51.2 55.7 46.0 17.3 15.1 18.8 49.3 48.9 49.7 174.1 15.5 19.1 51.2 50.5 52.1 76.1 15.4 19.8 48.6 51.0 45.9 9.2 15.7 2.1 47.7 49.2 45.9 19.6 16.2 20.2 49.8 53.0 46.2 19.2 16.5 20.8 49.5 52.5 46.2 20.5 16.5 20.8 45.7 45.9 45.5 19.7 18.2 19.7 45.4 45.3 45.4 18.7 17.0 19.9 43.5 44.5 42.3 18.8 17.7 20.8 49.0 48.0 50.0 20.3 17.0 20.6 48.2 53.1 42.3 19.8 17.1 Hispanic origin, to ta l............................................ 10.4 13.8 13.7 13.6 14.0 14.6 14.5 15.0 15.4 15.3 15.5 15.8 16.2 14.5 13.8 Married men, spouse p re s e n t............................. Married women, spouse present ...................... Women who maintain families ......................... 4.3 6.0 10.4 6.5 7.4 11.7 6.1 7.3 11.9 6.4 7.1 12.1 6.6 7.4 12.0 6.8 7.3 11.7 7.2 7.6 12.4 7.5 7.9 11.3 7.6 8.2 12.5 7.8 8.2 13.2 7.1 7.8 13.2 7.2 7.6 13.0 7.1 7.5 13.5 7.1 7.3 13.2 7.0 7.5 12.9 Full-time w o rke rs................................................... Part-time workers ................................................ Unemployed 15 weeks and over ...................... Labor force time lost1 ......................................... 7.3 9.4 2.1 8.5 9.6 10.5 3.2 11.0 9.2 10.5 3.0 10.7 9.4 10.0 3.2 10.4 9.6 11.2 3.2 10.7 9.7 10.4 3.3 10.9 10.2 10.6 3.5 11.7 10.5 10.3 3.8 12.0 10.6 11.3 4.1 12.4 10.8 11.1 4.3 12.7 10.3 10.6 4.2 11.7 10.4 10.1 4.2 12.0 10.3 10.5 4.2 11.8 10.2 10.6 3.9 11.4 9.9 11.0 4.1 11.5 7.7 6.0 15.6 8.3 8.2 8.4 5.2 8.1 5.9 4.7 12.1 10.1 13.4 20.0 12.3 13.3 10.8 6.8 10.0 6.9 4.9 14.7 9.8 12.1 18.9 11.5 12.2 10.4 6.4 10.2 6.8 4.9 18.1 10.0 14.0 19.5 12.2 13.1 11.1 6.8 9.7 6.9 4.7 15.0 10.2 15.8 20.3 12.1 12.8 11.0 6.6 10.3 7.0 4.7 14.1 10.2 16.0 20.4 12.4 13.3 11.0 7.1 10.0 7.0 4.7 14.2 11.0 18.5 22.3 14.1 16.0 11.2 7.9 10.4 7.1 4.9 13.3 11.0 17.9 22.3 14.1 16.0 11.2 7.9 10.4 7.1 4.9 13.3 11.4 18.1 21.8 14.8 17.0 11.4 8.3 10.6 7.7 5.1 15.6 11.6 18.1 22.0 14.8 17.1 11.4 8.0 11.0 7.9 5.1 16.5 10.8 17.1 20.0 13.0 14.7 10.5 7.8 10.8 7.6 5.7 16.0 10.8 18.4 19.7 13.3 14.7 11.4 8.0 10.9 7.3 6.0 16.4 10.8 18.6 20.3 12.8 14.1 11.1 7.8 11.2 7.2 5.9 16.3 10.5 20.3 20.3 12.4 13.5 10.8 7.7 10.4 7.3 6.1 17.2 10.5 22.7 20.4 12.3 13.5 10.5 7.0 10.1 7.5 5.8 17.0 CHARACTERISTIC INDUSTRY Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers . . Mining ................................................................... Construction ......................................................... Manufacturing ...................................................... Durable goods ............................................ Nondurable goods ...................................... Transportation and public u tilitie s ...................... Wholesale and retail tr a d e ................................... Finance and service industries ......................... Government workers ................................................... Agricultural wage and salary workers ...................... 1 Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force hours. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 55 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data 6. Unemployment rates by se> and age, seasonally adjusted [Civilian w orkers] Sex and age Annual average 1982 1983 1981 1982 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Total, 16 years and over ............................................ 16 to 24 years ................................ 16 to 19 y e a r s ................................................ 16 to 17 y e a rs ............................................... 18 to 19 y e a rs ......................................... 20 to 24 y e a r s ...................................... 25 years and over ................................ 25 to 54 years ................................................... 55 years and over ............................. 7.6 14.9 19.6 21.4 18.4 12.3 5.4 - 5.8 3.6 9.7 17.8 23.2 24.9 22.1 14.9 7.4 7.9 5.0 9.4 17.4 22.9 25.1 21.4 14.5 7.1 7.6 4.9 9.5 17.3 22.5 23.6 22.0 14,5 7.3 7.7 5.1 9.8 17.9 23.9 25.8 22.6 14.7 7.5 8.0 5.3 9.9 18.2 23.8 25.8 22.5 15.3 7.5 8.0 5.2 10.2 18.3 23.8 26.5 22.0 15.3 7.9 8.6 5.2 10.5 18.7 24.1 26.1 22.9 15.8 8.1 8.7 5.5 10.7 19.0 24.2 26 3 22.8 16.3 8.3 8.9 5.7 10.8 18.9 24.5 27.4 22.7 16.0 8.6 9.1 5.8 10.4 18.3 22.7 24.1 21.7 16.1 8.1 8.7 5.4 10.4 18.3 22.2 23.4 21.5 16.3 8.2 8.7 5.4 10,3 18.1 23.5 25.1 22.7 15.4 81 87 5.4 10 2 18 1 23 4 26 3 21 8 15 4 80 85 5.6 10 1 18 1 23 0 26 2 21 1 15 6 79 8Jj 5.3 Men, 16 years and o v e r ............................. 16 to 24 years .......................................... 16 to 19 years ............................................ 16 to 17 y e a r s ......................................... 18 to 19 y e a r s ................................... 20 to 24 years ................................... 25 years and over ......................................... 25 to 54 y e a r s ......................................... 55 years and over ................................... 7.4 15.7 20.1 22.0 18.8 13.2 5.1 5.5 3.5 9.9 19.1 24.4 26.4 23.1 16.4 7.5 8.0 5.1 9.5 18.6 23.8 26.3 22.2 15.8 7.0 7.5 4.7 9.7 18.7 24.3 25.4 23.7 15.9 7.4 7.9 4.9 10.0 19.2 25.2 27.7 23.4 16.2 7.5 8.1 4.9 10.2 19.5 25.1 27.4 23.4 16.6 7.7 8.2 5.5 10.7 20.0 25.4 29.0 23.0 17.3 8.2 9.0 5.5 10.9 20.2 25.6 28.8 23.4 17.4 8.5 9.1 6.0 11.1 20.6 25.7 28.2 24.1 18.0 8.6 9.2 6.2 11.2 20.5 25.8 29.0 24.0 17.8 8.8 9.4 6.3 10.6 19.7 23.9 24.4 23.5 17.6 8.2 8.7 5.8 10.8 19.8 23.6 23.6 23.4 17.8 8.5 9.1 5.7 10.7 19.5 25.3 26.0 24.8 16.6 8.4 9.0 5.8 10 7 19 4 24 4 27 0 22 8 17 0 85 89 6.3 10 6 19 7 23 9 27 4 22 0 17 6 82 88 5.8 Women, 16 years and o v e r ................................ 16 to 24 y e a rs ................................ 16 to 19 years ......................................... 16 to 17 y e a r s ......................................... 18 to 19 y e a r s ......................................... 20 to 24 years ......................................... 25 years and over ............................................. 25 to 54 y e a r s ......................................... 55 years and over ................................ 7.9 14.0 19.0 20.7 17.9 11.2 5.9 6.3 3.8 9.4 16.2 21.9 23.2 21.0 13.2 7.3 7.7 4.8 9.3 16.0 21.8 23.6 20.6 12.9 7.3 7.8 5.0 9.2 15.6 20.6 21.6 20.2 13.0 7.2 7.5 5.4 9.6 16.4 22.6 23.8 21.9 13.1 7.4 7.7 5.8 9.5 16.8 22.5 23.9 21.5 13.7 7.1 7.7 4.8 9.6 16.3 22.1 23.8 20.9 13.1 7.5 8.0 4.8 9.9 17.0 22.5 22.9 22.3 14.0 7.6 8.2 4.8 10.2 17.2 22.6 24.2 21.4 14.4 7.9 8.5 4.9 10.3 17.1 23.0 25.6 21.3 14.0 8.2 8.8 5.1 10.0 16.7 21.5 23.7 19.8 14.2 7.9 8.7 4.8 9.8 16.6 20.7 23.2 19.3 14.5 7.7 8.2 4.9 9.8 16.6 21.5 24.2 20.5 14.1 7.7 83 4.7 96 16 5 22 4 25 5 20 7 13 5 74 79 4.5 9 16 21 24 20 13 7 Apr. May 7. 5 2 9 7 2 3 6 4.6 Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted [Num bers in thousands] Reason (or unemployment Job losers ............. On layoff . . . Other job losers Job le a ve rs............. R e e n tra n ts............. New entrants . . . . Annual average 1982 1983 1981 1982 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 4,267 1,430 2,837 923 2,102 981 6,268 2,127 4,141 840 2,384 1,185 5,938 1,956 3,982 864 2,393 1,159 6,181 2,097 4,084 826 2,378 1,091 6,323 2,126 4,197 819 2,478 1,230 6,446 2,218 4,228 814 2,440 1,304 6,979 2,625 4,354 786 2,437 1,303 7,325 2,519 4,806 803 2,322 1,296 7,369 2,531 4,838 794 2,546 1,244 7,295 2,468 4,827 826 2,529 1,288 6,704 2,131 4,573 839 2,623 1,174 6,809 2,024 4,784 848 2,491 1,161 6,823 1,945 4,878 901 2,426 1,155 6,750 1,948 4,803 815 2,488 1,245 6,766 1,943 4,823 801 2,365 1,251 100.0 51.6 17.3 34.3 11.2 25.4 11.9 100.0 58.7 19.9 38.8 7.9 22.3 11.1 100.0 57.3 18.9 38.5 8.3 23.1 11.2 100.0 59.0 20.0 39.0 7.9 22.7 10.4 100.0 58.3 19.6 38.7 7.5 22.8 11.3 100.0 58.6 20.2 38.4 7.4 22.2 11.9 100.0 60.7 22.8 37.8 6.8 21.2 11.3 100.0 62.4 21.4 40.9 6.8 19.8 11.0 100.0 61.5 21.2 40.5 6.6 21.3 10.4 100.0 60.6 20.5 40.1 6.9 21.8 10.7 100.0 100.0 60.2 17.9 42.3 7.5 22.0 10.3 100.0 60.4 17.2 43.1 8.0 21.5 100.0 10.2 11.0 100.0 60.5 17.4 43.1 7.2 21.1 11.2 3.9 .8 1.9 .9 5.7 .8 2.2 1.1 5.4 .8 2.2 1.1 5.6 .7 2.2 1.0 5.7 .7 2.2 1.1 5.8 .7 2.2 1.2 6.3 .7 2.2 1.2 6.6 .7 2.1 1.2 6.6 .7 2.3 1.1 6.6 .7 2.4 1.2 6.2 6.1 .7 6.1 .7 2.2 1.0 2.2 1.1 2.1 1.1 Feb. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION Total unemployed ................................ Job losers ............................................. On layoff ...................................... Other job losers .......................... Job leave rs............................................. R e e n tra n ts............................................. New e n tra n ts.......................................... 59.1 18.8 40.3 7.4 23.1 10.4 59.7 17.2 42.5 7.2 22.0 PERCENT OF CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE Job losers . Job leavers . Reentrants . New entrants 8. 2.4 1.1 2.3 1.1 Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted [N um bers in thousands] Weeks of unemployment Less than 5 w e e k s................................................ 5 to 14 w e e k s ...................................... 15 weeks and over ......................................... 15 to 26 w e e k s............................................. 27 weeks and o v e r ............................................ Mean duration in w e e k s ......................................... Median duration in w e e k s ......................... 56 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Annual average 1982 1983 1981 1982 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 3,449 2,539 2,285 1,122 1,162 13.7 6.9 3,883 3,311 3,485 1,708 1,776 15.6 8.7 3,871 3,281 3,257 1.633 1.634 14.9 8.6 3,606 3,398 3,517 1,683 1,834 16.3 9.8 3,959 3,249 3,569 1,780 1,789 15.6 8.3 3,933 3,346 3,637 1,808 1,829 16.1 8.3 4,004 3,549 3,856 1,830 2,026 16.6 9.4 3,930 3,511 4,167 1,951 2,216 17.1 9.6 3,963 3,549 4,524 2,191 2,333 17.3 10.0 4,019 3,460 4,732 2,125 2,607 18.0 10.1 3,536 3,328 4,634 1,928 2,706 19.4 11.5 3,731 3,106 4,618 1,928 2,689 19.0 9.6 3,440 3,140 4,615 1,875 2,740 19.1 10.3 3,547 3,154 4,356 1,662 2,694 19.0 11.3 3,519 2,979 4,517 1,731 2,786 20.4 12.3 EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS in this section are com piled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by 189,000 establishments representing all industries except ag riculture. In most industries, the sampling probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An establishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or warehouse.) Selfemployed 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 sur veys. E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n i n g s d a t a Definitions Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the 12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them. Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker su pervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with produc tion operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 12-17 include production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construc tion; and nonsupervisory workers in transportation and public utilities; in wholesale and retail trade; in finance, insurance, and real estate; and in services industries. These groups account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers re ceive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects of changes in consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from average hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types of changes that are unrelated https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to underlying wage-rate developments: fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only sector for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes and seasonal factors in the proportion o f workers in high-wage and low-wage industries. Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsuper visory workers for which pay was received and are different from standard or scheduled hourc. Overtime hours represent the portion o f gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular hours and for which overtime premiums were paid. The Diffusion Index, introduced in table 17 of the May issue, represents the percent of 186 nonagricultural industries in which employment was rising over the indicated period. One-half o f the industries with unchanged employment are counted as rising. In line with Bureau practice, data for the 3-, 6-, and 9-month spans are seasonally adjusted, while that for the 12-month span is unadjusted. The diffusion index is useful for measuring the dispersion of economic gains or losses and is also an economic indi cator. Notes on the data Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are pe riodically adjusted to com prehensive counts o f em ploym ent (called “ benchmarks” )- The latest complete adjustment was made with the release of May 1983 data, published in the July 1983 issue of the R e v ie w . Con sequently, data published in the R e v ie w prior to that issue are not necessarily comparable to current data. Earlier comparable unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in a S u p p le m e n t to E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s (unadjusted data from April 1977 through February 1983 and seasonally adjusted data from January 1974 through February 1983) and in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , U n ite d S ta te s , 1 9 0 9 - 7 8 , BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods). A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “ Com paring employment estimates from household and payroll surveys,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 . See also 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 o f Labor Statistics, 1976). 57 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data 9. Employment by industry, selected years, 1950-82 [Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands] Goods-producing Year Total Private sector Total Mining Service-producing Construc tion Manufac turing Total Transportation and public utilities Wholesale and retail trade Total Whole sale trade Retail trade Finance, insurance, Services and real estate Government Total Federal State and local 1950 ................................... 1955 ................................... I9 6 0 1 ................................ 1964 ................................... 1965 ................................... 45,197 50,641 54,189 58,283 60,765 39,170 43,727 45,836 48,686 50,589 18,506 20,513 20,434 21,005 21,926 901 792 712 634 632 2,364 2,839 2,926 3,097 3,232 15,241 16,882 16,796 17,274 18,062 26,691 30,128 33,755 37,278 38,839 4,034 4,141 4,004 3,951 4,036 9,386 10,535 11,391 12,160 12,716 2,635 2,926 3,143 3,337 3,466 6,751 7,610 8,248 8,823 9,250 1,888 2,298 2,629 2,911 2,977 5,357 6,240 7,378 8,660 9,036 6,026 6,914 8,353 9,596 10,074 1,928 2,187 2,270 2,348 2,378 4,098 4,727 6,083 7,248 7,696 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 ................................... ................................... ................................... ................................... ................................... 63,901 65,803 67,897 70,384 70,880 53,116 54,413 56,058 58,189 58,325 23,158 23,308 23,737 24,361 23,578 627 613 606 619 623 3,317 3,248 3,350 3,575 3,588 19,214 19,447 19,781 20,167 19,367 40,743 42,495 44,160 46,023 47,302 4,158 4,268 4,318 4,442 4,515 13,245 13,606 14,099 14,706 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 1 9 7 1 ................................... 1972 ................................... 1973 ................................... 1974 ................................... 1975 ................................... 71,214 73,675 76,790 78,265 76,945 58,331 60,341 63,058 64,095 62,259 22,935 23,668 24,893 24,794 22,600 609 628 642 697 752 3,704 3,889 4,097 4,020 3,525 18,623 19,151 20,154 20,077 18,323 48,278 50,007 51,897 53,471 54,345 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 4,045 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 ................................... ................................... ................................... ................................... ................................... 79,382 82,471 86,697 89,823 90,406 64,511 67,344 71,026 73,876 74,166 23,352 24,346 25,585 26,461 25,658 779 813 851 958 1,027 3,576 3,851 4,229 4,463 4,346 18,997 19,582 20,505 21,040 20,285 56,030 58,125 61,113 63,363 64,748 4,582 4,713 4,923 5,136 5,146 17,755 18,516 19,542 20,192 20,310 4,546 4,708 4,969 5,204 5,275 13,209 13,808 14,573 14,989 15,035 4,271 4,467 4,724 4,975 5,180 14,551 15,303 16,252 17,112 17,890 14,871 15,127 15,672 15,947 16,241 2,733 2,727 2,753 2,773 2,866 12,138 12,399 12,919 13,147 13,375 ................................ ................................ 91,156 89,596 75,126 73,793 25,497 23,907 1,139 1,143 4,188 3,911 20,170 18,853 65,659 65,689 5,165 5,081 20,547 20,401 5,358 5,280 15,189 15,122 5,298 5,340 18,619 19,064 16,031 15,803 2,772 2,739 13,259 13,064 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981r 1982r 1 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959. 10. r = revised. Employment by State [N onagricultural payroll data, in thousands] S t a te A p r il 1 9 8 2 M a rc h 1 9 8 3 A p r il 1 9 8 3 P S t a te A p r il 1 9 8 2 M a rc h 1 9 8 3 A p r il 1 9 8 3 P A a b a m a ............................................................. Alaska ................................................................ Arizona ............................................................. Arkansas ......................................................... California ......................................................... 1,326.8 187.8 1,046.0 724.9 9,838.0 1,303.9 198.0 1,043.1 719.6 9,738.5 1,309.2 203.9 1,043.3 728.6 9,788.6 M ontana............................................................. Nebraska ......................................................... Nevada ............................................................. New H am pshire................................................ New J e r s e y ...................................................... 270.6 603.9 403.0 386.3 3,063.8 266.4 583 2 404.7 385.0 3,032.5 267.2 587.2 409.5 387.5 3,056.8 Colorado .......................................................... C o n n e cticu t...................................................... De aware ......................................................... District of Columbia ...................................... F lo rid a ................................................................ 1,314.6 1,424.5 258.3 594.8 3,796.1 1,310.8 1,407.7 254.7 591.1 3,854.5 1,313.3 1,419.7 258.3 594.0 3,853.6 New M e x ic o ...................................................... New Y o r k .......................................................... North Carolina ................................................ North D a k o ta ................................................... O h io ................................................................... 474.0 7,217.9 2,353.3 246.5 4,146.1 472.4 7,132.6 2,320.1 248.1 4,036.2 473.6 7,172.2 2,337.3 249.6 4,076.5 Georgia ............................................................. H a w a ii................................................................ Idaho ................................................................ Illin o is ................................................................ Indiana ............................................................. 2,204.7 401.5 309.2 4,607.1 2,025.3 2,209.2 400.2 309.0 4,462.5 1,953.0 2,227.1 400.3 313.0 4,472.1 1,971.0 O kla hom a......................................................... Oregon ............................................................ Pennsylvania ................................................... Rhode Island ................................................... South Carolina ................................................ 1,245.7 960.0 4,624.4 387.6 1,181.1 1,196.1 938.6 4,400.4 38.55 1,155.3 1,196.5 943.1 4,443.2 389.3 1,168.1 Io w a ................................................................... Kansas ............................................................. Kentucky .......................................................... Louisiana ......................................................... M a in e ................................................................ 1,041.7 932.6 1,176.5 1,624.0 403.4 1,005.8 898.4 1,151.6 1,588.4 396.8 1,012.4 905.9 1,161.3 1,590.2 399.9 South D a k o ta ................................................... Tennessee ......................................................... Texas ................................................................ U ta h ................................................................... V e rm o n t............................................................. 229.4 1,708.0 6,329.7 559.2 198.4 225.8 1,649.5 6,162.4 555.1 201.7 228.4 1,662.5 6,162.1 557.1 200.3 Maryland ......................................................... Massachusetts ................................................ Michigan ......................................................... Minnesota ......................................................... Mississippi ...................................................... M is s o u ri............................................................. 1,673.6 2,630.3 3,189.7 1,711.3 800.0 1,926.5 1,640.6 2,587.2 3,129.7 1,656.6 782.7 1,884.0 1,659.1 2,611.7 3,146.8 1,675.3 787.5 1,903.1 Virginia ............................................................. W ash in g to n ...................................................... West V ir g in ia ................................................... W isco n sin ......................................................... Wyoming ......................................................... 2,126.2 1,572.7 612.8 1,857.3 215.8 2,115.7 1,560.6 582.0 1,805.9 205.2 2,130.8 1,575.8 582.3 1,820.6 206.4 Virgin Is la n d s ................................................... 36.6 36.0 36.0 1 Data not available. 58 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis p = preliminary. 11. Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted [N onagricultural payroll data, In thousands] Industry division and group TOTAL PRIVATE SECTOR GOODS-PRODUCING Annual average 1982 1983 1981 1982 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.P MayP 91,156 89,596 90,016 89,775 89,450 89,264 89,235 88,938 88,785 88,665 88,885 88,746 88,814 89,101 89,461 75,126 73,793 74,148 73,939 73,781 73,579 73,451 73,158 73,013 72,907 73,132 73,004 73,090 73,377 73,706 25,497 23,907 24,226 24,001 23,843 23,672 23,530 23,287 23,131 23,061 23,186 23,049 23,030 23,159 23,347 Mining 1,139 1,143 1,177 1,150 1,125 1,113 1,100 1,082 1,066 1,053 1,037 1,014 1,006 997 1,004 Construction 4,188 3,911 3,971 3,933 3,916 3,893 3,875 3,847 3,843 3,815 3,905 3,790 3,757 3,786 3,866 Manufacturing Production w o rk e rs ...................................... 20.170 14,020 18,853 12,790 19,078 12,980 18,918 12,843 18,802 12,751 18,666 12,634 18,555 12,542 18,358 12,368 18,222 12,252 18,193 12,241 18,244 12,291 18,245 12,303 18,267 12,323 18,376 12,435 18,477 12,551 Durable goods Production w o rk e rs ...................................... 12,109 8,294 11,100 7,350 11.289 7,511 11,169 7,408 11,095 7,350 10,961 7,234 10,862 7,150 10,685 6,992 10,577 6,900 10,559 6,892 10,594 6,931 10,608 6,949 10,617 6,961 10,689 7,035 10,784 7,131 Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ................................ Furniture and fixtures ......................................... Stone, clay, and glass products ...................... Primary metal ind u strie s...................................... Fabricated metal p ro d u c ts ................................... 666 464 638 1,122 1,590 603 433 578 922 1,435 602 434 586 947 1,460 601 433 580 929 1,442 600 430 578 909 1,432 601 433 573 890 1,416 603 428 570 869 1,402 605 426 565 840 1,378 608 427 559 823 1,362 614 429 554 816 1,359 625 430 557 817 1,364 631 427 557 810 1,364 638 433 559 816 1,362 651 440 565 820 1,369 661 444 571 837 1,380 Machinery, except e le c tric a l................................ Electric and electronic e q u ip m e n t...................... Transportation e q u ip m e n t................................... Instruments and related p ro d u c ts ...................... Miscellaneous m a n u fa c tu rin g ............................. 2,498 2,094 1,898 730 408 2,267 2,016 1,744 716 386 2,350 2,033 1,766 723 388 2,298 2,025 1,756 720 385 2,256 2,016 1,770 717 387 2,213 2,008 1,773 712 382 2,184 1,992 1,724 710 380 2,122 1,976 1,691 705 377 2,088 1,975 1,661 700 374 2,066 1,957 1,696 695 373 2,048 1,974 1,710 695 374 2,042 1,981 1,729 693 374 2,030 1,988 1,723 691 377 2,031 1,999 1,743 690 381 2,060 2,007 1,752 690 382 Nondurable goods Production w o rk e rs ...................................... 8,061 5,727 7,753 5,440 7,789 5,469 7,749 5,435 7,707 5,401 7,705 5,400 7,693 5,392 7,673 5,376 7,645 5,352 7,634 5,349 7,650 5,360 7,637 5,354 7,650 5,362 7,687 5,400 7,693 5,420 Food and kindred products ................................ Tobacco m anufactures......................................... Textile mill p ro d u c ts ............................................. Apparel and other textile products ................... Paper and allied p ro d u c ts ................................... 1,671 70 823 1,244 689 1,638 68 750 1,164 662 1.641 68 758 1,170 664 1,635 68 744 1,167 661 1,639 67 741 1,141 660 1,636 67 736 1,151 657 1,633 66 734 1,149 659 1,636 66 733 1,148 653 1,632 63 727 1,141 654 1,626 69 727 1,140 653 1,626 69 726 1,150 653 1,620 67 726 1,148 652 1,619 67 730 1,143 652 1,633 66 733 1,149 654 1,627 66 736 1,149 656 Printing and publishing ...................................... Chemicals and allied p rod ucts............................. Petroleum and coal p r o d u c ts ............................. Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products Leather and leather products ............................ 1,266 1,109 214 737 238 1,269 1,079 201 701 221 1,272 1,084 201 708 223 1,268 1,079 200 705 222 1,266 1,073 200 700 220 1,267 1,074 200 698 219 1,266 1,070 202 696 218 1,265 1,066 201 689 216 1,263 1,064 200 685 216 1,263 1,059 199 685 213 1,266 1,057 200 688 215 1,265 1,056 199 691 214 1,269 1,056 199 699 216 1,274 1,058 199 707 214 1,277 1,055 197 716 214 65,659 65,689 65,790 65,774 65,607 65,592 65,705 65,651 65,654 65,604 65,699 65,697 65,784 65,942 66,114 5,165 5,081 5,117 5,099 5,075 5,056 5,054 5,033 5,019 5,008 4,979 4,966 4,963 4,988 4,994 20,547 20,401 20,454 20,454 20,438 20,410 20,380 20,344 20,320 20,256 20,355 20,343 20,350 20,329 20,344 5,358 5,280 5,311 5,293 5,279 5,265 5,252 5,237 5,212 5,192 5,185 5,181 5,176 5,180 5,184 15,189 15,122 15,143 15,161 15,159 15,145 15,128 15,107 15,108 15,064 15,170 15,162 15,174 15,149 15,160 5,298 5,340 5,331 5,339 5,342 5,344 5,351 5,350 5,356 5,367 5,374 5,384 5,391 5,423 5,418 S e rv ic e s ......................................................................... 18,619 19,064 19,020 19,046 19,083 19,097 19,136 19,144 19,187 19,215 19,238 19,262 19,356 19,478 19,603 Government Federal ................................................................... State and lo c a l ...................................................... 16,031 2,772 13,259 15,803 2,739 13,064 15,868 2,731 13,137 15,836 2,738 13,098 15,669 2,737 12,932 15,685 2,739 12,946 15,784 2,735 13,049 15,780 2,742 13,038 15,772 2,746 13,026 15,758 2,747 13,011 15,753 2,748 13,005 15,742 2,742 13,000 15,724 2,742 12,982 15,724 2,749 12,975 15,755 2,749 13,006 SERVICE-PRODUCING Transportation and public u tilitie s ............................ Wholesale and retail trade Wholesale trade Retail trade Finance, insurance, and real estate p = preliminary. NOTE: In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment data in ^lis ,at)'e maV differ *rom ^aia published earlier. 59 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data 12. Hours and earnings, by industry division, selected years, 1950-82 [Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls] Year Average weekly earnings Average weekly hours Average hourly earnings Average weekly earnings Private sector 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 1950 ...................... 1955 ...................... I9 6 0 1 ................... 1964 ...................... 1965 ...................... $53.13 67.72 80.67 91.33 95 45 39.8 39.6 38.6 38.7 38.8 $1,335 1.71 2.09 2.36 2.46 $67.16 89.54 105.04 117.74 123.52 37.9 40.7 40.4 41.9 42.3 $1,772 2.20 2.60 2.81 2.92 $69.68 90.90 112.57 132.06 138.38 37.4 37.1 36.7 37.2 37.4 $1,863 2.45 3.07 3.55 3.70 $58.32 75.30 89.72 102.97 107.53 40.5 40.7 39.7 40.7 41.2 $1,440 1.85 2.26 2.53 2.61 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 98 82 101.84 107.73 114.61 119.83 38.6 38.0 37.8 37.7 37.1 2.56 2.68 2.85 3.04 3.23 130.24 135.89 142.71 154.80 164.40 42.7 42.6 42.6 43.0 42.7 3.05 3.19 3.35 3.60 3.85 146.26 154.95 164.49 181.54 195.45 37.6 37.7 37.3 37.9 37.3 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 1 9 7 1 ...................... 1972 ...................... 1973 ...................... 1974 ...................... 1975 ...................... 127.31 136.90 145.39 154.76 163.53 36.9 37.0 36.9 36.5 36.1 3.45 3.70 3.94 4.24 4.53 172.14 189.14 201.40 219.14 249.31 42.4 42.6 42.4 41,9 41.9 4.06 4.44 4.75 5.23 5.95 211.67 221.19 235.89 249.25 266.08 37.2 36.5 36.8 36.6 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 45 189.00 203.70 219.91 235.10 36.1 36.0 35.8 35.7 35.3 4.86 5.25 5.69 6.16 6.66 273.90 30 ¡2 0 332.88 365.07 397.06 42.4 43.4 43.4 43.0 43.3 6.46 6.94 7.67 8.49 9.17 283.73 295.65 318.69 342.99 367.78 36.8 36.5 36.8 37.0 37.0 7.71 8.10 8.66 9.27 9.94 209.32 228.90 249.27 269.34 288.62 40.1 40.3 40.4 40.2 39.7 5.22 5.68 6.17 6.70 7.27 ................... ................... 