The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
.Vv S r-^ ^ 4 Of j& rL ' L o u is MOWXHLY.LABQR REVIEW t K”, i U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics July 1985 , : - ■ " m% In this issue: 100 years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Foreign-born workers in the United States Measuring labor force flows https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR William E. Brock, 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—$24 domestic; $30 foreign. Single copy $4, domestic; $5 foreign. Subscription prices and distribution policies for the Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) 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 I «Ewe* Regional Commissioners for Bureau of Labor Statistics Region I—Boston: Anthony J. Ferrara 1603 John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, Mass 02203 Phone: (617) 223-6761 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont Region II— New York: Samuel M Ehrenhalt 1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N.Y. 10036 Phone: (212) 944-3121 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Region III— Philadelphia: Alvin I. Margulis 3535 Market Street P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 Phone: (215) 596-1154 Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Region IV—Atlanta: Donald M. Cruse 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30367 Phone: (404) 881-4418 Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Region V—Chicago: 9th Floor. Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago. III. 60604 Phone: (312) 353-1880 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Region VI— Dallas: Bryan Richey Federal Building, Room 221 525 Griffin Street. Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone: (214) 767-6971 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Regions VII and VIII— Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar 911 Walnut Street. Kansas City, Mo. 64106 Phone: (816) 374-2481 VII Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska VIII Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming July cover: "Big Hoist," Vehicle Assembly Building. Kennedy Space Center, Florida, a drawing by Franklin McMahon, photograph courtesy National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C. Cover design by Richard L. Mathews https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regions IX and X— San Francisco: Sam M. Hirabayashi 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017, San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Phone: (415) 556-4678 IX American Somoa Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington mir MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW JULY 1985 VOLUME 108, NUMBER 7 Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor Janet L. Norwood 3 One hundred years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics After its creation in 1884, the Bureau embarked on investigation of a wide range of issues affecting working men and women, a pattern still evident in today’s agenda Paul O. Flaim, Carma R. Hogue 7 Measuring labor force flows: a conference examines the problems A large number of persons move into and out of the labor force and to and from employment and unemployment each month, but measurement of these flows has proved difficult Ellen Sehgal 18 Foreign-born workers in the U.S. labor market: a special survey New data from the Current Population Survey confirm that recent arrivals encounter labor market hardship, but over time their progress rivals that of the native born Roy J. Adams 25 Should works councils be used as industrial relations policy? Labor and management have generally opposed the European works council concept, but Canadian experience with mandatory panels indicates idea might work in U.S. CONFERENCE PAPERS John T. Dunlop 30 Interdisciplinary approach to labor markets and wage determination R. F. Cook, W. M. Turnage 32 The new Federal-State program to train dislocated workers Everett M. Kassalow 35 Four nations’ policies toward displaced steel workers Mark R. Killingsworth 39 Comparable worth in the job market: estimating its effects Michael Wallace 41 Technological changes in printing: union response in three countries G. S. Fields, 0. S. Mitchell 44 Estimating the effects of changing Social Security benefit formulas REPORTS Alice A. Lippert 46 Trip expenditure comparisons from 1972-73 to 1980-81 Anne McDougall Young 49 New monthly data series on school age youth Donald G. Schmitt 50 Tips: the mainstay of many hotel workers’ pay https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis DEPARTMENTS 2 30 46 49 52 54 58 61 Labor month in review Conference papers Anatomy of price change Research summaries Major agreements expiring next month Developments in industrial relations Book reviews Current labor statistics Labor M onth In Review JOB OUTLOOK. Commissioner of Labor Statistics Janet L. Norwood challenged several widely held views on the future of the U.S. job market in a keynote address, June 11, to the 5th In ternational Symposium on Forecasting in Montreal, Canada. Norwood noted that many people view present trends in the workplace as having negative conse quences on future wages, productivity, and even job creation. According to Norwood, this pessimistic view is based largely on the perceived effects of our shift towards a service-producing economy and, related to that, the loss of many factory jobs. Here are excerpts from her address. Productivity growth. Over the last decade, the longer term growth rates in productivity in the U.S. business economy have fallen substantially. Some people believe that the productivity pro blem is, in part, a reflection of the shift to the service-producing sector. In dustries in the service-producing sector are believed by some to have a lower productivity growth than industries in the goods-producing sector, and their greater importance over recent decades is believed to have contributed to the productivity deceleration in the business economy. Industries in the service-producing sector are also believed to have a lower level of productivity than the goodsproducing industries, and therefore the increasing importance of the serviceproducing industries is thought by some to have pulled down the overall level of productivity in the economy relative to previous periods. The evidence from b l s data do not support these conclusions. The produc tivity growth rates of the serviceproducing industries vary substantially; they are not uniformly lower than those of goods-producing industries. Some service-producing industries, such as telephone communications, gasoline ser vice stations, and air transportation, had 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis very high productivity growth rates over the 1973-83 period. Others, such as commercial banking, gas and electric utilities, laundry and cleaning services, showed very small productivity growth rates and, in some cases, declines. These industries did contribute to the reduc tion in productivity growth, as did many goods-producing industries. In general, however, the range of growth rates in the service-producing industries was very wide and had no disproportionate effect on productivity growth in the business economy. Wage structure. There are many who believe that the wage structure of the United States is shifting away from the high-paying manufacturing jobs toward low-paying jobs in services. I think that this notion stems from several sources. A large number of U.S. workers have lost jobs in the smokestack industries. These workers traditionally have been viewed as the backbone of the bluecollar labor force, the heart of the trade union movement, and the prime exam ple of the improved prosperity of U.S. workers in general. High tech industries, which have been an important source of growth in recent years, are thought to be dominated by a small number of highwage professionals and a large number of low-wage production workers, with few jobs in the middle. Jobs in the service-producing sector are thought of as requiring little skill and paying little more than the legally required minimum wage. In addition, many jobs in the huge, fast-growing service-producing sector are seen as part time or dead-end. Does the evidence support this view? What do we know about the types of jobs that are growing now and which we expect to continue to grow through the next decade or so? We know that the job loss in highwage manufacturing industries has been severe. We know that workers displaced from these jobs are primarily men who have held them for some time, tend to have family obligations, and are not as mobile as younger workers. But the job losses have been just as severe at the bot tom end of the manufacturing wage structure, especially in such industries as textiles, apparel, and leather. In fact, job losses in these industries have been going on for many years. Workers displaced from some of these low-paying industries tend to be disproportionately female and minority group members who always have a difficult time in the labor market. The service-producing sector is so diverse that its jobs cannot be categoriz ed as either high wage or low wage. In fact, it is that diversity itself that makes the sector somewhat unique. Many very low-wage workers are employed in the service sector—in fast-food restaurants, in personal service establishments, or in nursing homes. But this sector is also the home of computer services, legal ser vices, advertising, and communications, where workers, on average, earn fairly high wages. And then there are workers in insurance, wholesale trade, and auto repair who earn near-average earnings. Thus, the stereotype of jobs in the fastgrowth services sector as low paid and dead-end is not an accurate description of many of the jobs in this sector. And we must also remember that the occupational composition of the Nation’s jobs is also shifting markedly. We need more research to determine ex actly how the occupational and in dustrial restructuring that has been tak ing place affects the prosperity of workers in the United States, b l s research completed thus far shows some shift in employment toward high-paying occupations and some reduction in employment in lower paying occupa tions. Single copies of Commissioner Nor wood’s address are available from In quiries and Correspondence Section, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D .C .20212. □ One hundred years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Following its establishment in 1884, the Bureau embarked on investigation o f a wide range o f issues affecting working men and women; major advances in survey scope and technique over the years have enhanced these efforts Ja n e t L. N orw ood It is now 100 years since the law creating a Bureau of Labor in the Department of the Interior was signed by President Chester A. Arthur. The new Bureau, which until 1913 func tioned as the only Federal agency concerned with the world of work, was directed by the Congress to collect information in the labor field. The first b l s Commissioner— Carroll D. Wright— un derstood the importance of employer-employee relation ships in the U.S. economy. He recognized the role that objective information could play in the development of an atmosphere in which workers could realize their full poten tial and industry could be innovative and efficient. He be lieved that disinterested information could promote effective, rational, and equitable decisionmaking. It was Wright who established the motto that has, during the past century, be come the hallmark of the b l s — “judicious investigations and the fearless publication of the results thereof. ’’1 Early interests Carroll Wright’s early Bureau, with a staff of three and a budget of $25,000, was a far cry from the b l s of today, a well-established institution of some 2,000 employees with a budget of more than $170 million. But its activities fore shadowed the range of areas in which we continue to operate today. In its first quarter of a century, for example, the Janet L. Norwood is U.S. Commissioner of Labor Statistics. This article is based on her address to a special plenary session o f the annual meeting o f the Industrial Relations Research Association, Dallas, t x , Dec. 28, 1984. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Bureau gathered information on working conditions. Also during this early period, and especially between its estab lishment in 1884 and its merger into the new Department of Labor in 1913, the Bureau of Labor investigated and reported on just about every important labor dispute in the country. Commissioner Wright’s agents gathered data on the Missouri and Wabash and the Southwest railroad strikes of the middle 1880’s. Bureau agents collected information on labor conflicts in the Pennsylvania anthracite coal fields and in the Colorado mines in the early 1900’s. Wright him self was involved, at the request of the President, in inves tigating the Pullman strike in 1894, and served as recorder for the Anthracite Coal Commission following a 1902 strike. Bureau agents also investigated the packinghouse strikes in Chicago during 1904. Charles P. Neill, the Bureau’s second Commissioner, helped to conciliate more than 50 railroad disputes under the Erdman Act, and Neill himself or the Bureau staff in vestigated almost all of the major strikes of the period. Later commissioners studied such issues as industrial democracy, technological displacement, and pensions; collected infor mation on changing conditions in industry; and provided data for major collective bargaining situations. The first important study undertaken by the new Bureau of Labor dealt with the industrial turmoil growing out of the depression of 1873-78 and the recurrent labor disputes of the 1870’s and the 1880’s. In addition to presenting data, the study sought to explain the background of this unrest and to propose some remedies. For one thing, Commissioner 3 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • One Hundred Years o f BLS Wright suggested that capital and labor “ each shall treat with the other through representatives” in disputes, and suggested further that the party refusing conciliatory meth ods could be considered as responsible for the full effects growing out of the dispute.2 Interest in collective bargaining issues, therefore, began early in the history of the b l s . In those days, the agency was viewed as a part of a movement for social reform. In addition to developing reports to shed light on the social and economic issues of the day, Commissioners were called upon to mediate industrial disputes and to advise the Gov ernment on a broad range of labor issues. Indeed, the Bureau performed many of the tasks which today are performed by other parts of the Department of Labor. In a very real sense, therefore, this observance of the Bureau’s centennial is an observance of Federal involvement in issues relating to the working men and women of this country. The establishment of the Bureau of Labor was, in fact, evidence of the interest of the Congress in the plight of the American worker. As one Congressman put it during debate on the legislation creating the new Bureau: “ A great deal of public attention in and out of Congress has been given to the American hog and the American steer, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is time to give more attention to the American man.” 3 These early activities in the industrial relations of this growing country produced a large series of reports, findings, and data, as well as a number of statements supporting collective bargaining, mediation, and conciliation. But the Bureau also collected a good deal of information on earnings and working conditions. Data collection was not easy. Bu reau agents went out to business establishments to search their records for data. Numbers were carefully transcribed onto previously tested collection schedules, properly veri fied, then combined into estimates for publication. This early work on conditions of employment had many problems. Indeed, some of them remain unsolved to this day. The Bureau found, for example, that hours of work and earnings were frequently reported differently by em ployers and by employees. In addition, the earnings levels— and particularly their reliability— looked very different de pending on whether the point of collection was the worker or the employer. Data collection also presented problems. Then, as now, high-wage employers were happy to report their wage prac tices, whereas those paying very low wages were less eager to expose their positions. The Bureau’s strict rules on con fidentiality of data, which began with the administration of Commissioner Wright, have gone a long way toward break ing down this reticence. Response rate issues also dogged the early data collectors. Special efforts were made to increase responses to Bureau surveys. Indeed, as the commissioner of one of the State bureaus of labor statistics commented in reporting on the work of his agency in 1885: 4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis If questions are asked of five hundred men indiscriminately, and two hundred actually give answers, these two hundred will not be average representatives of the whole five hundred. They will, on the average, have more brains than the other three hundred. The very fact that they answer, while the others do not, shows this.4 As the Bureau developed, its data base grew. And the approach taken in its reports and analyses was very broad. It is interesting to look at some of the early reports. For example, Working Women in Large Cities, which was pub lished in the Bureau’s fourth year of existence, was a real trailblazer. The first of its kind, that study of women work ing in city “ manufactories” covered 354 industries in 22 cities. Data for the study were collected by women who were paid the same wages as the male agents of the Bureau. In this respect, the Bureau was ahead of its time. The report itself is full of concern for the plight of women workers, who earned generally no more than $2 to $3 per week. “ . . . the figures tell a sad story, [the report declares] and one is forced to ask how women can live on such earnings. ” 5 Statistics were presented on women’s wages and general working conditions, incomes and expenses, as well as home surroundings. The study on working women was but one of the early reviews of the economic and social conditions of workers and their families. In this work, one can see a recognition of the difficulties in interpreting aggregates and averages. Indeed, as early as 1889, we find Commissioner Wright lecturing his State colleagues on the employment mix prob lem. He pointed out that there were many temporary workers on the railroads, many of whom did not work full time. It is very easy, he said, to obtain two simple facts from the railroads— the aggregate wages paid and the total number of workers employed at a given time. Division of one num ber by the other results, Wright said, in “ a vicious quotient” to represent the average earnings of all railroad workers in the country. This general average could be quite misleading, he maintained, and insisted that those involved with data collection work out methods to “ individualize” the ac counts so that the actual earnings of each worker would be properly reported.6 It took many years for the Bureau’s occupational wage surveys in major industries and in particular areas of the country to solve some of these problems. Indeed, the av erage earnings series from the b l s Current Employment Statistics program, a monthly Federal-State cooperative sur vey of business establishments, is still based on aggregate earnings and employment figures collected from company payroll records. This b l s business survey was also the basis of some of the country’s earliest efforts to estimate the number of work ers who had lost their jobs. Long before the Current Pop ulation Survey, which today provides both employment and unemployment data from households, was begun by the Works Progress Administration, b l s reports on payroll em- ployment constituted the most important source of contin uing information on the number of workers in the country. Indeed, when the Congress requested unemployment figures from the Secretary of Labor, he turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for an estimate. Pointing to the differences between unemployment and a reduction in payroll employ ment, the Bureau responded with an estimate of the “ shrink age in employment” as measured in its business survey.7 A reading of this history sometimes helps to put into context the problems we have in explaining some of the differences between the current estimates from the household survey and the business survey. With the Great Depression and the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt came development of a system of social benefits, as well as landmark labor legislation such as the WagnerPeyser Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. Later, World War II brought govern ment wage and price stabilization programs. The b l s refined and expanded its activities to provide data needed for these new initiatives. The number of occupational industry wage surveys was increased, a system of area wage surveys was inaugurated, and a comprehensive approach to information on and for collective bargaining was put in place. The record of recent years During the Commissionership of Geoffrey Moore (196973), a new and innovative approach was established for analysis of wage developments with publication of the b l s Employment Cost Index ( e c i ). The e c i , a Laspeyres index based on a fixed-employment-weighted market basket of occupations in establishments, controls for both occupa tional and employment shifts over time. The index— which filled an important void in the Nation’s economic intelli gence system— has become increasingly important as the structure of earnings has shifted from reliance on wage rates to greater emphasis on nonwage compensation or fringe benefits. The e c i needs expansion— in occupations, establish ments, industries, and areas— for economic and social anal ysis to be made available to users. We are currently developing plans at b l s to re weight the e c i , to expand its detail in the service-producing sector, and to find methods to provide levels, as well as rates of change, for employer costs of wages and fringe benefits. We at b l s have not forgotten our heritage. We understand the need