255.20 266.92 35.2 34.8 7.25 7.67 439.75 459.23 43.7 42.6 10.04 10.78 299.26 426.45 36.9 36.7 10.82 11.62 318.00 330.65 39.8 38.9 7.99 8.50 1981r 1982r Transportation and public utilities 1950 ...................... 1955 ....................... I9 6 0 1 ................... 1964 ...................... 1965 ....................... Finance, Insurance, and real estate Wholesale and retail trade Services $118.78 125.14 41.1 41.3 $2.89 3.03 $44.55 55.16 66.01 74.66 76.91 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 128.13 130.82 138.85 147.74 155.93 41.2 40.5 40.6 40.7 40.5 3.11 3.23 3.42 3.63 3.85 79.39 82.35 87.00 91.39 96.02 37.1 36.6 36.1 35.7 35.3 2.14 2.25 2.41 2.56 2.72 92.13 95.72 101.75 108.70 112.67 37.3 37.1 37.0 37.1 36.7 2.47 2.58 2.75 2.93 3.07 77.04 80.38 83.97 90.57 96.66 35.5 35.1 34.7 34.7 34.4 2.17 2.29 2.42 2.61 2.81 1 9 7 1 ...................... 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 33 9 33 8 33.6 33.5 3.04 3.27 3.47 3.75 4.02 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 256.71 278.90 302.80 325.58 351.25 39.8 39.9 40.0 39.9 39.6 6.45 6.99 7.57 8.16 8.87 133.79 142.52 153.64 164.96 176.46 33.7 33.3 32.9 32.6 32.2 3.97 4.28 4.67 5.06 5.48 155.43 165.26 178.00 190.77 209.60 36.4 36 4 36.4 36.2 36.2 4.27 4.54 4.89 5.27 5.79 143.52 153.45 163.67 175.27 190.71 33.3 33.0 32.8 32.7 32.6 4.31 4.65 4.99 5.36 5.85 ................... ................... 382.18 401.70 39.4 39.0 9.70 10.30 190.62 198.10 32.2 31.9 5.92 6.21 229.05 245.44 36.3 36.2 6.31 6.78 208.97 224.94 32.6 32.6 6.41 6.90 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1981r 1982r 1Data Include Alaska and Hawaii beginning In 1959. 60 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 40.5 39.4 38.6 37.9 37.7 $1,100 1.40 1.71 1.97 2.04 $50.52 63.92 75.14 85.79 88.91 37.7 37.6 37.2 37.3 37.2 $1,340 1.70 2.02 2.30 2.39 $70.03 73.60 36.1 35 9 $1.94 2.05 r = revised. 13. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted [Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls] Annual average Industry division and group 1981 1982 1982 May June July Aug. 1983 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.P MayP PRIVATE SECTOR ................................................ 35.2 34.8 35.0 34.9 34.9 34.8 34.8 34.7 34.7 34.8 35.1 34.5 34.8 34.9 35.1 MANUFACTURING Overtime h o u r s ............................................. 39.8 2.8 38.9 2.3 39.1 2.3 39.1 2.3 39.1 2.3 39.0 2.3 38.8 2.3 38.9 2.3 39.0 2.3 39.0 2.3 39.7 2.4 39.2 2.4 39.5 2.6 40.1 2.9 40.0 2.7 Durable goods Overtime h o u r s ............................................. 40.2 2.8 39.3 2.2 39.5 2.2 39 6 2.2 39.6 2.2 39.4 2.2 39.1 2.1 39.2 2.1 39 3 2.1 39.3 2.2 40.1 2.2 39.7 2.3 39.9 2.5 40.5 2.8 40.4 2.6 Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ................................ Furniture and fixtures ......................................... Stone, clay, and glass products ...................... Primary metal in d u strie s ...................................... Fabricated metal p ro d u c ts ................................... 38.7 38.4 40.6 40.5 40.3 38.0 37.2 40.0 38.6 39.2 38.2 37.3 40.1 38.5 39.4 38.4 37.6 40.3 38.8 39.4 38.5 37.4 40.5 38.8 39.4 38.2 37.8 40.2 38.6 39.2 38.4 37.5 40.2 37.8 38.9 38.1 37.5 40.2 38.2 39.0 38.7 37.6 40.2 38.3 39.2 38.8 37.8 40.1 38.8 39.2 40.5 38.6 41.4 38.9 39.9 39.5 37.9 40.5 39.1 39.6 39.5 38.3 40.6 39.4 39.7 40.0 39.3 41.0 39.9 40.5 40.0 39.3 41.4 40.2 40.4 Machinery, except e le c tric a l................................ Electric and electronic e q u ip m e n t...................... Transportation e q u ip m e n t................................... Instruments and related p ro d u c ts ...................... 40.9 40.0 40.9 40.4 39.7 39.3 40.5 39.8 39.8 39.4 40.9 40.0 39.7 39.4 41.3 40.1 39.8 39.6 40.9 40.1 39.4 39.3 40.6 40.0 39.2 39.0 40.1 39.9 39.3 39.2 40.4 39.6 39.3 39.3 40.9 39.4 39.3 39.4 40.1 39.7 39.6 39.9 41.6 40.4 39.4 39.5 41.2 39.7 39.7 39.8 41.7 40.0 40.2 40.40 42.3 40.5 40.0 40.5 41.6 40.5 Nondurable goods Overtime h o u r s ............................................. 39.1 2.8 38.4 2.5 38.5 2.5 38.5 2.5 38.5 2.5 38.5 2.5 38.6 2.6 38.5 2.6 38.6 2.5 38.6 2.5 39.1 2.6 38.5 2.6 39.0 2.7 39.5 3.0 39.3 2.9 Food and kindred products ................................ Textile mill p ro d u c ts ............................................. Apparel and other textile products ................... 39.7 39.6 35.7 39.4 37.5 34.7 39.4 37.7 34.9 39.4 37.7 35.1 39.4 37.7 35.1 39.2 38.1 35.0 39.4 38.1 35.1 39.5 38.3 35.1 39.4 38.8 35.0 39.1 38.9 35.1 39.3 39.7 36.6 39.0 39.0 35.2 39.2 39.6 35.6 39.2 40.5 Paper and allied p ro d u c ts ................................... 42.5 41.8 41.8 41.9 41.9 41.7 41.6 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.8 41.4 42.1 39.6 40.6 36.2 36.1 42.4 Printing and publishing ...................................... Chemicals and allied p rod ucts............................. Petroleum and coal products ............................. Leather and leather products ............................ 37.3 41.6 43.2 36.7 37.1 40.9 43.9 35.6 37.0 40.9 43.8 35.7 37.0 40.9 44.0 35.8 37.0 40.8 43.4 36.0 36.9 40.9 44.0 36.0 37.0 41.0 44.2 35.7 37.1 40.8 43.8 35.4 37.1 40.7 44.1 35.8 37.1 40.9 44.4 35.8 37.5 41.0 44.5 36.3 37.1 41.0 44.4 34.9 37.4 41.2 44.9 36.0 37.7 41.5 43.5 37.0 37.4 41.7 43.5 36.7 42.5 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTIUTES 39.4 39.0 39.1 39.1 38.9 39.2 38.8 38.8 38.9 38.9 38.6 38.6 38.8 38.8 38.9 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE 32.2 31.9 32.0 31.9 32.0 32.0 31.9 31.9 31.8 32.1 31.9 31.4 31.7 31.7 32.0 WHOLESALE TRADE 38.5 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.5 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.2 38.4 38.5 38.7 RETAIL TRADE................................................................ 30.1 29.9 30.0 29.9 29 9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.8 30.1 29.9 29.3 29.7 29.6 30.0 SERVICES ...................................................................... 32.6 32.6 32.7 32.6 32.6 32.6 32.8 32.6 32.6 32.6 32.9 32.5 32.7 32.7 32.9 p = preliminary. NOTE: Miscellaneous manufacturing (a major manufacturing group, durable goods) and rubber and miscellaneous plastics products (a major manufacturing group, nondurable goods) are no longer shown. This Is because the seasonal component in these is small relative to the trend-cycle, or irregular com- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ponents, or both, and consequently cannot be precisely separated. In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment data in this table may differ from data published earlier. 61 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data 14. Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group [Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls] Annual average Industry division and group 1982 1983 1981 1982 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.P MayP $7.25 (1) $7.67 (1) $7.64 7.65 $7.64 7.67 $7.68 7.70 $7.70 7.73 $7.76 7.73 $7.79 7.76 $7.81 7.78 $7.82 7.82 $7.90 7.88 $7.92 7.91 $7.90 7.91 $7.93 7 95 $7.98 7.99 MINING 10.04 10.78 10.63 10.78 . 10.86 10.88 10.99 10.96 11.01 11.03 11.21 11.25 11.19 11.26 11.28 CONSTRUCTION 10.82 11.62 11.51 11.47 11.59 11.66 11.74 11.88 11.72 11.96 11.95 12.00 11.95 11.90 11.85 7.99 8.50 8.46 8.50 8.55 8.51 8.59 8.56 8.61 8.68 8.71 8.75 8.74 8.77 8.78 Durable goods Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ...................... Furniture and fix tu re s ................................... Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ................ Primary metal in d u s trie s ............................. Fabricated metal p ro d u c ts ......................... 8.54 6.99 5.91 8.27 10.81 8.19 9.06 7.46 6.31 8.86 11.33 8.78 9.02 7.36 6.22 8.79 11.22 8.78 9.07 7.54 6.29 8.85 11.30 8.82 9.12 7.59 6.33 8.93 11.36 8.85 9.09 7.56 6.37 8.92 11.48 8.85 9.17 7.65 6.40 9.03 11.54 8.90 9.13 7.57 6.40 9.03 11.41 8.85 9.17 7.59 6.43 9.04 11.49 8.90 9.24 7.55 6.46 9.08 11.49 8.96 9.26 7.68 6.49 9.10 11.56 8.98 9.31 7.72 6.50 9.10 11.53 9.04 9.29 7.68 6.51 9.13 11.24 9.05 9.31 7.73 6.52 9.16 11.24 9.08 9.33 7.79 6.52 9.23 11.29 9.08 Machinery, except e le c tric a l...................... Electric and electronic e q u ip m e n t............. Transportation equipment ................... 8.81 7.62 9.29 8.21 9.27 8.10 9.29 8.14 9.32 8.23 9.34 8.30 9.41 8.37 9.36 8.41 9.43 8.51 9.40 8.53 9.44 8.56 9.46 8.60 9.48 8.60 9.55 8.59 Instruments and related p ro d u c ts ............. Miscellaneous manufacturing ................... 10.39 7.42 5.97 11.12 8.10 6.43 11.09 8.01 6.39 11.21 8.08 6.42 11.25 8.13 6.41 11.17 8.17 6.40 11.24 8.24 6.50 11.29 8.26 6.50 9.38 8.45 11.34 11.43 8.31 6.56 11.40 8.38 6.67 11.49 8.42 6.72 11.49 8.48 6.73 11.53 8.47 6.75 11.52 8.46 6.76 8.47 6.81 Nondurable goods Food and kindred products ...................... Tobacco m anu factures................................ Textile mill products ................................... Apparel and other textile p ro d u cts............. Paper and allied products ......................... 7.18 7.44 8.88 5.52 4.97 8.60 7.73 7.89 9.78 5.83 5.20 9.32 7.66 7.93 9.93 5.79 5.18 :9.14 7.70 7.91 10.36 5.80 5.20 9.27 7.77 7.88 10.42 5.81 5.19 9.41 7.74 7.86 9.51 5.83 5.20 9.45 7.84 7.91 9.55 5.86 5.23 9.63 7.80 7.88 9.50 5.88 5.21 9.53 7.88 8.00 10.16 5.92 5.24 9.60 7.95 8.06 9.63 6.04 5.28 9.65 7.97 8.09 9.87 6.08 5.33 9.65 7.99 8.11 9.96 6.10 5.33 9.65 8.00 8.16 10.43 6.11 5.33 9.67 8.03 8.20 10.61 6.14 5.35 9.73 8.03 8.16 10.66 6.15 5.34 9.78 Printing and p u blishing................................ Chemicals and allied p ro d u c ts ................... Petroleum and coal products ................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics p ro d u cts...................................... Leather and leather products ................... 8.19 9.12 11.38 8.75 9.96 12.46 8.62 9.81 12.52 8.68 9.94 12.53 8.75 10.00 12.42 8.81 10.01 12.42 8.91 10.19 12.61 8.89 10.22 12.57 8.92 10.26 12.68 9.00 10.32 12.71 8.97 10.34 13.16 8.99 10.41 13.25 9.03 10.39 13.28 9.04 10.43 13.27 9.06 10.52 13.23 7.17 4.99 7.65 5.32 ;7.57 5.32 7.66 5.35 7.67 5.29 7.66 5.33 7.78 5.41 7.74 5.39 7.81 5.41 7.91 5.44 7.91 5.50 7.91 5.50 7.92 5.52 7.95 5.52 7.92 5.52 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES 9.70 10.30 10.17 10.20 10.29 10.42 10.46 10.48 10.59 10.62 10.69 10.72 10.68 10.71 10.72 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE 5.92 6.21 6.19 6.18 6.20 6.20 6.245 6.27 6.30 6.27 6.42 6.45 6.43 6.45 6.47 WHOLESALE TRADE 7.56 8.02 7.99 7.96 8.03 8.07 8.10 8.13 8.14 8.20 8.31 8.28 8.27 8.34 8.39 RETAIL TRADE................................................................ 5.25 5.47 5.46 5.46 5.47 5.46 5.50 5.53 5.56 5.54 5.65 5.69 5.68 5.69 5.71 PRIVATE SECTOR ............................................... Seasonally adju sted...................................... MANUFACTURING FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES 6.97 6.31 6.78 6.76 6.71 6.77 6.86 6.90 6.41 6.90 6.85 6.84 6.87 6.980 6.99 1Not available. p = preliminary. 7.04 7.00 7.01 7.19 7.22 7.19 7.23 7.32 7.08 7.12 7.18 7.19 7.17 7.20 7.23 benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment data in this table may differ from data published earlier. NOTE: In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new 15. Hourly Earnings index, for production workers on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry [1977 = 100]__________________________________________________________________ N o t s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d S e a s o n a ll y a d ju s t e d P e rc e n t P e rc e n t change In d u s tr y change M ay M a r. A p r. M ay f ro m : M ay Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ay f ro m : 1982 1983 1983P 1983P M ay 1982 1982 1983 1983 1983 1983P 1983P A p r. 1 9 8 3 to to M ay 1983 M ay 1983 ............ 147.4 153.3 153.9 154.6 4.9 147.5 152.7 M in in g ........................................................ Construction............................................... Manufacturing............................................ Transportation and public utilities ............ Wholesale and retail trade ........................ Finance, insurance, and real estate............ Services ..................................................... 156.5 139.9 151.6 146.8 144.9 147.8 146.4 164.0 144.2 156.9 155.0 149.9 156.7 153.2 165.5 144.3 157.0 155.2 150.9 157.4 154.0 166.1 144.6 157.4 155.6 151.7 159.5 155.2 6.1 (1) (1) (1) (1) 140.4 151.8 147.6 144.6 144.0 156.5 154.4 148.9 145.7 157.3 155.2 149.3 145.5 157.1 155.9 149.6 P R IV A T E S E C T O R ( in c o n s t a n t d o l l a r s ) .................. 93.3 95.0 94.7 (2) P R IV A T E S E C T O R ( in c u r r e n t d o l la r s ) 1This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component is small relative to the trendcycle, irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be separated with sufficient precision. 2Not available. p = preliminary. 62 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 153.4 153.4 153.9 154.7 0.5 (1) (1) 145.9 157.0 155.7 150.5 145.2 157.6 156.3 151.4 (1) (1) 6.0 1146.4 152.2 152.4 152.6 153.8 155.2 <1> -.5 .4 .4 .6 <1) .9 <2) 93.5 94.7 95.3 95.0 94.8 (2) (2) 3.8 5.9 4.7 7.9 (1) (1) (1) (1) NOTE: In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment data in this table may differ from data published earlier, 16. Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group [Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory w orkers on private nonagricultural payrolls] 1982 Annual average Industry division and group 1983 1981 1982 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.F MayP $255.20 (1) .00 $266.92 (1) 167.87 $265.87 267.75 168.38 $267.40 267.68 167.33 $270.34 268.73 168.12 $271.04 269.00 168.24 $270.05 269.00 167.42 $270.31 269.27 167.06 $271.01 269.97 167.81 $273.70 272.14 170.11 $273.34 276.59 169.88 $270.86 272.90 168.24 $274.13 275.27 169.85 $275.17 277.46 169.34 $279.30 280.45 MINING 438.75 459.23 453.90 461.38 461.55 461.31 461.58 459.22 458.02 465.47 476.43 464.63 467.74 468.42 474.89 CONSTRUCTION MANUFACTURING Current d o lla r s ...................................................... Constant (1977) d o lla r s ...................................... 399.26 426.45 431.63 430.13 440.42 438.42 433.21 440.75 423 09 440.13 440.96 424.80 434.98 436.73 445.56 318.00 .00 330.65 207.96 329.94 208.96 334.05 209.04 332.60 206.84 331.89 206.01 334.15 207.16 333.84 206.33 338.37 209 52 344.60 214.17 341.43 212.20 339.50 210.87 346.10 214.44 349.05 214.80 350.32 Durable goods Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ................................ Furniture and fixtures ......................................... Stone, clay, and glass products ...................... Primary metal Indu stries...................................... Fabricated metal p ro d u c ts ................................... 343.31 270.51 226.94 335.76 437.81 330.06 356.06 283.48 234.73 354.40 437.34 344.18 356.29 283.36 230.76 354.24 429.73 345.93 360.99 295.57 237.76 361.08 439.57 349.27 357.50 292 97 2321.31 362.56 437.36 344.27 356.33 293.33 242.70 362.15 439.68 346.04 357.63 296.06 241.28 365.72 438.52 345.32 357.90 289.93 243.20 366.62 431.30 346.04 363.13 292.97 244.34 366.12 440.07 350.66 371.45 293.70 250.00 366.83 450.41 359.30 367.62 300.29 243.38 364.91 450.84 354.71 366.81 299.54 243.10 358.54 450.82 354.37 372.53 302.59 251.29 368.85 4456.23 361.10 375.19 307.65 254.28 375.56 450.72 365.02 377.87 314 72 254.93 383.97 451.60 366.83 Machinery except electrical ................................ Electric and electronic e q u ip m e n t...................... Transportation e q u ip m e n t................................... Instruments and related p ro d u c ts ...................... Miscellaneous m a n u fa c tu rin g ............................. 360.33 304.80 424.95 299.77 231.64 368.81 322.65 450.36 322.38 247.56 368.02 318.33 455.80 319.60 246.02 367.88 321.53 466.34 324.82 247.81 365.34 321.79 456.75 321.95 244.86 364.26 324.53 446.80 325.98 247.04 367.93 325.59 443.98 328.78 250.90 365.98 329.67 457.25 327.10 253.50 371.45 334.62 467.21 331.57 256.50 380.97 342.95 474.35 338.55 260.13 372.24 338.64 468.54 337.64 260.06 371.94 336.41 469.94 335.81 253.72 37.40 344.00 480.28 340.49 263.25 379.20 344.86 484.26 339.25 262.96 381.05 347.04 482 69 342.19 264.23 Nondurable goods Food and kindred products ................................ Tobacco m anufactures......................................... Textile mill p ro d u c ts ............................................. Apparel and other textile products ................... Paper and allied p ro d u c ts ................................... 280.74 295.37 344.54 218.59 177.43 365.50 296.83 310.87 369.68 218.63 180.44 389.58 294.14 311.65 369.40 218.86 180.78 380.22 297.99 311.65 397.82 220.40 184.60 389.34 299.15 311.26 383.46 216.13 183.73 392.40 299.54 311.26 362.33 223.29 183.56 393.12 304.19 315.61 379.14 223.85 183.57 402.53 301.08 312.05 370.50 227.56 183.91 397.40 305.74 317.60 386.08 231.47 184.97 402.24 310.85 319.18 364.98 236.77 186.38 410.13 307.64 315.51 360.26 237.12 188.68 402.41 305.22 312.24 339.64 236.07 185.48 396.62 311.20 316.61 378.61 242.57 190.28 406.14 313.97 318.98 384.08 246.83 191.53 409.63 314.78 319.06 384.83 249.69 192.77 412.72 Printing and publishing ...................................... Chemicals and allied p rod ucts............................. Petroleum and coal products ............................. Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ............................................. Leather and leather products ............................. 305.49 379.39 491.62 324.63 407.36 546.99 317.22 400.25 549.63 320.29 406.55 553.83 322.88 406.00 546.48 326.85 407.41 546.48 331.45 419.83 572.49 329.82 416.98 555.59 332.72 420.66 564.26 341.10 427.25 563.05 332.79 421.87 572.46 330 83 425.77 573.73 338.63 428.07 584.32 338.10 432.85 581.23 337.94 437.64 576.83 288 95 183.13 302.94 189.39 300.53 191.52 307.17 196.35 303.73 190.97 304.10 192.95 308.09 192.06 304.18 189.73 309.28 194.22 319.56 196.38 317.19 196.90 314.03 190.30 321.55 197.06 325.16 201.48 323.14 204.24 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES 382.18 401.70 395.61 400.86 403.37 410.55 405.85 406.62 413.01 416.30 409.43 411.65 413.32 414.48 414.86 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE 190.62 198.10 197.46 198.38 202.12 201.50 200.30 199.39 199.71 203.15 201.59 199.31 201.90 203.18 205.75 WHOLESALE TRADE 291.06 307.97 306.02 306.46 310.76 311.50 311.04 313.01 313.39 317.34 318.27 313.81 316.74 319.42 323.85 RETAIL TRADE 158.03 163.55 162.71 164.35 167.93 167.62 165.55 164.79 164.58 168.97 164.98 163.30 166.42 167.29 170.16 PRIVATE SECTOR Current d o lla r s ...................................................... Seasonally a d ju s te d ......................................... Constant (1977) d o lla r s ...................................... — — FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE 229.05 245.44 245.39 242.23 245.07 249.02 249.09 252.31 253.40 254.46 262.44 260.64 258.84 260.28 266.45 SERVICES 208 97 224.94 222.63 224.35 227.40 227.70 228.57 228.80 230.10 232.11 234.79 232.96 233.74 234.72 236.42 1Not available. p = preliminary. benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment data in this table may differ from data published earlier. NOTE: In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new 17. Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased [In percent] Time span Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 49.5 37.1 42.2 34.1 29.3 32.0 — 30.9 42.2 — Over 1-month span 1981 1982 1983 .... .... .... 57.8 28.5 56.5 52.4 45.4 45.7 52.2 36.0 62.4 65.6 39.0 P68.8 60.2 47.6 P69.9 58.9 32.8 — 62.6 38.4 — — — 33.3 29.3 — Over 3-month span 1981 1982 1983 .... .... .... 58.3 25.3 45.4 54.6 28.8 55.1 59.1 32.0 P65.1 65.9 34.1 P75.8 67.5 32.5 — 66.7 33.6 — 60.5 27.2 — 50.5 27.2 — 33.3 26.1 — 30.1 25.5 — 24.5 24.7 — 23.4 40.6 — Over 6-month span 1981 1982 1983 .... .... .... 68.5 20.2 P50.3 65.3 23.7 P64.0 63.7 25.3 — 69.4 29.8 — 64.2 26.1 — 58.6 26.1 — 45.7 23.4 — 34.4 19.1 — 29.6 21.2 — 24.2 26.1 — 25.0 26.6 — 22.0 35.8 — Over 12-month span 1981 1982 1983 .... .... .... 74.5 22.0 — 71.2 20.7 — 70.4 18.0 — 58.1 19.4 — 47.6 18.3 — 41.4 20.7 — 34.9 20.7 29.8 22.8 — 27.4 24.2 — 23.7 P32.5 — 25.3 P37.9 23.1 — — p = preliminary. NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment rising. (Half of the unchanged components are counted as rising.) Data are centered within the spans. See the “ Definitions” in this section. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment data in this table may differ from data published earlier. 63 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA N a t i o n a l 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 monthly reports of unemployment insur ance activity prepared by State agencies. Railroad unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. 1 week o f unemployment before they are defined as unemployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about 10 percent of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet earned benefit rights are excluded from the scope of the survey. Initial claims are notices filed by persons in unemployment insurance programs to indicate they are out of work and wish to begin receiving compensation. A claimant who continued to be unemployed a full week is then counted in the insured unemployment figure. The rate of insured unemployment expresses the number o f in sured unemployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a 12-month period. Definitions Data for all programs represent an unduplicated count of insured un employment under State programs. Unemployment Compensation for ExServicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees, and the Railroad Insurance Act. An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is required for subsequent periods in the same year. Number of payments are payments made in 14-day registration periods. The average amount of benefit payment is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for recovery o f overpayments or settlement of underpayments. However, total benefits paid have been adjusted. Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs for civilian employees, insured workers must report the completion of at least 18. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations [All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands] Item All programs: Insured u n e m ploym en t............................ State unemployment insurance program:1 Initial claims2 ............................................. Insured unemployment (average weekly v o lu m e )...................................... Rate of insured unem ploym ent................ Weeks of unemployment compensated... Average weekly benefit amount for total unemployment ...................... Total benefits paid ................................... State unemployment insurance program:1 (Seasonally adjusted data) Initial claims2 ............................................. Insured unemployment (average weekly v o lu m e )...................................... Rate of insured unem ploym ent................ Unemployment compensation for exservicemen:3 Initial claims1 ............................................. Insured unemployment (average weekly v o lu m e )...................................... Weeks of unemployment compensated... Total benefits paid ................................... Unemployment compensation for Federal civilian employees:4 Initial c la im s ................................................ Insured unemployment (average weekly v o lu m e )...................................... Weeks of unemployment compensated.. Total benefits paid ................................... Railroad unemployment insurance: A p p lic a tio n s ................................................ Insured unemployment (average weekly v o lu m e )...................................... Number of p a y m e n ts ................................ Average amount of benefit payment . . . Total benefits paid ................................... 1982 Apr. May June July 1983 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 4,760 4,388 4.327 4,495 4,398 4,283 4,391 4,635 5,074 5,459 r5,437 5,134 4,642 2,347 1,989 2,399 2,655 2,358 2,342 2,443 2,661 3,080 3,143 2,065 2,075 1,874 4,067 4.6 16,158 3,729 4.3 13,679 3,707 4.3 14,648 3,912 4.6 14,655 3,831 4.4 15,015 3,712 4.2 14,547 3,828 4.4 13,786 4,156 4.7 15,170 4,581 5.2 17,873 4,923 5.6 18,232 4,759 5.5 r16,895 4,40 5.0 19,529 3,906 4.5 14,986 $117.61 $118.08 $118.64 $117.28 $118.97 $120.78 r$122.81 r$123.43 $123.42 $124.34 r$124.47 $125.47 $124.85 $1,849,881 $1,573,444 $1,692,150 $1,679,378 $1,746,195 $1,710,573 $1,647,343 $1,820,019 $2,135,302 $2,196,641 '$2,052,415 $2,367,752 $1,817,539 2,442 2,379 2,528 2,317 2,814 2,902 2,688 2,680 2,586 2,187 r2 ,138 2,148 1,952 3,939 4.5 3,925 4.5 3,995 4.6 3,959 4.5 4,137 4.7 4,446 5.1 4,680 5.3 4,618 5.3 4,355 5.0 3,980 4.6 3,979 4.6 3,884 4.5 3,774 4.3 9 8 10 10 11 11 10 17 24 21 16 18 15 10 37 $4,013 9 31 $3,395 8 29 $3,314 7 25 $2,821 7 24 $2,793 8 25 $2,900 9 28 $3,366 14 33 $4,006 26 90 $11,191 37 132 $16,541 37 r143 r$18,032 34 156 $19,588 30 117 $14,776 13 11 14 13 12 13 16 14 15 16 10 11 10 33 146 $16,806 29 120 $13,526 28 123 $13,922 29 120 $13,445 27 118 $13,140 26 111 $12,303 28 110 $12,144 31 126 $14,023 33 146 $16,114 35 142 $16,090 33 131 r$15,083 31 146 $16,871 26 109 $12,422 5 5 36 68 68 14 20 17 17 20 7 7,628 94 57 130 $209.48 $26,262 44 95 $200.75 $19,110 44 93 $199.15 $18,574 55 100 $202.54 $17,998 55 100 $202.54 $17,998 61 137 $216.14 $31,123 82 159 $212.35 $31,638 81 162 $216.55 $35,061 83 172 $217.00 $39,500 102 219 $220.32 $44,514 72 158 $214.54 $33,100 65 169 $213.44 $36,243 79 172 $203.87 $27,783 Employment service:5 New applications and renew als................ Nonfarm placements ................................ 10,965 1,902 14,320 2,804 8,377 1,184 'in itia l claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican 5Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1-September 30). Data computed quarterly. 2 Excludes transition claims under State programs. ■^Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs. 4 Excludes data or claims and payments made jointly with State programs. Nf P_ 64 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Apr.P : ¡ ata ,or Puert0 Rico and the Vir9in lslands included- Dashes indicate data ™ t l i a b l e . ln' inary i PRICE 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). P r ic e d a t a Definitions The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure o f the average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and services. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Statistics began pub lishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. It introduced a CPI for All Urban Consumers, covering 80 percent of the total noninstitutional pop ulation, and revised the CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covering about half the new index population. The All Urban Consumers index covers in addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional, managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force. The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs, transportation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and ser vices that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quality of these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revisions so that only price changes will be measured. Data are collected from more than 24,000 retail establishments and 24,000 tenants in 85 urban areas across the country. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are included in the index. Because the CPI’s are based on the ex penditures o f two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with dif ferent buying habits. Though the CPI is often called the “ Cost-of-Living Index,” it measures only price change, which is just one of several important factors affecting living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the level of prices among cities. They only measure the average change in prices for each area since the base period. Producer Price Indexes measure average changes in prices received in primary markets o f the United States by products of commodities in all stages o f processing. The sample used for calculating these indexes contains about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all commodities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The universe includes all commodities produced or imported for sale in commercial transactions in primary markets in the United States. Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or by commodity. The stage o f processing structure organizes products by degree o f fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or semifinished goods, and crude materials). The commodity structure organizes products by sim ilarity o f end-use or material composition. To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price Indexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the United States, from the production or central marketing point. Price data are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire. Most prices are ob tained directly from producing companies on a voluntary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month. In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the various commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights repre senting their importance in the total net selling value of all commodities as o f 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage of processing groupings, commodity groupings, durability o f product groupings, and a number o f special composite groupings. Price indexes for the output of selected SIC industries measure av erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries, as defined in the S ta n d a r d I n d u s tr ia l C la s s ific a tio n M a n u a l 1 9 7 2 (Washing ton, U .S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the economic activity o f the specified industry and weighted by the value of shipments in the industry. They use data from comprehensive industrial censuses conducted by the U .S. Bureau of the Census and the U .S. Department o f Agriculture. Notes on the data Regional CPI’s cross classified by population size sere introduced in the May 1978 R e v ie w . These indexes enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a better approximation o f the CPI for their area by using the appropriate population size class measure for their region. The cross-classified indexes are published bimonthly. (See table 20.) For details concerning the 1978 revision of the CPI, see T h e C o n s u m e r P r ic e In d e x : C o n c e p ts a n d C o n te n t O v e r th e Y e a r s, Report 517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978). As of January 1976, the Producer Price Index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 values of shipments. Additional data and analyses of 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 r ic e s a n d P r ic e I n d e x e s , both monthly publications of the Bureau. For a discussion o f the general method of computing 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, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 7. For consumer prices, 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 (1976), chapter 13. See also John F. Early, “ Improving the measurement of producer price change,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , April 1978. For industry prices, see also Bennett R. M oss, “ Industry and Sector Price Indexes,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , August 1965. Beginning with the January 1983 data, tables 19 through 21 introduce a new treatment of homeownership costs into the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) will not be affected by this change until 1985. For an explanation of the changes, see “ Changing the treatment of shelter costs for homeowners in the CPI” by Robert Gillingham and Walter Lane in the June 1982 issue of the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w and “ Labor Month in Review” in the March 1983 issue. Additional information appears in the C P I D e ta ile d R e p o r t, January 1983. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 65 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 19. Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-82 [1967 = 100] Food and beverages All Items Year Index Percent change Index Apparel and upkeep Housing Percent change Index Percent change Index Percent change Transportation Medical care Percent change Index Index Percent change Other goods and services Entertainment 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 5.1 100.0 105.2 110.4 115.8 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 3.3 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 2.8 7.5 8.9 122.4 127.5 132.5 142.0 153.9 4.8 4.2 3.9 7.2 8.4 1976 1977 1978 1979 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 8.0 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 17.7 184.7 202.4 219.4 240.1 287.2 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 1981 1982 ................... ................... 272.3 288.6 10.2 6.0 267.8 278.5 7.7 4.0 293.2 314.7 11.4 7.3 186.6 190.9 5.2 2.3 281.3 293.1 12.3 4.2 295.1 326.9 10.4 10.8 219.0 232.4 7.5 6.1 233.3 257.0 9.2 10.2 20. 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] All Urban Consumers Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 1983 1982 General summary 1982 1983 Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. All Ite m s ................................................................................................................... 284.3 293.6 292.4 293.1 293.2 293 4 295.5 283.7 293.2 292.0 292.1 292.3 293.0 294.9 Food and beverages ............................................................................................... Housing ................................................................................................................... Apparel and u p k e e p ............................................................................................... T ran s p o rta tio n ......................................................................................................... Medical c a r e ............................................................................................................ Entertainment ......................................................................................................... Other goods and se rv ic e s ...................................................................................... 276.5 309.4 191.9 282.9 321.7 233.9 253.8 279.1 319.0 195.4 295.8 342.2 239.9 273.8 279.1 316.3 193.6 294.8 344.3 240.1 276.6 280.7 317.9 191.0 293.0 347.8 241.5 279.9 281.6 318.5 192.0 289.9 351.3 243.1 281.6 283.2 318.6 194.5 287.4 352.3 244.6 281.9 284.6 320.3 195.5 292.3 353.5 244.6 283.2 276.8 309.2 191.2 284.3 320.2 230.5 250.9 279.4 319.6 194.4 297.3 339.8 236.1 270.9 279.6 316.8 192.8 296.3 341.8 236.5 274.0 281.1 317.0 190.0 294.3 345.3 237.7 277.8 282.1 317.6 191.0 291.1 348.9 239.5 279.6 283.5 319.2 194.0 288.6 350.0 240 8 280.0 284.9 320.3 194.8 293.5 351.2 241.1 281.4 C om m odities............................................................................................................ Commodities less food and b e ve ra g e s...................................................... Nondurables less food and b eve rages................................................... D u ra b le s ...................................................................................................... 258.9 247.0 259.7 235.8 267.8 258.2 271.4 246.6 267.7 258.0 270.0 247.3 267.2 256.5 267.4 247.3 266.7 255.2 265.2 247.1 266.7 254.3 263.4 247.4 269.2 257.3 267.8 248.7 259.2 247.2 261.3 234.8 268.2 258.9 273.3 246.2 268.2 258.8 271.9 247.0 268.0 257.8 269.3 247.3 267.8 257.1 266.9 247.8 268.4 257.4 265.0 249.7 270.9 260.3 269.7 251.2 Services ................................................................................................................... Rent, resid e n tia l......................................................................................... Household services less rent of shelter (12/82 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... Transportation s e rv ic e s ............................................................................ Medical care s e rv ic e s ............................................................................... Other services ............................................................................................ 328.4 220.1 338.6 230.2 338.9 c233.1 101.0 299 9 381.5 272.6 339.4 233.6 101.6 299.8 382.2 272.9 341.2 234.5 102.0 300.8 382.8 274.2 339.3 229.7 336.2 230.2 336.9 231.7 337.8 232.5 338.5 233.1 339.5 234.0 299.9 371.0 269.2 337.9 232.2 100.9 300.1 377.4 271.5 329.1 219.6 290.3 348.0 255.3 335.6 230.8 100.0 299.4 373.4 270.0 289.2 345.8 253.8 297.5 367.7 266.8 296.7 370.1 267.5 297.1 374.0 269.1 296.9 378.2 270.2 296.7 379.0 270.6 297.2 379.7 272.0 282.9 293.6 294.7 101.0 255.4 263.0 302.1 277.3 101.6 334.5 269.9 279.4 410.0 403.2 287.0 284.0 240.2 334.8 291.9 291.9 292.4 294.4 245.3 256.6 292.3 270.1 256.7 267.9 307.5 277.4 255.0 262.2 301.1 275.6 255.4 260.6 297.4 275.3 258.2 265.0 303.5 278.4 324.9 266.0 276.4 396.9 406.9 274.5 270.9 226.4 325 2 334.0 264.4 273.2 423.7 43.1.8 282.5 280.2 236.2 333.7 256.6 266.6 306.5 276.8 •r • • 330.4 264.0 271.2 420.8 425.6 282.2 279.0 236.8 330.1 255.7 264.2 304.4 276.2 332.9 265.3 271.9 422.6 431.6 283.6 281.2 236.6 333.1 292 4 100.3 252.4 258.9 296.5 274.4 101.3 332.7 268.4 272.6 399 9 388.3 285.6 282.6 239.1 333.1 292.1 324.0 264.5 275.1 395.7 406.6 275.7 272.2 227.2 324.5 292.6 100.2 253.2 260.5 299.9 274.6 101.0 332.2 266.6 272.0 406.7 401.6 284.7 282.0 237.9 332.9 293.5 256.0 266.1 306.2 276.4 292.6 100.2 254.4 262.4 303.1 275.2 100.7 331.4 264.7 271.2 414.5 414.9 283.8 281.1 237.1 331.8 282.5 245.0 255.0 291.4 269.3 292.1 100.0 255.8 264.7 305.2 275.8 100.0 329.3 264.8 270.0 419.9 425.4 282.5 279.9 237.1 329.6 330.7 265.0 272.5 415.1 415.2 282.2 279.3 237.1 330.5 331.2 266.0 273 5 406.9 401.9 283.0 280.2 237.9 331.4 332.0 267.6 274.0 399.8 388.7 284.4 281.6 240.0 331.9 333.0 269.0 280.7 410.8 404.3 285.6 282.6 241.2 332.7 $0,352 $0,341 $0,342 $0,341 $0,341 $0,341 $0,338 $0,352 $0,341 $0,342 $0,342 $0,342 $0,341 $0,339 Special indexes: All items less fo o d ................................................................................................... All items less mortgage interest c o s t s ............................................................... Commodities less food ......................................................................................... Nondurables less food ......................................................................................... Nondurables less food and app a re l...................................................................... N ond urables............................................................................................................ Services less rent of shelter (12/82 = 100) ...................................................... Services less medical care ................................................................................... Domestically produced farm f o o d s ...................................................................... Selected beef c u t s ................................................................................................... Energy1 .................................................................................................................. Energy commodities1 ......................................................................................... All Items less energy ............................................................................................ All items less food and e n e r g y ............................................................... Commodities less food and e n e r g y ................................................... Services less e n e r g y ............................................................................ Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 See footnotes at end of table. 66 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ................................... 20. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] All Urban Consumers General summary FOOD AND BEVERAGES 1982 Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 1983 1982 1983 Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Apr. Nov. Oec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 276.5 279.1 279.1 280.7 281.6 283.2 284.6 276.8 279.4 279.6 281.1 282.1 283.5 284.9 Food ............................................................................................................... 283.9 286.4 286.5 288.1 289.0 290.5 291.9 284.1 286.6 286.7 288.4 289.3 290.7 292.1 Food at home ............................................................................................... Cereals and bakery products ...................................................................... Cereals and cereal products (12/77 = 100) ................................... Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... Cereal (12/77 = 100) ............................................................... Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 100) ............................ Bakery products (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................................... White b r e a d ............................................................................... Other breads (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 100) ................ Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100) ............................ Cookies (12/77 = 100) ............................................................ Crackers, 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) . . . . 277.9 281.7 153.6 139.7 165.4 149.6 147.5 242.8 145.2 147.6 148.4 150.2 137.3 146.8 278.3 285.5 153.2 139.2 167.2 146.1 150.3 246.8 147.3 150.9 150.5 153.6 143.3 149.6 277.8 286.3 153.4 139.5 168.0 145.3 150.9 248.1 147.6 151.6 151.5 153.7 144.1 150.4 279.3 287.8 154.0 140 3 168.1 156.5 151.7 248.9 147.7 152.6 153.1 153.6 144.9 152.3 280.3 288.7 154.0 139.8 169.2 145.3 152.4 249.8 148.7 153.1 154.0 153.7 146.5 154.2 281.9 289.8 155.0 139.4 171.3 146.0 152.8 252.0 149.0 152.0 153.8 155.1 146.0 154.2 283.4 291.1 156.1 140.2 173.8 145.8 153.3 252 1 148.8 152.5 154.9 156.8 147.2 153.7 277.0 280.4 154.6 140.1 167.4 150.8 146.3 238.8 147.1 143.8 146.8 151.2 138.7 149.3 277.4 284.1 154.1 139.5 169.4 147.3 149.1 242.6 149.4 146.9 148.8 154.5 144.6 152.3 277.1 284.9 154.2 139.8 170.1 146.5 149.6 243.9 149.6 147.6 149.7 154.6 145.5 152.9 278.6 286.4 154.8 140.6 170.3 147.6 150.5 244.6 149.7 148.6 151.3 154.6 146.4 154.9 279.7 287.4 154.7 140.1 171.4 146.3 151.2 245.7 150.6 149.1 152.2 154.6 147.9 156.8 281.2 288.5 155.8 139.9 173.5 147.0 151.6 247.8 151.1 148.0 152.1 156.0 147.3 156.9 282.5 289.6 156 9 140.4 175.9 146.8 152.0 247.6 150.7 148.4 153.3 157.6 148.7 156.2 153.4 155.8 155.2 156.8 155.7 156.2 157.1 146.5 148 6 148.4 149.8 149.0 149.4 150.2 Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ................................................................... Meats, poultry, and f i s h ...................................................................... Meats ......................................................................................... Beef and v e a l............................................................................ Ground beef other than ca nn ed ......................................... Chuck roast ......................................................................... Round r o a s t ......................................................................... Round s te a k ......................................................................... Sirloin s t e a k ......................................................................... Other beef and veal (12/77 = 100) ................................ P o r k ............................................................................................ Bacon ............................................................................ Chops .................................................................................. Ham other than canned (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................... 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) ......................... P o u ltry ......................................................................................... Fresh whole c h ick e n ............................................................ Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............. Other poultry (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................ Fish and seafood ......................................................................... Canned fish and seafood ................................................... Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100) . . . E g g s ......................................................................................................... 258.3 264.2 263.6 274.8 266.9 285.4 244.9 262.8 271.1 163.7 241.6 255.9 223.4 105.4 305.7 245.6 135.2 262.8 259.5 150.2 133.2 142.6 193.3 194.1 127.6 121.3 382.0 141.5 147.9 186.9 263.6 270.8 273.6 272.0 263.0 281.7 241.4 257.1 259.8 164.1 274.2 298.7 249.0 127.3 337.7 270.5 149.6 271.6 274.4 156.6 141.3 135.4 192.0 189.3 125.3 125.4 366.6 139.0 140.0 175.0 261.6 268.8 271.1 270.2 261.7 281.0 243.0 253.5 253 0 162.8 270.1 290.8 242.4 129.6 332.0 272.4 145.6 269.7 268.9 155.3 141.8 134.3 190.4 185.4 124.8 126.0 369 6 138.9 141.9 172.5 263.0 270.3 272.2 271.3 262.7 281.7 243.3 255.1 253.1 163.7 272.0 290.8 245.6 129.2 333.6 275.2 147.9 269.3 269.7 154.0 139.9 137.4 191.3 186.8 125.0 126.3 376.7 140.2 145.4 172.9 264.0 271.7 273.2 272.2 261.8 286.9 242.6 259.8 260.3 163.5 273.6 294.5 252.1 125.0 333.9 276.2 150.4 269.2 269.4 154.5 139.7 137.2 194.0 190.6 126.2 127.7 379.2 139.1 147.6 169.3 264.2 271.4 272.8 272.8 263.6 284.8 239.9 257.9 262.8 164.4 271.1 288.7 246.4 125.6 336.9 277.3 148.1 269.7 270.8 155.2 139.0 138.2 193.7 190.7 126.6 126 6 380.1 138.3 148.6 175.0 264.2 271.4 273.3 279.4 267.0 291.2 251.1 263.9 274.8 168.3 262.1 276.6 241.8 116.7 332.5 272.0 143.5 268.6 267.4 154.4 139.7 137.0 191.0 184.5 125.7 127.2 379.4 137.9 148.4 174.9 257.8 263.6 262.8 275.3 267.9 294.1 247.9 260.8 272 4 162.1 241.0 259.7 221.7 102.8 306.3 348.9 134.5 261.8 258.4 150.3 131.2 145.6 191.5 192.0 125.9 120.8 381.4 140.8 148.0 187.9 263.5 261.5 270.6 268.6 273.2 270.8 272.5 270.6 264.2 262.7 290.3 289.6 244.3 246.4 255.1 251.3 260.6 252.7 162.4 161.2 273.4 269.5 304.0 296.1 247.0 240.8 124.2 126.4 338.5 332.5 275.0 276.9 148.6 144.9 271.5 269.8 273.8 268.4 156.4 155.1 139.1 139.8 138.5 137.5 190.0 188.4 187.4 183.5 123.5 123.1 124.6 125.3 365.3 , 368.2 138.4 138.2 139.6 141.5 176.2 173.3 262.8 270.0 271.8 271.8 263.7 290.4 246.6 253.0 254.5 162.1 271.4 295.5 243.9 126.0 335.0 279.7 147.1 268.7 268.5 153.9 137.7 140.3 189.4 185.0 123.5 125.7 375.1 139.5 145.0 173.7 263.9 271.4 272.9 272.9 263.0 295.9 245.3 258.0 261.7 162.1 272.9 299.5 250.3 121.7 334.8 280.6 149.5 269.0 268.6 154.5 137.8 140.1 191.9 188.4 124.6 127.1 377.5 138.5 147.1 170.0 264.0 271.1 272.4 273.5 264.7 293.0 242.8 257.1 264.5 163.0 270.4 293.1 244.7 122.4 337.0 282.2 147.3 269.3 270.1 155.1 137.0 140.9 191.6 188.4 125.1 125.6 378.9 137.8 148.3 175.8 263.9 271.0 272.9 280.0 268.0 300.2 254.0 262.0 276.0 166.8 261.7 281.4 239.7 113.9 333.1 277.1 142.8 268.3 266.4 154.3 137.7 140.0 189.0 182.3 124.2 126.6 377.5 137.4 147.7 175.8 Dairy products ...................................................................................... Fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................... Fresh whole m i l k ...................................................................... Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) ...................... Processed dairy p ro d u cts............................................................ B u tte r ......................................................................................... Cheese (12/77 = 100) ......................................................... Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 100) ................ Other dairy products (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................... 247.5 135.9 222.2 136.2 145.6 250.1 143.7 150.9 139.9 247.4 135.1 220.9 135.4 146.6 252.5 144.5 152 4 140.9 247.8 135.5 221.9 135.2 16.6 252.1 144.6 151.8 141.7 249.5 136.7 223.7 136.9 147.1 253.4 145.2 152.5 141.6 249.7 136.7 223.4 137.3 147.4 253.6 145.5 153.1 141.6 249.6 136.8 223.4 137.7 147.2 253.5 145.5 150.7 143.9 250.1 136.6 223.5 136.7 148.1 253.9 146.5 152.0 144.5 246.8 135.3 221.3 135.7 145.9 252.7 144.0 150.2 140.8 246.7 134.6 220.1 134.9 146.9 255.1 144.8 151.5 141.5 247.1 135.0 221.1 134.7 146.9 254.5 144.9 150.8 142.4 248.9 136.2 222.9 136.3 147.4 255.9 145.5 151.6 142.3 249.1 136.2 222.6 136.8 147.7 256.2 156.8 152.2 142.3 248.9 136.3 222.6 137.1 147.4 256.1 145.8 149.8 144.6 249.4 136.1 222.7 136.1 148.4 256.5 146.8 151.1 145.3 Fruits and vegetables...................................................................... Fresh fruits and vegetables......................................................... Fresh f r u i t s ............................................................................... Apples .................................................................................. Bananas ............................................................................... Oranges ............................................................................... Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 1 0 0 )...................................... Fresh ve g e ta b le s...................................................................... Potatoes ............................................................................... I e ttu c e .................................................................................. Tomatoes ............................................................................ Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................ 294.0 304.1 306.7 287.5 268.5 330.8 163.4 301.8 306.1 355.2 220.5 166.3 276.1 268.3 288.9 239.4 243.7 399.6 143.3 249.1 240 8 259.2 242.9 137.6 277.6 272.3 273.9 243.7 242.6 313.0 144.8 270 8 241.3 334.6 272.8 142.2 276.2 269.2 268 3 244.2 241.3 292.2 143.1 270.0 236.2 301.3 236.8 156.0 278.1 272.0 270.5 244.0 254.0 286.3 145.1 273.4 240.6 249.0 265.0 165.6 286 9 288.6 282.8 249.3 257.1 299.1 154.4 294.0 241.1 247.9 352.2 175.8 294.9 304.3 291.9 259.9 295.1 301.3 155.8 316.0 258.7 316.0 327.5 186.9 290.3 298.9 295.5 287.8 266.1 300.2 157.6 302.0 300 8 358.6 224 9 166.7 271.3 261.0 275.4 239.9 241.9 360.4 137.5 248.1 235.9 259.8 249.6 137.1 273.6 266.6 262.5 243.7 242.0 283.0 138.7 270.4 237.5 336.0 278.4 141.5 272.6 264.3 258.9 244.8 239.9 267.5 138.0 269.2 231.5 303 4 241.5 155.3 274.5 267.1 261.0 243.9 250.9 263.1 139.8 272.7 236.5 250.0 269.0 165.2 282.9 283.0 272.5 249.6 254.6 272.7 149.0 292.5 236.1 246.6 358.1 174.9 291.1 298.9 282.2 260.5 293.0 274 4 150.9 314.0 253.3 311.6 332.1 186.4 Processed fruits and v e g e ta b le s............................................... Processed fruits (12/77 = 100) ......................................... Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................... Fruit juices other than frozen (12/77 = 100) ................ Canned and dried fruits (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................... Processed vegetables (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................... Frozen vegetables (12/77 = 100) ................................... 285.5 148.2 147.1 151.5 145.6 138.6 144.0 287.3 149.7 145.6 153.4 149,1 139.0 149.0 286.0 149.5 143.6 154.0 149.6 138.0 147.5 286.6 150.1 144.7 154.1 150.4 137.9 149.7 287.4 150.8 144.6 155.3 151.0 138.1 151.2 287.6 151.3 145.0 156.6 151.0 137.7 149.7 287.1 150.6 143.9 155.7 150.8 138.0 150.9 283.3 147.7 146.1 150.4 146.2 137.5 145.3 285.1 149.4 144.7 152.6 149.7 137.8 150.4 283.8 149.2 142.6 153.1 150.2 136.8 148.9 284.3 149.8 143.8 153.1 151.1 136.7 151.2 285.1 150.5 143.7 154.4 151.7 136.9 152.7 285.3 151.0 144.1 155.6 151.5 136.6 151.3 284.8 150.2 143.0 154.6 151.4 136.8 152.5 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 67 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 20. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] All Urban Consumers 1982 General summary Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 1983 1982 1983 Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Fruits and vegetables— Continued Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77 = 100) Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77 = 100) . . . . Other foods at h o m e ...................................................................................... Sugar and sweets ............................................................................... Candy and chewing gum (12/77 = 100) ................................ Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... Other sweets (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... Fats and oils (12/77 = 100) ............................................................ M a rg a rin e ...................................................................................... Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77 = 100) . . . Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............. Nonalcoholic beverages ...................................................................... Cola drinks, excluding diet cola ................................................ Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77 = 100) . . . . Roasted co ffe e ............................................................................... Freeze dried and instant c o ffe e ................................................... Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77 = 100) ......................... Other prepared fo o d s ............................................................................ Canned and packaged soup (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................ Frozen prepared foods (12/77 = 100) ................................... Snacks (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................................ Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77 = 100) . . . Other condiments (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................ Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77 = 100) ...................... Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77 = 100) . 140.5 135.0 331.6 365.3 150.9 159.9 147.2 260.4 259.6 157.3 129.9 424.1 304.9 143.4 369.6 343.4 138.7 266.6 135.7 147.2 152.9 153.6 148.7 147.6 143.3 140.8 133.0 334.3 370.3 149.6 165.2 152.5 258.6 257.5 152.0 129.8 426.2 308.8 144.8 360.0 344.2 138.8 270.2 136.6 149.7 153.1 157.1 151.7 150.2 145.0 140.3 132.0 333.7 369.2 149.5 164.3 151.7 258.6 256.5 151.7 130.3 424.3 307.2 142.4 361.4 346.1 139.0 270.7 136.9 149.0 152.7 157.4 152.6 151.0 146.1 139.5 131.0 337.1 371.5 149.8 167.0 152.0 259.3 259.4 151.6 130.2 431.1 312.9 145.2 365.0 348.2 141.0 272.6 138.1 150.6 154.0 159.5 153.8 151.1 146.1 138.5 131.1 338.2 370.7 149.6 165.9 152.3 258.0 255.9 151.8 129.8 432.2 312.5 147.4 365.9 349.3 140.6 275.1 139.0 152.0 157.6 161.1 154.9 151.5 146.4 138.9 131.1 339.1 372.8 150.3 166.9 153.4 258.4 255.8 151.4 130.4 432.7 314.1 146.7 363.2 349.2 141.1 276.0 140.0 153.1 157.9 161.6 154.9 151.7 146.8 139.6 130.6 339.2 373.2 150.8 168.3 151.4 258.6 259.6 151.5 129.5 431.8 313.1 146.8 361.4 349.5 140.6 276.9 140.9 155.0 159.2 159.3 155.3 151.6 147.4 137.9 133.5 332.6 365.2 150.8 161.1 145.3 260.4 259.1 155.6 129.5 426.0 302.4 141.5 365.0 343.0 138.9 268.3 137.8 146.7 155.0 152.7 150.4 147.7 144.6 138.4 131.6 335.1 370.1 149.5 166.6 150.2 258.5 256.8 150.3 130.3 427.9 306.2 142.4 354.8 343.7 139.1 271.9 138.5 149.2 155.2 156.2 153.4 150.3 146.4 137 8 130.5 334.6 369.1 149.6 165.6 149.4 258.7 255.4 150.2 130.8 426.1 304.8 140.2 356.2 345.6 139.2 272.4 138.9 148.5 154.8 156.4 154.4 151.2 147.3 137.0 129.6 337.9 371.4 149.8 168.5 149.8 259.3 258.5 150.0 130.7 432.8 310.3 142.8 359.9 347.8 141.3 274.2 140.1 150.0 156.0 158.5 155.6 151.4 147.3 136.2 129.8 339.1 370.6 149.6 167.1 150.2 258.1 255.3 150.1 130.3 433.9 310.0 144.9 360.5 349.0 140.8 276.8 141.1 151.3 159.6 160.1 156.8 151.7 147.7 136.4 129.7 339.9 372.5 150.3 168.3 151.0 258.4 254.5 149.7 131.0 434.5 311.5 144.5 357.9 348.8 141.3 277.5 141.9 152.2 160.1 160.4 156.7 151.9 148.0 137.1 129 2 340.0 373.0 150.8 169.7 149.1 258.4 258.1 149.9 130.1 433.5 310.4 144.5 356.2 349.0 140.9 278.5 142.7 154.2 161.2 158.3 157.1 151.8 148.7 Food away from home ......................................................................................... Lunch (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .................................................................................. Dinner (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .................................................................................. Other meals and snacks (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................... 303.6 147.5 146.3 148.6 311.4 151.6 149.7 152.7 312.6 152.2 150.4 153.0 314.5 153.1 151.3 154.0 315.2 153.3 151.7 154.5 316.5 153.7 152.0 156.0 318.0 154.4 152.5 157.1 306.7 149.1 147.9 149.3 314.6 153.2 151.4 153.3 315.8 153.8 152.1 153.7 317.7 154.8 153.0 154.6 318.4 155.0 153.4 155.1 319.7 155.3 153.7 156.5 321.3 156.1 154.2 157.7 FOOD AND BEVERAGES— Continued Food— Continued Food at home— Continued Alcoholic beverages 207.4 210.9 210.9 211.6 213.3 215.1 216.1 209.5 213.0 213.0 213.7 215.6 217.3 218.5 Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77 = 100) ................................................... Beer and ale .................................................................................................. W hiskey............................................................................................................ Wine ............................................................................................................... Other alcoholic beverages (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................ Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77 = 100) ................................... 134.6 210.5 147.2 236.4 118.2 138.4 136.2 212.5 150.7 235.9 120.4 143.6 136.1 212.6 150.2 235.6 120.2 144.2 136.5 213.3 150.5 235.6 120.6 144.8 137.7 217.4 150.9 234.7 120.7 145.4 139.1 219.8 151.3 239.1 121.5 145.7 139.7 222.5 151.4 236.3 121.5 146.5 136.0 209.6 148.0 244.4 118.0 139.9 137.5 211.7 151.2 243.7 120.4 144.8 137.4 211.7 150.7 243.3 120.1 145.3 137.8 212.5 151.2 243.0 120.6 146.0 139.2 216.4 151.6 241.8 120.5 146.6 140.6 218.6 151.9 246.8 121.2 146.9 141.3 221.2 151.9 243.9 121.3 147.7 HOUSING 309.4 319.0 316.3 317.9 318.5 318.6 320.3 309.2 319.6 316.0 317.0 317.6 319.2 320.3 331.4 340.7 335.9 338.3 339.2 339.3 341.7 332.8 220.1 323.7 230.2 337.8 331.6 363.6 256.2 339.0 373.4 257.8 100.0 230.8 333.