for revising and rescaling our programs to provide the kind of data required for modem collective bargaining as well as for analysis of economic and social developments at the micro level. Although budget cuts during recent years forced some retrenchment in the b l s industrial relations and collective bargaining programs, we nevertheless continue to provide a large body of data bearing on issues in labormanagement relations. Our quarterly series on major col lective bargaining settlements in private industry continues to reflect the results of successful labor-management ne https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis gotiations. This series was recently supplemented with a semiannual series on settlements in State and local govern ment bargaining units with 1,000 employees or more. We have also maintained our monthly Current Wage Developments reports on individual bargaining settlements and major work stoppages, as well as our collective bar gaining agreement public reference file. In addition, we began publishing data on union membership from the Cur rent Population Survey ( c p s ) in January 1985. This set of data from the household survey permits analysis relating union membership to the rich body of demographic data collected in the c p s . In spite of this work, however, we know that more data are needed. Collective bargaining is a dynamic process, and our programs must keep abreast of important changes. We have asked both our business and our labor advisory com mittees for advice on their data needs for collective bar gaining. We believe that the collective bargaining process can take place fairly only when decisions are made in a knowledgeable atmosphere. A new initiative is required, based upon the needs of both business and labor, which takes account of the conditions under which collective bar gaining is conducted today. I believe that development of new measures in this area is very much in the public interest. We also need to know more than we now do about changes in employer practices and conditions of employment. More attention needs to be given to the collection of an integrated set of data covering wage and employment conditions for analysis that can be accomplished in a longitudinal frame work. Information on the safety and health of the workplace is now, and will continue to be, an essential element in im proving conditions of work. We have recently begun to work more closely with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the National Center for Health Sta tistics to coordinate available data sources and to develop long-range improvement plans. Outlook The Bureau of Labor Statistics is now 100 years old. Its program over the past century has changed with the times. The Bureau began by producing a large body of information touching on most of the social and economic issues of the labor markets of the time. Over the years, the Bureau’s output has moved from the collection of data on social issues to the development of information on economic problems, from one-time publication of statistics on particular indus tries in a few cities to regular time series for the Nation as a whole. Through the years, the pendulum of focus has swung back and forth between social data and economic data and between micro and macro series. The Bureau has been faced with the problem of setting priorities for use of limited resources in a period of increas ing use of statistics in public policy programs. At the same time, there has been increasing demand for data by a pop5 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • One Hundred Years o f BLS ulation concerned with understanding the complex issues that confront the country as well as by traditional groups of data users. A 1.0-percent change in the Consumer Price Index, originally developed for wage adjustment, now trig gers $2 billion to $2.5 billion in Federal expenditures for entitlement programs.8 Published unemployment rates de termine the allocation of Federal funds to States and local areas, b l s average earnings and producer price series are used to escalate payments in long-term defense contracts. Over the last two decades, as the uses of b l s data have grown, the Bureau has been reassessing its priorities and spending more time and money than before to modernize and to improve the quality of some of its series. During the last 100 years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has, I believe, contributed to an understanding of labor conditions themselves and to the effective functioning of wage determination and collective bargaining. We have just begun the Bureau’s second century. As we move forward, we need to act rapidly to keep our data systems relevant and accurate. The world of the labor market changes quickly. It is only by providing a data base that reflects these social and economic changes, as well as the most modem state of the statistical art, that the Bureau can fulfill its basic mission to provide the country with “ information upon the subject of labor, its relation to capital, the hours of labor and the earnings of laboring men and women, and the means of promoting their material, social, intellectual and moral prosperity.” □ ‘ Commissioner o f Labor Caroli Wright to Secretary Teller, Feb. 4, 1885, National Archives Record Group 48. 6 National Convention of Chiefs and Commissioners of the Various Bur eaus o f Statistics o f Labor in the United States, Proceedings (1889), p. 20. 2First Annual Report, Industrial Depressions (U .S. Bureau of Labor, 1886), pp. 2 9 0 -9 3 . 3Congressional Record, 48th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 19, 1884, p. 3140. 4First Annual Report, second series (Connecticut Bureau of Labor Sta tistics, 1885), p. 3. 5Fourth Annual Report, Working Women in Large Cities (U .S. Bureau o f Labor, 1888), p. 10. 7 Secretary of Labor to the President of the Senate, Aug. 12, 1921, and Stewart to the Secretary of the same date, file 20/145, National Archives Record Group 174; and Congressional Record, 70th C ong., 1st sess., Mar. 26, 1928, p. 5337. 8Congressional Budget Office, Indexing with the Consumer Price Index: Problems and Alternatives (June 1981), p. xiii. September publication planned for book about BLS A book-length history of the first hundred years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is scheduled for publication in September. The book is the product of 4 years of research by historians Joseph P. Goldberg and William T. Moye, who had access to the records of the Bureau, consulted other public and private collections, and interviewed recent commissioners, secretaries of labor, and others familiar with the work of the Bureau. The book traces the careers of the Bureau’s ten commissioners and reports on the development of the Bureau’s programs, statistical break throughs, and public controversies. The First Hundred Years o f the Bureau o f Labor Statistics will be available for sale by the Government Printing Office in both hard-bound and soft-bound editions. The Review will report price and ordering infor mation as soon as these are available. 6 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Measuring labor force flows: a special conference examines the problems A large number o f persons move into and out o f the labor force and to and from employment and unemployment each month but measurement o f these flows is difficult; labor force experts and statisticians gathered to discuss the problems and suggest solutions , Paul O. F l a im and Carma R. Hogue Evidence accumulated in recent decades indicates that the American labor market is very dynamic, with millions of persons entering and leaving it each month. In addition, large flows are known to occur strictly within the labor force, as many workers move from employment to unemployment and vice versa. However, the volume of these flows— which are largely offsetting— cannot be determined from the data published monthly on the size of the labor force and its principal components. The statistics published monthly are “ stock” measurements, which tell us only what “ net” changes, if any, there have been in the levels of employment and unemployment, in the counts of persons outside the labor force, and in the various components of each of these groups. To determine how many persons are flowing back and forth among these groups each month— regardless of what happens to the size of the groups— one must dig deeper and turn to special data on “ gross” flows. Unfortunately, these data have proven difficult to analyze and explain and have been little used. As a result, we know little about the exact size of the gross monthly changes which lie behind the ups and downs in our widely used labor force statistics. Paul O. Flaim is chief of the Division of Data Development and Users’ Services, Office o f Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Carma R. Hogue is a mathematical statistician in the Statistical Research Division, Bureau o f the Census. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Although little used, statistics on gross labor force flows have been tabulated in considerable detail for decades. They have been derived from the same source— the Current Pop ulation Survey ( c p s ) — which provides the monthly “ stock” measurements of the labor force and its principal compo nents. These gross flow (or gross change) tabulations in dicate, among other things, how many persons join the ranks of the jobless each month and what their status was the previous month (that is, employed or not in the labor force). Likewise, they also show how many persons leave the ranks of the unemployed each month and what their labor force status is the following month. To provide a simple illustration of the analytical potential of these data, take a hypothetical month when the published data (stock measurements) may show a net decline of 100,000 in unemployment, say from 5.0 million to 4.9 million. The gross flow tabulations, which indicate how much turbulence lies behind this change, may show it as having taken place in a climate of relative stability, say with 300,000 persons leaving unemployment and 200,000 entering it. On the other hand, the data may show a much higher degree of turnover, with 3.0 million persons leaving unemployment and 2.9 million persons becoming newly unemployed. Especially for policy purposes, it is most useful to know what pro portion of the persons who are unemployed in a given month are also jobless the following month, what proportion find 7 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Problems o f Measuring Labor Force Flows jobs, and what proportion leave the labor force. The actual gross flow statistics generally have been showing very large movements into and out of unemployment— even in periods when regular published data have shown only modest net changes in the level and rate of joblessness. But there are problems with the numbers. The main problem with the gross flow statistics from the c p s — and the main reason why they have been used so little— is that they generally show movements into and out of the various labor force categories which, when balanced out, do not yield the same net changes as are shown by the published data. What is even more disturbing is the fact that the net changes that one may derive from the gross flow statistics have often differed from the official net changes not only in magnitude, but even direction, or sign.1 There are two principal reasons for the discrepancies be tween the published data and gross flow tabulations. The most important reason is that the flow calculations must be limited to only a subset of the c p s — the persons whose labor force status has been determined for at least 2 consecutive months (a proportion that can never exceed three-fourths of the sample). Because there are some small but systematic differences between the labor force behavior reported by these persons and that reported by the entire sample (these differences are discussed later), it is unavoidable that there will also be some systematic differences between the net changes implicit in the gross flow data and those derived from the published stock data. A second reason for the differences is that a variety of problems which will always be present to some extent in a survey as large as the c p s — response variability, nonresponses, mover effects, coding errors, and so forth— have a much greater impact on the gross flow data than they have on the stock measurement. In any case, the consensus is that the gross flow data as computed from the c p s tend to overstate the actual amount of movements, and that they seem to do so particularly in terms of the flows out of the labor force. Evidence of this inconsistency problem was discovered long ago, and, primarily because of it, publication of the gross flow statistics was actually suspended for three de cades beginning in 1953. While the data remained available to researchers, and while their publication has now been resumed on an annual basis,2 their use is still handicapped by the problems noted above. To address these problems and to seek some viable solutions, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of the Census convened a special conference of labor force experts and statisticians in 1984. This article summarizes the results of this conference, but first it examines the current status of the flow data, their historical developments, and the various problems encoun tered with their use. Size of the flows The gross flow statistics for 1984 indicate that the move ments of persons into and out of the labor force are many 8 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis times larger than the measured net changes for any month. To illustrate, take the changes which these statistics show to have occurred between August and September. The pub lished “ stock” data showed a labor force decline of 1,233,000 representing principally the seasonal outflow of students from summer jobs and their return to school. It is in terms of this change (in data that have not been seasonally ad justed) that the gross flow data should be examined.3 The key gross flow data for any 2-month period can be condensed into a 3 x 3 table showing the number of persons employed, unemployed, or out of the labor force in the initial month in terms of their status the following month. For the August and September 1984 period, the 3 x 3 table would have looked as follows (numbers in thousands): Status in September Unemployed Not in labor force E m ployed...................... 100,212 1,787 4,702 Unemployed.................. 2,080 4,092 1,748 N ot in labor f o r c e ......... 3 ,2 6 6 1 ,7 4 0 5 7 ,1 3 6 Status in August Employed If no one had changed labor force status between these months, all the values in the table would have been entered in the three cells on the (shaded) diagonal line running from the upper left to the lower right. The values off of the diagonal line represent persons whose labor force status, as observed in the c p s , changed between the 2 months. We see, for example, that of the 106.7 million persons who were employed in August, 100.2 million were still employed the following month, 1.8 million had become unemployed, and 4.7 million had left the labor force. Of the 7.9 million who were unemployed in August, 4.1 million were still unemployed in September, while 2.1 million had gotten jobs and 1.7 million had left the labor force. In other words, nearly as many persons were recorded as having left the unemployed universe as remained. And, finally, of the 62.1 million persons who were outside the labor force in August, 57.1 million were still out the following month, while 1.7 million were reported as looking for work and 3.3 million became employed. The total movements into and out of the labor force be tween the 2 months can be quickly estimated from the offdiagonal cells in the 3 x 3 table— specifically the column and row on persons not in the labor force. These cells show the following August-September movements: Persons entering the labor force........................ Persons leaving the labor force.......................... Net change based on gross flow d a ta .............. 5,006,000 6,450,000 - 1,444,000 In this particular case, the net change in the civilian labor force as derived from the gross flow statistics exceeds the net change in the stock data ( - 1,233,000) by about 200,000. Such a difference, while bothersome, is probably tolerable given (1) the fact that the gross flow data are drawn from only a subset of the c p s sample and ( 2 ) the particularly large magnitude of the movements which the gross flow statistics measured over this period. Note that they showed 5 million persons entering the labor force and nearly 6.5 million leav ing it. Thus, the discrepancy between the two sets of data for this particular period amounts to no more than 3 percent of the outflows and may be regarded as of acceptable mag nitude. Unfortunately, the discrepancies between the two sets of data for all other months of 1984 were considerably larger. The average month-to-month gain in the civilian labor force during 1984 was about half a million smaller (or the decline half a million larger) as computed from the gross flow tables, than as shown by the published monthly data. (See table 1.) In fact, had the gross flow data been used to compute the cumulative change in the labor force over the December 1983-December 1984 period, they would have yielded a decline of 3.7 million— this over a period when the labor force had posted an increase of 2.2 million. On the basis of these numbers, one would have to con clude that in the calculation of the gross flows, there is either a large underestimation of the entries into the labor force or a large overestimation of the exits, or a combination of the two phenomena. Movements within the labor force It should be noted that, in addition to measuring the flows into and out of the labor force, the gross flow data are also of much interest because of what they tell us about flows occurring strictly within the labor force, particularly be tween the employed and unemployed components. Focusing again on the flows between August and September 1984, we find the following: Persons moving from: Employment to unemployment.................................. Unemployment to em ploym ent.................................. 1,787,000 2,080,000 Although these numbers do not exhaust all the possible movements into and out of employment and unemploy ment— as many of these originate and wind up outside the labor force— they serve nevertheless to highlight the fluidity of the employment situation in the United States. Note that these movements occurred over a period which saw little change in the unemployment situation for the Nation (with the unemployment rate, not seasonally adjusted, edging down .2 percentage point, from 7.3 percent in August to 7.1 percent in September). A more complete picture of the labor force flows for 1984 is presented in table 2, which also contains data for men and women. Note, for example, the large numbers of per sons, both men and women, flowing into the labor force in June, as schools closed, increasing both the employment and unemployment counts. Note also that while men are more likely to move to and from employment and unem ployment without leaving the labor force, women are much more likely to enter and exit through the not-in-the-laborforce avenue. Perhaps even more importantly, the table https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 1. 1984 Net changes in the civilian labor force during [Inthousands] Month Published data Gross flow data January........................ February...................... March......................... April........................... May........................... June........................... July........................... August........................ September.................... October........................ November..................... December.................... Total...................... -770 343 460 324 1,099 2,142 805 -1,122 -1,233 407 -135 -87 2,233 -1,298 -34 -95 -91 388 1,344 153 -1,443 -1,444 -33 -667 -500 -3,720 Difference 528 377 555 415 711 798 652 321 211 440 532 413 5,953 shows that a very large proportion of the persons who are unemployed in any given month are no longer unemployed the following month. On average, more than one-third of the men and nearly one-half of the women who were un employed in a given month during 1984 were shown by the gross flow data to have found jobs or to have left the labor force by the following month. This implies a very large turnover among the unemployed, even if we allow, as we must, for the fact that the data overstate the actual magni tudes of flows. Why publication was suspended Gross flow statistics were developed very early in the history of the cps and were published monthly through the early 1950’s. However, as already noted, researchers in labor force dynamics soon discovered serious problems of inconsistency between the changes in the published labor force levels and the changes obtained by balancing out the inflows and outflows in the monthly gross flow tables. In particular, it became evident that, for reasons which are discussed later, the flow data tended to overstate the amount of monthly flows out of the labor force. But there were yet other reasons which led to the sus pension of the publication of gross flow statistics in 1953. Above all, the sampling plan used in the Current Population Survey was radically altered that year. Until then, the house holds selected for the sample were interviewed for only 6 consecutive months. In the sampling pattern adopted in 1953 and still in effect, a household is interviewed for 4 months, leaves the sample for 8 months, and returns for another 4 months, with one-fourth of the sample being replaced each month. (This means that only three-fourths of the house holds in the sample in any given month have also been in the sample the previous month, and the computation of the gross flow data must be limited to these matched cases.) Other changes introduced in 1953 involved the data pro cessing procedures, the estimation procedure, and the geo graphic design of the sample. With all of these changes taking place, publication of the gross flow estimates was temporarily suspended. But because the basic problems of 9 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Problems o f Measuring Labor Force Flows inconsistency with the official stock data seemed to persist, publication of these estimates was not resumed even after all these changes were fully implemented. Over the ensuing years, two presidential committees ex amined this issue. In 1962, the President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics (known as the Gordon Committee) urged that the problems be thor oughly researched so that publication of the gross flow data could be resumed.4 Although some research was subse quently done, the inconsistency problems proved intractable and regular publication was not resumed.5 In 1979, the National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics re-examined the gross flow statistics and— after reviewing a paper which referred to them as ‘‘The Neglected Data Base” — recommended once more that the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics refine the estimation of these data and resume their publication.6 Pur suant to this recommendation, publication was resumed on an annual basis, but without any adjustments to the data. Thus, the basic problems of inconsistency with the net changes Table 2. The problems Several factors, including response variability in the cps, the effects of conditioning on responses, noninterview and mover effects, and matching and clerical errors, have been identified as possible reasons for the inconsistency between the gross flows and the net changes and for the possible overstatement of flows. These factors were studied in detail by the participants in the July 1984 conference and are reviewed briefly below. Exclusion o f noninterviews and movers. In the CPS, the changes in labor force status from one month to the next can be observed only in households that have been in the sample for at least 2 months. In any given month, onefourth of the households are either totally new to the cps sample or are reentering it after an 8-month hiatus. There fore, labor force movements can, at best, be recorded for only three-fourths of the persons in the sample. Labor force status in reference month by status in previous month, 1984 Status of persons w ho w ere em ployed in previous month Reference month Status of persons who w e re unem ployed in previous month Status of persons w ho w ere not In labor force in previous month Still em ployed Unem ployed Not in labor force Total Em ployed Still unem ployed Not in labor force Total Em ployed Unem ployed Still not in labor force 97,876 96,920 98,217 99,044 99,926 99,841 102,010 101,163 100,212 101,071 101.525 102,208 2,268 1,822 1,535 1,366 1,462 1,857 1,855 2,029 1,787 1,726 1,828 1,549 3,535 2,705 2,526 2,593 2,778 3,722 3,372 4,236 4,702 3,037 3,273 2,727 8,618 9,486 9,061 8,943 8,228 7,787 8,292 8,423 7,920 7,785 7,803 7,686 1,610 2,217 2,009 2,178 2,036 2,250 2,219 2,310 2,080 2,003 1,877 1,435 5,183 5,478 5,318 5,054 4,601 4,013 4,407 4,241 4,092 4,093 4,110 4,604 1,825 1,791 1,733 1,711 1,592 1,525 1,665 1,872 1,748 1,690 1,817 1,647 63,236 64,746 64,485 64,023 63,728 63,076 60,910 60,732 62,142 63,336 62,706 63,136 2,314 2,598 2,432 2,372 2,985 4,340 3,230 2,941 3,266 2,844 2,750 2,336 1,748 1,864 1,732 1,841 1,773 2,251 1,960 1,724 1,740 1,850 1,673 1,538 59,174 60,285 60,322 59,810 58,969 56,485 55,720 56 068 57J36 58 642 58 284 59^262 58,077 56,995 57,250 57,722 58,471 59,457 61,069 61,247 60,994 59,873 59,998 59,691 55,285 54,707 55,302 55,837 56,566 57,153 58,724 58,335 57,717 57,527 57,480 57,518 1,443 1,244 993 881 855 1,127 1,143 1,149 1,106 1,057 1,244 1,081 1,349 1,044 955 1,005 1,049 1,177 1,202 1,763 2,171 1,290 1,274 1,093 5,031 5,639 5,333 5,178 4,671 4,249 4,463 4,472 3,913 4,125 3,917 4,111 1,030 1,389 1,269 1,354 1,290 1,356 1,258 1,335 1,077 1,116 999 817 3,266 3,474 3,363 3,079 2,732 2,305 2,536 2,340 2,179 2,276 2,210 2,662 736 777 702 745 649 589 668 797 658 732 708 631 20,094 20,637 20,754 20,504 20,337 19,849 18,096 17,975 18,873 19,884 20,056 20,255 917 974 1,060 904 1,201 2,071 1,179 1,057 1,050 1,009 1,079 926 747 729 731 775 721 1,007 763 608 626 717 718 694 18 430 18 934 18’963 18,825 18,415 16,771 16 154 16 310 17Ì197 18J58 18 259 18Ì635 45,602 44,452 45,028 45,281 45,696 45,964 46,168 46,181 45,706 45,961 46,627 46,793 42,591 42,213 42,915 43,207 43,360 42,688 43,287 42,828 42,494 43,545 44,044 44,690 825 577 542 485 607 730 712 880 682 670 584 468 2,186 1,661 1,571 1,589 1,729 2,545 2,169 2,473 2,531 1,747 1,999 1,635 3,586 3,847 3,727 3,765 3,557 3,538 3,829 3,951 4,006 3,661 3,886 3,575 580 829 741 823 746 894 961 975 1,003 887 878 617 1,917 2,004 1,955 1,975 1,869 1,708 1,871 1,901 1,913 1,817 1,900 1,942 1,089 1,014 1,032 966 943 937 997 1,075 1,090 957 1,109 1,016 43,142 44,110 43,731 43,519 43,390 43,227 42,814 42,757 43,269 43,452 42,651 42,881 1,397 1,624 1,372 1,468 1,784 2,269 2,051 1,883 2,216 1,835 1,670 1,410 1,001 1,135 1,000 1,066 1,052 1,244 1,198 1,116 1,114 1,134 955 844 40 744 41'350 411359 40 984 40,554 39J14 39 565 39 757 39 939 40 484 401026 40^627 Total Total and possible overestimation of the flows remained unsolved. (thousands) January..................... 103,679 February................... 101,447 March...................... 102,278 April........................ 103,003 May........................ 104,166 June........................ 105,421 July........................ 107,237 August..................... 107,428 September................. 106.701 October.................... 105,835 November................. 106.626 December................. 106,484 Men January.................... February................... March...................... April........................ May........................ June........................ July........................ August.................... September................. October.................... November................. December................. W om en January.................... February................... March...................... April........................ May........................ June........................ July........................ August..................... September................. October.................... November................. December................. 10 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 2. Continued— Labor force status in reference month by status in previous month, 1984 Status of persons w ho w e re em ployed In previous month Reference month Not In labor force Status of persons w ho w e re unem ployed In previous month Still unem ployed Not In labor force Status of persons w ho w e re not In lab o r force In previous month U nem ployed Still not In labor force Still em ployed Unem ployed 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.4 95.5 96.0 96.2 95.9 94.7 95.1 94.2 93.9 95.5 95.2 96.0 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 3.4 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.7 3.5 3.1 3.9 4.4 2.9 3.1 2.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 18.7 23.4 22.2 24.4 24.7 28.9 26.8 27.4 26.3 25.7 24.1 18.7 60.1 57.7 58.7 56.5 55.9 51.5 53.1 50.4 51.7 52.6 52.7 59.9 21.2 18.9 19.1 19.1 19.3 19.6 20.1 22.2 22.1 21.7 23.3 21.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.7 4.0 3.8 3.7 4.7 6.9 5.3 4.8 5.3 4.5 4.4 3.7 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.8 3.6 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.4 93.6 93.1 93.5 93.4 92.5 89.6 91.5 92.3 91.9 92.6 92.9 93.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.2 96.0 96.6 96.7 96.7 96.1 96.2 95.2 94.6 96.1 95.8 96.4 2.5 2.2 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.1 1.8 2.3 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.9 3.6 2.2 2.1 1.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 20.5 24.6 23.8 26.1 27.6 31.9 28.2 29.9 27.5 27.1 25.5 19.9 64.9 61.6 63.1 59.5 58.5 54.2 56.8 52.3 55.7 55.2 56.4 64.8 14.6 13.8 13.2 14.4 13.9 13.9 15.0 17.8 16.8 17.7 18.1 15.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 4.6 4.7 5.1 4.4 5.9 10.4 6.5 5.9 5.6 5.1 5.4 4.6 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.5 5.1 4.2 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.4 91.7 91.7 91.4 91.8 90.5 84.5 89.3 90.7 91.1 91.3 91.0 92.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.4 95.0 95.3 95.4 94.9 92.9 93.8 92.7 93.0 94.7 94.5 95.5 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.0 4.8 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.8 5.5 4.7 5.4 5.5 3.8 4.3 3.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 16.2 21.5 19.9 21.9 21.0 25.3 25.1 24.7 25.0 24.2 22.6 17.3 53.5 52.1 52.5 52.5 52.5 48.3 48.9 48.1 47.8 49.6 48.9 54.3 30.4 26.4 27.7 25.7 26.5 26.5 26.0 27.2 27.2 26.1 28.5 28.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.2 3.7 3.1 3.4 4.1 5.2 4.8 4.3 5.1 4.2 3.9 3.3 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.0 94.4 93.7 94.6 94.2 93.5 91.9 92.4 92.0 92.3 93.2 93.8 94.7 Total Total Em ployed Total Em ployed Total (percent) January.................... February................... April........................ May........................ July........................ August.................... September................. November................. December................. Men January.................... February................... April........................ May........................ July........................ August..................... September................. October..................... November................. December................. W om en January.................... February................... April........................ May........................ July........................ August..................... September................. October..................... November................. December................. But even within the three-fourths of the sample that are common for any two months, there are many persons for whom the changes in labor force status cannot be recorded. These are primarily persons who move into and out of sam ple households during the interview cycle. Because the cps uses a sample of residential addresses rather than a list of persons, the families or persons who move away from sam ple addresses drop out of the survey. Meanwhile, the fam ilies or persons who might take their places in sample households have to be interviewed for 2 consecutive months before they can contribute any data to the gross flow cal culations. While only 2 percent or fewer of the American people move each month, the exclusion of movers from the gross flow calculations not only decreases the sample but also introduces some bias. As Harvey Hilaski showed in 1968, movers are generally younger and have higher unemploy ment rates.7 Because such young workers are also generally very mobile in terms of labor force status, the fact that they are not followed in the Current Population Survey may, by https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis itself, result in a slight underestimate of the total labor force flows. And, in addition to the persons that move perma nently, there are those who are temporarily absent from their households during one or more of the interview weeks, or who refuse to cooperate with the interviewer even if they are home. Little is known about the characteristics of these persons. Chart 1 compares the labor force status of “ nonidenti cals” (that is, persons who cannot be matched from one month to the next for reasons other than the fact that their address is new to the sample) with the official labor force data for the 1978-80 period. (Note that the rates in the chart are computed using the population— not the labor force— as the denominator.) As shown, nonidenticals have unemployment/population ratios considerably higher than those for the total cps sample and not-in-labor force ratios that are considerably lower than the published ones. The exclu sion of nonidenticals from the gross flow calculations is thus a contributing cause for the discrepancies with the changes in the published labor force totals. 11 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Problems o f Measuring Labor Force Flows Chart 1. Comparisons of key ratios for persons who cannot be matched from one month to the next (nonidenticals) with same ratios for entire Current Population Survey (CPS) sample Not in the labor force/ population ratio 1978 Unemployment/ population ratio Not in the labor force/ population ratio 1979 1980 Unemployment/ population ratio 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 0 12 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Response variability. Deliberate or inadvertent errors in the responses to cps questions also plague the gross change data— and may result in large overestimates of the actual flows. Any responsible person over age 14 can answer Cur rent Population Survey questions for the entire household. Thus, inconsistencies may arise because of faulty knowl edge on the part of the respondent. Also, respondents may differ from one month to the next, leading to possibly dif ferent interpretations of the labor force questions. Changes in the labor force status of household members may thus be reported even when no change has actually taken place. Indeed, even if the same respondent is interviewed for 2 consecutive months, he or she may provide answers which yield a change in labor force classification for a person whose status has not really changed at all. Rotation group bias. For reasons that have never been fully understood, the findings from the cps tend to differ in a systematic way among the various month-in-sample groups, particularly with regard to the reported incidence of un employment. As documented by Barbara A. Bailar in 1975, the households being interviewed for the first time tend to report considerably more unemployment than those being interviewed for a second or third time.8 A study of 3 years of data covering the 1973-75 period showed that, on av erage, the first-month households reported a 10-percent higher incidence of unemployment than was being reported by the entire sample.9 And the unemployment reported by house holds in the fifth month-in-sample group (those returning to the sample after an 8-month absence) was also significantly higher than that reported by households in the sixth through eighth months-in-sample. In other words, many persons reported as unemployed in the first visit to their household by a cps interviewer (or the first in many months in the case of the fifth month-in-sample group) are subsequently reported as no longer unemployed. And there is also a slight tendency in the same direction in the reporting of employ ment. It is principally this decrease in “ reported” labor force activity after the first (and fifth) interview that leads to systematic overestimation of the outflows from unem ployment— and from the labor force in general— in the gross flow tables. There are many possible reasons for this pattern in the reporting of labor force activity, including the fact that the initial interview is generally conducted in person, whereas subsequent ones are generally conducted by telephone and may involve different respondents and changing probabili ties of nonresponse.10 Among other possible reasons, it has been speculated that respondents are more ill at ease in the initial interview than in subsequent ones, and thus also more likely to exaggerate the reporting of “ socially acceptable” activities— such as working or looking for work. It has also been proposed that the rotation group bias in the reporting of unemployment (and, to a lesser extent, employment) may reflect a phenomenon known as “ telescoping” . This relates https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to the recall of an event that may have occurred 2 or 3 months previously, but which is reported as having occurred much more recently. For example, an event that is rare or traumatic, such as a period of unemployment, may be re ported in the first interview even if it had occurred before the actual reference period for the survey. Yet another pos sible reason for the reporting pattern is the conditioning of respondents (and perhaps even of interviewers) after the initial interview. They may quickly learn the shortest path through the questionnaire and refrain from reporting (or recording) any labor force activity, particularly of the more marginal type, in order to put an end to the interview.11 Whatever the reason for the phenomenon and their rel ative impact on the data, there is a definite pattern in the reporting of unemployment among the various month-in sample groups in the cps. Carma Hogue in 1984 examined the gross change tables for the 1976-81 period, and com pared the entries in the tables for the second and eighth month-in-sample groups combined to those for the third, fourth, sixth, and seventh month-in-sample groups com bined. (Groups that are in the sample for the third, fourth, sixth, or seventh time are believed to be more stable.) The comparison of the distributions for these groups revealed, with 95 percent confidence, that month-in-sample groups 2 and 8 were significantly different from the others in 40 of the 72 months studied. In the months of May and August, the two groups were always significantly different, confirm ing the view that, for some reason, the gross change cal culations are definitely affected by how long the cps respondents have been in the sample. Problems in matching data. In order to produce the paired responses needed for the gross change tables, the records of persons in the cps are matched from one month to the next on the basis of six household characteristics and four characteristics that are unique to each person. To evaluate the quality of the matching procedure, a special computer match of records for January 1979 with those of February 1979 was done at the Bureau of the Census. In this test, approximately 8 percent of the cases failed to match. A clerical check of all nonmatched cases revealed that inac curate coding accounted for most of the matching failures. While a survey of 1982 data showed that the coding had been improved, it must be recognized that, in a survey as large as the cps, coding errors can never be eliminated entirely. It is thus inevitable that some records will fail the month-to-month match, even when the labor force status is correctly recorded. This problem, coupled with the errors arising from incorrect interpretation of the questions, the miscoding of answers, conditioning, and so forth, have a much greater effect on the gross change data than they have on monthly levels and net changes. While such errors tend to offset each other in the monthly stock measurement, their effect is cumulative in the gross change data, and, on av erage, results in an overestimate of the monthly flows. 13 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Problems o f Measuring Labor Force Flows Proposed solutions Suggestions for solutions to the problems affecting the estimation of gross flow data could be categorized either as alternative forms of estimation or as changes in cps pro cedures. At the 1984 conference, there were some sugges tions for changes in the way the cps is conducted, but most of the participants proposed different methods for estimating the gross change data without altering the survey. These alternative estimation procedures— which generally tend to reduce the volume of the flows— are summarized below. A complete version of the papers appears in a volume of the proceedings of the conference. The volume is available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the Bureau of the Census. The simplest adjustment technique presented is iterative proportional fitting (or raking). In this procedure, each of the nine cell entries in the 3 x 3 gross change tables is adjusted so that the net changes that can be deduced from them are consistent with the changes in the published cps data. This procedure was applied by Carma Hogue to the flow data for the 1976-81 period. While the adjustment results in flows that are consistent with the changes in the published monthly data, it does not necessarily improve the accuracy of the specific flows. Jean Vanski reported on an estimation technique she and Ralph Smith used in 1978. Separate equations for the change in employment from one month to the next, for the change in unemployment, and for the change in nonparticipation in the labor force were generated from the full cps and from the gross change tables. As an example of one of these three equations, the change in the level of unemployment for 2 consecutive months (which is estimated from the full cps) should be equal to the total number of persons entering unemployment minus the number of persons leaving un employment. These inflows and outflows are estimated from the gross change tables and are then adjusted through special correction parameters. Smith and Vanski introduced a tech nique which would account for month-to-month changes in the variable of interest and would correct each of the four flow variables in the equation. In their estimation method, the three identity equations mentioned above are combined in a constrained multivariate regression. One correction fac tor per flow is estimated. The application of this procedure to data for the 1967-77 period often resulted in a reduction in the flows for adults. However, the flows for teenagers were often increased. Wayne Fuller and Tin Chiu Chua presented a model which compensates for response errors in the cps. The model uti lizes data from the unreconciled portion of the Reinterview Survey, which is conducted as a quality control in the cps. 12 Data from interview-reinterview tables, were used to derive a matrix of probabilities that a person will respond one way in the original survey and another way in the reinterview. These response probabilities— which were found to be rather constant over time— were then used to adjust the gross change data for month-to-month changes resulting from re 14 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis sponse errors. Fuller and Chua found a particularly high probability of response error in the distinction between being unemployed or not in the labor force. They suggest that one first rake the gross change tables in order to make the mar gins consistent with the published data. However, the ad justments for response errors are much larger than the raking adjustment in the Fuller-Chua procedure. The Fuller-Chua methodology results in much smaller monthly flows out of unemployment than those shown by the unadjusted data from the cps. (See chart 2.) While thenprocedure does not greatly reduce the monthly flows from unemployment to employment— which still approach onefifth of the jobless universe— it yields a radically smaller