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 337.8 371.4 258.5 100.8 232.2 339.2 100.7 100.7 100.9 342.9 380.6 259.4 101.2 233.1 340.8 100.9 100.9 100.9 339.4 373.6 259.3 101.4 233.6 340.6 100.9 100.8 101.5 339.9 376.7 257.7 101.8 234.5 343.7 101.7 101.7 102.0 343.6 382.8 258.7 Shelter (C P I-W )..................................................................................................... 343.0 338.0 337.9 338.8 341.1 342.4 Rent, re sid e n tia l...................................................................................................... 229.7 230.3 231.7 232.5 233.1 234.0 Other renters’ costs ............................................................................................... Lodging while out of to w n ............................................................................ Tenants' insurance (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................ 335.6 349.3 149.1 330.7 341.4 149.3 337.3 350.8 151.5 339.0 353.6 151.5 339.0 353.1 152.6 342.3 358.2 153.2 H om eow nership...................................................................................................... Home purchase ............................................................................................ Financing, taxes, and insurance................................................................... Property in s u ra n c e ............................................................................... Property taxes ...................................................................................... Contracted mortgage interest c o s t s ................................................... Mortgage interest r a te s ............................................................... Maintenance and re p a irs ............................................................................... Maintenance and repair services......................................................... Maintenance and repair com m o d itie s......................................................... Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............. Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling supplies (12/77 = 100) ............................................................ Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............. 383.7 290.4 514.6 409.7 227.5 663.4 226.6 334.9 374.0 251.6 376.8 290.9 495.7 412.1 228.8 633.5 215.9 333.7 371.7 252.3 375.9 291.9 490.2 414.5 230.6 624.0 212.0 337.8 377.3 253.6 376.9 293.7 491.3 417.9 231.4 625.1 211.1 336.2 374.5 254.5 379.9 298.9 491.8 419.2 231.7 625.7 207.5 337.5 376.6 254.2 381.2 301.0 492.2 422.3 232.9 625.5 206.0 339.0 378.9 253.9 145.9 120.8 146.5 121.3 148.2 120.5 148.0 122.2 146.0 124.1 145.7 123.4 135.3 141.6 136.2 141.2 137.3 141.3 136.6 142.2 137.5 142.4 137.4 143.1 Shelter (CPI-U) ..................................................................................................... Renters' c o s t s ......................................................................................................... Rent, residential ............................................................................................ Other renters' costs ...................................................................................... Homeowners' costs2 ............................................................................................ Owners' equivalent r e n t ............................................................................... Household insurance...................................................................................... Maintenance and repairs ...................................................................................... Maintenance and repair services ............................................................... Maintenance and repair com m odities......................................................... 68 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 219.6 322.8 20. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] All Urban Consumers 1982 General summary Apr. Nov. Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 1983 Dec. Jan. Feb. 1982 Mar. Apr. Apr. Nov. 1983 Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Fuel and other utilities 339.2 362.2 364.1 365.4 364.6 363.8 363.6 340.3 363.6 365.5 366.8 365.9 365.2 365.1 F u e ls ......................................................................................................................... Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s ...................................................................... Fuel oil ................................................................................................... Other fuels (6/78 = 100) ................................................................... Gas (piped) and ele ctricity............................................................................ E le c tric ity ............................................................................................... Utility (piped) gas ............................................................................... 428.2 641.3 666.2 166.4 377.8 312.8 465.3 461.9 691.3 712.8 189.0 407.6 318.4 543.1 464.0 688.5 708.7 190.4 410.6 319.6 549.6 463.5 671.1 689.3 188.4 413.5 319.2 559.1 461.5 654.0 669.7 187.1 414.5 320.1 560.1 459.7 625.3 636.4 185.9 418.0 321.2 568.3 459.2 610.6 618.4 186.7 420.5 319.9 578.3 427.8 644.0 668.4 167.9 376.8 311.8 463.6 461.7 693.7 714.7 190.3 406.9 317.3 541.6 463.9 690.8 710.6 191.6 410.0 318.7 547.6 463.3 673.4 691.2 189.5 412.8 318.3 556.9 461.2 656.0 671.3 188.1 413.8 319.4 557.6 459.5 627.3 637.9 187.0 417.5 320.7 565.9 459.3 612.8 620.4 187.7 420.1 319.3 576.5 197.7 160.8 127.9 119.9 108.9 320.7 205.1 166.6 135.4 119.7 111.1 335.1 206.6 168.2 137.8 119.7 111.5 335.8 210.1 171.4 140.6 121.0 114.0 341.6 210.9 171.7 139.9 121.8 115.9 343.9 211.4 172.1 140.3 121.8 116.3 345.6 211.7 171.9 139.9 121.8 116.6 347.5 198.2 161.0 128.1 120.2 108.7 323.6 205.9 167.0 135.9 120.2 110.9 338.2 207.3 168.6 138.1 120.2 111.3 338.9 210.9 171.7 140.8 121.5 113.9 344.8 211.6 172.1 140.2 122.2 115.8 347.2 212.2 172.5 140.6 122.2 116.2 349.0 212.5 172.4 140.3 122.3 116.6 350.8 Household furnishings and operations 232.6 235.1 235.7 235.8 236.7 237.6 239.9 229.1 231.8 232.3 232.6 233.4 234.6 236.0 Housefurnishings ................................................................................................... Textile housefurnishings............................................................................... Household linens (12/77 4 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing materials (12/77 = 100) ............................................................... Furniture and b e d d in g ............................................................................................ Bedroom furniture (12/77 = 100) ................................................... Sofas (12/77 = 100) ......................................................................... Living room chairs and tables (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................ Other furniture (12/77 = 100) ......................................................... Appliances including TV and sound equipment ...................................... Television and sound equipment ...................................................... Television ...................................................................................... Sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ............................................ Household appliances ......................................................................... Refrigerators and home fre e z e rs ................................................ Laundry e q u ip m e n t...................................................................... Other household appliances (12/77 = 100) ......................... Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing machines (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................... Office machines, small electric appliances, and air conditioners (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................ Other household equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................ Floor and window coverings, infants', laundry, cleaning, and outdoor equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... Clocks, lamps, and decor items (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................ Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric kitchenware (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................ Lawn equipment, power tools, and other hardware (12/77 = 100) ............................................................... 193.8 218.7 135.8 195.1 222.6 133.8 195.3 222.0 132.7 194.9 221.9 131.5 195.9 228.2 139.0 197.1 230.3 136.7 198.7 229.4 134.2 191.7 221.4 137.0 193.0 225.8 135.0 193.2 224.9 134.0 193.0 224.5 132.6 193.8 232.2 140.7 195.3 234.8 137.9 196.7 233.6 135.3 136 9 214.7 142.3 119.3 123.2 142.3 150.6 108.7 104.2 113.7 182.1 184.8 136.4 122.9 144.0 214.1 146.2 116.4 122.1 140.1 151.7 108.1 102.9 113.9 185.2 192.7 140.0 122.7 144.4 215.4 147.4 118.2 122.2 140.4 151.5 107.2 102.6 112.4 186.1 193.3 141.0 123.2 145.6 213.9 146.1 117.3 121.6 139.4 151.9 107.0 102.3 112.2 187.6 193.2 141.5 124.7 145.7 213.8 146.6 116.5 121.0 139.8 151.5 107.1 101.9 112.8 186.3 192.2 141.8 123.6 150.9 215.8 148.9 118.3 122.0 139.7 151.9 106.9 101.2 113.1 187.7 193.3 142.5 124.6 152.4 221.6 152.9 118.9 126.2 144.6 152.3 107.1 100.9 113.6 188.5 193.3 142.7 125.4 139.1 211.0 138.9 119.6 123.3 137.9 150.3 107.7 103.0 112.8 182.3 190.6 136.6 120.7 147.5 210.3 142.1 117.0 122.5 135.3 151.5 107.3 101.7 113.1 185.6 198.4 140.3 120.7 147.6 211.6 143.4 118.8 122.5 135.6 151.4 106.3 101.4 111.4 186.7 199.1 141.4 121.5 148.6 210.4 142.6 117.9 122.0 134.6 151.8 106.1 101.1 111.3 187.9 199.2 142.1 122.8 149.5 210.2 142.7 117.1 121.5 135.1 151.3 106.1 100.5 111.8 186.7 198.1 142.3 121.5 156.2 213.2 146.0 118.9 122.6 136.0 151.7 105.9 99.9 111.9 188.0 198.9 142.9 122.7 157.8 218.1 149.4 119.1 126.6 140.2 152.4 106.2 99.7 112.6 188.9 199.2 143.6 123.5 HOUSING Fuel and other utilities Other utilities and public services ...................................................................... Telephone services......................................................................................... Local charges (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................ Interstate toll calls (12/77 - 100) ................................................... Intrastate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ................................................... Water and sewerage maintenance............................................................... 122.3 120.7 121.5 123.7 122.3 124.2 125.0 119.7 119.2 120.1 121.9 120.2 122.4 123.3 123.5 137.8 124.7 139.1 125.1 139.2 125.8 139.1 125.1 140.2 125.2 140.7 126.1 140.4 121.8 135.6 122.4 137.1 123.0 137.1 123.8 137.0 122.9 137.9 122.9 138.6 123.8 138.4 140.3 130.2 142.6 131.3 142.7 131.0 141.2 130.8 143.3 132.4 143.0 133.9 143.2 133.3 132.9 126.5 134.5 126.8 134.3 126.6 133.2 126.1 134.9 127.3 135.0 129.2 135.3 128.3 145.0 144.6 145.1 145.9 145.7 146.4 145.5 140.6 141.0 141.2 141.9 141.8 142.6 142.0 130.8 134.2 134.1 134.1 135.4 135.5 135.9 136.0 139.5 139.2 139.3 140.6 140.9 141.4 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 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................ 284.9 280.0 142.7 146.4 131.4 147.5 144.7 290.3 283.5 147.3 148.2 138.3 151.6 141.9 292.3 285.3 148.0 148.6 137.9 152.3 145.7 294.0 288.9 149.0 150.2 138.1 153.5 144.3 294.8 290.1 149.1 150.4 138.6 154.3 144.4 295.4 292.3 149.5 149.3 139.3 154.4 145.0 296.9 294.5 150.6 148.8 139.6 154.5 147.2 281.2 276.3 141.6 146.2 134.6 142.4 136.8 287.1 279.9 146.2 148.1 141.4 146.2 134.9 288.8 281.5 146.9 148.5 141.0 146.9 138.5 290.7 285.0 147.7 150.3 141.1 148.3 137.0 291.6 286.1 147.9 150.5 141.7 149.1 137.4 292.2 288.1 148.3 149.1 142.3 149.2 138.5 293.9 290.4 149.5 148.9 142.7 149.2 141.4 Housekeeping services ......................................................................................... P o sta g e ............................................................................................................ Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and drycleaning services (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................... 310.4 337.5 314.3 337.5 315.0 337.5 315.4 337.5 315.9 337.5 316.4 337.5 317.1 337.5 309.2 337.5 313.7 337.5 314.5 337.5 315.0 337.5 315.6 337.5 316.1 337.5 316.5 337.5 152.1 135.6 157.7 139.5 158.6 140.2 159.3 140.4 159.8 141.2 160.6 141.5 160.8 141.7 152.2 143.1 157.8 137.9 158.7 138.5 159.5 138.7 160.0 139.5 160.7 139.8 160.8 140.0 APPAREL AND UPKEEP 191.9 195.4 193.6 191.0 192.0 194.5 195.5 191.2 194.4 192.8 190.0 191.0 194.0 194.8 Apparel commodities 181.4 184.3 182.3 179.2 180.2 182.8 183.7 181.3 183.8 181.9 178.7 179.7 182.9 183.5 177.4 183.1 115.5 107.6 99.1 138.2 121.3 109.7 118.3 111.2 130.3 119.0 160.9 107.1 163.4 166.6 180.6 189.0 119.3 111.5 103.4 142.4 125.8 112.6 121.6 113.7 132.6 123.4 162.2 107.3 169.5 161.4 178.4 187.4 118.3 108.7 103.2 141.5 126.5 111.9 120.7 112.2 132.4 122.8 159.6 105.5 166.3 159.0 175.0 184.9 116.8 106.5 98.8 142.2 124.5 111.0 118.9 108.9 132.0 121.5 153.9 101.8 158.1 152.9 176.0 184.4 116.2 106.7 98.1 142.6 122.0 110.5 119.3 108.1 132.5 122.9 155.7 103.2 160.9 154.9 178.9 186.7 117.1 109.1 100.0 141.4 121.7 111.5 123.2 115.5 134.0 124.9 160.0 106.2 170.1 158.5 179.4 187.8 117.9 100.3 100.0 142.8 122.0 112.0 123.5 115.2 134.9 125.5 160.6 106.5 168.1 161.5 177.1 182.9 115.7 101.1 100.7 134.5 123.4 115.1 116.5 111.5 126.0 116.8 163.4 109.1 172.9 151.1 179.8 188.9 119.7 104.2 105.4 139.1 128.7 118.1 119.7 114.6 128.5 120.5 163.8 108.8 173.2 147.7 177.8 187.6 118.8 101.7 105.5 137.9 129.2 117.5 119.0 113.3 128.3 120.0 161.3 106.8 171.0 144.9 174.3 185.2 117.4 99.9 100.5 138.7 127.5 116.5 117.2 110.4 128.0 118.6 155.4 102.9 161.4 139.8 175.3 184.8 116.9 100.2 99.9 139.1 125.0 116.1 117.7 109.3 128.4 120.2 157.2 104.4 165.5 140.6 178.9 187.0 117.6 102.1 102.2 137.6 124.4 117.4 121.4 116.4 129.6 122.3 162.8 108.4 178.4 144.4 179.4 187.9 118.3 103.5 102.4 138.6 125.0 117.7 121.5 115.7 130.4 122.6 163.1 108.3 177.1 145.7 Apparel commodities less fo o tw e a r............................................................ Men's and boys’ ............................................................................................ Men’s (12/77 = 100) ......................................................................... Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... Coats and ja c k e ts ......................................................................... Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................... Shirts (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................................... Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100) ................... Boys' (12/77 = 100) ......................................................................... Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............. Furnishings (12/77 = 100) ...................................................... Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) . . Women’s and girls’ ...................................................................................... Women’s (12/77 = 100) ................................................................... Coats and ja c k e ts ......................................................................... Dresses ......................................................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 69 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 20. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] All Urban Consumers General summary 1982 Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 1983 1982 1983 Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. APPAREL ANO UPKEEP— Continued Apparel Commodities— Continued Apparel commodities less footwear— Continued Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100) ............................. Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 100) ............. Suits (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................................... Girls' (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................................ Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................ Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100) ............................ Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and accessories (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................... Infants' and toddlers' ............................................................ Other apparel commodities ................................................................ Sewing materials and notions (12/77 = 100) ................................ Jewelry and luggage (12/77 = 100) ................................................ 100.1 127.4 89.4 106.7 98.8 105.4 100.1 130.6 87.4 110.4 103.9 106.0 97.1 130.8 82.8 109.5 103.7 104.1 93.7 128.8 76.9 105.1 95.8 102.1 94.6 130.0 79.7 105.1 96.5 101.5 98.5 131.0 83.7 107.6 98.4 105.6 100.1 131.1 80.5 108.2 97.1 107.5 101.0 127.3 111.0 106.9 97.6 107.6 100.9 130.2 105.8 109.6 102.2 105.1 97.8 103.5 99.7 109.2 102.0 105.1 94.4 128.4 91.8 105.0 95.2 102.9 95.3 129.7 95.6 104.9 95.8 102.0 99,2 130.7 104.7 108.0 97.6 107.5 101.0 130.8 99.4 109.2 98.5 109.1 122.0 267.0 210.8 118.5 143.8 129.3 274.2 212.7 120.0 144.9 129.1 273.1 210.1 12.8 142.2 125.7 277.1 211.5 120.4 143.7 125.8 278.8 213.4 120.5 145.4 126.4 280.1 213.4 120.4 145.4 127.8 280.4 214.4 121.8 145.8 121.0 278.2 199.5 166.9 134.5 128.1 285.5 201.4 118.2 135.7 128.0 284.2 199.2 118.5 133.5 124.9 287.5 200.1 118.5 134.4 124.9 289.5 201.7 118.5 135.9 125.6 291.1 201.9 118.4 136.1 126.9 291.0 202.5 119.4 136.2 F o o tw e a r............................................................................................... Men's (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................................................... Boys' and girls' (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................................... Women's (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................... ...................... 205.6 132.3 130.4 125.1 206.9 132.5 129.3 127.6 205.9 132.0 129.0 126.8 204.8 131.4 130.4 124.5 205.6 132.2 131.2 124.6 206.6 133.2 131.1 125.5 207.5 133.9 130.7 126.5 206.1 134.4 133.6 121.1 206.7 134.2 131.8 123.6 205.8 133.7 131.5 122.9 204.6 133.0 132.9 120.4 205.2 133.9 133.4 120.4 206.1 134.8 133.2 121.1 207.2 135.6 133.4 122.0 Apparel services 273.4 282.0 282.8 283.9 285.4 286.7 288.7 271.0 280.3 281.1 282.2 283.6 284.9 287.1 163.5 142.5 167.9 148.1 168.9 147.7 169.6 148.3 170.3 149.1 170.8 150.4 171.7 152.0 162.0 142.7 166.4 149.2 167.5 148.8 168.1 149.4 168.8 150.3 169.3 151.4 170.3 153.1 294.3 291.1 288.6 293.5 ................................................................... Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100) ............. Other apparel services (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................... TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................ 282.9 295.8 294.8 293.0 289.9 287.4 292.3 284.3 297.3 296.3 P riv a te ......................................................................................... 278.8 291.4 290.4 288.4 285.2 282.7 287.5 281.2 294.1 293.1 290.9 287.6 285.0 289.9 New c a r s ............................................................................. Used cars ...................................................................................... G asoline*................................................................................................ 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 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................... 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 = 1 0 0 ) ............................ Other private transportation s e rv ic e s ......................................................... Automobile insurance ......................................................... Automobile finance charges (12/77 = 100) ................................... Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100) . . State registration ................................................................... Drivers’ licenses (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................ Vehicle inspection (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................ Other vehicle-related fees (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................ 196.0 285.1 366.7 311.9 155.0 199.0 310.5 388.1 322.3 161.0 200.1 312.6 381.3 323.1 161.4 201.0 311.0 371.9 324.4 162.2 201.3 309.1 359.4 325.9 162.7 201.2 309.3 348.6 326.6 163.6 201.1 312.7 367.6 327.4 164.7 195.9 285.2 367.9 312.8 153.3 198.7 310.5 389.5 323.1 159.6 199.9 312.6 383.0 323.8 160.2 200.8 311.1 373.6 325.2 161.1 201.0 309.1 361.2 326.6 161.5 200.9 309.3 350.3 327.4 162.5 200.7 312.7 369.3 328.1 163.4 149.5 144.5 149.1 255.1 214.9 150.7 137.2 190.1 136.2 268.2 270.4 187.2 133.3 174.2 123.0 129.0 149.5 153.7 149.3 154.4 260.7 215.1 153.3 137.0 190.4 135.1 275.3 286.9 178.9 139.2 183.8 132.8 128.5 155.0 154.3 149.9 154.2 259.6 214.3 153.3 136.5 190.0 133.8 274.2 288.8 173.8 139.3 183.8 132.8 128.5 155.2 155.4 150.5 154.4 259.9 215.6 153.9 137.3 191.3 134.3 274.2 292.0 169.6 139.8 184.6 132.8 128.6 155.8 156.1 151.1 155.4 259.7 215.0 154.8 136.7 190.6 133.7 274.1 295.6 165.0 140.1 184.9 133.5 128.6 156.2 156.3 150.9 156.2 259.2 213.3 154.8 135.5 188.1 133.9 273.9 297.0 161.9 141.1 186.6 133.9 129.2 157.0 157.3 151.0 156.2 258.4 212.2 156.1 134.5 186.4 133.4 273.1 299.0 157.3 141.4 186.6 133.9 131.1 157.6 153.7 144.0 148.6 258.2 217.3 149.2 139.2 193.7 136.6 276.6 270.2 186.7 133.7 173.8 123.0 130.4 156.4 157.8 148.6 153.9 262.9 217.7 152.3 139.0 194.0 135.4 277.5 286.1 178.1 140.0 183.4 133.1 129.8 162.9 158.3 149.2 153.7 261.6 216.9 152.3 138.4 193.7 133.9 276.0 288.2 173.0 140.1 183.4 133.1 129.8 163.2 159.4 149.9 153.9 261.5 218.0 153.0 139.1 194.9 134.3 275.6 291.3 168.7 140.5 184.0 133.1 129.9 163.9 160.1 150.5 154.8 261.1 217.4 153 8 138.5 194.1 133.6 275.2 294.9 164.0 140.8 184.3 133.7 129.9 164.1 160.3 150.3 155.6 260.5 215.8 153.8 137.4 191.7 133.8 274 8 296.3 161.0 141.9 186.3 134.1 130.5 165.1 161.2 150.4 155.7 259.3 214.7 155.0 136.4 190.1 133.4 273.7 298.2 156.6 142.2 186.3 134.1 132.4 165.4 Public 339.3 356.0 355.6 357.7 355.2 354.5 361.1 333.3 348.2 348.0 349 8 347.7 347.3 353.3 Airline f a r e ...................................................................................... Intercity bus fare ............................................................................ Intracity mass transit ................................................... Tax ‘ are ............................................................................ Intercity train f a r e ......................................................................... 382.7 367.0 308.1 297.6 332.1 411.6 373.8 316.1 300.5 348.3 408.8 377.7 317.7 300.8 351.3 412.3 381.8 318.5 300.9 351.8 405.5 383.8 319.4 301.2 351.8 402.9 389.4 320.1 300.8 351.9 417.2 394.6 320.2 302.0 352.0 379.8 368.7 307.2 307.3 332.1 408.8 375.7 315.7 310.1 349.3 405.9 379.3 316.7 310.5 351.9 409.8 383.3 317.4 310.5 352.3 401.5 385.4 318.3 310.8 352.2 398.9 392.0 319.0 310.4 352.3 415.9 396.9 319.1 311.4 352.5 MEDICAL CARE 327.1 342.2 344.3 347.8 351.3 352.3 353.5 320.2 339.8 341.8 345.3 348.9 350.0 351.2 Medical care commodities 202.4 212.9 213.7 215.3 216.7 218.6 221.2 230.0 213.4 214.0 215.9 217.2 219.0 221.6 Prescription d ru g s ...................................................... Anti-infective drugs (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................ Tranquilizers and sedatives (12/77 = 100) ............................................ Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................ Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and prescription medical supplies (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................... Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and respiratory agents (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................... 188.8 140.9 152.0 136.7 201.0 150.1 163.5 144.0 202.8 150.9 165.8 144.9 204.1 151.4 166.6 145.9 205.9 153.3 168.2 147.2 208.7 153.8 171.4 151.2 211.6 155.2 174.7 153.4 189.7 142.5 151.8 136.6 202.1 152.3 163.2 143.9 203.9 153.1 165.5 144.8 205.3 153.5 166.4 145.8 207.1 155.5 167.9 147.2 209.9 155.8 171.2 151.0 212.8 157.2 174.5 153.2 173.3 153.1 183.9 164.0 185.5 166.2 186 6 167.7 189.0 168.6 192.4 170.0 196.1 171.7 174.6 154.6 185.2 166.0 187.0 168.0 188.0 169.5 190.8 170.3 194.2 171.7 198.1 173.4 144.7 153.4 154.2 155.8 156.4 157.8 159.4 144.8 153.6 154.5 156.2 156.7 158.1 159.7 Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ......................... Eyeglasses (12/77 = 100) ......................................................... Internal and respiratory over-the-counter d r u g s ...................................... Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 = 100) . . . 143.9 130.1 231.1 138.9 149.9 132.9 241.9 145.2 149.7 133.0 241.3 145.2 151.0 133.9 244.3 145.3 151.6 134.6 245.1 146.1 152.3 134.9 245.5 148.0 153.8 135.1 248.7 149.4 144.6 128.7 232.5 139.7 150.5 131.6 243.0 146.2 150.3 131.8 242.2 146.3 151.8 132.6 245.7 146.3 152.4 133.4 246.4 147.4 153.1 133.7 246.8 149.4 154.6 133.9 250.2 150.6 Medical care services 348.0 371.0 373.4 377.4 381.5 382.2 382.8 345.8 367.7 370.1 374.0 378.2 379.0 379.7 297.8 322.2 308.3 335.3 309.4 336.6 312.5 341.3 315.4 344.8 316.7 346.4 318.0 348.2 297.9 325.2 308.4 338.6 309.5 339.9 312.7 344.6 315.7 348.2 316.9 349.8 318.4 351.8 ................................................................... Professional services ......................................................................................... Physicians’ s e rv ic e s ...................................................................................... 70 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 20. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] All Urban Consumers General summary 1982 Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 1983 1982 1983 Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Professional services— Continued Dental s e rv ic e s ................................................................................................ Other professional services (12/77 = 100) ............................................ 281.1 142.5 289.2 147.2 290.1 147.6 291.6 149.1 294.0 150.5 294.6 151.6 295 7 151.9 279.2 139.4 287.0 143.9 288.0 144.4 289.3 145.7 291.8 147.2 292.3 148.3 293.4 148.5 Other medical care servic es................................................................................... Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................... Hospital room ................................................................................................ Other hospital and medical care services (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... 408.7 169.8 542.2 166.4 446.8 182.6 586.6 176.0 450.8 183.2 588.5 178.7 455.9 185.1 594.6 180.6 461.3 188.6 604.1 184.5 461.4 189.5 606.2 185.6 461.1 190.2 608.0 186.3 405.4 168.3 535.2 165.5 442.3 180.7 578.7 176.7 446.3 181.5 581.5 177.5 451.3 183.4 587.1 179.4 457.0 187.0 596.7 183.3 457.1 187.8 598.8 184.3 456.9 188.4 600.7 184.9 MEDICAL CARE— Continued Medical care service— Continued ENTERTAINMENT 233.9 239.9 240.1 241.5 243.1 244.6 244.6 230.5 236.1 236.5 237.7 239.5 240.8 241.1 Entertainment commodities Reading materials (12/77 = 100) ...................................................................... Newspapers ................................................................................................... Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100)................................... 238.0 146.8 280.1 151.6 241.4 153.4 290.9 159.6 241.8 154.3 294.7 159.3 242.6 156.1 295.7 162.6 244.5 156.1 296.5 162.2 246.8 159.3 299.6 167.1 246.0 158.4 300.2 164.8 232.0 146.1 279.7 151.4 235.4 152.7 290.5 159.6 236.0 153.8 294.8 159.2 236.7 155.5 295.6 162.6 238.8 155.5 296.4 162.1 240.8 158.7 299.8 167.3 240.5 157.8 300.4 164.8 Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................ Sport vehicles (12/77 = 100) ................................................................... Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................... B ic y c e s ............................................................................................................ Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................. 132.9 136.1 120.4 198.9 126.3 132.1 133 8 119.9 198.3 131.5 131.6 133.3 120.0 197.1 130.6 131.5 132.9 120.3 197.3 131.4 133.4 136.1 120.5 196.7 132.1 134.2 137.3 120.8 197.8 131.6 133.6 136.3 121.3 196.1 132.0 124.7 122.8 118.6 200.2 126.5 124.7 122.2 117.6 199.5 131.3 124.3 122.0 117.7 198.5 130.0 124.4 122.0 117.0 198.4 130.9 127.0 126.0 117.9 197.7 131.9 127.2 126.4 118.4 198.0 131.5 127.5 126.7 118.9 197.4 132.0 Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100) ................................ Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................ Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................... Pet supplies and expenses (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................ 