monthly flow of persons from unemployment to not in the labor force. Conversely, the Fuller-Chua procedure yields Papers presented at July 1984 Conference on Gross Flows in the Labor Force Carma R. Hogue, “ History o f the Problems Encountered in Estimating Gross F low s.” Jean E. Vanski, “ Use of Gross Change Data in Assessing Demographic Labor Market Dynamics.” Wayne A. Fuller and Tin Chiu Chua, “ Gross Change Estimation in the Presence of Response Error.” James M. Poterba and Lawrence H. Summers, “ Adjusting the Gross Changes Data: Implications for Labor Market Dynamics.” John M. Abowd and Arnold Zellner, “ Application of Adjustment Techniques to U .S. Gross Flow Data.” Elizabeth A. Stasny and Steven E. Fienberg, “ Some Stochastic Models for Estimating Gross Flows in the Presence of Nonrandom Nonresponse.” Gary Solon, “ Effects o f Rotation Group Bias on Estimation o f Unemployment. ’ ’ Robert J. M clntire, “ Toward More Stable Flows: A Discussion and Initial Investigation of Some Alternatives or Supplements to Monthly Gross Flow Data.” John M. Evans, “ Gross Flow Statistics Outside North America: Construction and U se.” Richard Veevers, “ Estimating Gross Flows from the Canadian Labour Force Survey.” Carma R. Hogue, “ Future Directions in the Estimation of Gross F low s.” Chart 2. Average monthly flows out of unemployment during 1982 Percent Percent from CPS Chua a much greater estimate of the average proportion of the unemployed who remained jobless an additional month (77.7 percent) than is shown by the unadjusted data from the cps (60.6 percent). Another procedure for correcting the classification errors affecting the gross flows measurements was presented by James Poterba and Lawrence Summers. They estimated the incidence of response errors utilizing data from the cps Reinterview Survey and recalculated the flow after adjusting for spurious transitions. Poterba and Summers presented separate estimates of response error rates based on the rec onciled portion of the cps Reinterview Survey and for the combined reconciled and unreconciled portions. They found that the reconciled portion of the reinterview program yields overly conservative estimates of the response error. They finally show that when the gross flow data are adjusted on the basis of either of these two rates of response errors, there is a dramatic decrease in the proportion of persons changing labor force status from one month to the next. Their procedure reveals substantial differences across de mographic groups in the rates of response errors and in the subsequent adjustment to the flow data. One result is a reduction in the probability of exit from the labor force of about 90 percent for adult men and one-third for teenagers. As with the Fuller-Chua procedure, the Poterba and Sum mers adjustments would result in much smaller monthly flows out of unemployment. (See chart 2.) https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Summers Zellner John Abowd and Arnold Zellner presented a procedure which compensates for missing data without assuming that the data are missing at random and which also adjusts for classification error. They first use a “ margin adjustment” procedure which is a multiplicative method of allocating missing data to the cells of the gross change table. Their model for adjusting for classification error is based on ap plying error classification probabilities estimated from the reconciled portion of the cps Reinterview Survey to the margin adjusted gross flows. This adjustment increases the entries in the diagonal cells of the 3 x 3 flow table and decreases the entries in the off-diagonal cells, thus reducing the flows. The average adjustment due to missing data varied between - 12 percent and 15 percent. The average adjust ment for classification error reduced estimates of flows by nearly 50 percent in some cases. The flows out of unemployment as adjusted on the basis of the proposed Abowd-Zellner procedure are shown in chart 2. While the Abowd-Zellner procedure also reduces the flows out of unemployment relative to those based on the unadjusted cps data, the reduction is not nearly as large— particularly with regard to the proportion of the unemployed leaving the labor force— as that resulting from the FullerChua or Poterba-Summers adjustments. Elizabeth Stasny and Stephen Fienberg examined some stochastic models for adjusting the gross flow data for non response in the cp s . In these models, nonresponse is as15 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Problems o f Measuring Labor Force Flows sumed to be dependent on either the person’s month in sample or employment classification. Three models based on different combinations of these two assumptions were presented along with examples of the fitting of these models to 1982 data. Stasny and Fienberg gave the methods for obtaining maximum likelihood estimates for the parameters. Some continuous-time Markov chain models were also in troduced, given that changes in labor force status are deemed to occur at any time during the month, rather than the fixed time points of the interview. Gary Solon discussed the effects of rotation group bias on estimating unemployment. He examined a model of mul tiplicative biases— which are assumed to vary proportion ately in line with the changes in the unemployment level— and estimated their effect on ratio and composite estimators of month-to-month changes in unemployment. The empir ical evidence presented in his paper suggests that there is indeed a multiplicative aspect to rotation group bias. Solon also experimented with a mixed multiplicative and additive model and found that, both in this model and in the purely multiplicative model, the ratio and the composite estimators give biased estimates of level and of change. Robert Mclntire discussed some alternative approaches to using the existing gross flow data. He indicated that the measurements of month-to-month flows, in addition to being affected by sampling and response errors, are also a reflec tion of transitory or insignificant movements, the inclusion of which limits the value of the flow data for analyzing labor force dynamics. He suggested developing flow data span ning longer time periods, focusing on changes in “ usual” or “ primary” labor force status. He also suggested using approaches that would work at the microdata (or individual respondent) level. To focus on one’s status over a longer period, Mclntire used data from the March supplement of the c p s , which relate to the usual status over an entire year. He also examined the possibility of comparing one’s status in a given month with one’s “ usual’’ status over the previous 3 months, as well as a variant using 2-month spans. John Evans of the Organization for Economic Coopera tion and Development discussed the gross flow data avail able in other countries. He noted that very few countries outside the United States and Canada have published flow data from household surveys. Only Australia publishes such data on a regular basis. The Nordic countries are beginning a joint research project in this area. Italy has also carried out experiments in constructing flow statistics from matched samples. Evans added that most European countries have unemployment registration systems which yield fairly re liable gross flow data, but which lack demographic detail. Richard Veevers of Statistics Canada reported on research designed to increase the quality of the gross flow data from the Canadian Labour Force Survey. He noted that Statistics Canada produces a 4 x 4 table in which the data for a given month on the employed, unemployed, persons not in the labor force, and nonmatched persons are cross-classified 16 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis with similar characteristics for the subsequent month. He explained that iterative proportional scaling is used to rake the data in the flow tables so as to make them consistent with the changes in the stock data, but added that the data are still subject to errors arising from sampling variability, misclassification, and rotation group bias. Recommendations for procedural changes In addition to proposing new ways for computing the flows, several participants at the conference suggested var ious changes in the way the c p s is conducted. For example, it was proposed that, in the reinterview program, a sample of persons be reinterviewed for 2 consecutive months. It was also suggested that fewer of these interview results be reconciled with the original interviews and that questions emphasizing change in status from one month to the next be used to check the effect of changing coders, respondents, and so forth. Other suggestions were aimed at gathering information on persons for whom data are missing for some of the survey months. These included (1) calling movers after receiving a change of address card from them, (2) asking retrospec tive questions of persons moving into sample households after the first of the four interviews in each of the two 4month stints of the c p s interview cycle, and ( 3 ) supplying c p s interviewers with the names and ages of all persons who were interviewed at the household the previous month with instructions to obtain labor force data for the same persons, thus minimizing the possibility of nonmatches or erroneous matching in the gross flow calculations. Other participants suggested assigning unique identifi cation numbers to each person in the sample in order to facilitate the matching procedure. This would reduce the number of nonmatches and incorrect matches. The use of computer assisted telephone interviewing, which is struc tured so as to maximize consistency in the interviewing process, was also mentioned as a possible way to both ease the burden of recordkeeping and provide better quality data. r e s e a r c h i n t h e m e a s u r e m e n t of labor force flows is planned by the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This will include testing the various adjustment methods proposed by the conference partici pants. Some research on flows will also be conducted with data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, in which changes in labor force status are tracked over a 2]/2-year period. Out of this research and the further work being carried on by some of the participants in the 1984 conference, a way should be found over the next few years to finally exploit the great potential of the gross flow sta tistics— ‘‘the neglected data base. ” Q F urther ---------- FOOTNOTES---------‘ See Harvey J. Hilaski, “ The Status of Research on Gross Changes in the Labor Force,” Employment and Earnings, October 1968. 2 Publication o f gross flow data was resumed in 1982 by means of a report entitled “ Gross Flow Data from the Current Population Survey, 1 9 7 0 -1 9 8 0 ,” available from the National Technical Information Service. 9 See discussion of rotation group bias in The Current Population Sur vey: Design and Methodology, Technical Paper 40 (Department o f Com 3Because the data on gross flows have never been seasonally adjusted, they cannot be compared with the changes in the seasonally adjusted labor force levels, which increased by about 200,000 between August and Sep tember 1984. 4President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Measuring Employment and Unemployment (Government Print ing Oflice, 1962.) 10W .H. Williams and C.L. Mallows, “ Systematic Biases in Panel Sur veys due to Differential Nonresponse,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, September 1970, pp. 1338-49. 5See Hilaski, “ The Status of Research.” See also Robert B. Pearl, “ Gross Change in the Labor Force: A Problem in Statistical Measure m ent,” Employment and Earnings, April 1963; Thomas F. Bradshaw, Employment in Perspective: A Cyclical Analysis of Gross Flows in the Labor Force, Report 508 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1977); and Ralph E. Smith and Jean I. Vanski, “ The Volatility of the Teenage Labor Market: Labor Force Entry, Exit, and Unemployment Flow s,” in Conference Re port on Youth Unemployment: Its Measurement and Meaning (Govern ment Printing Office, 1978). 6National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Counting the Labor Force (Government Printing Office, 1979.) 7Hilaski, “ The Status of Research.” 8Barbara A. Bailar, “ The Effect of Rotation Group Bias on Estimates from Panel Surveys,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, March 1975, pp. 2 3 -3 0 . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis merce, Bureau of the Census, January 1978), pp. 8 3 -8 5 . " S ee Herbert S. Pames, “ Longitudinal Surveys: Prospects and Prob lem s,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1972, pp. 1 1-15. Pames ex amined a different type of conditioning, the Heisenberg Principle, according to which a person may actually be influenced to modify his or her labor force behavior because of the very questions asked in the survey. For example, a nonworker who is merely contemplating the possibility of looking for a job may decide to actually seek work after being questioned about any employment or jobseeking activity. 12Each month, about 1 in 18 of the households in the cps sample are reinterviewed as part of a quality control program. The reinterviews are conducted by senior interviewers or supervisors. When differences arise between the information provided in the original interview and that from the reinterview, a reconciliation is performed. However, in 20 percent of the cases, the reinterviewer is not provided any information from the original interview and no reconciliation is performed. This yields a more unbiased view of the differences in the information gathered in the two surveys than can be obtained when the reinterviewer has the information from the previous interview. In the latter case, there appears to be a tendency to minimize the differences, even before any reconciliation is attempted. A note on communications The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supplement, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not po lemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-inChief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212. 17 Foreign bom in the U. S. labor market: the results of a special survey New data from the Current Population Survey confirm that recent arrivals encounter labor market hardship, but as time passes their employment and earnings approach the levels o f native-born workers Ellen Sehgal The labor market experiences of the foreign bom are part of the “ success story” of America. Studies of the foreign bom show patterns of economic difficulties in the first years after arrival, but substantial upward mobility thereafter. For example, analyzing 1970 Census data, Barry Chiswick found that foreign-bom men tend to reach earnings equality with their U.S.-bom counterparts in a little over a decade, and after that, they actually have higher earnings.1 Recent data from the Current Population Survey ( c p s ) on foreign-bom U.S. residents provide further confirmation of these earlier findings. The c p s data show striking similarities between the na tive-born population and the foreign bom who entered the country from 1960 to 1979 with regard to their work ex perience during 1982. For example, among both groups, about 65 percent had worked at least some time during that recession year, of whom more than half managed to work full time the whole year. Another similarity was that for both groups the proportion experiencing some unemploy ment was about 20 percent. There also was a close resem blance among both groups in terms of their earnings in 1982. The median annual earnings for the foreign-bom workers were $10,405, about 6 percent lower than for the nativeborn workers ($11,125). However, the employment and earnings patterns of reEllen Sehgal is an economist in the Division of Data Development and Users’ Services, Office o f Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Bu reau o f Labor Statistics. 18 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis cently arrived foreign bom are very different from those of U.S.-bom workers and reflect in part the obvious difficulties which such workers encounter during their first years in the country. Of the foreign bom who entered the United States in 1980 and 1981, about one-half (470,000) worked at some time during 1982, and one-third experienced some unem ployment. The median annual earnings of the recent arrivals amounted to only $6,726. There also are some differences in labor market experiences between the U.S. bom and the foreign bom who came here before 1960: In large part because the latter are an older population, these people were much less likely to have either worked or looked for work in 1982. Data on persons’ country of birth (not shown) were ob tained through special questions in an April 1983 c p s sup plement sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.2 To obtain much of the labor force infor mation discussed in this article, the April data on country of birth were matched with “ work experience” data— that is, data on employment, unemployment, and earnings dur ing 1982 which had been gathered for the same persons a month earlier through the annual supplement to the March c p s . Given the design of the c p s , only about 75 percent of the sampled households interviewed in April also had been interviewed in March. It should be noted that the foreign bom, as identified in the c p s , were persons whose “ usual residence” was in the United States, such as immigrants and refugees. Foreign- bom visitors were not included in the survey. Note, too, that cps coverage of the foreign bom is understated: Al though the respondents are not asked whether they are in the United States “ legally,” it is quite likely that “ illegal” aliens were underrepresented. (However, the extent of this incomplete coverage, and consequent bias, could not be quantified.) Finally, it is important to recognize that the totals based on the matched March-April 1983 sample (such as those related to persons who had worked during the year and those who had encountered unemployment) are different from the previously published estimates from the March 1983 supplement.3 This is primarily because no special ad justment was made to take account of the approximately 6 percent of missing cases attributable to the failure to match data between the March and April supplements. Neverthe less, the findings from the March-April match are still rel evant, as they shed considerable light on the labor force characteristics of a large universe of foreign bom. more than 900,000 in the 1980-81 period.4 (See table 1.) Of the recent arrivals, 53 percent were women, about the same proportion as among the 1960-79 entrants at the time of the survey. About three-fifths of both the U.S. bom and the 196079 arrivals were working in April 1983. There also was not much difference in the two groups’ unemployment rates (10.1 and 11.7 percent). By contrast, one-half of the 1980— 81 arrivals were employed in April 1983, and 16.3 percent were looking for work: Employment status (percent) Employment-population Unemployment ratio rate Native b o m .................................. 57.6 10.1 Foreign bom: Arrived, 1960-79 .................. Arrived, 1980-81 .................. 60.7 49.6 11.7 16.3 Work experience Of the 11.4 million foreign bom aged 16 years and over who came to the United States prior to 1982 and who were identified in the April 1983 cps, more than half (6.3 million) reported that they had entered the country between 1960 and 1979. Of the rest, 3.8 million arrived before 1960 and As noted previously, similar patterns of employment and unemployment among the foreign and U.S. bom are seen in the cps data for the year 1982. The foreign bom who came to the United States in the 1960-79 period closely resembled the native bom in terms of their work experience over the course of the year. About 65 percent of both the 1960-79 arrivals and the native bom had either worked or Table 1. Extent of employment and unemployment of native born, and of foreign born by selected years of entry into the United States and citizenship status, 1982 [Numbers inthousands] Foreign born, entered U .S. p rior to 1982 Em ploym ent and unem ploym ent T o ta l1 Native born2 Y e a r of entry T o ta l3 Before 1960 1960-79 U.S. citizen 1980-81 5,935 913 6,336 3,758 11,388 157,460 173,794 Civilian noninstitutional population. . . . 3,203 4 9 4 4 ,2 4 9 1,567 6,492 103,736 112,694 Total who worked or looked for work4. 54.0 54.1 67.1 41.7 57.0 65.9 64.8 Percent of the population........... 3,128 4 ,1 2 4 4 6 8 1 ,5 4 5 6,313 100,370 109,064 Total who worked during the year4 . . . 52.7 51.2 65.1 55.4 41.1 63.7 62.8 Percent of the population........... 2,519 383 3,373 1,182 5,073 76 ,7 8 0 83 ,6 9 5 Worked full time5 ................ 1,923 216 2,379 922 3,608 55,243 60,071 Worked full time, full year6...... 609 85 751 364 1,239 23,590 25,369 Worked part time7................ 263 2 4 3 1 1 1 7 3 5 1 6 8 ,6 9 5 9,387 Worked part time, full year...... 2,186 240 2,689 1,095 4,124 63,938 69,458 Worked full year................. 942 2 2 8 1,434 450 2,189 36,432 39,605 Worked part year................ 537 159 962 217 1,375 22,435 24,365 Total with unemployment4............. 16.8 32.2 22.6 13.8 21.2 21.6 21.6 Percent with unemployment........ 15 2 3 1 5 1 7 1 6 1 4 1 4 Median weeks of unemployment . . . 10 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percent who worked during the year. 80.5 81.9 81.8 76.5 80.4 76.5 76.7 Worked full time5 ................ 61.5 46.3 57.7 59.7 57.2 55.0 55.1 Worked full time, full year6...... 19.5 18.1 18.2 23.5 19.6 23.5 23.3 Worked part time7................ 8.4 5 .1 7.5 1 1 .2 8.7 8.2 8.6 Worked part time, full year...... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percent who worked during the year. 69.9 51.3 65.2 70.9 65.3 63.7 63.7 Worked full year................. 30.1 48.7 34.8 34.7 2 9 .1 36.3 3 6 .3 Worked part year................ from th e M a rch 1 9 8 3 su p p le m e n t to th e C u rre n t P o p u la tio n S u rve y, b e c a u se this is a ’Population counts relate to April 1983 for persons 16 years and older. Total includes matched sample of the March 1983 and April 1983 cps supplements, and no special respondents who did not report country of birth or citizenship status, as well as foreignadjustment has beenmadetotakeaccount of themissing casesduetoanyfailureto match born respondents who entered the United States in 1982 or 1983. between supplements. includes respondentswhowerebornabroadof parentswhowereUnitedStatescitizens, 5Usually worked 35 hours or more per week. includes respondents who did not report year of entry intothe United States. Excludes 6Full year is 50-52 weeks. respondents who did not report country of birth or citizenship status. 4The population estimates arenot identical tothe population estimates for 1982 derived 7Usually worked 1-34 hours per week. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 19 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Foreign-Born Workers in Labor Market looked for work during 1982; and of those who had worked at some time during the year, about 65 percent worked year round and about 55 percent did so on a full-time basis. About one-fifth of both groups experienced some unem ployment. Of those who had been unemployed, the 196079 arrivals on average had 15 weeks of unemployment, and the native bom, 14 weeks. The cps data show similarities in the distribution of both of these groups among industries. For example, about onethird of both were working in service industries in April 1983, one-fifth were in wholesale and retail trade, and about 5 percent were in construction. (See table 2.) However, larger proportions of the foreign than the U.S. bom were in manufacturing, particularly durable goods manufactur ing. As indicated in table 2, about the same proportions of the 1960-79 entrants and the U.S. bom were in professional occupations at the time of the survey and in technician and craft jobs. There were some differences between the two groups in their distribution among the other major occu pations. The tabulation below shows that a far smaller percentage of the 1960-79 entrants than of U.S.-bom workers were working in government jobs at the time of the survey. One reason for this is that most Federal jobs bar aliens from employment. The following also shows only about a onepercentage-point difference between foreign- and native-born workers reporting self-employment. Here is the employment breakdown as of April 1983 (in percent): Foreign born N ative born Total em p loyed ............ . . . 100.0 Private wage and salary.. . . . Government........................ . . . Self-employed.................... Unpaid family worker . . . 73.7 16.5 9.2 .6 Total 1 9 6 0 -7 9 entrants 100.0 100.0 81.7 9.2 8.5 .6 84.4 7.2 7.9 .4 As mentioned previously, the employment experiences of the recent arrivals were very different from the other foreign bom. Only about 50 percent of the foreign bom who came to the United States in 1980 and 1981 were working in April 1983 or had worked at some time during 1982. A large proportion had been unemployed for long periods— 23 (median) weeks during 1982. Other studies have found this pattern among the foreign bom in earlier years. One, by Chiswick, showed that newly arrived male immigrants had lower levels of employment and higher levels of unemployment than their native-born counterparts, but after about 5 years the experiences of the two groups were found to be about the same.5 As expected, the foreign bom who entered the United States in 1980-81 were somewhat more likely than the other foreign bom or the native bom to report that they were working in low paying industries, such as private household Table 2. Industry and occupation of employed native born, and of foreign born by selected years of entry into the United States and citizenship status, April 1983 [In percent] Foreign born, entered U .S. p rior to 1982 Industry and occupation All industry groups............................ Agriculture........................... Mining........................... Construction......................... Manufacturing........................... Durable goods......................... Nondurable goods........................... Transportation and public utilities.............................. Wholesale trade........................ Retail trade................................. Finance, insurance, and real estate......................... Private household.............................. Other service industries...................... Public administration................................. All occupation groups......................... Executive, administrative, and managerial.................... Professional specialty............................ Technicians and related support................. Sales occupations................................ Administrative support, including clerical................... Private household........................ Protective service........................... Service, except private household and protective................. Precision production, craft, and repair................ Operators, fabricators, and laborers......................... Farming, forestry, and fishing................................... To ta l1 100.0 3.4 .9 5.9 19.6 11.5 8.1 7.0 4.3 16.3 6.2 1.3 30.3 4.7 Native born2 100.0 3.4 1.0 6.0 19.2 11.2 8.0 7.2 4.4 16.3 6.2 1.2 30.3 4.9 Y e a r of entry Before 1960 1960-79 1980-81 U.S. citizen 100.0 2.4 .2 5.0 23.1 14.4 8.6 5.5 4.6 14.3 5.1 1.6 33.0 5.3 100.0 3.9 8 4.5 26.4 16.2 10.2 38 3.7 17.0 74 1.5 29.4 1.6 100.0 3.7 7 4.5 23.4 13.7 9.8 30 3.3 18.5 46 49 33 1 .3 100.0 1.7 6 48 23.0 14 9 8.2 51 42 15.4 68 12 33 4 3.7 To ta l3 100.0 3.6 .7 4.7 25.3 15.5 9.8 4.2 3.9 16.5 6.6 1.8 30.5 2.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 0 11.1 11.2 9.7 14.1 8.6 59 12 5 13.2 13.1 14.1 15.6 13.7 13 5 17 4 2.9 2.9 3.4 3.4 3.3 42 34 11.5 11.7 8.8 9.3 8.7 82 95 16.4 16.6 12.7 13.4 12.7 9.8 13.3 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.2 33 10 1.6 1.6 7 .9 9 1.0 12 11.0 10.8 14.2 11.0 15.0 18 2 12 9 12.0 12.0 12.7 15.4 12.2 10 2 12 7 15.7 15.6 18.1 12.9 19.3 21 3 14 0 3.6 3.5 4.0 2.7 4.3 4.7 2.0 Total includes respondents who did not report country of brith or citizenshipstatus, as includes respondents who did not report year of entry. Excludes respondents who did well as foreign-born respondents who entered the United States in 1982 or 1983. not report country of birth or citizenship status. includes respondentswhowerebornabroadof parentswhowereUnitedStatescitizens. 20 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis services. They also generally were more likely to report they were working in low-paying occupations. A study by David North of a cohort of 1970 immigrants6 indicated that, for a few years after arrival in the United States, many were in jobs of lower skill than those they had held in their native country. North found, for example, that there had been a sharp drop in managerial and professional employment among the immigrants. After several years, however, there was an increase in the net number of profes sionals (that is, those who formerly were in professional jobs and those new to such occupations). By 1977, the proportion of immigrants who were managers, proprietors, and owners exceeded the average for native-born workers. Some observers of immigration mention that recent en trants to the United States are less well educated and have fewer marketable skills than those arriving some years ear lier, and therefore are less likely to succeed in the U.S. labor market. They compare, for example, the educational background of Southeast Asian refugees entering the United States in the early 1980’s with those entering in the mid1970’s.7 However, among persons aged 25 and over, the cps data show somewhat higher levels of college education for the most recent arrivals than for those who came between 1960 and 1979. (See table 3.) Earnings and family income As noted, it takes time for the foreign bom to leam about, and adjust to, the U.S. labor market. Thus, it is not sur prising that there was a sharp difference in median annual earnings between the foreign bom who had been long-time residents and those who had arrived in the recent past— Table 3. Years of schooling of native-born persons, and foreign born by selected years of entry into the United States and citizenship status, April 1983 Foreign born, entered U .S. prior to 1982 Educational attainm ent To ta l1 Native born2 Y e a r of entry U.S. T o ta l3 Before 1960- 1980citizen 79 SI 1960 Total, 25 years of age and over (In thousands).... 137,584 123,940 Total, 25 years of ageand over (percent)......... 100.0 100.0 Less than 12 years 27.8 26.6 schooling............ 37.8 38.8 12years schooling...... 13-15 years schooling . . 15.7 16.1 16 years schooling...... 10.6 10.6 17 or more years 7.9 8.1 schooling............ 9,809 3,717 5,080 693 5,500 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 41.5 45.4 38.2 38.7 26.7 29.3 26.0 18.5 12.0 10.9 12.9 12.6 10.0 7.3 11.4 15.1 9.9 38.7 29.1 11.7 10.3 7.2 11.5 15.0 10.2 1Tota! includes respondents who did not report country of birth or citizenship status as well as foreign born respondents who entered the U.S. In 1982 or 1983. includes respondents who were born abroad of parents who were U.S. citizens, includes respondents who did not report year of entry. Excludes respondents who did not report country of birth or citizenship status. although all of the difference cannot be assumed to reflect recency of arrival. In 1982, the median earnings of the foreign bom who had entered the United States before 1960 were $13,697, about twice the earnings of those who had arrived in 1980-81. (See table 4.) (Because the pre-1960 entrants also were older, on average, than the recent arrivals, some of the difference in earnings may be accounted for by the difference in age.) For the foreign bom who reported they were naturalized citizens, median annual earnings were $13,052 in 1982. Table 4. Annual earnings of native born, and of foreign born by selected years of entry into the United States and citizenship status, 1982 [Numbers inthousands) Foreign born, entered U .S. prior to 1982 Annual earnings All persons: Total with annual earnings....................................................... Under $5,000................................................................... $5,000 to $6,699 .............................................................. $6,700 to $9,999 .............................................................. $10,000 to $14,999............................................................ $15,000 to $24,999............................................................ $25,000 and over .............................................................. Median earnings................................................................... Year round, full-time workers: Total with annual earnings....................................................... Under $5,000................................................................... $5,000 to $6,699 .............................................................. $6,700 to $9,999 .............................................................. $10,000 to $14,999............................................................ $15,000 to $24,999............................................................ T o ta l1 Y e a r of entry T o ta l3 Before 1960 1960-79 1980-81 U .S. citizen 108,640 29,267 7,434 12,031 18,221 23,714 17,972 $11,101 99,981 27,067 6,764 10,873 16,745 22,002 16,529 $11,125 6,285 1,486 499 887 1,152 1,249 1,013 $10,789 1,537 321 89 169 226 353 379 $13,697 4,109 954 325 607 844 797 584 $10,405 463 172 60 87 57 53 34 $6,726 3,110 641 191 351 559 733 635 $13,052 59,909 1,965 1,894 6,285 13,379 19,937 16,448 $17,434 55,094 1,806 1,711 5,633 12,301 18,523 15,119 $17,492 3,595 117 151 488 860 1,036 945 $16,009 919 34 23 63 162 279 359 $20,208 2,371 73 101 346 640 669 542 $15,067 214 10 23 61 45 47 29 $11,386 1,913 66 60 182 400 611 594 $18,161 Median earnings................................................................... 'Population counts relate to April 1983 for persons 16 years and older. Total includes respondents who did not report country of birth or citizenship status, as well as foreignborn respondents who entered the United States in 1982 or 1983. includes respondentswhowerebornabroadof parentswhowereUnitedStatescitizens. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Native born2 includes respondents who did not report year of entry. Excludes respondents who did not report country of birth or citizenship status, 21 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Foreign-Born Workers in Labor Market The large difference between their earnings and those of the recent U.S. arrivals can be explained in part by work ex perience during the 5-year waiting period required of the foreign bom, specifically, permanent resident aliens,8 be fore they can become naturalized citizens. (And some per manent resident aliens wait more than the required period.) However, to some extent, the earnings of naturalized citi zens also may reflect the characteristics associated with per sons who choose to become citizens as well as some economic benefits which may accrue from citizenship status. For the foreign-bom population as a whole, median an nual earnings in 1982 were close to those of the U.S. bom ($10,789 and $11,125). Similarly, when comparing annual incomes of the families of the foreign bom and the native bom ,9 one finds roughly the same proportions of both groups among the various income categories. (See table 5.) The data on family income also show substantial differ ences between the foreign bom who came to the United States in 1980 and 1981 and those who came in prior years. For example, about 40 percent of those persons who arrived in 1980-81 and who had at least one family member in the civilian labor force in April 1983 had family incomes under $10,000, in contrast to 20 percent of those who entered the United States between 1960 and 1979, and about 15 percent of those who arrived prior to 1960. As noted, such differ ences conform with findings from other studies. There are also substantial differences in the distribution of family incomes among various racial and ethnic groups— consistent with differences in their median annual earnings. The tabulation below shows that the Asian bom had the highest median annual earnings of any of the foreign-bom groups in 1982— $12,200. Asian origin workers also had the highest earnings among the native bom ($13,281). Median annual earnings—1982 Native born W h ite............................................ B la c k ............................................ Hispanic........................................ A sia n ............................................ Foreign born $11,512 9,141 9,248 13,281 $10,221 11,146 9,062 12,200 Similarly, relatively high proportions of Americans of Asian origin and the Asian bom reported family incomes of $35,000 and over, as seen below. (The tabulation refers only to families with at least one member in the civilian labor force.) Family income of $35,000 and over— April 1983 Native born (Percent) W h ite...................................... B la c k ...................................... Hispanic.................................. A sia n ...................................... Foreign born (Percent) 20.5 17.0 10.9 26.1 16.8 29.9 7.0 30.3 Differences in earnings and family income among the various racial and ethnic groups may be explained in part by differences in their levels of schooling. As indicated below, 43 percent of the Asian bom and 29 percent of their U.S.-bom counterparts reported 16 or more years of school ing as of April 1983. In contrast, for the Hispanics,10 the proportions were 8 percent for both groups: Native born W h ite...................................... B la c k ...................................... Hispanic.................................. A sia n ...................................... Foreign born 20 10 8 29 15 17 8 43 Differences in distribution of family income by racial and ethnic group may to some extent also be accounted for by Table 5. Annual family income of native-born families1 with at least one member in the civilian labor force, and of foreianborn families1 by selected years of entry into the U.S. and citizenship status, April 19832 [Percent distribution] Foreign born, entered U .S . p rio r to 1982 Annual fa m ily Incom e T o ta l3 Native born4 Y e a r of entry To ta l5 Before 1960 Total families with at least one member in the civilian labor force........... Under $5,000 .............................. $5,000 to $7,499.............................. $7,500 to $9,999........................... $10,000 to $14,999 ............................ $15,000 to $24,999 .................................... $25,000 to $29,999 ................................. $30,000 to $34,999 ........................................... $35,000 and over............................................ 1960-79 1980-81 U .S. citizen 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 6.2 6.2 6.3 4.2 5.8 19.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 6.8 5.3 7.1 10.6 4.7 5.6 5.6 7.2 4.2 8.1 12.5 5.3 13.9 13.9 15.8 12.9 17.7 14.2 13.3 25.5 25.9 22.8 23.5 23.2 16.1 23.1 9.9 10.0 9.8 9.6 10.3 6.8 11.1 8.2 8.4 7.3 9.1 6.6 5.5 8.5 20.3 20.5 19.1 23.1 18.2 10.3 24.8 1Familyisdefined asnativebornor foreign born basedonwhether householder is native 3Total includes respondents who did not report country of birth or citizenship status, as born or foreign born. well as foreign-born respondents who entered the United States in 1982 or 1983. 2Because of the structure of the survey schedule for asking annual family income and includes respondentswhowerebornabroadof parentswhowereUnitedStatescitizens. for updating the information on annual family income, family income refers to January includes respondents who did not report year of entry. Excludes respondents who did 1982to December 1982for 25 percent of the sample, February 1982to January 1983for not report country of birth or citizenship status. 25 percent of the sample, March 1982to February 1983 for another 25 percent, and April 1982 to March 1983 for the remaining 25 percent of the sample. 22 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 6. Selected government benefits received by native-born persons, and by the foreign born by selected years of entry into the United States and citizenship status, 1982 [Numbers inthousands] Foreign born, entered U .S . prior to 1982 To ta l1 N ative born2 G overnm ent benefit Y e a r of entry U.S. T o ta l3 Before 1960 N um ber Percent Num ber Percent Num ber Percent Num ber Percent 1960-79 Num ber Percent itizen 1980-81 N um ber Percent N um ber Percent 100.0 5,935 100.0 913 Total population................. 173,794 100.0 157,460 100.0 11,388 100.0 3,758 100.0 6,336 100.0 Total recipients of selected 9.4 558 17.5 160 920 14.5 8.7 329 government benefits........ 23,961 13.8 21,935 13.9 1,457 12.8 State unemployment 4.8 285 3.4 6.4 31 404 4.0 151 5.3 603 6.0 9,469 10,301 5.9 compensation.............. 3.7 220 14.1 128 7.2 457 2.7 103 6.2 707 7.4 7.3 11,616 12,619 Food stamps................. 1.5 8 7 .5 4 1 .6 1 0 0 2.5 9 4 1 .9 215 1.7 2,634 1.7 2,952 Supplemental security income Aid to families with dependent .6 37 3.6 33 1.9 121 .3 12 1.5 169 1.8 2,876 1.8 3,102 children................... .4 3.4 21 31 44 .7 .2 9 .7 84 .6 1,003 .6 1,116 Other public assistance...... includes respondents who did not report year of entry. Excludes respondents who did 1Population counts relateto April 1983. Total includes respondents who did not report not report country of birth or citizenship status. country of birth or citizenship status, aswell asforeign born respondentswho enteredthe United States in 1982 or 1983. includes respondents who were born abroad of parents who were U.S. citizens. differences in numbers of family members in the labor force. For example, the black foreign-bom families were consid erably more likely than the black native bom to have two or more family members in the civilian labor force. (The black foreign bom also were more likely to report at least 16 years of schooling and family incomes of $35,000 or more.) While one-half of the black foreign bom and Asian bom had at least two family members in the labor force, this was the case for fewer than 40 percent of the Hispanics and only one-third of the whites. tween 1960 and 1979, 15 percent reported receiving one or more of the benefits. However, for those who came in 198081, the proportion was somewhat larger (18 percent)— per haps because of the large number of refugees who arrived during this period who were eligible for government assis tance. (Note that there are restrictions on permanent resident aliens receiving supplemental security income during their first 3 years in the United States.) For the naturalized citi zens, and the foreign bom who entered the country before 1960, the proportion reporting receipt of government ben efits was 9 percent. Government benefits The foreign bom do not seem more likely than the U.S. bom to be recipients of government benefits. (Although there are special government programs to aid refugees, they are of limited duration.) About 13 percent of the foreign bom and 14 percent of the native bom reported they had been recipients of one or more of the following government benefits in 1982: State unemployment compensation, food stamps, supplemental security income, aid to families with dependent children, and other public assistance. And similar proportions of the foreign and U.S. bom reported receipt of each of these benefits. (See table 6.) For the foreign bom who entered the United States be D ata from a matched sample of the March 1983 and April 1983 CPS supplements— covering about 70 percent of the sampled households— confirm earlier findings that, after some years in the United States, the labor market profile of the foreign bom resembles that of their U.S.-bom counter parts. Consistent with other foreign bom who had been in the United States for only a relatively short time, those who arrived in 1980 and 1981 experienced considerable labor market difficulties. The cps data also show that essentially the same proportions of the foreign and U.S. bom report receiving selected government benefits. ED ■FOOTNOTES ‘ Barry R. Chiswick, “ The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Universal Patterns,” in Barry R. Chiswick, ed., The Gateway: U.S. Immigration Issues and Policies, Washington, D .C ., American En terprise Institute, 1982. For more detailed analysis, see Barry R. Chis wick, An Analysis of the Economic Progress and Impact of Immigrants, Employment and Training Administration, U .S. Department of Labor ( n t is No. PB 80200454), June 1980. 