135.4 134.1 129.8 141.9 136.4 135.5 129.0 143.4 136.8 135.5 129.7 144.2 136.8 135.5 129.9 144.2 138.0 136.9 131.2 144.9 138.6 137.6 131.6 145.6 138.5 137.3 131.6 145.8 134.3 130.7 131.0 142.7 135.2 131.8 130.1 144.5 135.6 132.0 130.8 145.1 135.6 131.9 131.0 145.1 136.7 133.0 132.3 145.9 137.3 133.7 132.8 146.5 137.2 133.4 132.6 146.9 Entertainment services 228.5 238.2 238.2 240.5 241.6 241.9 243.1 229.2 238.4 238.5 240.8 241.8 242.1 243.3 Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 1 0 0 )......................................................... Admissions (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................................................... Other entertainment services (12/77 = 100) ................................................... 142.0 132.2 125.2 149.0 136.9 129.8 148.9 137.3 129.6 150.0 139.9 129.8 150.6 140.9 130.3 150.9 140.1 131.0 151.3 141.7 131.6 143.7 131.2 125.9 150.1 135.9 130.7 150.0 136.4 130.6 151.2 138.8 130.6 151.7 139.8 131.2 152.2 139.1 131.8 152.4 140.7 132.4 OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES 253.8 273.8 276.6 279.9 281.6 281.9 283.2 250.9 270.9 274.0 277.8 279.6 280.0 281.4 Tobacco products 235.1 264.0 272 3 280.3 282.8 283.3 284.9 234.0 263.4 271.9 279.9 282.2 282.7 284.3 C garettes ................................................................................................................ Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................ 238.0 139.9 269.8 142.8 279.0 143.8 287.6 145.8 290.0 147.8 290.4 148.6 292.0 149.6 236.9 140.1 268.8 143.0 278.0 143.9 286.5 145.8 288.8 147.7 289.3 148.5 290.9 149.5 Personal care 245.9 254.2 254.8 256.1 257.8 257.8 259.1 244.1 252.1 252.5 253.9 255.5 255.8 257.1 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 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................... Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100) . . . 243.8 142.9 149.0 253.5 148.3 157.2 252.2 146.8 156.2 253.9 147.1 157.6 256.0 148.1 159.3 257.1 148.5 160.4 258.5 150.9 160.5 244.7 144.3 147.6 254.1 147.3 155.4 253.1 146.2 154.6 254.8 146.5 155.9 256.8 147.4 157.8 257.8 147.8 158.9 259.3 150.3 158.9 136.5 140.3 141.7 144.7 142.2 143.2 144.0 143.6 145.6 144.1 146.0 144.9 145.6 146.0 137.5 143.5 142.3 148.4 143.0 147.0 144.8 147.3 146.4 147.7 146.7 148.5 146.3 149.8 Personal care services ......................................................................................... Beauty parlor services for women ............................................................ Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) . . . 248.7 250.7 138.8 255.8 258.9 141.4 258.0 262.1 141.6 259.0 263.3 142.0 260.4 264.4 143.1 259.5 262.4 143.7 260.7 264.2 143.8 244.0 244.3 137.6 250.6 252.1 140.3 252.4 254.7 140.4 253.4 255.8 140.8 254.7 256.8 141.9 254.3 255.5 142.6 255.4 257.2 142.7 Personal and educational expenses 291.9 320.0 320.5 322.1 323.3 323.9 324.9 293.5 321.3 321.7 323.6 325.0 325.7 326.8 Schoolbooks and supplies ................................................................................... Personal and educational services ...................................................................... Tuition and other school f e e s ...................................................................... College tuition (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................ Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100) ...................... Personal expenses (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................ 263.8 298 7 151.4 151.0 152.2 160.9 283.1 328.6 167.2 166.8 168.7 174.1 283.3 329.1 167.2 166.8 168.7 175.4 288 4 330.2 167.3 166.9 168.7 178.8 292.0 331.0 167.4 167.0 168.8 179.6 292.3 331.5 167.4 167.0 168.8 181.2 292.5 332.7 167.6 167.4 168.8 183.1 268.0 300.0 152.0 151.3 152.9 160.5 286.8 329.8 167.7 166.9 169.7 174.0 287.0 330.3 167.7 166.9 169.7 175.2 292.4 331.5 167.7 167.0 169.7 177.9 296.0 332.5 167.9 167.1 169.8 179.5 296.3 333.2 167.9 167.1 169.8 181.1 296.5 334.5 168.2 167.5 169.8 183.1 362.6 383.5 426.2 324.1 354.8 377.0 413.4 326.0 354.0 367.9 355.8 345.2 363.4 329.1 355.3 329.4 355.1 331.1 356.0 333.4 357.3 363.7 425.9 304.0 348.2 384.8 427.2 323.2 355.4 378.5 414.7 325.1 354.4 369.4 411.1 328 1 357.9 357.3 411.6 328.5 356.5 346.7 411.8 330.4 357.9 365.0 411.6 332.6 359.5 Special indexes: Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other p ro d u c ts ............................................ Insurance and fin a n c e ............................................................................................ Utilities and public transportation......................................................................... Housekeeping and home maintenance s e rv ic e s ................................................ Excludes motor oil, coolant, and other products as of January 1983. 2See box with “ Price Data.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 305.1 347.5 c = corrected. 71 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 21. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure category and commodity and service group [Decem ber 1977 = 100] Size class A (1.25 million or more) Category and group 1982 Dec. Size class B (385,000-1,250 million) 1983 Feh. Apr. 1982 Dec. Size class C (75,000-385,000) 1983 Feb. 1982 Apr. Dec. Size class D (75,000 or less) 1983 1982 1983 Feh. Apr. Dec. Feb. Apr. Northeast EXPENDITURE CATEGORY All items ............................................................................................................................................ Food and beverages ............................................................................................................... H o u s in g ..................................................................................................................................... Apparel and upkeep ............................................................................................................... Transportation ......................................................................................................................... Medical care ............................................................................................................................ Entertainm ent............................................................................................................................ Other goods and services ...................................................................................................... 151.0 144.4 155.9 119.8 151.0 153.6 140.2 152.8 151.8 146.0 156.7 120.3 159.1 158.1 141.6 154.4 153.1 147,0 158.0 122.6 160.1 159.6 143.1 156.2 157.1 142.1 166.5 124.9 166.7 16.6 135.9 153.9 158.2 144.2 168.8 121.9 164.8 161.6 139.1 157.3 159.0 146.2 169.1 122.4 165.4 163.0 139.1 158.6 162.3 147.4 175.2 129.1 166.2 163.6 139.2 157.8 162.9 149.8 176.2 126.6 164.2 165.5 140.0 160.4 163.5 151.1 176.4 128.5 164.3 166.0 139.8 162.3 156.3 142.0 163.2 131.1 164.5 159.8 145.0 158.7 156.1 144.0 163.1 124.3 162.5 164.1 147.2 159.4 158.2 145.8 165.1 130.2 164.3 165.8 146.5 162.1 COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP C o m m o d itie s..................................................................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages ............................................................................... Serv c e s ............................................................................................................................................... 147.5 149.4 155.6 147.6 148.4 157.1 148.4 149.0 159.0 153.5 159.0 162.9 153.1 157.1 166.1 153.0 155.7 168.2 153.7 156.6 176.4 153.3 154.5 178.3 153.6 154.3 179.4 151.7 156.3 163.4 150.2 152.7 165.1 151.3 153.4 168.5 North Central Region EXPENDITURE CATEGORY Al items ............................................................................................................................................ Food and beverages ............................................................................................................... H o u s in g ..................................................................................................................................... Apparel and upkeep ............................................................................................................... Transportation ......................................................................................................................... Medical care ............................................................................................................................ Entertainm ent............................................................................................................................ Other goods and services ..................................................................................................... 162.0 143.3 179.1 116.4 163.8 160.3 140.2 152.8 162.4 144.7 180.2 115.4 160.7 164.2 141.3 155.4 163.6 145.4 181.9 117.9 161.7 165.3 141.9 156.2 159.3 V 1 .9 169.1 129.4 164.5 164.0 134.1 163.8 159.6 143.4 170.2 124.4 162.1 167.7 135.9 167.5 161.1 144.1 171.7 128.8 164.0 168.3 136.7 167.4 156.2 143.4 162.8 126.1 165.2 162.9 143.7 150.6 155.8 143.8 163.2 124.1 162.0 164.7 144.3 152.9 157.3 145.6 164.1 128.4 163.9 165.8 145.9 152.6 156.8 149.1 161.9 121.4 163.8 166.5 134.5 160.3 156.6 149.1 162.2 122.0 160.6 171.0 135.2 163.3 158.1 150.9 163.8 123.5 161.2 172.2 136.5 165.2 COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP C o m m o d itie s..................................................................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages ............................................................................... Services............................................................................................................................................... 151.7 155.7 177.3 151.2 153.9 178.8 152.7 155.9 179.9 150.8 154.5 173.1 149.7 152.0 175.3 151.7 154.6 176.1 148.7 150.9 168.4 147.2 148.4 169.6 149.1 150.3 170.7 148.4 148.1 170.1 147.2 146.2 171.5 148.5 147.3 173.0 South EXPENDITURE CATEGORY All items ............................................................................................................................................ Food and beverages ............................................................................................................... H o u s in g ..................................................................................................................................... Apparel and upkeep ............................................................................................................... Transportation ........................................................................................................................ Medical care ............................................................................................................................ Entertainm ent............................................................................................................................ Other goods and services ..................................................................................................... 157.5 147.0 164.3 128.0 164.6 164.0 135.0 155.0 158.0 148.7 164.9 127.6 162.1 167.1 137.5 157.5 159.1 150.5 163.5 128.7 163.8 168.7 138.6 158.4 159.3 146,4 166.0 124.7 168.0 163.5 148.5 158.1 159.5 147.3 166.1 124.0 165.0 167.2 151.0 163.2 160.9 149.2 166.9 126.2 167.1 167.9 169.0 154.5 158.8 145.4 166.0 122.6 166.8 173.5 144.4 154.9 159.0 146.1 167.3 120.1 163.8 176.8 145.9 157.8 160.2 147.4 167.8 123.1 165.9 177.5 146.5 153.5 159.1 147.3 168.2 111.1 163.5 179.4 143.8 155.8 159.5 147.7 169.9 108.3 161.3 182.5 145.4 160.3 160.8 149.9 169.9 112.5 162.9 183.0 145.6 160.4 COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP C o m m o d itie s..................................................................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages ............................................................................... S ervices............................................................................................................................................... 150.9 152.6 166.9 150.9 151.5 167.9 152.3 152.7 168.6 152.3 154.8 169.9 151.7 153.2 171.1 153.8 155.5 171,6 150.2 152.3 172.1 149.2 150.2 173.9 151.0 152.4 174.4 150.6 151,9 172.1 149.2 149.6 174.9 151.1 151.4 175.3 West EXPENDITURE CATEGORY All items ............................................................................................................................................ Food and beverages ............................................................................................................... H o u s in g ..................................................................................................................................... Apparel and upkeep ............................................................................................................... Transportation ........................................................................................................................ Medical care ............................................................................................................................ Entertainm ent............................................................................................................................ Other goods and services ..................................................................................................... 156.9 147.8 160.7 119.9 166.3 171.1 137.8 159.3 157.8 149.3 163.2 120.1 162.8 174.4 139.2 162.9 159.2 151.8 164.0 121.0 165.1 175.3 139.7 163.5 157.9 149.2 161.2 125.8 168.1 168.4 142.5 158.9 158.3 150.6 162.2 125.1 165.3 170.5 144.7 161.7 159.5 152.8 163.5 121.7 165.8 ;171.5 145.6 162.8 150.1 144.8 143.8 123.4 165.1 170.7 137.2 153.0 151.0 146.0 150.1 122.4 161.0 174.2 143.3 155.9 152.2 148.6 151.8 122.7 162.4 174.8 139.6 158.1 157.8 150.7 158.3 136.9 165.2 171.5 154.3 165.2 157.9 150.6 159.3 139.7 162.0 173.3 155.2 168.8 157.0 153.1 154.4 139.8 161.1 175.0 157.0 169.3 COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP C o m m o d itie s..................................................................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages ............................................................................... Services............................................................................................................................................... 148.1 148.3 168.5 148.0 147.0 170.7 149.9 148.6 171.6 150.7 151.3 167.9 150.5 150.1 169.0 151.7 150.7 170.2 159.0 150.7 151.7 148.5 148.6 154.0 149.8 149.6 155.3 148.9 148.1 171.0 148.0 146.8 172.5 149.0 147.0 168.8 72 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 22. Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average, and selected areas [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] All Urban Consumers U.S. city average2 ............................................................................ Anchorage, Alaska (10/67 = 100) ................................................ Atlanta, Ga............................................................................................. Baltimore, M d....................................................................................... Boston. Mass........................................................................................ Buffalo, N.Y........................................................................................... Apr. Nov. 284.3 293.6 Dec. 296.1 Detroit, M ich......................................................................................... Honolulu, H a w a ii................................................................................ Houston, Tex......................................................................................... Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas ............................................................... Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif........................................ 283.7 263.3 304.9 274.0 286.6 294.3 304.2 293.1 326.2 296.0 288.5 Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J........................................................................... Pittsburgh, Pa....................................................................................... Portland, Oreg.-Wash.......................................................................... St. Louis, M o.-Ill................................................................................. San Diego, Calif.................................................................................... 275.1 275.3 San Francisco-Oakland, Calif.............................................................. Seattle-Everett, Wash........................................................................... Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va.................................................................. 298.8 283.7 279.4 282.9 292.6 269.9 318.1 290.6 285.3 293.2 293.4 295.5 283.7 293.2 297.6 282.9 293.7 306.1 281.8 281.6 302.1 293.7 307.6 292.6 285.6 282.6 278.9 282.1 292.4 287.1 305.8 283.2 282.9 304.8 283.5 278.9 280.0 320.6 308.6 285.7 292.7 294.9 272.8 316.7 295.9 289.5 280.3 264.2 302.1 272.1 290.3 283.0 291.8 309.4 286.5 301.2 266.5 283.5 305.2 274.5 276.7 281.9 280.6 282.0 288.7 271.0 316.1 288.6 288.0 294.9 253.9 306.1 280.3 281.0 301.7 300.1 295.0 284.3 278.4 276.5 292.8 305.2 291.4 291.4 307.6 288.0 288.0 280.8 282.6 282.5 326.8 287.1 274.8 317.4 289.0 290.1 289.8 289.6 295.0 276.9 317.6 293.5 290.2 159.7 311.0 309.0 279.6 283.3 296.6 281.7 285.3 313.6 280.3 280.6 285.5 312.4 282.2 286.8 300.7 283.0 293.2 315.4 294.7 293.9 291.4 292.9 293.6 315.4 301.7 313.7 298.1 293.6 294.1 291.6 293.0 159.2 303.5 283.5 288.9 318.2 297.8 292.3 323.9 158.6 306.9 299.3 297.8 289.0 291.6 Apr. 297.0 315.0 299.4 292.1 Mar. 289.7 283.9 275.0 293.1 307.1 Feb. 250.6 332.5 284 7 293.2 327.5 297.3 297.5 289.0 256.4 295.3 159.0 305.0 286.6 291.1 324.9 293.9 282.5 Jan. 297.8 289.7 284.4 329.6 292.3 270.4 317.3 292.3 286.8 1983 Dec. 254.4 261.0 292.4 285.9 319.9 304.5 1The 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 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Nov. 157.9 305.0 285.6 290.0 321.7 297.5 286.3 Apr. 327.5 156.8 303.1 301.7 268.2 Apr. 280.3 294.0 306.0 317.6 303.3 286.5 297.2 Mar. 295.1 277.8 258.3 1982 Feb. 291.4 286.2 290.1 285.0 Chicago, III.-Northwestern Ind........................................................... Cincinnati, Ohlo-Ky.-ind...................................................................... Cleveland, O h io ................................................................................... Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex........................................................................... Denver-Boulder, Colo........................................................................... Jan. 257.6 257.2 280.2 280.2 Miami, Fla. (11/77 = 100) ............................................................ Milwaukee, W is..................................................................................... Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-WiS....................................................... New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J..................................................... Northeast, Pa. (S c ra n to n )................................................................ Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised) 1983 1982 Area1 290.8 294.3 Area is used for New York and Chicago. 2Average of 85 cities. 73 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices 23. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing [1967 = 100] Commodity grouping Annual average 1982 May June 1982 1983 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.1 Feb. Mar. Apr. May FINISHED GOODS Finished g o o d s ................................................... Finished consumer goods ............................................ Finished consumer foods ................................................... Crude ............................................................................... Processed ...................................................................... Nondurable goods less f o o d s ............................................ Durable goods ............................................................... Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy . . . Capital e q u ip m e n t................................................................... 280.6 277.8 279.9 281.7 282.3 281.2 284.1 284.9 285.5 r283.9 283.7 283.4 283.0 284.3 281.0 259.3 252.7 257.7 333.6 226.7 223.8 279.4 277.7 262.3 259.9 260.3 324.3 225.0 223.1 278.1 280.1 263.4 254.7 262.0 328.7 225.9 223.5 279.2 282.1 260.6 241.0 260.2 335.3 226.7 223.7 280.2 282.8 259.7 239.2 259.4 337.2 227.5 224.3 280.7 281.9 259.9 228.2 260.6 338.3 223.0 225.5 278.8 284.3 257.7 232.4 257.9 340.0 231.0 227.8 283.2 285.3 257.4 236.1 257.2 342.5 231.2 228.4 283.8 285.6 258.3 247.6 257.1 342.2 232.0 229.2 284.9 r283.5 r258.4 r232.9 r258.5 r336.6 r231.7 r228.3 r285.2 283.0 259.9 240.4 259.5 332.5 233.5 227.7 286.2 282.5 260.8 247.5 259.9 330.6 233.1 228.1 286.5 282.0 262.9 265.4 260.5 328.0 232.2 229.8 286.5 283.5 262.6 266.8 260.1 332.0 232.6 230.2 286.8 INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS Intermediate materials, supplies, and com ponents................... 310.4 309.8 309.9 311.1 310.8 310.5 309.9 309.9 310.1 r309.2 310.5 309.2 309.1 310.1 Materials and components for m anufacturing...................... Materials for food m a n u fa ctu rin g ...................................... Materials for nondurable manufacturing ......................... Materials for durable manufacturing ................................ Components for m a n u fa ctu rin g ......................................... 289.8 255.1 284.4 310.1 273.9 291.4 260.0 287.6 311.0 273.6 289.8 260.7 285.4 307.5 273.6 289.2 259.7 283.1 308.0 273.9 288.7 258.0 282.6 306.5 274.3 289.9 257.3 281.7 310.5 275.8 289.4 254.2 280.4 309.8 276.7 288.7 251.0 279.2 309.3 276 9 288 3 249.8 278.0 309.4 277.3 r288.6 250.9 r277.0 r312.0 r276.8 291.3 253.0 277.4 319.1 278.1 290.3 252.5 277.0 315.0 279.0 291.1 254.8 277.5 316.4 279.0 292.0 256.8 277.7 318.4 279.6 Materials and components for co n s tru ctio n ......................... 293.7 293.7 294.5 294.3 293.5 294.2 293.7 293.6 294.7 r296.5 298.6 299.4 300.1 300.5 Processed fuels and lu b ric a n ts ......................................... Manufacturing ind u strie s...................................................... Nonmanufacturing industries ............................................ 591.7 497.8 674.3 570.9 481.4 649.5 581.1 491.7 659.5 600.7 506.9 683.0 603.8 510.7 685.5 592.3 496.4 676.9 590.0 496.6 672.1 593.0 500.4 674.2 595.0 502.2 676.4 r577.9 r485.2 r659.4 571.1 483.5 647.8 557.9 471.8 633.4 549.0 468.5 619.2 552.8 470.1 624.9 C ontainers................................................................................... 285.6 287.0 286.5 286.3 285.4 285.3 285.1 284.9 285.0 r285.0 285.1 285.3 285.0 286.1 S u p p lie s ...................................................................................... Manufacturing indu stries...................................................... Nonmanufacturing industries ............................................ Feeds .................................................................................. Other s u p p lie s ................................................................... 272.1 265.8 275.7 207.0 289.8 273.4 266.7 277.2 214.2 290.1 273.4 266.7 277.1 213.1 290.4 273.1 266 8 276.7 210.3 290.5 272.6 266.5 276.0 203.1 291.1 272.2 266.7 275.3 198.1 291.3 272.0 266.9 274.9 192.9 291.9 272.8 266.9 276.1 199.8 291.9 273.0 267.2 276.3 204.7 291.1 r273.1 r267.4 r276.4 r206.5 r290.9 274.2 268.7 277.3 207.6 291.8 274.5 268.9 277.6 207.8 292.1 275.6 268.8 279.4 219.1 292.1 275.9 269.2 279.6 218.0 292.5 321.0 322.1 325.7 325.7 CRUDE MATERIALS Crude materials for further processing ...................................... 319.5 328.3 325.6 323.4 319 .8 316.1 312.0 313.2 312.7 r313.9 Foodstuffs and fe e d s tu ffs ......................................................... 247.8 262.6 259-9 255.5 249.6 242.9 236.3 236.3 237.1 239.6 249.3 249.1 256.8 256.5 Nonfood m ate rials...................................................................... 473.9 470.2 467.7 469.8 471.0 473.7 474.8 478.6 475.3 r473.6 475.5 ;479.4 474.4 475.1 Nonfood materials except f u e l ............................................ Manufacturing industries ................................................ C o n s tru ctio n ...................................................................... 376.8 387.2 270.3 376.6 386.3 274.5 370.0 378.9 274.2 369.2 378.4 271.4 369.5 378.9 270.3 369.5 379.1 268.8 371.9 382.2 266.3 369.2 379.2 265.6 365.8 375.0 268.1 r368.0 r377.6 r267.5 366.6 375.5 270.8 367.1 376.2 270.2 366.5 376.0 267.2 368.5 378.1 267.6 Crude f u e l............................................................................... Manufacturing industries ................................................ Nonmanufacturing in d u s trie s ......................................... 886.1 1,034.8 782.2 864.8 1,006.7 766.4 883.9 1,032.0 780.5 901.3 1,053.9 794.5 906.9 1,061.1 798.9 923.5 1,083.6 810.7 917.2 1,075.3 805.9 954.7 1,125.5 834.2 952.2 1,121.4 832.2 r930.7 r1,093.8 r815.5 949.1 1,118.7 828.8 970.0 1,144.8 845.7 943.2 1,109.4 825.5 936.8 1,102.2 819.7 Finished goods excluding fo o d s ............................................ Finished consumer goods excluding foods ......................... Finished consumer goods less e n e rg y ................................... 285.8 287.8 244.1 281.0 281 8 244.3 283 4 284.8 245.1 286.7 288.8 244.5 287.9 290.2 244.7 286.3 288.9 243.9 290.8 293.3 246.5 292.0 294.8 246.7 292.5 295.0 247.6 r290.3 r291.4 r247.1 289.6 290.3 248.0 288.8 289.1 248.4 287.5 287.2 249.5 289.3 289.3 249.6 Intermediate materials less foods and feeds ................... Intermediate materials less e n e rg y ......................................... 315.7 290.4 314.6 291.6 314.7 290.8 316.1 290.4 316.0 289.7 315.9 290.5 315.5 290.1 315.5 289.8 315.7 290.0 r314.6 r290.5 315.9 292.6 314.5 292.3 314.0 293.1 315.0 293.9 SPECIAL GROUPINGS Intermediate foods and feeds ................................................ 239.4 245.0 245.1 243.6 240.2 238.1 234.4 234.4 235.1 r236.4 238.2 237.9 243.2 244.2 Crude materials less agricultural products ................................... Crude materials less energy ................................................... 536.3 240.4 531.5 252.8 529.1 248.7 531.5 245.1 532.0 240.7 535.5 235.6 537.2 230.0 541 9 229.2 537.4 229.9 r536.0 r232.5 537.5 241.6 541.7 242.8 535.9 248.4 536.2 248.8 1Data for January 1983 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. 74 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r = revised, 24. Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] 1982 1983 Annual average 1982 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.1 Feb. Mar. Apr. May All commodities All commodities (1957-59 = 100) ................................................... 299.3 317.6 298.6 316.8 299 3 317.6 300.4 318.7 300.2 318.5 299.3 317.6 299.8 318.1 300.3 318.6 300.7 319.0 r299.9 r318.2 301.2 319.6 300.5 318.8 300.8 319.1 301.7 320.1 Farm products and processed foods and feeds Industrial commodities 248.9 312.3 255.8 309.6 255.3 310.6 252.4 312.8 249.6 313.2 247.4 312.7 243.8 314.3 243.9 315.0 244.8 315.2 r245.8 r313.9 249.9 314.4 250.4 313.4 254.7 312.6 254.7 313.8 01 01-1 01-2 01-3 01-4 01-5 0 1 -6 01-7 01-8 01-9 FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS AND FEEDS Farm p ro d u cts......................................................................................... Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables............................................ G ra in s ................................................................................................... liv e s t o c k ............................................................................................ Live p o u ltry ......................................................................................... Plant and animal fibers ................................................................... Fluid m i l k ............................................................................................ E g g s ...................................................................................................... Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ......................................................... Other farm p ro d u c ts ......................................................................... 242.4 253.7 210.9 257.8 191.9 202.9 282.5 178.7 212.8 274.5 256.5 271.5 228.2 282.9 192.7 214.1 278.8 164.3 227.3 273.9 252.7 264.5 225.7 277.5 207.2 203.1 278.9 159.3 219.3 271.8 246.6 239.1 212.8 270.3 212.5 220.8 279.0 171.7 220.0 265.5 240.8 238.6 197.2 268.4 189.3 207.5 278.8 171.7 204.5 274.4 234.5 221.0 187.3 259.0 196.5 196.8 281.9 173.3 201.8 276.8 299.2 223.0 183.2 248.5 177.1 198.1 285.0 177.9 194.3 274.0 230.7 233.4 198.6 239.1 181.6 195.3 285.9 172.5 204.8 276.3 232.6 248.8 262.3 237.2 177.8 200.6 285.5 170.0 209.0 280.1 r233.2 r227.6 206.3 242.3 177.1 201.7 284.5 170.0 212.4 279.9 240.8 227.2 222.4 251.1 200.1 206.4 284.5 170.0 217.9 282.0 241.4 234.3 227.4 251.4 177.8 217.0 282.9 170.0 217.8 280.3 250.5 266.0 243.8 260.6 170.8 213.6 280.8 170.0 226.3 279.2 250.3 259.5 242.2 258.0 186.9 223.9 279.8 185.1 227.3 281.0 02 02-1 02-2 0 2 -3 02-4 02-5 02-6 02-7 02-8 0 2 -9 Processed foods and fe e d s ................................................................... Cereal and bakery p r o d u c ts ............................................................ Meats, poultry, and f i s h ................................................................... Dairy products ................................................................................... Processed fruits and vegetables...................................................... Sugar and confectionery................................................................... Beverages and beverage materials ................................................ Fats and oils ...................................................................................... Miscellaneous processed f o o d s ...................................................... Prepared animal fe e d s ...................................................................... 251.5 253.8 257.6 248.9 274.5 269.7 256.9 215.1 248.6 211.3 254.4 252.8 267.6 248.5 273.8 265.3 256.5 222.3 248.0 217.4 255.8 252.7 271.2 248.7 275.8 269.1 256.7 221.8 248.6 216.4 254.6 253.0 266.0 248.6 274.4 275.7 256.9 221.3 248.1 213.9 253.5 252.7 262.2 248.8 274.1 285.5 258.0 215.6 245.9 207.5 253.5 254.0 265.7 249.1 272.8 278.5 257.1 211.4 247.0 204.3 250.8 253.0 256.9 249.8 273.4 276.3 257.9 213.8 247.9 199.8 250.2 254.2 251.6 250.2 272.8 280.4 258.4 207.2 247.8 206.0 250.5 256.2 249.9 250.8 275.7 280.1 258.8 203.0 248.6 210.1 r251.7 r257.3 r252.3 250.7 r274.8 r282.1 r260.1 r201.7 r248.8 r211.6 253.9 257.3 257.7 251.0 273.9 286.4 261.6 205.6 248.9 212.4 254.3 257.4 260.1 250.7 272.9 283.7 261.8 205.0 248.5 212.5 256.0 259.1 259.3 251.0 273.8 286.7 263.0 213.4 249.9 222.3 256.1 259.8 257.7 250.9 275.0 289.5 263.3 219.4 249.9 221.2 Commodity group and subgroup Code INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES 03 03-1 03-2 03-3 03-4 03-4 03-81 03-82 Textile products and a p p a re l............................................................... Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... Processed yarns and threads (12/75 = 100) ............................. Gray fabrics (12/75 - 1 0 0 ) ............................................................ Finished fabrics (12/75 - 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... A p p a re l................................................................................................ Textile housefurnishings................................................................... 204.6 162.1 138.3 145.3 124.6 194.4 238.5 205.4 163.4 141.0 145.9 125.2 194.5 239.5 205.0 162.8 139.4 146.0 124.0 195.0 239.7 204.1 161.5 135.9 144.9 123.8 194.8 238.2 204.2 162.2 135.9 144.6 124.3 195.1 236.4 204.3 162.5 136.6 143.6 123.7 195.4 238.2 204.1 161.1 136.5 143.7 123.2 195.7 236.2 203.9 161.2 136.7 143.1 123.0 195.4 236.2 202.6 159.7 136.7 143.3 122.8 193.0 236.2 r202.7 r156.7 r134.7 r144.4 r122.2 r194.4 r236.5 202.4 155.4 135.4 144.4 122.4 193.3 238.7 203.2 156.3 135.9 145.0 122.5 194.6 238.5 203.3 155.4 136.0 146.2 122.8 194.7 238.5 203.9 157.2 137.6 146.0 122.2 195.1 241.9 04 0 4 -2 04-3 04-4 Hides, skins, leather, and related p ro d u c ts ...................................... Leather ............................................................................................... Footwear ............................................................................................ Other leather and related products ................................................ 262.6 311.4 245.0 247.4 263.2 309.8 244.5 248.1 261.8 307.7 244.2 245.6 263.1 307.4 247.3 246.9 262.0 304.9 247.7 244.9 263.5 309.2 248.3 247.7 263.2 309.5 248.0 247.2 263.2 312.8 249.1 247.1 264.1 314.4 247.7 249.1 r266.7 r314.4 r251.5 r250.8 265.0 312.7 246.9 255.0 265.9 316.0 248.0 254.5 267.1 317.9 248.4 254.4 270.1 324.5 248.7 255.2 05 05-1 05-2 0 5 -3 05-4 05-61 05-7 Fuels and related products and p o w e r................................................ C o a l...................................................................................................... C o ke ...................................................................................................... Gas fuels2 ......................................................................................... Electirc power .................................................................................. Crude petroleum3 ............................................................................ Petroleum products, refined4 ......................................................... 06 06-1 06-21 06-22 06-3 06-4 06-5 06-6 06-7 Chemicals and allied p ro d u c ts ............................................................ Industrial chemicals5 ......................................................................... Prepared paint Paint m a te ria ls ................................................................................... Drugs and pharmaceuticals ............................................................ Fats and oils, In e d ib le ...................................................................... Agricultural chemnicals and chemical products ......................... Plastic resins and m a te ria ls ............................................................ Other chemicals and allied products ............................................ 292.3 352.6 262.8 304.6 210.1 267.1 292.4 283.4 270.1 295.0 357.1 264.7 306.9 209.9 288.4 294.8 283.2 272.7 293.3 351.2 264.7 304.9 209.7 287.5 294.1 282.1 273.8 291.6 349.1 264.7 304.5 210.0 278.2 291.5 280.9 271.1 291.6 349.1 264.7 302.5 211.2 254.2 290.8 282.2 272.3 290.7 346.5 264.7 303.0 212.4 254.1 289.9 281.6 271.2 289.9 345.8 264.7 303.0 214.9 242.3 288.8 281.3 268.6 290.5 345.2 264.7 302.4 215.5 239.6 286.5 282.2 272.3 289.6 342.4 264.7 301.7 216.0 240.8 285.2 282 5 272.0 r289.3 r339.3 r264.7 r301.5 r218.6 r242.0 r283.2 r283.8 r272.8 290.6 341.0 265.1 299.3 221.3 253.4 282.5 282.3 274.8 290.1 339.4 265.1 298.1 222.7 262.0 284.0 282.8 272.2 291.3 339.7 265.1 299.5 225.1 278.8 283.7 284.7 273.4 291.3 339.8 265.1 300.0 225.3 286.2 282.9 285.4 272.3 07 07-11 07-11 07-12 07-13 07-2 Rubber plastic products ...................................................................... Rubber and rubber p rod ucts............................................................ Crude rubber ...................................................................................... Tires and tu b e s ................................................................................... Miscellaneous rubber products ...................................................... Plastic products (6/78 - 100) ...................................................... 241.4 267.8 278.9 255.2 276.9 132.3 242.1 269.0 283.7 254.9 278.8 132.5 242.5 269.3 282.5 255.3 279.5 132.8 242.0 268.8 280.3 255.0 279.4 132.5 242.6 270.1 278.7 257.8 279.7 132.5 242 5 269.5 276.6 255.6 281.6 132.7 242.2 268.9 272.5 255.7 281.4 132.7 241.7 267.9 2709 254.5 280.7 132.7 242.2 268.2 271.1 256.0 279.7 133.0 r242.9 r269.6 r271.1 259.1 r284.5 r133.0 242.8 270.0 274.2 250.4 290.8 132.8 243.1 271.1 281.1 250.1 291.9 132.6 242.2 269.2 280.6 246.6 291.6 132.5 242.9 269.2 280.5 246.5 291.8 133.4 08 08-1 08-2 08-3 08-4 Lumber and wood products ................................................................ L u m b e r................................................................................................ M illw o rk ................................................................................................ P lyw o od................................................................................................ Other wood pro d u cts......................................................................... 284.7 310.8 279.4 232.1 236.2 284.6 310.5 276.3 230.5 237.4 289.0 315.8 280.5 239.2 236.0 288.6 319.2 282.3 232.4 236.0 284.2 311.6 280.2 229.0 235.8 283.0 310.3 279.5 228 5 235.6 279.4 305.6 278.6 224.0 235.8 279.9 305.1 280.3 227.8 233.0 285.6 312.6 286.5 231.2 231.2 r293.3 r326.8 293.7 r235.3 r232.0 302.7 343.6 300.5 239.3 233.2 305.0 348.2 304.0 238.8 231.6 305.4 352.8 302.7 239.3 230.8 306.2 357.3 298.8 240.9 231.1 662.2 677.3 693.2 534.7 534.0 533.6 462.0 461.7 467.5 1,060.8 1,001.2 1,027.5 407.1 405.7 406.5 733.4 717.8 718.2 739.4 761.2 713.2 703.4 r683.6 700.4 698.8 706.1 673.5 705.6 701.1 538.5 538.1 539.6 538.7 r535.6 534.6 538.0 539.0 460.0 452.3 562.3 452.3 r450.9 450.9 460.3 459.1 1,054.3 1,074.6 1,112.2 1,130.1 1,190.0 1,181.2 r1,147.3 1,169.2 408.7 404.9 409.9 r410.8 411.2 416.0 414.9 415.0 718.4 718.4 718.3 735.3 733.6 720.0 r719.7 693.3 781.7 761.6 754.6 758.0 754.2 7 2 0 .6 699.2 776.5 648.1 654.8 662.3 535 O 540.0 539.3 438.4 447.3 447.3 1,190.5 1,158.4 1,159.0 412.5 411.7 409.5 678.4 678.4 678.5 672.7 651.8 664.5 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 75 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices 24. Continued— Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] Commodity group and subgroup Annual average 1982 1982 1983 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.1 Feb. Mar. Apr. May INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES— Continued 09 09-1 09-11 09-12 09-13 09-14 09-15 09-2 Pulp, paper, and allied p ro d u c ts ................................................... Pulp, paper,and products,excluding building paper and board W ood p u lp ...................................................... W astepaper................................................... Paper ...................................................................... Paperboard ............................................ Converted paper and paperboard p ro d u c ts ............................. Building paper and board ............................................................ 288.7 273.2 379.0 121.1 286.3 254.9 264.4 239.5 289.6 274.8 393.3 121.5 288.2 258.8 264.3 240.2 289.5 274.1 388.0 115.2 287.8 255.9 264.5 240.0 289.1 272.6 368.3 115.6 286.3 255.0 264.4 239.8 289.3 272.2 367.0 116.0 285.3 255.4 264.3 244.4 289.4 271.5 365.0 116.0 285.3 250.7 264.2 243.4 289.8 270.3 350.4 116.0 285.4 248.0 264.0 242.1 289.8 269.4 347.3 116.0 280.6 247.6 264.7 241.0 290.5 268.8 347.2 116.0 279.2 244.1 264.8 242.0 r293.6 ’ 269.8 r346.6 116.0 r279.3 ’ 243.3 265.0 ’ 241.1 293.3 269.0 349.5 116.0 279.1 244.0 254.1 240.8 293.8 269.1 346.7 116.0 278.6 246.6 265.2 243.3 295.1 268.8 344.5 116.0 278.7 248 4 264 5 246.1 295 7 269.1 345 8 116.0 279 1 248 9 264 5 249.3 10 10-1 10-17 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 Metals and metal p ro d u c ts ............................................ Iron and s te e l...................................................... Steel mill p ro d u c ts ...................................... Nonferrous m e ta ls ................................................................ Metal c o n ta in e rs ............................................................ H a rd w a re ...................................................... Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings ................................... Heating e q u ip m e n t............................................ Fabricated structural metal products ......................................... Miscellaneous metal p ro d u c ts ................................... 301.6 339.0 349.5 263.6 328.5 280.3 278.7 237.2 304.8 282.3 302.8 341.3 352.1 263.6 330.2 278.9 281.0 237.2 304.9 284.5 299.3 338.3 349.9 253.4 329.9 280.3 282.6 238.5 305.3 283.9 299.5 337.5 349.0 256.4 330.0 281.2 283.3 238.9 303.9 283.2 299.2 337.1 348.6 255.7 328.8 382.6 274.6 238.4 304.3 283.3 301.8 336.5 348.2 265.1 328.8 282.7 277.1 239.1 306.4 283.8 301.6 337 6 349.8 262.9 329.7 283.0 277.8 238 4 305.9 284.1 300.5 335.9 348.6 261.7 329.0 283.1 278.3 238.8 305.3 283.4 299.9 332.8 344.7 263.2 328.3 285.8 279.2 239.3 304.7 283.2 ’ 300.3 ’ 333.3 ’ 343.7 ’ 267.0 ’ 327.9 ’ 287.2 280.6 ’ 240.7 ’ 303.6 ’ 279.1 306.1 340.3 351 8 275.5 330.3 285.6 283.4 240.8 302.5 288.6 305.4 341.8 350 1 268 8 331.6 285.9 285 5 241.1 303.7 289.8 305.3 341 7 350.1 271.7 332,0 286 3 287.5 242.3 302 6 285.3 306.7 341 1 350.0 277 9 337.4 286 2 288.8 242 4 302 1 284.9 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 equipm ent...................... Metalworking machinery and e q u ip m e n t...................................... General purpose machinery and equipment ................................ Special industry machinery and equipment . . . . Electrical machinery and equipm ent............................................. Miscellaneous machinery ......................................... 278.8 311.1 343.9 320.9 304.0 325.1 231.6 268.4 278.2 308.2 343.5 320.7 303.8 323.9 231.3 267.9 278.6 309.7 343.9 321.2 303.5 325 0 231.5 268.5 279.6 311.0 346.1 322.5 304.8 327.1 231.6 269.5 279.9 312.2 346.5 322.8 304.9 326.7 231.8 270.9 280.2 314.1 347.5 323.1 305.0 326.8 231.7 271.5 281.1 317.5 347.6 323.1 305.9 327.8 232.6 271.6 281.8 318.7 347.9 323.5 306,4 329.1 233.7 272.0 282.4 320.7 348.1 323.6 307.0 329.9 234.2 272.3 ’ 283.3 ’ 322.4 ’ 348 3 ’ 324.1 ’ 307.4 ’ 331.8 ’ 235.2 ’ 272.9 283.6 322.5 348.1 324.5 307.5 332.9 235.8 272.5 284.0 322 8 349.6 324.8 307 3 333.7 236.1 273.5 284 9 324.8 350 8 325.6 307 9 334 4 237.3 274.0 285 6 326 0 352 2 326 1 308 4 335.6 237.7 275.2 12 12-1 12-2 12-3 12-4 12-5 12-6 Furniture and household d u ra b le s ......................................... Household furniture ................................................................... Commercial fu rn itu re ............................................................ Floor c o v e rin g s ................................................... Household appliances ...................................... Home electronic e q u ip m e n t............................ Other household durable g o o d s ......................... 206.9 229 8 275.5 181.2 199.1 88.1 289.3 206.5 230 0 275.2 181.3 198.9 88.0 285.4 207.0 230.2 276.0 181.9 199 6 88.4 286.1 206.8 230.0 277.4 181.2 200.2 87.2 285.1 208.1 230.4 278.1 181.0 201.0 88.0 291.8 208.3 230.7 278.2 181.5 201.2 87.4 293.4 208.9 231.2 278.3 181.6 201.3 87.8 296.5 208.9 231.4 278.6 181.3 201.2 87.0 297.2 209.2 232.0 278.5 181.5 201 8 87.1 298.1 ’ 210.7 ’ 231.9 ’ 281.1 ’ 182.2 ’ 203.9 ’ 87.3 ’ 302.8 211.7 231.6 282.6 181.2 203.2 87.2 313.9 212.1 232.9 285.4 181.0 203.4 87.2 311.7 213.1 233.7 286.7 181.4 205.2 86 9 313.3 213.3 234 3 286.6 181 3 205.7 86 7 313.7 13 13-11 13-2 13-3 13-4 13-5 13-6 13-7 13-8 13-9 Nonmetallic mineral products ......................... Flat g la s s ................................................................... Concrete in g re d ie n ts ............................. Concrete products ................................................... Structural clay products, excluding refractories ......................... R efractories................................................... Asphalt r o o fin g ................................................ Gypsum products ................................................ Glass containers ...................................... Other nonmetallic minerals ............................. 320.2 221.5 310.0 297.8 260.8 337.1 298.4 256.1 355.5 471.8 321.2 226.4 312.5 298.2 258.6 339.5 385.5 259.4 358.1 471.3 320.9 226.4 312.7 298.5 258.9 340.4 .396.4 256.4 358.1 465.2 321.1 226.1 311.8 298.8 259.3 340.4 399.8 255.8 358.1 466.6 320.5 221.1 311.2 299.0 263.9 340.7 400.1 253.9 358.0 466.0 321.2 221.1 310.8 298.7 264.0 340.8 413.4 253.9 358.6 467.7 321.1 221.1 309.9 298.6 264.0 340.8 406.7 255.1 358.5 470.4 321.2 225.3 310.0 298.2 264.8 337.2 399.0 255.0 357.8 471.3 320.5 225.3 306.7 298.5 264.8 337.2 397.0 253.9 357.6 471.0 321.5 229.7 ’ 307.2 ’ 299.4 '264.9 ’ 337.7 ’ 393.7 ’ 263.1 ’ 356.6 ’471.5 321.9 229.7 309.6 299.5 264.4 338.2 378.9 263.4 355.8 476.1 321.9 229.7 309.0 300 1 270.9 338.2 373.2 263.4 354.1 476.3 323.7 229.7 310.6 300.3 275.3 338.7 389.0 271.4 353.8 478.6 324.2 229.7 314.8 301 0 277 0 338.7 378 6 275.3 351 8 478.1 14 14-1 14-2 Transportation equipment (12/68 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... Motor vehicles and equipm ent......................................... Railroad equipm ent............................. 249.7 251.3 346.5 247.5 249.2 342.8 249.1 251.1 342.8 249.8 252.0 342.6 250.6 252.8 347.7 244.5 244.6 348.0 256.0 257.8 350.8 256.3 257.8 350.8 257.5 258.1 350.8 ’ 256.3 ’ 257.0 ’ 350.8 257.3 258.1 357.3 257.1 257.7 357 4 255.6 255.9 357.2 256 0 256.2 357.1 15 15-1 15-2 15—3 15-4 15-5 15-9 Miscellaneous p ro d u cts............................................. Toys, sporting goods, small arms, a m m u n itio n ......................... Tobacco products ......................................................... N o tio n s ............................................ Photograhic equipment and s u p p lie s ............................. Mobile homes (12/74 = 1 0 0 ) ................................ Other miscellaneous p ro d u c ts ......................................... 276.4 221.5 323.1 277.0 210.4 161.9 338.3 272.2 221.8 307.0 280.1 210.6 162.5 331.3 271.5 221.9 307.0 280.1 210.4 162.4 328.6 273.4 222.0 311.5 280.1 208.9 162.6 333.7 272.0 223.5 311.5 280.1 208.9 162.8 327.0 279.5 221.8 329.1 280.1 209.9 162.9 345.2 285.4 221.2 365.4 280.1 209.7 162.6 345.2 285.2 221.3 364.5 279.8 209.7 161.6 345.1 290.4 223.7 382.9 279.8 210.0 161.7 351.6 ’ 285.7 ’ 222.7 ’ 356.2 280.5 ’ 210.0 ’ 161.8 ’350.8 285.7 225.6 338.1 280.6 212.1 161.3 359.2 284.4 226.2 335 1 280.6 216 9 163.3 349.9 287.6 226.8 354.7 380.3 216.9 162.5 349.8 287 1 226.5 353.9 280 3 216 9 162 3 348.6 ’ Data for January 1983 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. 2 Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month. in c lu d e s only domestic production. 76 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month 5Some prjces for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month r = revised, 25. Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] 1982 Annual average 1982 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.1 Feb. Mar. Apr. May All commodities— less farm products All foods Processed foods Industrial commodities less f u e l s ................................................... Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... Hosiery ............................................................................................... Underwear and nightwear ................................................................ Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber and fibers and y a rn s ...................................................................... 303.0 254.4 256.0 272.8 138.2 138.3 217.6 301.2 257.9 259.0 272.8 138.7 138.5 215.9 302.2 259.0 260.8 272.4 138.2 138.5 217.4 303.9 256.6 259.5 272.5 137.6 138.5 218.8 304.1 255.8 258.7 272.6 137.8 138.5 218.6 303.7 255.3 259.2 272.5 137.8 138.7 219.6 304.7 252.8 256.2 274.4 137.4 138.7 220.1 305.1 251.9 254.7 274.4 137.1 139.7 219.7 305.4 252.7 254.7 274.9 136.8 139.7 219.7 r304.4 252.4 255.8 275.4 r136.7 141.7 r223.3 305.2 254.7 258.2 277.0 136.7 144.5 222.3 304.4 255.5 258.6 277.0 137.1 144.5 223.8 304.0 258.1 159.5 277.5 137.2 144.5 223.8 305.0 258.2 259.6 278.1 137.2 144.5 224.0 283.8 286.1 284.5 282 9 283.3 282.5 281.8 282.3 281.4 280.8 281.6 281.1 281.9 281.9 Pharmaceutical prep arations............................................................ Lumber and wood products, excluding m illw o rk ......................... Steel mill products, including fabricated wire products ............. Finished steel mill products, excluding fabricated wire products ......................................................................................... Finished steel mill products, including fabricated wire oroducts ......................................................................................... 206.0 288.8 349.4 205.8 288.1 352.1 206.4 294.5 349.9 206.9 294.8 348.4 207.4 288.3 348.1 209.0 287.2 347.8 211.7 282.5 349.1 212.3 283.4 348.5 212.8 289.6 344.8 r215.8 r300.7 343.1 218.4 313.5 350.5 220.0 316.4 348.8 222.9 319.8 348.7 223.2 323.3 348.7 348.4 350.9 348.8 347.7 347.3 346.9 348.6 348.0 344.0 342.1 350.5 348.7 348.8 348.7 348.1 350.9 348.8 347.0 346.7 346.3 347.8 347.2 343.3 r341.6 349.1 347.4 347.3 347.3 Special metals and metal products ............................................... Fabricated metal p ro d u c ts ............................................................... Copper and copper p ro d u cts............................................................ Machinery and motive p ro d u c ts ...................................................... Machinery and equipment, except electrical ............................... 286.6 291.6 185.5 272 1 306.4 286.3 292.6 193.0 270.7 305.7 285.2 292.8 179.7 271.7 306.2 285.7 292.0 179.2 272.8 307.6 286.8 291.9 179.8 273.3 308.1 284.0 292 9 181.0 270.7 308.6 289.5 293.0 178.8 276.4 309.4 288.9 292.5 181.2 277.0 310.0 288.7 292.5 181.8 277.9 310.6 r288.6 r291.1 r190.7 r277.8 r311.3 292.3 294.2 201.6 278.5 311.6 291.8 295.3 199.0 278.6 312.1 291.0 293.4 201.0 278.5 312.8 292.1 293.9 206.7 279.0 313.6 Agricultural machinery, including tractors ................................... Metalworking m a c h in e ry ................................................................... Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 = 100) . . . Total tr a c to r s ...................................................................................... Agricultural machinery and equipment less p a rts ......................... 323.1 350.4 239.6 355.0 313.8 319 9 349.3 239.9 353.6 311.0 321.3 350.1 240.0 354.1 312.2 321.8 352.8 239.2 354.8 312.8 322 8 353.1 239.2 355.5 313.8 325.5 353.5 239.4 359.6 315.8 330.6 354.1 239.4 361.4 320.1 332.2 354.2 239.4 361.4 321.5 335.1 354.1 239.4 364.2 324.3 r337.0 r354.6 r237.7 r365.6 r325.9 337.1 355.9 238.7 365.6 326 1 337.4 355.7 236.8 365.7 326.4 340.1 356.3 235.0 370.4 328.7 341.1 358.0 238.6 370.5 329.6 Farm and garden tractors less parts ............................................ Agricultural machinery, excluding tractors less parts ................ Construction m a te ria ls ...................................................................... 327.8 319.6 288.0 325.0 316.1 288.2 325.8 317.8 289.5 325.4 319.1 289.2 326.0 320.4 288.3 333.0 319.6 288.4 336.1 326.4 288.0 336.1 329.3 287.8 340.3 331.1 287.9 342.2 r333.1 r290.3 342.2 333.3 294.4 342.2 333.7 294.9 348.7 333.4 195.5 348.8 335.1 296.3 Commodity grouping 1 Data for January 1983 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. 26. 1983 r = revised, Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product [1967 = 100] 1982 Commodity grouping Annual average 1982 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.1 Feb. Mar. Apr. May Total durable goods ......................................................................... Total nondurable goods ................................................................... 279.0 315.3 278.5 314.5 278.3 316.0 278.9 317.6 278.8 317.1 278.6 315.7 281.2 314.3 281.2 315.3 282.0 315.3 r282.6 r313.3 285.2 313.5 285.1 312.4 285.1 312.8 285.9 313.9 Total m anu factures............................................................................ Durable ...................................................................................... Nondurable ............................................................................... 292.7 279.8 306.4 291.3 279.2 304.0 292 4 279.3 306.3 293.7 279.9 308.5 293.8 279.8 308.6 292.9 279.5 307.1 293.8 282.3 306.0 293 9 282.4 306.1 294.3 283.2 305.9 r293.5 r283.7 r303.8 294.1 286.1 302.3 293.0 285.8 300.5 292.9 285.8 300.2 293.9 286 6 301.4 Total raw or slightly processed goods ......................................... Durable ...................................................................................... Nondurable ............................................................................... 331.2 233.8 337.3 335.1 239 7 341.1 333.4 225.4 340.3 333.2 225.3 340.1 331.1 225.0 337.9 329.9 226.2 336.5 327.9 224.2 334.5 330.9 219.2 338 1 331.6 217.4 339.0 r330 4 r224.2 r337.2 336.2 236.3 342.5 338.1 244.3 343.9 340.7 244.9 346.7 341.2 246.9 347.0 1Data for January 1983 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1983 r = revised, 77 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices 27. Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] 1972 Industry description code Annual average 1982 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.1 Feb. Mar. Apr. May 175.2 312.2 925.8 151.2 177.1 308.3 901.2 151.7 177.1 307.5 914.3 151.7 177.1 306.2 924.3 151.7 177.1 287.5 926.7 151.7 177.1 289.5 937.6 151.7 177.1 312.5 945.9 151.7 177.1 308.3 969.0 151.7 177.1 312.5 958.4 151.7 r177.1 306.2 r945.2 153.6 177.1 289.5 938.4 156.3 177.1 285.4 939.5 158.4 177.1 272.9 922.9 164.3 177.1 268.7 922.7 164.3 1982 1983 MINING 1011 1092 1311 1455 Iron ores (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................... Mercury ores (12/75 100) ...................................... Crude petroleum and natural gas ................................ Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 = 1 0 0 ) ................................ 2021 2024 2041 2044 2067 Creamery b u tte r................................................................ Ice cream and frozen desserts (12/72 = 100) . . . . Flour mills (12/71 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................ Rice m illin g ................................................................... Chewing g u m ................................................................... 276.0 214.4 186.2 185.1 304.1 274 9 214.2 188.4 183.0 303.4 274.9 ■214.2 189.1 180.3 303.4 275.0 213.6 185.5 177.6 303.3 276.3 213.6 180.2 183.0 304.7 276.8 216.5 182.2 183.0 304.7 276.8 216.5 179.6 183.0 304.8 276.5 216.5 184.8 175.2 306.0 277.8 216.5 185.5 196.1 306.1 275.5 216.5 182.6 191.3 326.0 275.6 217.7 181.7 183.0 326.0 275.6 217.7 183.8 183.0 326.1 275.6 218.6 191.9 188.9 326.1 275.6 218.6 187.0 191.3 326.1 2074 2083 2085 2091 2098 Cottonseed oil m ills ......................................................... Malt ................................................................................... Distilled liquor, except brandy (12/75 = 100) . . . . Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 = 100) ............. Macaroni and sp a g h e tti................................................... 168.3 256.9 140.1 187.0 258.5 167.9 259 8 139.8 188.0 259.5 170.2 259.8 139.8 188.4 259.5 174.6 259.8 139.8 187.8 259.5 173.1 259.8 140.4 184.3 259.5 164.4 251.2 140.4 186.2 259.5 157.6 251.2 140.4 186.3 255.5 r164.1 240.6 141.3 186.4 255.5 169.4 240.6 141.3 186.6 255.5 157.5 232.6 141.3 182.8 255.5 160.4 232.6 141.3 179.2 255.5 153.8 232.6 141.3 177.9 255.5 172.0 232.6 141.3 177.8 255.5 172.2 232.6 141.3 175.7 255.5 2251 2261 2262 2284 2298 Women's hosiery, except socks (12/75 = 100) . . . Finishing plants, cotton (6/76 = 100) ...................... Finishing plants, synthetics, silk (6/76 - 100) . . . . Thread mills (6/76 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................. Cordage and twine (12/77 = 100) ............................. 116.8 139.5 128.2 157.2 141.5 116.9 141.5 128.4 156.6 141.0 116.9 141.4 127.6 156.6 141.0 116.8 140.3 126.8 156.5 141.0 116.9 139.8 129.0 158.0 141.0 116.9 138.5 128.2 158.0 142.6 116.9 136.8 127.5 157.9 142.6 118.5 136.2 127.8 157.9 142.6 118.3 136.1 127.3 157.8 142.6 r118.5 135.3 r125.7 157.9 142.6 122.7 136.0 125.5 161.9 142.7 122.8 136.1 125.0 165.6 142.8 122.8 135.6 125.6 165.7 137.6 122.8 132.8 125.3 165.7 137.6 2321 2323 2331 2361 2381 Men's and boys’ shirts and nigh tw ear......................... Men’s and boys' neckwear (12/75 = 100) ............. Women’s and misses’ blouses and waists (6/78 = 100) Children’s dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100) . . . . Fabric dress and work gloves ...................................... 215.1 119.5 126.8 120.6 292.1 217,5 117.3 126.5 122.2 295.5 217.8 121.3 126.6 122.2 294.5 218.1 121.3 126.4 119.4 294.5 218.2 121.3 126.7 120.3 288.2 221.5 121.3 126.6 118.6 288.2 221.6 121.3 126.7 118.6 287.4 221.6 121.3 128.5 117.0 287.4 221.0 121.3 127.6 117.0 287.4 r224.2 121.3 r127.7 117.0 288.8 223.5 121.3 124.7 117.0 288.8 222.5 121.3 125.3 115.5 288.8 222.8 121.3 125.3 115.5 291.0 223.0 121.3 125.3 115.5 291.7 2394 2396 2448 2515 2521 Canvas and related products (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............. Automotive and apparel trimmings (12/77 = 100) Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... Mattresses and b e dsprings............................................ Wood office fu rn itu re ...................................................... 145.4 131.0 145.6 205.7 270.3 145.9 131.0 144.7 205.9 270.8 143.1 131.0 144.2 205.9 270.8 143.1 131.0 144.1 205.7 270.9 143.1 131.0 143.9 205.9 271.3 144.8 131.0 143.8 206.0 271.3 147.3 131.0 144.3 206.0 271.4 147.3 131.0 144.2 206.0 271.4 147.3 131.0 144.6 206.0 271.4 r148.7 131.0 r144.6 r204.4 r271.4 149.4 131.0 145,1 208.7 272.5 146.8 131.0 145.6 208.7 278.7 146.8 131.0 146.8 208.8 281.5 146.8 131.0 148.3 209.7 281.5 2647 2654 2655 2911 2952 Sanitary paper products ................................................ Sanitary food containers ................................................ Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100) Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) ................................ Asphalt felts and coating (12/75 = 100) ................... 348.7 259.7 177.8 278.3 173.5 343.6 259.9 176.7 259.2 168.4 346.2 259.9 176.7 267.9 173.1 345.9 259.9 176.7 281.5 174.7 351.5 259.9 177.5 283.7 174.4 352.3 260.8 177.5 279.6 180.4 351.8 261.7 177.9 278.3 177.2 357.8 261.7 180.7 280.1 173.7 355.9 261.7 183.8 278.3 172.9 r356.2 r261.7 183.8 r267.2 r171.4 359.6 263.1 183.8 258.5 165.1 359.6 266.7 183.8 249.7 162.6 357.2 266.6 185.5 241.4 169.1 355.8 266.7 185.6 246.7 164.4 3031 3251 3253 3255 3259 Reclaimed rubber (12/73 = 1 0 0 ) ................................ Brick and structural clay t i l e ......................................... Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 = 100) ................ Clay refractories................................................................ Structural clay products, n.e.c........................................ 207.9 307.4 140.6 352.8 219.7 209.5 304.5 140.6 355.5 215.8 210.7 305.0 140.6 356.2 215.9 209.9 .305.9 140.6 356.3 215.9 209.7 313.8 140.7 358.8 219.0 209.8 314.0 140.7 356.9 219.0 209.8 314.0 140.7 357.0 219.0 209.3 315.5 140.7 350.3 218.9 208.8 315.5 140.7 350.3 219.0 r209.4 r315.7 r140.7 r351.1 r219.0 207.4 317.1 138.0 352.0 219.5 207.0 329.8 138.1 352.1 219.4 206.7 333.7 138.1 353.1 232.8 209.4 334.9 139.7 353.1 234.8 3261 3262 3263 3269 3274 Vitreous plumbing fix tu r e s ............................................ Vitreous china food utensils ......................................... Fine earthenware food u te n s ils ...................................... Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ................... Lime (12/75 = 100) ...................................................... 265.0 357.8 318.2 167.3 186.3 265.4 355.5 316.2 166.3 188.0 265.5 360.2 316.9 167.4 188.3 264.2 360.2 316.9 167.4 188.0 263.9 360.2 316.9 167.4 188.0 267.2 360.2 316.9 167.4 187.8 269.1 360.8 323.5 169.6 187.7 270.3 370.2 324.8 171.9 187.5 269.7 377.7 326.0 173.7 185.7 272.1 r380.1 r365.7 r186.5 r187.3 273.3 369.2 363.5 183.8 185.8 275.1 369.2 363.5 183.8 185.4 175.3 369.2 136.5 183.8 188.1 276.0 369.2 363.6 183.8 185.5 3297 3313 3425 3482 3623 Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 1 0 0 ) ............................. Electrometallurgical products (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ............. Hand saws and saw blades (12/72 = 1 0 0 ) ................ Small arms ammunition (12/75 = 1 0 0 )...................... Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 = 1 0 0 ) ................ 201.8 121.4 219.1 164.2 239.6 203.2 120.3 221.3 166.3 237.6 203.8 120.4 221.4 170.3 237.8 203.8 120.4 221.5 170.3 241.6 203.8 121.4 221.6 170.3 242.4 203.8 121.4 221.6 149.0 242.8 203.8 121.3 221.6 150.1 243.0 203.7 121.3 221.8 150.6 243.3 203.6 121.2 221.6 174.1 243.3 203.7 121.1 r221.9 r175.1 r243.6 203.6 121.2 226.0 180.9 238.9 203.6 121.1 225.9 187.7 238.3 203.8 119.0 225.9 187.6 238.1 203.7 116.9 225.6 187.6 237.9 3636 3641 3648 3671 3942 Sewing machines (12/75 = 100) ................... Electric la m p s ................................................... Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ................ Electron tubes, receiving type ...................................... Dolls (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................... 154.6 294.0 170.0 382.1 136.7 154.3 294.5 171.2 374.4 136.8 154.3 293.9 171.1 374.5 136.8 154.3 291.8 171.1 375.4 136.8 153.6 293.7 171.2 375.4 136.8 153.6 296.3 171.2 380.2 136.8 154.2 302.9 171.3 380.3 136.8 154.2 303.0 171.3 414.0 136.8 154.2 303.4 171.4 414.1 136.5 r154.2 r306.0 r171.4 431.6 r137.1 153.8 311.1 171.7 432.0 136.5 154.4 311.4 171.7 431.9 136.5 156.1 316.3 172.6 431.9 137.4 156.1 313.8 172.6 431.9 137.4 3944 3955 1995 3996 Games, toys, and children’s vehicles ......................... Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 = 100) . . . Burial caskets (6/76 = 1 0 0 ) ......................................... Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ............. 234.0 140.0 148.4 155.9 234.3 140.5 149.3 158.3 234.3 140.6 149.3 154.3 234.4 140.4 150.8 155.0 234.4 140.5 150.8 155.7 234.8 139.3 150.8 156.9 235.3 139.3 150.8 158.9 235.3 139.2 150.8 158.9 235.5 139.4 150.8 156.8 r235.3 139.2 147.0 159.2 238.6 139.2 152.1 159.2 237.4 139.2 152.1 159.2 237 9 139.2 152.1 159.4 237 9 139.2 152.1 159.4 MANUFACTURING 1 Data for January 1983 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. 78 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Indexes which were deleted in the March issue may now be found in Table 4 of the BLS monthly report, P r o d u c e r P r ic e s a n d P r ic e In d e x e s . 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 compensation and output supplied by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board. deflator, in effect, a price index for gross product of the sector reported. The u$e of the term “ man hours” to identify the labor component of productivity and costs, in tables 27 through 30, has been discontinued. Hours of all persons is now used to describe the labor input o f payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers. Output per all employee hour is now used to describe labor productivity in nonfi Definitions Output is the constant dollar gross domestic product produced in a given nancial corporations where there are no self-employed. period. Indexes o f output per hour of labor input, or labor productivity, measure the value of goods and services produced per hour of labor. Compensation per hour includes wages and salaries of employees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private benefit plants. The data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and supplementary payments for the self-employed, except for nonfinancial corporations, in which there are no self-employed. Real compensation per hour is com pensation per hour adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Unit labor cost measures the labor compensation cost required to pro duce one unit o f output and is derived by dividing compensation by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, and in direct taxes per unit of output. They are computed by subtracting com pensation o f all persons from the current dollar gross domestic product and dividing by output. In these tables, unit nonlabor costs contain all the components o f unit nonlabor payments except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits and inventory valuation adjustments per unit of output. The implicit price deflator is derived by dividing the current dollar estimate o f gross product by the constant dollar estimate, making the 28. Notes on the data In the business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the basis for the output measure employed in the computation of output per hour is Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National Product. Computation of hours includes estimates of nonfarm and farm proprietor hours. Output data are supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly man ufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to annual estimates of output (gross product originating) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Beginning with the September 1982 issue of the R e v ie w , all o f the productivity and cost measures contained in these tables are based on revised output and compensation measures released by the Bureau o f Eco nomic Analysis in July as part of the regular revision cycle of the National Income and Product Accounts. Measures of labor input have been revised to reflect results o f the 1980 census, and seasonal factors have been re computed for use in the preparation of quarterly measures. The word “ private” is no longer being used as part of the series title o f one o f the two business sector measures prepared by BLS; no change has been made in the definition or content of the measures as a result of this change. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1950-82 [1977 = 100] Item Business sector: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............................. Compensation per h o u r ......................................... Real compensation per hour ................................ Unit labor c o s t s ...................................................... Unit nonlabor paym ents......................................... Implicit price d e fla to r ............................................ Nontarm business sector: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............................. Compensation per h o u r ......................................... Real compensation per hour ................................ Unit labor c o s t s ...................................................... Urtit nonlabor paym ents......................................... Implicit price d e fla to r ............................................. Nonfinance corporations: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............................ Compensation per h o u r ......................................... Real compensation per h o u r ................................ Unit labor c o s t s ...................................................... Unit nonlabor paym ents......................................... Implicit price d e fla to r ............................................. Manufacturing: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............................. Compensation per h o u r ......................................... Real compensation per hour ................................ Unit labor c o s t s ...................................................... Unit nonlabor paym ents......................................... Implicit price d e fla to r ............................................. 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 50.4 20.0 50.5 39.7 43.4 41.0 58.3 26.4 59.6 45.2 47.6 46.0 65.2 33.9 69.5 52.0 50.6 51.6 78.3 41.7 80.1 53.3 57.6 54.7 86.2 58.2 90.8 67.5 63.2 66.0 94.5 85.5 96.3 90.5 90.4 90.5 97.6 92.9 98.9 95.1 94.0 94.7 100 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.6 108.6 100.9 108.0 106.7 107.5 99.6 119.1 99.4 119.5 112.8 117.2 98.9 131.4 96.7 132.9 119.3 128.3 100.7 144.1 96.0 143.1 135.2 140.4 101.0 154.5 97.0 152.9 138.7 148.1 56.3 21.8 55.0 38.8 42.7 40.1 62.8 28.3 64.0 45.0 47.8 46.0 68.3 35.7 73.0 52.2 50.4 51.6 80.5 42.8 82.2 43.2 58.0 54.8 86.8 57.7 91.5 67.6 63.7 66.3 94.7 86.0 96.8 90.8 88.5 90.0 97.8 93.0 99.0 95.1 93.5 94.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.6 108.6 100.9 108.0 105.3 107.1 99.3 118.8 99.2 119.6 110.3 116.5 98.5 130.9 96.3 133.0 119.1 128.3 99.9 143.6 95.7 143.8 134.8 140.8 100.0 154.0 96.7 154.0 139.0 149.0 (1) <1> <1) <1) (1) (1) (1> (1) <1) (1) (1) 68.0 37.0 75.8 54.4 54.6 54.5 81.9 43.9 84.3 53.5 60.8 56.1 87.4 59.4 92.7 68 0 63.1 66.3 95.5 86.1 96.9 90.2 90.8 90.4 98.2 902.9 98.9 94.6 95.0 94.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.9 108.5 100.8 107.5 104.2 106.4 100.7 118.7 99.1 117.8 106.9 114.1 100.3 130.9 96.2 130.5 117.7 126.1 102.0 143.5 95.6 140.6 134.8 138.6 103.0 154.1 96.8 149.6 140.5 146.5 49.4 21.5 54.0 43.4 54.3 46.6 56 4 28.8 65.1 51.0 58.5 53.2 60.0 36.7 75.1 61.1 61.1 61.1 74.5 42.8 82 3 57.5 69.3 61.0 79.1 57.6 89.8 72.7 65.0 70.5 93.4 85.4 96.2 91.5 87.3 90.3 97.5 92.3 98.3 94.6 93.7 94.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.9 108.3 100.6 107.4 102.5 106.0 101.5 118.9 99.2 117.1 99.9 112.0 101.7 132.8 97.7 130.6 97.1 120.8 104.5 146.4 97.5 140.0 108.8 130.8 103.5 158.8 99.7 153.4 <1) (1) 1 Not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 79 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity 29. Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1972-82 1972 Business sector: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ...................... Compensation per h o u r ................................... Real compensation per hour ......................... Unit labor costs ................................................ Unit nonlabor paym ents................................... Im plicit price d e fla to r ...................................... Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ...................... Compensation per h o u r ................................... Real compensation per hour .......................... Unit labor c o s t s ................................................ Unit nonlabor paym ents................................... Implicit price d e fla to r ...................................... Nonflnancial corporations: Output per hour of all em ployees................... Compensation per h o u r ................................... Real compensation per hour ......................... Unit labor c o s t s ................................................ Unit nonlabor paym ents................................... Implicit price d e fla to r ...................................... Manufacturing: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ...................... Compensation per h o u r ................................... Real compensation per hour ......................... Unit labor c o s t s ................................................ Unit nonlabor paym ents................................... Implicit price d e fla to r ...................................... 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 3.5 6.5 3.1 2.9 4.5 3.4 2.6 8.0 1.6 5.3 5.9 5.5 - 2 .4 9.4 - 1 .4 12.1 4.4 9.5 2.2 9.6 0.5 7.3 15.1 9.8 3.3 8.6 2.6 5.1 4.0 4.7 2.4 7.7 1.2 5.1 6.4 5.6 0.6 8.6 0.9 8.0 6.7 7.5 -0 .9 9.7 - 1 .4 10.7 5.7 9.0 -0 .7 10.4 -2 .8 11.2 5.8 9.4 1.8 9.6 -0 .7 7.7 13.3 9.5 3.7 6.7 3.3 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.4 7.6 1.3 5.0 1.3 3.8 -2 .5 9.4 -1 ..4 12.2 5.9 10.2 2.0 9.6 0.4 7.5 16.7 10.3 3.2 8.1 2.2 4.7 5.7 5.0 2.2 7.5 1.0 5.2 6.9 5.7 0.6 8.6 0.9 8.0 5.3 7.1 -1 .3 9.3 -1 .7 10.7 4.7 8.8 -0 .9 10.2 - 2 .9 11.2 8.0 10.2 2.9 5.7 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.4 7.5 1.2 4.9 1.5 3.8 -3 .7 9.4 - 1 .5 13.6 7.1 11.4 2.9 9.6 0.4 6.5 20.1 10.9 2.9 7.9 2.0 4.9 4.5 4.8 1.8 7.6 1.1 5.7 5.3 5.6 0.9 8.5 0.8 7.5 4.2 6.4 -0 .2 9.4 - 1 .7 9.6 2.6 7.2 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 2.5 8.3 1.8 5.7 6.7 6.0 0.9 8.3 0.6 7.4 2.5 6.0 0.7 9.7 -1 .4 9.0 -2 .6 5.7 1 Not available. r = revised. 30. Annual rate of change Year Item 1950-82 1972-82 0.4 7.3 1.1 6.9 r2.6 5.5 r2.2 r6.6 r2.1 r4.3 3.7 4.1 r0.9 r8.9 0.1 r7.9 r6.9 P7.6 1.4 9.7 - 0 .7 8.1 13.1 9.7 0.1 7.2 1.0 7.1 3.2 5.8 M.8 r6.3 r1.8 r4.4 3.7 r4.2 r0.7 P8.7 - 0 .4 10.3 - 2 .9 10.7 10.1 10.5 1.7 9.6 - 0 .7 7.8 14.6 10.0 1.0 7.4 1.2 6.4 4.2 5.7 <1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) r0.9 r8.7 0.2 11.8 -1 .5 11.6 - 2 .7 7.8 2.8 10.2 - 0 .2 7.2 12.0 8.4 -1 .0 8.5 2.2 9.6 (1) (1) r2.3 r6.5 1.9 r4.0 (1) (1) r1.6 9.5 r0.7 P7.7 (1) (1) 0.0 P7.9 P7.0 P7.6 0.0 7.7 7 .3 7.6 p = preliminary, Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted [1977 = 100]____________________________________________ Item Business sector: Output per hour of all persons ................................... Compensation per hour ................................................ Real compensation per h o u r ......................................... Unit labor c o s ts ................................................................ Unit nonlabor payments ................................................ Im plicit price d e fla to r...................................................... Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons ................................... Compensation per hour ................................................ Real compensation per h o u r ......................................... Unit labor c o s ts ................................................................ Unit nonlabor payments ................................................ Im plicit price d e fla to r...................................................... Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all e m p lo y e e s ................................ Compensation per hour ................................................ Real compensation per h o u r ......................................... Total unit c o s ts ................................................................ Unit labor c o s ts ...................................................... Unit nonlabor c o s ts ................................................ Unit profits ...................................................................... Implicit price d e fla to r...................................................... Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons ................................... Compensation per hour ................................................ Real compensation per h o u r ......................................... Unit labor c o s ts ................................................................ 1 Not available. 80 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Quarterly indexes Annual average 1980 1981 1982 1981 1982 II III IV 1 II III IV I II III IV 100.7 144.1 96.0 143.1 135.2 140.4 101.0 154.6 97.0 152.9 138.7 148.1 98.2 130.0 96.4 132.3 116.2 126.9 98.9 133.1 96.9 134.7 120.6 129.9 99.3 136.1 96.2 137.0 124.6 132.8 100.7 140.0 96.2 139.0 131.8 136.5 100.7 142.5 96.4 141.5 133.4 138.8 101.0 145.6 95.7 144.2 137.4 141.9 100.2 148.2 95.6 147.9 138.3 144.6 100.0 150.9 96.5 150.9 136.4 146.0 100.3 153.4 97.1 152.9 137.0 147.5 101.2 155.7 96.8 153.8 140.0 149.1 102.2 r157.8 97.5 154.4 141.8 150.1 99.9 143.6 96.7 143.8 134.8 140.8 100.0 154.0 96.7 154.0 139.0 149.0 97.6 129.3 96.0 132.5 116.7 127.2 98.4 132.6 96.5 134.7 120.3 129.9 99.2 135.7 95.9 136.8 124.4 132.7 100.4 139.5 96.0 139.0 131.5 136.5 100.0 142.0 96.0 141.9 132.8 138.9 100.0 145.1 96.4 145.1 136.7 142.3 99.1 147.7 96.3 149.0 138.4 145.5 99.2 150.4 96.3 151.6 136.7 146.6 99.4 152.7 96.6 153.5 137.2 148.1 100.3 155.1 96.4 154.7 140.1 149.8 100.8 157.2 97.1 156.1 142.2 151.4 102.0 143.5 95.6 143.4 140.6 151.4 101.6 138.6 103.0 154.1 95.8 154.2 149.6 167.0 87.2 146.5 99.3 129.3 95.9 130.4 130.2 131.0 81.9 124.8 100.6 132.6 96.6 132.9 131.9 135.7 87.8 127.7 101.1 135.6 95.8 135.8 134.1 140.7 90.5 130.6 102.3 139.6 96.0 138.3 136.5 143.4 104.7 134.5 102.2 141.9 96.0 141.7 138.9 149.6 98.8 136.8 102.2 144.8 95.2 144.7 141.7 153.1 106.2 140.2 101.6 147.7 95.3 149.1 145.4 159.6 97.6 143.2 101.6 150.7 96 5 151.8 148.3 161.5 86.1 144.3 102.3 153.0 96.8 153.8 149.5 166.0 82.3 145.6 103.5 155.2 96.4 154.8 150.0 168.3 89.6 147.3 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 104.5 146.4 97.5 140.0 103.5 158.8 99.7 153.4 100.4 130.9 97.1 130.3 100.3 135.2 98.5 134.9 103.6 138.4 97.8 133.6 105.2 142.6 98.0 135.5 105.0 144.9 97.9 138.0 105.0 147.3 96.8 140.3 102.8 150.7 97.2 146.6 102.1 154.7 99.0 151.5 102.3 157.6 99.7 154.0 104.1 160.0 99.4 153.6 104.3 161.8 99.9 155.1 r = revised. 31. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted at annual rate [1977 = 100]________________________________________ Q u a r t e r ly p e r c e n t c h a n g e a t a n n u a l r a te Business sector: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ................... Compensation per h o u r ................................ Real compensation per hour ...................... Unit labor c o s t s ............................................. Unit nonlabor paym ents................................ Implicit price d e fla to r ................................... Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ................... Compensation per h o u r ................................ Real compensation per hour ...................... Unit labor c o s t s ............................................. Unit nonlabor paym ents................................ Implicit price d e fla to r ................................... Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all em ployees................ Compensation per h o u r ................................ Real compensation per hour ...................... Total unit costs ............................................. Unit labor c o s ts .......................................... Unit nonlabor c o s ts ................................... Unit p ro fits ...................................................... Implicit price d e fla to r ................................... Manufacturing: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ................... Compensation per h o u r ................................ Real compensation per hour ...................... Unit labor c o s t s ............................................. 1 Not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis P e rc e n t c h a n g e fro m s a m e q u a rte r a y e a r a g o II 1981 III 1981 IV 1981 11982 II 1982 III 1982 ill 1980 IV 1980 I 1981 II 1981 III 1981 to to to to to to to to to to to IV 1981 to III 1981 IV 1981 1 1982 II 1982 III 1982 IV 1982 III 1981 IV 1981 1 1982 II 1982 III 1982 IV 1982 1.1 9.0 -2 .6 7.8 12.5 9.3 - 2 .9 7.4 - 0 .4 10.6 2.9 8.0 -1 .0 7.3 3.9 8.4 -5 .4 3.8 1.4 6.9 2.2 5.5 1.7 4.3 3.6 6.1 -1 .4 2.4 8.9 4.4 4.1 5.6 2.9 1.4 5.4 2.7 2.2 9.4 -1 .3 7.1 13.9 9.2 0.9 8.9 -0 .6 7.9 11.0 8.9 -0 .7 7.8 0.3 8.6 3.5 6.9 - 0 .4 7.6 0.8 8.1 2.7 6.3 0.2 6.9 1.1 6.7 1.9 5.1 2.0 r6.5 1.9 4.4 2.5 3.8 - 0 .3 9.0 - 2 .6 9.3 12.1 10.2 -3 .5 7.3 -0 .5 11.2 5.1 9.2 0.6 7.7 4.3 7.1 - 4 .6 3.3 0.8 6.1 1.4 5.2 1.3 4.0 3.5 6.6 - 0 .9 3.1 8.9 4.9 2.0 5.6 2.9 3.5 6.1 4.3 1.6 9.4 - 1 .2 7.7 13.6 9.6 - 0 .1 8.8 -0 .6 8.9 11.2 9.6 - 1 .1 7.8 0.3 9.0 4.0 7.4 -0 .6 7.5 0.6 8.2 3.3 6.6 0.3 6.9 1.1 6.6 2.6 5.3 1.7 6.5 1.9 4.7 2.8 4.1 0.2 8.4 - 3 .1 8.6 8.2 9.8 28.4 10.2 -2 .4 8.2 0.3 12.8 10.9 17.8 -2 5 .9 8.9 0.3 8.4 5.0 7.4 8.1 5.7 -3 9 .4 3.0 2.7 6.2 1.6 5.4 3.4 10.7 -1 6 .7 3.8 4.6 5.9 -1 .6 2.5 1.2 5.9 40.8 4.7 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 1.6 9.2 - 1 .4 8.9 7.5 12.9 19.7 9.7 0.5 8.9 -0 .5 9.8 8.4 13.4 7.9 9.6 -0 .6 8.0 0.5 9.7 8.6 12.8 -1 7 .8 7.3 0.2 7.8 0.9 8.5 7.6 10.9 - 1 6 .7 6.4 1.3 7.2 1.3 7.0 5.8 9.9 - 1 4 .8 5.1 <1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) - 0 .1 6.8 - 4 .6 6.8 - 8 .2 9.6 1.6 19.4 - 2 .4 11.1 7.6 13.9 0.8 7.8 3.1 6.9 7.3 6.2 - 1 .3 - 1 .0 015 415 119 319 4.7 8.9 -1 .7 4.0 -0 .8 8.9 -0 .6 9.8 -2 .9 8.5 1.0 11.7 -2 .5 8.8 1.8 11.6 -0 .8 8.7 2.7 9.5 1.5 7.4 2.8 5.8 r = revised. Editor’s note Because of production difficulties, tables 28-31 repeat data from the May issue. The tables will be updated in the August issue. 81 WAGE AND COMPENSATION DATA are reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics by a sample of 2,000 private nonfarm estab lishments and 750 State and local government units selected to represent total employment in those sectors. On average, each reporting unit provides wage and compensation information on five well-specified occupations. D a t a f o r t h e e m p l o y m e n t c o s t i n d e x Data on negotiated wage and benefit changes are obtained from contracts on file at the Bureau, direct contact with the parties, and secondary sources. Definitions The Employment Cost Index (ECI) is a quarterly measure of the average change in the cost o f employing labor. The rate of total compensation, which comprises wages, salaries, and employer costs for employee ben efits, is collected for workers performing specified tasks. Employment in each occupation is held constant over time for all series produced in the ECI, except those by region, bargaining status, and area. As a consequence, only changes in compensation are measured. Industry and occupational employment data from the 1970 Census of Population are used in deriving constant weights for the ECI. While holding total industry and occupational employment fixed, in the estimation of indexes by region, bargaining status, and area, the employment in those measures is allowed to vary over time in accord with changes in the sample. The rate of change (in percent) is available for wages and salaries, as well as for total compensation. Data are collected for the pay period including the 12th day of the survey months o f March, June, September, and December. The statistics are neither an nualized nor adjusted for seasonal influence. Wages and salaries consist of earnings before payroll deductions, ex cluding premium pay for overtime, work on weekends and holidays, and shift differentials. Production bonuses, incentive earnings, commissions, and cost-of-living adjustments are included; nonproduction bonuses are included with other supplemental pay items in the benefits category; and payments-in-kind, free room and board, and tips are excluded. B en efits include supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings plans, and hours-related and legally required benefits. Data on negotiated wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. Data on compensation changes apply only to those agreements covering 5,000 workers or more. F ir s t- y e a r wage or compensation changes refer to average negotiated changes for workers covered by settlements reached in the period https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and implemented within the first 12 months after the effective date of the agreement. C h a n g e s o v e r th e life o f th e a g r e e m e n t refer to all adjustments specified in the contract, expressed as an average annual rate. These meas ures exclude wage changes that may occur under cost-of-living adjustment clauses, that are triggered by movements in the Consumer Price Index. W a g e - r a te c h a n g e s are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earn ings; c o m p e n s a tio n c h a n g e s are expressed as a percent of total wages and benefits. Effective wage adjustments reflect all negotiated changes implemented in the reference period, regardless of the settlement date. They include changes from settlements reached during the period, changes deferred from contracts negotiated in an earlier period, and cost-of-living adjustments. The data also reflect contracts providing for no wage adjustment in the period. Effective adjustments and each of their components are prorated over all workers in bargaining units with at least 1,000 workers. Notes on the data The Employment Cost Index data series began in the fourth quarter of 1975, with the quarterly percent change in wages and salaries in the private nonfarm sector. Data on employer costs for employee benefits were in cluded in 1980, to produce a measure of the percent change in employers’ cost for em ployees’ total compensation. State and local government units were added to the ECI coverage in 1981, providing a measure of total compensation change in the civilian nonfarm economy. Data for the broad white-collar, blue-collar, and service worker groups, and the manufacturing, nonmanufacturing, and service industry groups are presented in the ECI. Additional occupation and industry detail are pro vided for the wages and salaries component of total compensation in the private nonfarm sector. For State and local government units, additional industry detail is shown for both total compensation and its wages and salaries component. Historical indexes (June 1981 = 100) of the quarterly rates of changes presented in the ECI are also available. For a more detailed discussion of the ECI, see chapter 11, “ The Em ployment Cost Index,” of the BLS H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s (Bulletin 2134— 1), and the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w articles: “ Employment Cost Index: a measure o f change in the ‘price of labor,’ ” July 1975; “ How benefits will be incorporated into the Employment Cost Index,” January 1978; and “ The Employment Cost Index: recent trends and expansion,” May 1982. Additional data for the ECI and other measures of wage and compen sation changes appear in C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts , a monthly publi cation of the Bureau. 32. Employment Cost Index, by occupation and industry group [June 1981 = 100]_____________________ Percent change 1981 Series March Civilian workers1 ............................................................................... Workers, by occupational group White-collar w o rk e rs ............................................................................... Blue-collar workers ...................................................................... Service workers ............................................................... Workers, by industry division Manufacturing ...................................................... ......................... N onm anufacturing............................................................ Services ............................................................................................ Public administration2 ................................................... Private industry workers Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers ............................................ Blue-collar workers ............................................................................ Service w o rk e rs ............................................................................... Workers, by industry division M anu facturing............................................................ N onm anufacturing................................................................... State and local government workers Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers ......................................................................... Blue-collar w o r k e r s ............................................................................ Workers, by industry division Services ............................................................................ S c h o o ls ............................................................................................ Elementary and secondary ................................................ Hospitals and other services3 ................................................... Public administration2 ............................................................ 1 Excludes farm, household, and Federal workers. C o n s ists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1982 1983 June Sept. Dec. March June Sept. Dec. March 3 months ended 12 months ended Marct 1983 100.0 102.6 104.5 106.3 107.5 110.1 111.4 113.2 1.6 6.5 — — — 100.0 100.0 100 0 102.7 102.3 102.8 104.9 104.1 104.2 106.5 105.7 107.2 107.7 107.1 108.3 110.7 109.2 110.8 111.9 110.5 112.4 113.7 112.3 114.3 1.6 1.6 1.7 6.8 6.2 6.6 — — 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 102.1 102.8 104.4 104.3 104.0 104.8 107.1 106.0 106.0 106.4 108.2 108.1 107.2 107.7 109.2 109.1 109.3 110.5 113.5 112.8 110.4 111.8 115.0 113.6 12.5 11.35 116.6 116.2 1.9 1.5 14 2.3 6.1 6.7 78 7.5 98.1 100.0 102.0 104.0 105 8 107.2 109 3 110.7 112.6 1.7 6.4 98.3 97.8 99.