2 The CPS is a monthly survey of the civilian noninstitutional population based on a sample o f about 60,000 households. The April 1983 cps sup plement, in addition to questions on country of birth, included follow-up https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis questions on year of entry into the United States, on current citizenship status, and on fertility among foreign-bom women. 3For estimates of employment and unemployment during 1982 based on the March 1983 supplement to the c p s , see Paul O. Flaim, “ Unem ployment in 1982: the cost to workers and their fam ilies,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1984, pp. 3 0 -3 7 , reprinted as Special Labor Force Report Bulletin 2199. 4 Although firm conclusions cannot always be drawn from the data be cause of the small sample size for some groups of the foreign bom, the data still provide useful insights. 23 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • F o r e ig n -B o r n W o r k e r s in L a b o r M a r k e t 5 Barry R. Chiswick, The Employment of Immigrants in the United 9 When they are first interviewed in the c p s , the sampled households are States (Washington, D .C ., American Enterprise Institute, 1982). asked their family income during the 12 preceding months. (Households 6David S. North, Seven Years Later: The Experiences of the 1970 Cohort of Immigrants in the United States, R&D Monograph 71 (U .S. D e partment o f Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1979). 7See, for example, Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Immigration Policy and m d , The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984). the American Labor Force (Baltimore, 8Permanent resident aliens are persons who have been admitted to the United States who may stay in the country indefinitely. In recent years, more than 400,000 have been admitted annually. In addition, large numbers o f refugees have been admitted (about 100,000 in 1982); refugees may adjust their status to permanent resident alien after 1 year. (Permanent resident aliens married to U .S. citizens have a 3-year waiting period for citizenship.) are included in the cps for 4 consecutive months, dropped for 8 months, and then interviewed for another 4 months.) The family income data are updated in the fifth interview month. Thus, for 25 percent of the sample interviewed in April 1983, annual family income refers to the period January to December 1982; for 25 percent of the April sample, it refers to February 1982 to January 1983; for another 25 percent the relevant period is March 1982 to February 1983; and for the remaining 25 percent it is April 1982 to March 1983. Family income data— recorded in broad intervals when households enter the sample— are not as precise as family income data collected annually in March, with a series of probing questions. Nevertheless, the statistics are still very useful in comparing one population with another. 10The Hispanic category is not a racial classification. Persons in this group may appear in the white or black or other racial categories. Coping with youth unemployment Can anything be done? Over the last several decades, billions of dollars have been spent trying to mitigate or prevent youth employment problems. The problems persist because each new cohort of youth needs help, and because resources have been marginal relative to the need, but also because many mistakes have been made in designing and implementing youth programs. Yet no social problem has been more carefully studied, and this extensive research and experimentation yields some important lessons which can increase the effectiveness of our Nation’s youth policies for the re mainder of the 1980’s. Combined with favorable demographic trends, welldesigned and adequately funded programs can substantially redress this longstanding issue. — N a t io n a l C o u n c il on E m p l o y m e n t P o l ic y In v e s tin g in A m e r ic a ’s F u tu re : A P o lic y S ta te m e n t b y th e N a tio n a l C o u n c il on E m p lo y m e n t P o lic y (Washington, National Council on Employment Policy, 1984), p. 9. 24 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Should works councils be used as industrial relations policy? The European works council concept has generally been opposed by labor and management, however, Canada s successful experience with mandatory committees indicates that such a concept might also be effective in the United States Roy J. A dams The traditional model of adversarial labor-management re lations used in the United States and Canada has been the subject of much reflection during the past decade. The high number of industrial conflicts coupled with sagging pro ductivity growth have given rise to a search for new models of labor-management interaction. That search has led to discussions on the appropriateness and desirability of the use of Japanese managerial techniques.1 However, little at tention has been given to the European institution of sta tutory works councils in which workers participate in the decisionmaking process at both the plant and enterprise levels.2 Because of the decentralized nature of collective bar gaining in Canada and the United States, experts in these two countries have generally considered works councils to have little relevance. They argue that there is no need for councils because workers are represented by unions at the enterprise level.3 Moreover, the unions generally have re garded works councils as inferior to unions and contrary to free collective bargaining. Also, management generally has viewed statutory works councils as potentially disruptive and an infringement on management rights.4 Despite these formidable impediments, there are several reasons why the works councils concept deserves to be looked at once more. This article explores these reasons. It reviews the various collective bargaining schemes, reports Canada’s experience with mandatory committees, and disRoy J. Adams is a professor o f industrial relations at McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis cusses the advantages and disadvantages of works councils and mandatory committees to unions, collective bargaining, management, and the wider public. Collective bargaining and other schemes The fundamental premise of Canadian and U.S. labor policy is that working people should be able to participate in decisions which critically affect their working lives.5 The primary mechanism designed to accomplish this is the Wag ner Model, enacted in the United States as the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Canada later adopted similar legislation, which gives employees the right to bargain col lectively. The original supporters of the n l r a believed that because of the many advantages of collective bargaining over individual employment contracting, the great majority of employees would opt for collective bargaining. The Wag ner Model, in effect now for half a century, may very well have encouraged the great expansion of collective bargain ing which occurred between the 1930’s and the 1950’s. However, it appears that the model is unlikely ever to pro duce universal or nearly universal collective bargaining. After five decades of experience, only a minority of em ployees in the United States and Canada participate in col lective bargaining and U.S. participation is shrinking instead of expanding.6 To some analysts, the fact that a majority of employees have not availed themselves of their right to bargain col lectively is an indication that those employees prefer to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment indi25 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • W o rk C o u n c ils a n d In d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s P o lic y vidually with their employer.7 However, in the contempo rary world of complex organizations, individual bargaining is not a viable alternative to collective bargaining. Each individual cannot negotiate in regard to broad enterprise wide policy issues such as occupational health and safety, training, and technological change. If employees are to be involved in the initiation and administration of policies con cerning such issues, a collective mechanism is needed. Oth erwise, the only choices available are acquiescence in unilateral management actions or exit from the enterprise.8 A currently popular substitute for collective bargaining is the quality-of-worklife schemes introduced voluntarily and unilaterally by employers.9 However, the voluntary ap proach to employment relations has two major drawbacks. First, experience to date indicates that voluntarism will re sult in only a minority of employees being involved. For example, subsequent to World War I, when Germany in troduced statutory councils, a number of American em ployers emulated the European experience by voluntarily introducing employee representation schemes.10 Although these schemes became widespread, the majority of em ployers did not incorporate them .11 Despite a great deal of publicity and government encouragement, participative management schemes, voluntarily introduced by employers, are still the exception instead of the norm. Second, voluntarism depends largely on the good will of the employer. Workers do not acquire the right to participate but merely are granted the privilege to participate by an enlightened and benevolent employer. If the employer changes his or her mind about the efficacy of participation, the scheme may be terminated regardless of employees’ wishes. Canada’s mandatory committees Industrial relations developments in Canada suggest that the statutory works council option may be viable in the United States. Although not called works councils, recent initiatives have characteristics very similar to European works councils. Several Canadian provinces introduced mandatory occupational health and safety committees during the 1970’s.12 Typically, committees are required in all establishments with a certain number of employees. For example, in On tario, committees must be set up in establishments with 20 or more employees and in Saskatchewan, the figure is 10 employees or more.13 In unionized firms, the union appoints committee representatives and in nonunion firms, employee members are usually elected. The committees have a man date to oversee safety regulations and jointly to develop and monitor safety and health policy at the enterprise level. They must meet regularly and keep records of their meetings. The intent of the legislation is that decisionmaking within the committees be cooperative rather than adversarial. The available research suggests that the intention has, by and large, been met. Pran Manga and his colleagues reviewed the minutes of 17,682 Saskatchewan committee meetings from 1973 to 1977 and found that 82 percent of the meetings 26 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis “ considered specific health and safety concerns,” and that “ most concerns have been acted upon.” 14 Several dispute resolution devices are available to these committees. Typically, if labor and management represen tatives disagree about their interpretation of a government regulation, they may ask a government safety officer to resolve the issue. If the parties disagree about the wisdom of initiating a requirement over and above government reg ulations, then the employer decides. However, in Saskatch ewan during the 1970’s, employers had to consider the fact that the administration was publicly committed to ensuring the joint development and application of enterprise-level safety and health policy. According to Manga and others, the government insisted that “ all business be conducted through the committee,” and that “ all agreements between management and the labour department occur subject to committee approval.” 15 Largely because of this policy, the committees achieved “ increased legitimacy and enlarged authority.” 16 Canadian legislation also permits individual employees to refuse to engage in unsafe work, but they may be sub jected to disciplinary penalties if they use that right in a frivolous or irresponsible manner. According to Morley Gunderson and Katherine Swinton, that law “ automatically gave workers a legislated right to participate in management of the workplace. . . .” 17 Such legislation gave rise to fears of widespread abuse of the right to refuse unsafe work. However, after reviewing the experience in Ontario from 1976 to 1980, Gunderson and Swinton concluded that the data ‘‘do not support employer fears about widespread abuse by either individuals or unions.” 18 Another Canadian example of a statutory works council deals with plant shutdowns and layoffs of groups of workers under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. When an employer plans to lay off 50 or more employees in a 4-week period, a joint committee must be set up. (As in the case of health and safety committees, if the employees involved are unionized, the union appoints members to the joint com mittee. Nonunion employees elect representatives from among their ranks.) The function of the committee is to “ develop an adjustment program to eliminate the necessity for the termination of employment or to minimize the impact of such termination on the redundant employees and to assist those employees in obtaining other employment.” 19 The committee is only required to deal with “ matters as are normally the subject matter of collective bargaining in re lation to termination of employment.” 20 The most radically innovative aspect of this legislation is that it provides for binding arbitration to resolve disputes which reach impasse. When a mass layoff is planned, the employer must take the initiative to set up a committee 16 weeks prior to the event. If the committee has not reached agreement in 6 weeks, outstanding issues may be submitted to a neutral person who is appointed by the Minister of Labour. The job of the neutral is to “ assist the joint planning committee in the development of an adjustment program” and to “ render a decision” on outstanding issues if no mutual agreement is reached.21 Of about 15 to 20 cases of mass layoffs through May 1984, only two required an arbitrator, according to inter views with Labour Canada officials. Few complaints about the operation of the scheme have been reported to the De partment of Labour. In short, the available evidence sug gests that the procedure is working. The compulsory dispute resolution procedure does not appear to have exacerbated adversarialism as some research might lead one to expect.22 Now that mandatory health and safety committees and redundancy committees have paved the way, it is likely that Canada will use the statutory joint decisionmaking approach more extensively. Noting the use of statutory joint com mittees with regard to layoffs, a 1982 Federal government task force recommended similar committees to oversee the introduction of technological change.23 Like the layoff com mittees, the technological change committees would submit impasses to binding arbitration. In February 1984, the Federal government announced its intention to encourage firms to establish profit-sharing schemes. For the government to participate financially in these schemes, joint committees would be set up to define profits, negotiate a distribution formula, and to oversee the implementation of the plan.24 During the same period, the Federal government announced its intention of requiring employee participation in pension management if the ma jority of employees affected wanted to be so represented.25 Subsequently, however, a new government was elected and its intentions in regard to joint committees are, at present, unclear. Finally, a 1982 report from a commission on adult education, appointed by the Quebec government, recom mended the establishment of joint committees to develop and oversee an enterprise-level training policy.26 One very innovative aspect of the Quebec committees is that they would control a budget funded by a levy equivalent to 1.5 percent of payroll. These developments indicate that, despite being dis missed by U.S. and Canadian industrial relations experts and practitioners, statutory works councils are a viable pol icy option. In fact, special purpose works councils are al ready functioning satisfactorily in Canada. Advantages and disadvantages American and Canadian unions have traditionally been opposed to employer initiated representation plans (which they call company unions) as well as to proposals that the European practice of statutory works councils be emu lated.27 Mainstream union policy holds that works councils are unlikely to be effective while at the same time precluding the practice of genuine joint decisionmaking via unions and collective bargaining. These fears are not unreasonable. Nevertheless, a careful consideration of the European works council model along with Canada’s successful experience https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis with mandatory committees suggests that the works council approach may not be inimical to union interests. For unions, the works council model emerging in Canada is different from European practice in that Canadian unions designate representatives to the statutorily required occu pational health and safety committees and to the plant shut down committees. In Europe, the committees have identities and authority separate from the unions.28 One advantage to the Canadian approach is that the union does not have an independent body with which it must compete. The presence of such competition is often said to be a major source of union shop floor weakness in West Germany.29 Another advantage of the Canadian scheme is that it provides unions with added capacity to be effective in their members’ in terest. It has been very difficult for unions to negotiate issues such as safety, training, technological change, and pension management. These are issues which a bystander may con sider important, but which usually have a lower priority to union members than money and immediate job security. Although union members are often willing to strike or at least to pose a credible strike threat in pursuit of financial and job security issues, they are much less prone to do so over issues such as safety and training. As a result, these issues are frequently either traded off or never put on the bargaining table. In both Canada and the United States, the majority of collective agreements are silent regarding such issues.30 Through the device of management’s rights clauses which are found in most collective agreements, employers retain the unilateral right to develop and implement policy regarding all issues not in the collective agreement. In short, under collective bargaining, employees are able to partici pate in many critical decisions only to the extent that they are willing to accept the risk of lost income as a result of a strike. The emerging Canadian model sets in motion a different dynamic by making designated issues individually subject to arbitration. For example, if no agreement can be reached on severance provisions in the event of group layoffs then, in the federal jurisdiction, that dispute may be sub mitted to arbitration. The trade-off dynamic which is prev alent under collective bargaining is made inoperative because the issue is addressed in isolation from other issues. Under the developing Canadian model, unions could continue to negotiate comprehensive collective agreements. However, if disputes occurred over technological change, training, or other issues subject to joint decisionmaking, the union, in its capacity as employee agent on the joint committee, could have an arbitrator resolve that particular issue. The new scheme probably would result in a substantial increase in collective agreement clauses (or in separate agreements) regarding designated issues. A major disadvantage to unions of the Canadian man datory committee is that government imposition of statutory duties on trade unions threatens free collective bargaining. In effect, the health and safety and redundancy initiatives in Canada have made unions the agents of government pol27 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Work Councils and Industrial Relations Policy icy. Canadian unions have been more than willing to take on these roles and would, most likely, gladly accept an expanded mandate. Nevertheless, the procedure does di minish the independence of the industrial relations system. This aspect of the Canadian model must be viewed with some concern given that free collective bargaining is con sidered to be a keystone of democracy. One solution would be to give unions the option to act as agent or, alternatively, to permit employees to elect committee members separately. That option, however, sets up competitive dynamics which have caused problems in Europe. Another potential disadvantage to unions would surface if the belief became prevalent that statutory committees made unions and collective bargaining redundant. Clearly, the motivation of many employers to implement represen tation plans during the 1920’s and 1930’s was to deaden employee enthusiasm for free collective bargaining by in dependent unions.31 However, there are reasons to believe that a works council policy in the United States and Canada might encourage rather than discourage the expansion of collective bargain ing. First, once unorganized employees experience the ben efits of representation on a limited range of issues, they will probably want to be represented on the full range of con ditions of employment. There is practically no likelihood that the mandatory committees in Canada will assume the union function of negotiating over wages. Thus, unorga nized employees who want to participate in decisionmaking over remuneration will still have to use their collective bar gaining rights. The transition of employee associations into genuine trade unions in the public sector is suggestive of what may happen if the works council strategy is embraced. Public sector labor-management relations in much of the United States and Canada has moved from joint consultation on a limited range of issues to collective bargaining on a broader range of issues.32 Second, it is unlikely that works councils in nonunion firms will represent their members’ interest as effectively as councils in unionized firms. The latter will be able to draw on the staff and expertise of the national or international unions. Unions also will be able to provide council members with necessary training. For these reasons, one may expect that the works councils will seek unions, just as independent local unions sought internationals in the 19th century, and as company unions did during the 1930’s. Today in West Germany, a major function of unions is to provide training and assistance to the works councils. The most effective councils are those which maintain close union ties.33 Impact on management and enterprise For management. Employers may resist the imposition of councils to ensure that they maintain their unilateral right 28 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to manage.34 They are likely to believe that additional reg ulation will restrict their ability to respond quickly and ef fectively to new conditions thereby hampering productivity and competitiveness.35 However, available evidence pro vides little support for that proposition. A review of the West German co-determination system (of which works councils are a prominent element) in the 1970’s found that the system was working effectively. Very few examples were found where worker intransigence resulted in produc tivity setbacks.36 Moreover, there was substantial evidence of positive effects. For example, in the coal and metal working industries, worker representatives were consulted from the outset about massive technological changes which were carried out without substantial social disruption.37 In Canada, research on the functioning of the Saskatch ewan health and safety committees indicates, as noted ear lier, that the committees generally reach mutually satisfactory solutions to the issues that are raised. Management officials often argue that joint decisionmak ing should not be compelled, but instead should be vol untary. Several recent analyses of U.S. and Canadian labor problems vigorously support joint employment decision making at the enterprise level, but gingerly refrain from recommending that participative decisionmaking be com pelled.38 The analyses conclude that imposed systems will generate low trust and hostility instead of the cooperative attitudes and behavior essential to productive joint deci sionmaking. However, experience with statutory works councils in West Germany and Canada do not support that proposition. The data indicate that such councils and com mittees generally operate in a cooperative, nonadversarial manner. The experience with group layoff committees in Canada is limited, but in most cases, the parties reached agreement without involving arbitration. A study of West German works council decisionmaking during the 1970’s indicated that the parties rarely resorted to arbitration: of 6,240 works council agreements negotiated between 1972 and 1979, only 70 required mediation or arbitration.39 F i f t y y e a r s o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g under the Na tional Labor Relations Act has not yielded universal partic ipation. If the proposition that workers should be able to participate in decisions which critically affect their working lives is to be taken seriously, new options must be consid ered. Works councils are a viable option. Works councils, which require joint decisionmaking for specific issues with binding arbitration as a last resort, can work successfully alongside collective bargaining conducted under the Wagner Model. Indeed, works councils may very well result in a resurgence of union growth. Experience suggests that sta tutory works councils are likely to assist the quest for pro ductivity and competitiveness. FOOTNOTES 'T . Mroczkowski, “ Is the American Labour-Management Relationship Changing?” British Journal of Industrial Relations, March 1984; D. V. Nightengale, Workplace Democracy (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1982); C. W. Summers, “ Industrial Democracy: America’s Unfulfilled Promise,” Cleveland State Law Review, 1979, pp. 29-49; and J. Crispo, Industrial Democracy in Western Europe, A North American Perspective (Toronto, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1978). 2 Works councils do not imply participation on governing boards; coun cils are separate from board participation. 3D. Q. M ills, “ Reforming the U .S. system of collective bargaining,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1983, pp. 18-22; D. V. Nightengale, Workplace Democracy, pp. 216; and J. Crispo, Industrial Democracy. 4D. Q. Mills, “ Reforming the U .S. System .” 23In the Chips: Opportunities, People, Partnerships (Ottawa, Ontario, Task Force on Micro-Electronics and Employment, 1982), see also Harish C. Jain, “ Task force encourages diffusion of microelectronics in Canada,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1983, pp. 2 5 -2 9 . 24 Gain Sharing for a Stronger Economy (Ottawa, Department o f Fi nance, February 1984). 25Action Plan for Pension Reform (Ottawa, Department of Finance, February 1984). 26Michel Jean, Apprendre: Une action volontaire et responsable, Commission d ’etude sur la formation des adultes (Montreal, Government of Quebec, 1982). 27P. H. Douglas, “ Shop Committees,” pp. 89-107; D. Nelson, “ The Company Union M ovem ent,” pp. 335 -5 7 . 5 Milton Derber, The American Idea of Industrial Democracy 18651965 (Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1970) and C. W. Summers, Industrial Democracy. 28 E. Cordova, “ Workers’ participation in decisions within enterprises: recent trends and problems,” International Labour Review, March-April 1982, pp. 1 25-40 and J. Crispo, Industrial Democracy. 6J. B. Rose and G. N. Chaison, “ The State of the Unions: United States and Canada,” Journal of Labour Research, forthcoming. 29R. J. Adams and C. H. Rummel, “ Workers’ Participation in West Germany: Impact on the Worker, the Enterprise and the Trade U nion,” Industrial Relations Journal, Spring 1977, pp. 4 -2 7 . 7Jeanne M. Brett, “ Why Employees Want U nions,” Organizational Dynamics, Spring 1980, pp. 4 7 -5 9 . 8A. Goldman, “ Settlement of Disputes Over Interests,” R. Blanpain and F. Millard, ed s., Comparative Labor Law and Industrial Relations (Deventer, Netherlands, Kluwer, 1982). 9D. Q. Mills, “ Reforming the U .S. System ,” and T. Mroczkowski, “ American Labour-Management.” 10P. H. Douglas, “ Shop Committees: Substitute for, or Supplement to, Trade Unions?” Journal of Political Economy, February 1921, pp. 8 9 107. U D. Nelson, “ The Company Union Movement, 1900-1937: A Re examination,” Business History Review, Autumn 1982, pp. 3 3 5 -5 7 . 12Pran Manga, Robert Broyles, and Gil Reschenthaler, Occupational Health and Safety: Issues and Alternatives (Ottawa, Economic Council of Canada, 1981). 13Ibid. 14Ibid., p. 219. 15Ibid., p. 205. 161bid. 17M. Gunderson and K. Swinton, Collective Bargaining and Asbestos Dangers at the Workplace (Toronto, Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos in Ontario, December 1981), Study No. 1, p. 6. '«Ibid., p. 7. 19Bill C -7 8 , section 60.13 (1), Labour Adjustment Benefits Act, Ottawa, Labour Canada, 1982. 20Ibid., section 60.13 (2). 21 Bill C -7 8 . 22D. V. Nightengale, Workplace Democracy, p. 186. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 30R. J. Adams, “ Two Policy Approaches to Labour-Management D e cision-Making at the Level o f the Enterprise: A Comparison of the Wagner Model and Statutory Works Councils,” (Hamilton, Ontario, McMaster University, Faculty of Business Research, June 1984), Paper No. 227; T. Kochan, Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations (Homewood, Irwin-Dorsey, 1980); D. Lewin, “ The Impact of Unions on American Business: Evidence for an Assessm ent,” Columbia Journal of World Busi ness, 1978, pp. 83-103; J. B. Rose, “ The Non-Wage Impact of Unions,” in G. Dlugos and K. Weiermair, eds., Management Under Differing Value Systems (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1981). 31D. Nelson, “ The Company Union M ovem ent,” pp. 3 3 5 -5 7 . 32B. Aaron, J. R. Grodin, and J. L. Stem, Public-Sector Bargaining (Washington, D .C ., Bureau of National Affairs, 1978), and A. Ponak, “ Public Sector Collective Bargaining,” in M. Gunderson and J. Anderson, eds., Union-Management Relations in Canada (Don M ills, Ontario, Addison-W esley, 1982), pp. 3 4 3-397. 33R. J. Adams and C. H. Rummel, “ Workers’ Participation,” pp. 4 27. 34D. Q. Mills, “ Reforming the U .S. System ,” pp. 18-22. 35Ibid. 36R. J. Adams and C. H. Rummel, “ Workers’ Participation.” 37T. Bain, “ German Codetermination and Employment Adjustments in the Steel and Auto Industries,” Columbia Journal of Works Business, Summer 1983, pp. 4 0 -4 7 and R. J. Adams and C. H. Rummel, “ Work ers’ Participation.” 38D. Q. M ills, “ Collective Bargaining” and D. V. Nightengale, Work place Democracy. 39“ West Germany: Works Agreements Reassessed,” European Indus trial Relations Review, December, 1983, pp. 14-15. 29 Conference Papers The following excerpts, closely related to the work of b l s , are adapted from papers presented at the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research As sociation, December 1984, in Dallas. The full text of the papers appears in the copyrighted ir r a publication, Proceedings o f the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meetings, available from ir r a , University of Wisconsin, Social Science Building, Madison, wi 53706. Needed: an interdisciplinary approach to labor markets and wage determination Jo h n T . D u n l o p An understanding of the reality of wage determination and labor markets— apart from collective bargaining— requires, in my view, a conceptual blend of industrial relations and economics. Policy prescriptions to be listened to and to be effective likewise need to proceed from an integration of the two disciplines. Economics must appreciate that wage rates are but one rule of the workplace among a vast array of rules. There are no fixed terms or rates of substitution with other rules, or even with other compensation rules. All terms of em ployment are not reducible to money. Industrial relations specialists likewise need to recognize, as should economists, how the complex of rules of the workplace is influenced, both in static and dynamic terms, by the contexts of tech nology, labor and product markets, and political power in the larger society— not by conventional labor markets alone. John T. Dunlop is Lamont University Professor, Harvard University. His full ir r a paper is entitled, “ Industrial Relations and Economics: The Com mon Frontier o f Wage Determination.’’ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The fact is that the mainstream of economics has always qualified and tempered its analysis of wage determination and labor markets by recognizing that special and peculiar features are at work that do not permit the unrestrained application of competitive theory, as applied to other mar kets. However, the readily observable facts of unemploy ment and differentials in compensation in the same markets have encouraged, in the past 10 or 15 years particularly, an extensive intellectual effort and considerable ingenuity among microeconomists to find explanations within the framework of economic rationality. These various attempts are not likely to impress industrial relations specialists. The judgment is likely to be that the models are far too esoteric. They apply to few situations, and they will not take us very far toward a general view of labor market and wage be havior. The amendments to microeconomics are not ade quate to the magnitude of the gap between the competitive model and reality. The ‘real world’ I consider three concepts that have their roots in industrial relations and practical experience as essential to an under standing of wage determination and the operation of labor markets. They are not congenial to microeconomic theory. 1. Internal labor markets. An essential tool is the internal labor market, as distinguished from the conventional or “ external” labor market. The b ls monthly household sur vey reports persons as outside the labor force, as employed, or as unemployed and seeking work during the survey pe riod. Movement among these categories defines gross changes in employment and unemployment. All these changes con stitute movement among enterprises or labor force states. These movements arise in the external labor market, a min ute fraction of the complex of movements that take place each day. The internal labor market is an administrative unit in which movements within the unit or with the outside are patterned by formal rules or customs. The unit may involve only some job classifications of an establishment or may include a number of enterprises as in multi-employer hiring halls or multi-plants of a single company. The internal mar ket may be narrow, involving a single enterprise, or be very broad as in the civil service system of governments. Internal labor markets are concerned with such topics as seniority, seniority districts, retirement policies, hiring and recruitment standards, promotion rules, layoff criteria, ab sentee policy, health care regulations, equal employment opportunity, and age or handicap discrimination, as well as procedures for dispute resolution over these rules and their consequences for management, employees, and labor or ganizations. The internal labor market is the unit within which relative wage rates are also determined among job classifications, not among individuals, with the aid of job evaluation or incentive systems or by decisions exercised by management or through collective bargaining. These relative compen sation rates are peculiarly the social concerns that are so important in the mainstream of economic thought, as evident in the work of John R. Hicks and others. The internal align ment of rates likewise needs to be related to some external rates, particularly for some job classifications. Internal labor markets and their rules that govern the movement of workers are also the fundamental determinants of the quality of the work force and the training that is acquired over a period of time on the job. Thus, the flex ibility of the work force, its adaptability to technical change, to shifts in work processes, to new quality and work stan dards, and to new products is likely to be mightily influenced by its previous work experience dictated by the rules of the internal market. Clearly also, the adaptability and employability of those exited to the exterior labor market is ma terially influenced by these internal experiences and training. Microeconomics has recently turned its formal analysis to pensions, to incentives for the work force, to productivity, and other features of internal labor markets. But efficiency is not the only test that a society applies to its labor markets, and particularly to internal markets, which are asked to meet tests of equity, security, equal employment opportunity, and other goals. In brief, I do not believe that microeconomic theory is adequate to provide a useful understanding of internal labor markets and their effects on internal and ex ternal movements of labor, on internal wage structures for job classifications in enterprises of size, and for on-the-job training. These are vast areas of labor market experience and wage determination that need to be incorporated in a consolidated industrial relations and economic perspective. 2. Persistent differentials from product market and estab lishment size. It is a well established fact that wage rates or average hourly earnings for a defined job classification, such as maintenance electrician or keypunch operator, show very wide variations in a locality, particularly in a com https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis munity with a variety of industries. The top wage rates for a job classification are often two or three times the low ones. Differences in fringe benefit programs normally expand on these differences. Neoclassical economics has sought to live with these large differences by proposing that they are related to the quality of the labor force in the different enterprises; compensating differences in working conditions, safety, distances, and the like; differences in information; and by the fact that there are longer run competitive forces in labor markets tending to eliminate these differences. Experience teaches that this view of wage rate differentials is simply grossly inadequate to the reality. Granted that some persistent differentials arise from the sources stressed by microeconomics, these are virtually impossible to measure satisfactorily. I regard it necessary to explain, in other than conventional microeconomic terms, the large wage rate and fringe benefit dif ferentials that persist for a given job classification in a locality. There are at least two sets of persistent and pervasive differentials, somewhat interrelated, that need to be rec ognized and explained. These differentials are not uniquely the result of collective bargaining, although the differentials may be more formally maintained under collective bargain ing. The differentials are related to product market group ings of firms and, within a given product grouping, to the size of the establishment, or in some circumstances to the size of the enterprise. Different competitive conditions in product markets are related to different compensation levels for the job classification in the local labor market. Economists have deep trouble with the concept of product market differences affecting wages because it appears that enterprises that are assumed to maximize profits are paying unnecessarily high wage rates for the amount and grade of labor required. The analytical soul is redeemed for some economists by explaining that the enterprise is sharing its rents with its employees. The view, derived particularly from business schools and public policy programs, that man agers in larger enterprises are concerned basically with bal ancing conflicting constituency interests, rather than simply with maximizing profits, leads to a similar relaxed view as to persistent wage and benefit differentials. Thus, the model of the enterprise is also at stake in the concern with persistent wage differentials. Forty years ago, I argued that “ labor markets do not resemble bourses, auctions, nor closed-bid arrangements.” 1 The institutional form of any market influences its perfor mance. It is strange, indeed, that so many contemporary economists have come so late to the simple truth that a labor market is not well depicted as a bourse. In 1980, Robert E. Hall concluded that, “ There is no point any longer in pre tending that the labor market is an auction market cleared by the observed average hourly wage.” 2 Indeed, there never was any point in so pretending, and industrial relations and its practitioners never did. 31 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Conference Papers 3. Bargaining theory. It is imperative, in my view, to approach wage rate determination equipped with the tools of negotiation and dispute resolution. Bargaining has always been a problem in microeconomics because of the fewness of buyers and sellers, or because of an indeterminacy of results of negotiations, or because of the discipline’s abhor rence of strikes, lockouts, and serious conflict, or because of the consequences of public intervention on market per formance. A number of efforts have been made to reconcile market wage and price determination with bargaining theory. But I do not believe these efforts are regarded as generally useful or satisfactory. There are several assumptions requisite to economic rigor which seem to me to render the theoretical frameworks rather unacceptable in wage rate determination; in my experience, there are typically scores of rules under discussion which are not readily transmuted into money on a fixed basis, and none of the parties to the negotiations is a monolith. The essence of negotiations and mediation is the shifting alignments within each party. Between two parties, it takes three agreements, one within each side, to reach the third agreement across the bargaining table. This essential view of negotiations is repugnant to microeconomics. Outcomes in negotiations are variable, not prescribed by markets, and the institutional features of the markets do make a differ ence. Indeed, these institutional features are themselves sub ject to negotiated change. In s u m , an understanding and an adequate explanation of the behavior of labor markets and of wage determination inherently needs to integrate the contributions of economic analysis— and its dedication to competitive markets— and those of industrial relations with its acceptance of internal markets, persistent differentials in compensation generated by product market differences, and the negotiation process. Serious error and bias are derived from trying to get along with one without the other. Such integration is in keeping with the long-run mainstream of economics. To facilitate this integration, and thus the discourse on labor markets and wage determination, is one of the major intellectual re sponsibilities of the Industrial Relations Research Association. I fully recognize that the integration of industrial relations and microeconomics is likely to involve for economics a loss of formal rigor and intellectual beauty. But abstration and relevance were never so far apart in economics. A sensitivity to industrial relations remains essential to an un derstanding of and sensible policy prescriptions for labor markets and wage determination. Q ---------- FOOTNOTES---------1 John T . Dunlop, Wage Determination Linder Trade Unions (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1944), pp. 11, 118. 2Robert E. Hall, “ Employment Fluctuations and Wage Rigidity,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity , vol. 1, 1980, p. 120. 