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.8 102.2 101.9 104.0 104.0 103.1 105.8 105.6 106.7 107 2 107.0 107.9 109 5 109.0 109.6 110.8 110.3 111.8 112.8 112.1 113 8 1.8 1.6 1.8 6.6 6.2 6.7 98.0 98.2 100.0 100.0 102.1 102.0 104.0 103.9 106.0 105.7 107.2 107.1 109.3 109.3 110.4 110.8 112.5 112.6 1.9 1.6 6.1 6.5 - 100.0 106.3 107.4 108.8 109.3 114.3 115.1 116.5 1.2 7.1 — 100.0 100 0 106 7 104 2 107.8 105.9 109.1 108.2 109.5 108.9 114.9 112.7 115.8 113.0 117.0 114.9 1.0 1.7 7.2 6.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 105.8 106.0 106.3 105.0 104.3 107.9 107.9 108.3 107.8 106.0 109.0 108.9 109.3 109.5 108.1 109.4 109.1 109.5 110.3 109.1 114.9 114.8 115.6 115.3 112.5 115.9 115.8 116.6 116.0 113.6 116.8 116.6 117.2 117.5 116.2 .8 .7 .5 13 2.3 7.2 7.1 7.2 73 7.5 — — — — — — — — 3 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services. NOTE: Dashes indicate data not available. 83 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Wage-Compensation Data 33. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group [June 1981 = 100] Percent change Civilian workers1 Workers, by occupational group White-collar w o rk e rs ............................................................................... Blue-collar workers ............................................................................... Service workers ...................................................................................... Workers, by industry division Manufacturing ......................................................................................... N onm anufacturing.................................................................................. Services ............................................................................................... Public administration2 ...................................................................... Private industry w orkers............................................................................ Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers ......................................................................... Professional and technical w o r k e r s ............................................ Managers and administrators ...................................................... S a le sw o rke rs................................................................................... Clerical w o rke rs ............................................................................... Blue-collar workers ............................................................................ Craft and kindred w o rk e rs ............................................................ Operatives, except tra n s p o rt......................................................... Transport equipment o p e ra tive s................................................... Nonfarm la b o re rs ............................................................................ Service w o rk e rs ................................................................................... Workers, by industry division M anu facturing...................................................................................... D urables............................................................................................ Nondurables ................................................................................... N onm anufacturing............................................................................... Construction .................................................................................. Transportation and public u tilitie s ............................................... Wholesale and retail tr a d e ............................................................ Wholesale trade ......................................................................... Retail tr a d e .................................................................................. Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te ............................................ S e rvic e s............................................................................................ State and heal government workers Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers ......................................................................... Blue-collar workers ............................................................................ Workers, by industry division Services ............................................................................................... S c h o o ls ............................................................................................ Elementary and secondary ...................................................... Hospitals and other services3 ......................................................... Public administration2 ...................................................................... E xcludes farm, household, and Federal workers. C onsists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 84 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1982 1981 Series 1983 3 months ended 12 months ended March June Sept. Dec. March June Sept. Dec. March - 100.0 102.5 104.4 106.3 107.3 109.7 110.9 112.2 1.2 5.6 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 102.6 102.4 102.5 104.7 104.0 103.6 106.7 106.5 106.8 107.6 106.7 107.9 110.4 108.6 110.1 111.4 109.8 111.8 113.0 110.8 113.2 1.4 .9 1.3 5.9 5.0 6.0 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 102.1 102.7 104.4 103.8 104.0 104.5 106.6 106.5 105.9 106.5 108.6 107.5 107.0 107.5 109.5 108.4 108.8 110.1 113.2 111.9 109.8 111.3 114.4 112.6 111.0 112.7 115.8 114.6 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.8 4.8 5.8 6.6 6.6 98.0 100.0 102.0 103.8 105.9 107.1 109.0 110.3 111.6 1.2 5.4 98.1 98.2 98.6 96.2 98.6 97.7 97.8 97.8 96.8 97.5 99 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.8 103.3 101.6 98.0 102.7 102.3 102.9 102.1 101.0 101.5 101.8 103.9 105.5 102.8 101.9 104.2 103.9 104.3 104.1 102.7 103.3 102.7 106.2 108.0 105.8 I02.2 107.0 105.4 106.2 105.4 103.2 104.1 106.7 107.3 109.4 107.2 101.8 108.3 106.6 107.6 106.6 104.1 105.1 107.9 109.4 111.8 108.5 104.5 110.3 108.5 109.6 108.3 106.0 106.5 109.3 110.6 112.9 109.3 106.2 111.6 109.7 111.2 109.3 106.9 107.8 111.4 112.2 114.8 112.0 105.7 113.4 110.7 112.2 110.0 108.0 109.0 112.9 1.4 1.7 2.5 -.5 1.6 .9 .9 .6 1.0 1.1 1.3 5.6 6.3 5.9 3.4 6.0 5.0 5.6 4.4 4.7 4.7 5.8 97.9 97.9 97.8 98.1 97.6 97.7 98.2 98.5 98.1 95.7 99.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 102.1 102.1 102.0 102.0 103.0 102.0 101.3 102.0 101.0 98.3 103.6 104.0 104.5 103.1 103.8 104.3 103.6 102.3 103.4 101.9 102.3 105.8 105.9 106.3 105.3 105.9 105.9 105.7 103.9 106.3 103.0 103.7 108.8 107.0 107.4 106.3 107.1 107.3 106.9 105.8 108.9 104.5 102.4 110.0 108.8 109.0 108.5 109.1 109.1 109.5 106.5 109.0 106.5 106.1 112.5 109.8 110.3 109.1 110.5 109.7 111.1 107.2 109.8 106.1 109.0 114.3 111.0 111.1 110.9 112.0 110.4 112.9 108.5 111.8 107.2 110.6 116.0 1.1 .7 1.6 1.4 .6 1.6 1.2 1.8 1.0 1.5 1.5 4.8 4.5 5.3 5.8 4.2 6.8 4.4 5.2 4.1 6.7 6.6 _ 100.0 105.0 107.0 108.2 108.7 113.5 114.0 115.1 1.0 6.4 — 100.0 100.0 105.4 103.9 107.5 105.5 108.5 107.5 108.9 107.9 114.2 111.5 114.6 112.0 115.6 113.3 .9 1.2 6.5 5.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 105.5 105.7 106.0 104.6 103.8 107.6 107,7 107.9 107.3 105.5 108.4 108.3 108.7 108.8 107.5 108.8 108.5 108.8 109.5 108.4 114.2 114.2 114.9 114.3 111.9 114.6 114.5 115.1 114.9 112.6 115.5 115.2 115.6 116.5 114.6 .8 .6 .4 1.4 1.8 6.5 6.4 6.3 7.1 6.6 — — — — — — — — — — — in clu d e s, for example, library, social and health services. NOTE: Dashes indicate data not available. March 1983 34. Employment Cost Index, private Industry workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size [June 1981 = 100] Percent change 1981 Series 1982 1983 3 months ended 12 months ended March June Sept. Oec. March June Sept. Dec. March 97.6 102.5 102.3 102.7 104.8 104.6 105.0 106.5 106.3 106.8 108.4 108.0 108.7 110.6 110.3 111.0 112.3 111.8 112.8 114.5 114.0 114.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 7.5 7.2 7.6 March 1983 COMPENSATION Workers, by bargaining status1 Union .................................................................................................... Manufacturing .................................................................................. Nonmanufacturing............................................................................ — 100.0 100.0 100.0 Nonunion .............................................................................................. Manufacturing .................................................................................. Nonmanufacturing............................................................................ 98.4 — — 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.7 101.8 101.7 103.5 103.5 103.5 105.3 105.7 106.2 106.5 106.6 106.4 108.5 106.4 108.6 109.7 109.2 109.9 111.5 111.2 111.6 1.6 1.8 1.5 5.9 5.2 6.1 Workers, by area size1 Metropolitan areas ............................................................................... Other areas ........................................................................................... 98.1 98.1 100.0 100.0 102.1 101.8 104.1 103.2 105.7 106.2 107.2 107.0 109.4 108.6 110.9 109.1 112.9 110.8 1.8 1.6 6.8 4.3 Workers, by bargaining status1 Union .................................................................................................... Manufacturing .................................................................................. Nonmanufacturing............................................................................ 97.4 97.7 97.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 102.7 102.6 102.8 105.0 104.7 105.2 106.5 105.9 107.0 108.1 107.3 108.8 110.3 109.5 111.1 111.8 110.8 112.7 112.9 111.4 114.3 1.0 .5 1.4 6.0 5.2 6.8 Nonunion .............................................................................................. Manufacturing .................................................................................. Nonmanufacturing............................................................................ 98 2 97.9 98.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.6 101.7 101.6 103.2 103.3 103.2 105.6 105.9 105.5 106.5 106.7 106.4 108.3 108.2 108.3 109.5 109.1 109.6 110.9 110.7 111.0 1.3 1.5 1.3 5.0 4.5 5.2 Workers, by region1 Northeast .............................................................................................. South .................................................................................................... North Central ........................................................................................ W e st....................................................................................................... 98.3 98.0 98.1 97.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.7 101.9 101.6 103.2 104.4 102.8 103.3 105.1 106.1 105.7 104.7 107.9 106.7 107.4 106.1 108.6 109.7 108.8 107.6 110.7 111.5 109.8 108.6 112.0 112.0 111.4 110.1 114.1 .4 1.5 1.4 1.9 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.7 Workers by area size1 Metropolitan areas ............................................................................... Otner areas ........................................................................................... 97.9 98.3 100.0 100.0 102.1 101.8 104.0 103.1 105.9 106.0 107.1 106.8 109.1 108.3 110.5 108.8 111.9 110.1 1.3 1.2 5.7 3.9 — WAGES AND SALARIES 1The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and Industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see BLS H a n d b o o k o f M e t h o d s , Bulletin 1910. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 85 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Wage-Compensation Data 35. Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1978 to date [In percent]_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Quarterly average Annual average Measure 1981 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 8.3 6.3 9.0 6.6 10.4 7.1 10.2 8.3 First year of contract .......................... Annual rate over life of contract............ 7.6 6.4 7.4 6.0 9.5 7.1 Manufacturing: First year of contract .......................... Annual rate over life of contract............ 8.3 6.6 6.9 5.4 Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction): First year of contract .......................... Annual rate over life of contract............ 8.0 6.5 Construction: First year of contract .......................... Annual rate over life of contract............ 6.5 6.2 1982 1983P II III IV 1 II III IV 3.2 2.8 11.6 10.8 10.5 8.1 11.0 5.8 1.9 1.2 2.6 2.1 6.2 4.7 3.3 4.8 - 1 .8 1.4 9.8 7.9 3.8 3.6 11.8 9.7 10.8 8.7 9.0 5.7 3.0 2.8 3.4 3.2 5.4 4.5 3.8 4.8 -1 .4 2.2 7.4 5.4 7.2 6.1 2.8 2.6 8.2 6.7 9.0 7.5 6.6 5.4 2.5 2.7 1.8 1.7 5.1 3.9 4.1 4.5 -3 .5 .8 7.6 6.2 9.5 6.6 9.8 7.3 4.3 4.1 11.8 9.1 8.6 7.2 9.6 5.6 2.7 2.1 6.6 6.1 5.5 4.8 3.6 5.2 3.8 5.9 8.8 8.3 13.6 11.5 13.5 11.3 6.5 6.3 12.9 11.1 16.4 12.4 11.4 11.7 8.6 8.2 6.2 6.3 6.3 5.9 3.4 2.9 -.2 2.6 I Total compensation changes, covering 5,000 workers or more, all industries: First year of contract .......................... Annual rate over life of contract............ Wage rate changes covering at least 1,000 workers, all industries: p = preliminary. 36. Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1978 to date Year Measure Year and quarter 1981 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983P 1982 II III IV I II III IV 1 Average percent adjustment (including no change): All industries..................................................................................... Manufacturing............................................................................... Nonmanufacturing.......................................................................... 8.2 8.6 7.9 9.1 9.6 8.8 9.9 10.2 9.7 9.5 9.4 9.5 6.8 5.2 7.9 3.2 2.4 3.8 3.3 3.1 3.4 1.5 1.9 1.1 1.0 .9 1.1 2.0 1.0 2.7 2.4 1.7 2.9 1.3 1.5 1.2 0.3 - .4 .8 From settlements reached in period.................................................. Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period........................ From cost-of-living clauses .............................................................. 2.0 3.7 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.6 3.5 2.8 2.5 3.8 3.2 1.7 3.6 1.4 1.1 1.4 .7 .5 1.5 1.2 .4 ,4 .6 .2 .6 .3 .4 1.4 .2 .5 1.3 .6 6 .4 .3 - .2 .4 .1 Total number of workers receiving wage change (in thousands)1 ............................................................................. — — — 8,648 7,852 4,701 4,364 3,225 2,878 3,423 3,760 3,441 2,927 — — — 2,270 1,907 909 540 604 204 511 620 825 412 6,267 4,593 4,846 3,830 2,055 2,669 3,023 2,934 882 2,179 1,001 1,920 1,594 1,568 2,400 2,251 860 1,970 819 2,005 145 483 4,092 4,428 5,568 5,457 4,912 4,575 4,895 5,364 From settlements reached in period........................................................................................ Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period .............................................................. From cost-of-living clauses .............................................................. Number of workers receiving no adjustments (in thousands)............................................................................... — — — — — — — — — 1The total number of workers who received adjustments does not equal the sum of workers that received each type of adjustment, because some workers received more than one type of adjustment during the period 86 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis p = preliminary, WORK STOPPAGE DATA Estimates of days idle as a percent of estimated working time measures only the impact of larger strikes (1,000 workers or more). Formerly, these estimates measured the impact of strikes involving 6 workers or more; that is, the impact of virtually a l l strikes. Due to budget stringencies, collection of data on strikes involving 6 workers or more was discontinued with the December 1981 data. W o r k s t o p p a g e s include all known strikes or lockouts involving 37. 1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Data are based largely on newspaper accounts and cover all workers idle one shift or more in establishments directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material or service shortages. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date Number of stoppages Month and year 1947 1948 1949 1950 Beginning in month or year Workers involved In effect during month Beginning in month or year (in thousands) Days idle In effect during month (in thousands) Number (in thousands) Percent of estimated working time .......................................................................... ........................................................................................... ........................................................................................... ................................................................................................. 270 245 262 424 1 629 1 435 2 537 1 698 25,720 26,127 43,420 30,390 1951................................................................................................. 1952 ................................................................................................. 1953 ................................................................................................. 1954 ................................................................................................. 1955 ................................................................................................. 415 470 437 265 363 1 462 2 746 1 623 1 075 2 055 15,070 48,820 18,130 16,630 21,180 .12 .38 .14 .13 .16 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. 287 279 332 245 222 1 370 887 1 587 1 381 896 26,840 10,340 17,900 60,850 13,260 .20 .07 .13 .43 .09 1961................................................................................................. 1962 ................................................................................................. 1963 ................................................................................................. 1964 ................................................................................................. 1965 ................................................................................................. 195 211 181 246 268 1 031 793 512 1 183 999 10.140 11,760 10,020 16,220 15.140 .07 .08 .07 .11 .10 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. 321 381 392 412 381 1 300 2 192 1 855 1 576 2 468 16,000 31,320 35,567 29,397 52,761 .10 1 97 1 ................................................................................................. 1972 ................................................................................................. 1973 ................................................................................................. 1974 ................................................................................................. 1975 ................................................................................................. 298 250 317 424 235 2 516 975 1 400 1 796 965 35,538 16.764 16,260 31,809 17,563 .19 .09 .08 .16 .09 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. ........................................................................................... ................................................................................................. 231 298 219 235 187 1 519 1 212 1 006 1 021 795 23,962 21,258 23,774 20,409 20,844 .12 .10 .11 .09 .09 1 98 1 ................................................................................................. 1982 ................................................................................................. 145 96 729 656 16,908 9,061 .07 .04 .22 .38 .26 .18 .20 .16 .29 1982 January ......................................................................... February ......................................................................... Ma.'ch ................................................................... April ............................................................................... May ............................................................................... 2 3 4 14 15 4 7 9 21 23 6.1 3.9 13.3 59.5 42.7 11.4 15.3 26.1 79.1 66.1 202.8 241.1 357.0 533.1 657.6 .01 .01 .02 .03 .04 1983P January ......................................................................... February ......................................................................... March ............................................................................ A pri ............................................................................... May ............................................................................... 1 5 3 7 9 9 12 1.6 14.0 9.0 2.8 17.6 38.0 50.4 53.4 52.4 26.9 794.8 844.4 1,270.0 789.5 437.2 .04 .05 .05 .04 02 4 2 7 p = preliminary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 87 Published by BLS in May SALES PUBLICATIONS Area Wage Survey Bulletins BLS Summaries These bulletins cover o ffice, professional, technical, m aintenance, custodial, and material m ovem ent occupations in major m etropolitan areas. The annual series o f 70 is available by subscription for $115 per year. Individual area bulletins are also available separately. Published in May: O ccupational Earnings and W age Trends in M etropolitan Areas, 1982. Summary 83-1 (N o. 3 o f 3), 10 pp. Davenport-Rock Island-M oline, Iow a-Illinois, M etropolitan Area, February 1983. Bulletin 3020-5, 42 p p .,$4.50 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-90198-4). Mailgram Periodicals CPI Detailed Report. March issue provides a comprehensive report on m ovem ents o f the CPI-U and CPI-W for the m onth; an explanation o f changes in the m easurem ent o f hom eownership costs; a list o f title and definition changes in the C P I-U , January 1983; relative im portance, C PI-U and CPI-U (old series), December 1982; statistical tables, charts, and technical notes. 103 p p ., $5 ($28 per year). Current W age D evelopm ents. April issue includes collective bargaining activity in 1982, selected wage and benefit changes, major agreements expiring in M ay, and statistics on work stoppages and com pensation changes. 74 p p ., $4.50 ($23 per year). Em ploym ent and Earnings. May issue covers em ploym ent and unem ploym ent developm ents in April, annual averages for States and areas, plus regular statistical tables on national, State, and area em ploym ent, unem ploym ent, hours, and earn ings. 167 p p ., $6 ($39 per year). O ccupational O utlook Quarterly. Spring issue features articles on em ploym ent trends in the building trades; com puter program mers; glassblowing; careers in associations; characteristics o f job entrants in 1980-81; a fresh look at job openings; and m oonlighting. 36 p p ., $4.50 ($9 per year). Producer Prices and Price Indexes. March issue includes a com prehensive report on price m ovem ents for the m onth, plus regular tables and technical notes. 123 pp. $5 ($34 per year). U .S . Department o f State Indexes o f Living Costs A broad, Quarters A llow ances, and Hardship D ifferentials. Tabulations com puted quarterly by the Allow ances S taff o f the Department o f State for use in establishing allowances to com pensate Am erican civilian governm ent em ployees for costs and hard ships related to assignm ents abroad. The inform ation is also us ed by m any business firms and private organizations to assist in establishing private com pensation system s. 8 p p ., $1.75 ($6.50 per year). OTHER DATA SERVICES Consum er price index data summary by mailgram within 24 hours o f the CPI release. Provides unadjusted and seasonally adjusted U .S . City Average data for All Urban Consum ers (C PI-U ) and for Urban W age Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W ). (N T ISU B /158). $125 in contiguous United States. Magnetic Tapes BLS offers for sale on m agnetic tapes historical data, including the follow ing regularly updated time series: Producer, consum er, and industry price indexes; the labor force, unem ploym ent, em ploym ent, hours, and earnings, industry and Federal G overn ment productivity; im ports by tariff and industrial com m odity classes; international labor and price trend com parisons; and in dexes o f em ployer com pensation costs. BLS also offers for sale m icro-data tapes containing inform ation on consum ers’ expenditures and characteristics collected during the 1980 and 1981 Diary com ponent o f the new ongoing C on sumer Expenditure Survey. The data, collected from samples o f approximately 5,000 consum er units in each year, include w eek ly expenditures for food , alcoholic beverages, tobacco, personal care products, housekeeping supplies, nonprescription drugs, gasoline, and household fuels. A lso provided are socioeconom ic characteristics specific to each consum er unit. Price range: A pproxim ately $50-$200. Telephone Summary A recorded summary o f principal C P I, P P I, and Em ploym ent Situation numbers is available 24 hours a day on (202) 523-9658. To order: S a le s p u b l i c a t i o n s — Order from BLS regional offices (see inside front cover), or the Superintendent o f D ocum ents, U .S . G overn ment Printing O ffice, W ashington, D .C . 20402. Order by title and G PO stock number. Subscriptions available o n l y from the Superintendent o f D ocum ents. Orders can be charged to a deposit account number or checks can be made payable to the Superintend ent o f D ocum ents. Visa and MasterCard are also accepted. Include card number and expiration date. F r e e p u b l i c a t i o n s — A vailable from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, FREE PUBLICATIONS BLS Reports Evaluating Your Firm ’s Injury and Illness R ecord, 1981: W holesale and Retail Trade Industries, Report 681, 13 pp. This report provides a means o f comparing a firm’s safety record with the record o f other firms o f similar size and with the industry as a w hole. Presented are tabulations o f occupational injury and illness incidence rates for the industry by em ploym ent size and quartile distribution. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis U .S . Department o f Labor, W ashington, D .C . 20212 or from any BLS regional office. Request regional office publications from the issuing office. Free publications are available while supplies last. M a ilg r a m s e r v i c e — A vailable from the National Technical Infor m ation Service, U .S . Department o f Com m erce, 5285 Port Royal R oad, Springfield, Virginia 22151. M a g n e tic t a p e s — H istorical m achine-readable data for m ost BLS surveys are available on m agnetic tapes from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, D ivision o f Financial Planning and M anagem ent, W ashington, D .C . 20212. ☆ U .S. GOVERNMENT P R IN T IN G O F F I C E : 19 83-381-258/502 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Major Collective Bargaining Agreements A series of in-depth studies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of contract clauses in labor-management agreements. The studies are widely used by negotiators, arbitrators, mediators, personnel administrators, policy makers, and industrial relations researchers. The final publication in this series, U n io n S e c u rity a n d D u e s C h e c k o ff P ro v is io n s , and four other recent studies are available from BLS regional offices and from the Government Printing Office. Use the form below to order all five current bulletins in the series. Send your order to the BLS regional office nearest you: 1603 JFK Building Boston, MA 02203 Suite 3400 1515 Broadway New York, NY 10036 PO. Box 13309 Philadelphia, PA 19101 1371 PeachtreeSt.,NE. Atlanta, GA 30367 9th Floor Federal Office Building 230 South-Dearborn St. Chicago, IL 60604 2nd Floor 555 Griffin Square Bldg. Dallas, TX 75202 911 Walnut St. Kansas City, MO 64106 You may also send your order directly to: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20402 450 Golden Gate Ave. Box 36017 San Francisco, CA 94102 Title Bulletin No. GPO Stock No. Price □ Wage A d m in is tra tio n P rovisions 1425-17 029-001-02209-3 $5.50 □ W age-Incentive, P ro d u ctio n -S ta n d a rd , and T im e -S tu d y P rovisions 1425-18 029-001-02378-2 $5.00 □ E m p lo ye r Pay and Leave fo r U nion Business 1425-19 029-001-02516-5 $5.50 □ Plant M ovem ent, In te rp la n t T ransfer, and R elocation A llow ances 1425-20 029-001-02602-1 $5.50 □ Union Security and Dues C heckoff Provisions 1425-21 029-001-02707-9 $4.75 Total Order □ Enclosed Is check or money order payable to Superintendent of Documents. □ Charge to GPO Deposit Account No._____________________ ___ D Charge to MasterCard? Account No.__________________________ Expiration date □ Charge to VISA? Account No__________________________ Expiration date 'Available only on orders sent directly to Superintendent of Documents. Name Organization (if applicable) Street address City, State, ZIP Code U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington D.C. 20212 Official Business Penalty for private use, $30C Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Department of Labor Lab-441 SECOND CLASS MAIL RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MLR L I B R A 4 4 2 L IS S U U E Ü Ü S R . L IB R A R Y FED RESERVE BANK ÜP ST LO U IS PO BOX 4 A 2 S A IN T L O U IS MO 63166
@FedFRASER