32 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The new Federal-State program to train dislocated workers R o b e r t F. C o o k a n d W a y n e M. T u r n a g e The passage of Title III of the Job Training Partnership Act, authorizing the Dislocated Worker Program, represented an acknowledgment by Congress of a relatively new labor mar ket problem faced by thousands of American workers. Al though the Job Training Partnership Act is basically concerned with training the economically disadvantaged, the Dislo cated Worker Program is designed to assist workers who have lost or are at risk of losing their jobs because of plant closings and massive layoffs caused by world competition and technological change. Although retraining technologically unemployed workers was done on a small scale under the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, over the last two decades, the basic thrust of employment and training policy has been to improve the employability of economically disadvantaged youths and adults.1 Title III represents a renewed interest in structurally displaced workers. While Manpower Development and Training Act pro grams were contracted for directly by the Federal Govern ment, perhaps the greatest significance of the Job Training Partnership Act is the role it gives the States in designing and implementing the Title III program. Many management, coordinating, program planning, and oversight responsibil ities have been shifted from the Federal to State level. States have almost complete authority over how the program is targeted, how resources are distributed, and what services will be provided.2 Emphasis on training Legislation requires that 70 percent of all Title III funds be allocated to a training activity. While retraining efforts will be an important service strategy, findings indicate that the special problems of dislocated workers require multiple training strategies. For example, many Title III eligibles have substantial experience in high-paying jobs although the skills learned in those occupations were industry specific and not readily transferable to other high-wage occupations. This may require counseling aimed at reducing the partic ipant’s post-program wage expectations. Other dislocated workers are long-term unemployed and in need of financial assistance as well as personal counseling. Still others choose on-the-job training or job search assistance that provides an immediate source of income rather than a training program. Organization of Title III Because the States have almost complete jurisdiction3 over the use of Title III funds, there is interest in how the States target and allocate resources. In January 1984, the Robert F. Cook is a senior economist and Wayne M. Turnage is a research associate at w e s t a t , Inc., Rockville, m d . The title of their full ir r a paper is “ The Title III Dislocated Worker Program.” findings revealed that the majority of the States in the sample established centralized procedures for organizing their Title III program.4 Although four States have altered their allocation strategies since that observation, the trend toward a centralized program has not changed. By the end of the transition year, 10 of the 20 sample States were organizing Title III on a request for proposal project basis; seven conducted Statewide Title III programs; one State earmarked its allocations for service delivery area funding and then distributed the funds on a request for proposal basis; one distributed predetermined allocations to county governments on a project basis; and one formulafunded 75 percent of its total allocation and distributed the remaining 25 percent on a request for proposal basis. In almost all of these States, decisionmaking was gen erally concentrated in one or two State agencies with little or no input from local private industry councils. In the two States where program resources were earmarked on a for mula basis to the service delivery areas, the State agency responsible for the dislocated worker program retained the prerogative to choose among all projects proposed. It was reported that some State officials favor this allocation pro cedure because from a State perspective, “ the process pro vides greater flexibility in project application and is the superior method for responding to project-specific re quests.” The request for proposal process was popular among the States for the following reasons: (1) It enhances State con trol of program resources by allowing them to select only those projects consistent with the overall State plan for eco nomic development; (2) It ensures the meritorious selec tion of projects— a particular concern when resources are limited; (3) It ensures maximum impact by targeting re sources on projects in areas where the dislocated worker problem is particularly severe; and (4) It requires a min imum level of local input in program planning and operation. Continued use of the request for proposal process. for distributing Title III funds may cause problems, according to several officials. In one State, the procedure has been marked by an increase in technical requirements and detailed guidelines in the proposal request, resulting in a systematic bias against smaller programs in rural service delivery areas. State officials acknowledge that some type of formula-fund ing arrangement would be more equitable, although this might spread resources to the point that smaller areas might not be able to support an effective program. This strategy would reduce the overall impact of Title III. The major complaint with the proposal request process is the lengthy procedural requirements which, some officials feel, prevent an effective response in urgent situations. To overcome this, some States have retained a contingency fund in order to respond, for example, to unexpected plant closings. Three of the seven States operating statewide programs made changes in their programs during fiscal year 1984. In two States, the program was organized through the regional and local Job Service offices. In the third, a consortium of westat https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis State agencies was selected to operate the program. While all three States adjusted their statewide programs to over come previous implementation difficulties, the problems seem to be endemic to operating statewide Title III programs. The benefits of such a strategy— effective coordination, cen tralized communication, and the capacity to operate largescale programs— are often negated by the lack of interest and problems of coordination these programs create at the local level. SDA operated Title III projects Because there are no specific provisions in the Job Train ing Partnership Act to require direct funding of Title III to the service delivery areas, there is widespread funding of projects outside of the service delivery area system. As of January 1984, only 16 percent of the Title III funds were allocated to service delivery area administrative entities in the sample of States. By the end of the transition year, the figure had increased to 36 percent. However, only 2 percent of the Title III resources were passed to the service delivery areas through a formula-funding arrangement. In Phase 1 of our study, only 7 of the 21 service delivery areas received funding to operate 9 Title III projects. For Phase 2 of the study, the number of sample areas was increased from 22 to 40. Only 7 of the additional 18 service delivery areas received grants from the State to operate Title III projects. This brought to 14 the total number of the 40 sample service delivery areas with dislocated worker programs. Coordination problems between service delivery area op erated programs and the State Title III programs continued during the remainder of the transition year. As the States continued to allocate Title III resources outside of the service delivery area system, criticism of this strategy increased, and coordination of services across programs remained low. In the 21 service delivery areas where both Title II and Title III programs were operating, 14 acknowledged a complete absence of coordination between service delivery area ad ministered programs and the Title III projects administered by various private, State, and local agencies. Eight of these attribute this lack of cooperation to the existence of the Stateadministered Title III programs which, they feel, have been organized without any coordination objectives. The level of communication between the State and these service delivery areas usually does not extend beyond a letter of notification that “ a project” will be funded in the area. State targeting for Title III The targeting provisions in Section 302 of the act clearly focus on unemployed persons with a recent labor force at tachment. The specific reference to individuals affected by plant closures or layoffs is a direct attempt to concentrate resources on those thought to be adversely affected by a changing labor market. In addition, the law provides a mechanism for identifying program eligibles by allowing for a priority focus on individuals who are eligible for, or have exhausted, their unemployment insurance benefits. 33 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Conference Papers Under the legislation, the States have specific responsi bility for identifying dislocated workers, and they have been granted significant latitude to determine who will be served and how to identify the desired target population. The earlier observation indicated that State targeting de cisions evolved slowly, lagging behind other Title III ac tivities. It was concluded that targeting goals would become more explicit as the transition year progressed. Phase 2 find ings reveal a marked increase in State-level targeting activ ity. O ne-fourth of the sam ple of States ensured the development of more focused Title III projects by narrowing the eligibility criteria in the legislation. These States or ganized the Dislocated Worker Program on a request for proposal/project basis. Targeting decisions were generally made by officials in the State agency administering the program. The basic ob jective of State targeting strategies was to develop criteria that distinguished between a narrow group of workers le gitimately displaced from the labor market and workers suffering from periodic spells of unemployment. Seven sample States added no provisions to the targeting legislation but chose projects which met unwritten State “ threshold” requirements. This approach shifted many pro ject-level targeting responsibilities to local operators. In ad dition, the strategy granted operators the needed flexibility to identify dislocated workers in their labor market areas, while reserving final approval of the targeting decisions to the States. In 8 of the 20 States sampled there is still no apparent focus or strategy for serving particular groups of dislocated workers. Targeting decisions are often left to the discretion of program operators with limited guidance from the States. Four of these States have chosen to operate statewide Title III programs; the operators are usually State agencies. In such States, the policy of providing services on an “ indi vidual basis” does not create concern that an inappropriate population might be served. Rather, locating the program in State agencies is thought to ensure that program operators will identify and serve truly dislocated workers. Title III matching requirement Each State is required to provide a match equal to the formula-funded allocation for fiscal 1983 and 1984. This amount was subject to the reduction in the match based on the prior year State unemployment rate relative to the na tional rate. Nineteen of the 20 sampled States were subject to the Federal match requirements.5 Eleven States passed the responsibility on to the program operators. An additional five passed it to the subgrantee level without designating a source for a match. Only three States provided a cash match through appropriations by the State legislature. The most common sources for generating the match continue to be the employers’ contribution to wages paid under on-the-job training contracts (10 States) and unemployment insurance benefits received by enrollees (8 States). Eight States also 34 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis used in-kind contributions from either the nontuition share of the budget for State institutions providing Title III ser vices, or State staff services. Five States designated in-kind contributions from the private sector as a source of match. Title III buildup There was a slow buildup of Title III fund obligations through mid-January 1984. Over 39 percent of the funds had not been obligated by the States and an additional 19 percent was committed to projects which had not begun to enroll participants. Phase 2 findings reveal that this problem has been corrected. By the end of transition year 1984, over $94 million had been made available in the 20 sampled States of which all but 8 percent had been obligated. Several strategies were used to successfully obligate Title III resources. Generally, the effort to commit these resources involved distributing program funds to an existing operating network of employment and training service providers (that is, local employment service offices or community colleges), or refunding projects that received fiscal year 1983 funding. A number of State officials indicated that early buildup prob lems were merely temporary pains associated with starting a new program. Title III expenditure rate Most sample States had problems organizing the Dislo cated Worker Program and starting specific projects in the first year of the Job Training Partnership Act. Beyond those early implementation troubles, however, are other obstacles that have effectively slowed one-half of the sample States in spending their Title III allocation. The central reason for this inability to spend Title III resources relates to the newness of the program. In some States, new service providers were selected who require extensive up-front training for intake procedures and eli gibility determination. Other States complain about the in ability to attract those workers to the program who have become victims of plant closures. Many of these workers “ persist in the thinking that the plant will reopen and are, therefore, slow to take advantage of the training offered through Title III.” They often rely on unemployment in surance and supplementary unemployment benefits to cush ion the wait for the plant to call them back to work. This has caused problems for Title III projects relying on un employment insurance benefits for their required match. Associates from four States experiencing slow expendi ture rates point to State decisions to operate the program outside of the service delivery area system as a major factor slowing the enrollment process. Often the administrative entities for the service delivery areas have a capable staff in place with established relations with local industries, unions, and government officials. Funding projects outside of this system necessitates early implementation efforts to develop these relationships instead of building up enroll ments. Title III service mix 4For a description of the study, see Robert F. Cook and others, State Level Implementation of the Job Training Partnership Act (U .S. Depart The service strategies employed during the first fiscal year for Title III reflected the considerable flexibility granted the States to select eligible activities and the significant input of many local operators in determining what those activities were to be. This flexibility remains the key reason for the continuing variety in service mix. Several States continue to fund proj ects designed to establish a network of services to locate immediate employment for Title III participants (for ex ample, job clubs). The premise is that the displaced worker can be effectively reemployed through intervention strate gies that sharpen or improve job search skills. Some States are funding projects designed to impart new job skills to dislocated workers with obsolete skills. Typi cally, these projects target workers affected by specific plant closures. The service elements combine on-the-job training contracts with small businesses and classroom and/or vo cational training for specific occupations. ment of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office o f Re search and Evaluation, 1984), ch. 1. Future implementation of Title III With few exceptions, the sample States used centralized decisionmaking to maintain control of the Title III program. A more centralized approach to program organization en hances coordination among State-level agencies and pro vides the mechanisms for incorporating Title III into the Governor’s policy agenda. Planned arrangements for the first full program year indicates that this will continue. Future service delivery area involvement in the program will be mostly limited to those areas that are able to propose and win specific projects. The fact that nine States plan to distribute resources on a request for proposal/project basis does assure a minimal review and recommendation role for service delivery area officials. In addition, the fiscal year 1984 shift to direct formula funding to the service delivery areas in one State and the planned strategy of another State to select projects recommended by service delivery areas, is a recognized attempt at decentralization. State officials continue to complain, however, about the inefficiency of the request for proposal procedure and are searching for ways to speed up (centralize) future decisionmaking for Title III. □ ---------- FOOTNOTES---------1For a discussion o f the evolution and effect of federally funded training programs, see Charles R. Perry and others, The Impact of Government Manpower Programs (Philadelphia, p a , University of Pennsylvania, In dustrial Research Unit, 1975). 2 Although 75 percent of the funds are formula funded to the States, 25 percent is allocated on a discretionary basis by the Secretary of Labor to projects proposed by the States. 3 All Title III programs, other than those operating on a statewide or industry basis, must be submitted for review and recommendations to the private industry council and the elected officials of any service delivery area in which they operate. Further, full consultation must take place with a labor organization before a Title III program provides services to a substantial number o f its members. Also, the statewide coordination plan must address Title III activities. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5 One o f the sample States was not required to match the Federal allo cation because of its high unemployment rate. Four nations’ policies toward displaced steel workers Everett M. K a ssa lo w The steel industry in the Western World entered a period of crisis beginning in 1974 from which it has not recovered. Crude steel output in Western countries peaked at 494 mil lion metric tons in 1974, and then fell off almost steadily to 398 million tons in 1982. A modest recovery began in 1983, but production is still well below 1974 levels. Employment declines in the industry have also been heavy, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom. Not only has the cutback in production cut into employment, but the shutting down of older, less efficient capacity has further reduced employment requirements. The following explains the benefits granted to laid-off or displaced workers in France, the Federal Republic of Ger many, United Kingdom, and the United States. France Generally speaking, to deal with the displacement prob lem in the French steel industry, the companies and unions relied on attrition and early retirement. Under the 1977 and 1979 agreements, when layoffs had to be made, early retirement of employees over 55 years was resorted to. Then at age 60, these people moved into regular retirement status. (Government helps meet the costs of their early retirement, and in some circumstances aid is also forthcoming from the European Economic Commu nity.) Beyond this, if further layoffs are necessary, em ployees between 50 and 55 years of age are put into a status of “ suspended activity,” and then they go into early re tirement at age 55. Employees in “ suspended activity” receive approximately 75 percent of gross monthly salary (plus certain other compensation); in early retirement status, employees receive approximately 70 percent of their pre vious gross pay. (In each case, cost of living adjustments are also made every 6 months.) The employees usually continue to be eligible for sickness and accident insurance, company housing, company vacation colony rights, and so forth.1 Regular, social security retirement pay after age 60 usually replaces close to 80 percent of previous earnings. In almost all cases, the companies have the option of Everett M. Kassalow is professor of economics and industrial relations, University o f Wisconsin. His full ir r a paper is entitled, “ Crisis in the World Steel Industry, Union-Management Responses in Four Countries.” 35 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Conference Papers offering employees transfers to other steel plants when dis placement cannot be avoided. Separations are made by sen iority, with the oldest workers going first unless they have indispensable skills, although priority in departure is also given to disabled employees, or those who have worked under unusually difficult physical conditions or been as signed to protracted, continuous shift work. (In most of Europe this usually involves regular shift rotations.) Trans ferred employees in the same company retain their previous wage classification at least for 24 months, as well as their seniority. After 24 months, employees transferred to lower classifications are indemnified up to 80 percent of their loss, and anyone over 50 who is transferred must suffer no loss. Special grants and loans are provided to help meet any moving expenses.2 In actual practice relatively few transfers have been made, as steel employment has steadily weakened. In a further effort to preserve employment, unions and employers reached an agreement in 1982 to use a “ fifth shift’’ for continuous operations workers in the steel in dustry. Under the agreement, the 39-hour week was reduced to 33 hours, 36 minutes. Lower salary employees were fully protected from wage losses under this agreement, while higher paid workers received slight pay reductions, in some cases. Continuous operations workers in steel still work 8hour days, but they are given enough free shifts in the course of a year to average out to a workweek of 33 hours, 36 minutes (multiplying the latter by 5 yields 168 hours, the full 7-day workweek, 24 hours per day). These sweeping measures of social protection eased the burden on displaced steelworkers and their communities; however, the communities, and the unions within them, continued to protest as leading steel regions in the North and East declined, and young workers tended to migrate in the absence of decent job opportunities. Government pro grams to locate new plants and jobs in the areas had only limited success. When, therefore, the socialist government of President Mitterand announced new long-term plans for additional restructuring of the steel industry, including the projected elimination of 20,000 jobs or so by 1987, a storm of protest broke out. Large demonstrations were organized, especially in the East of France where the bulk of the cuts were planned, as well as brief union strikes. Included in the plan were new investments of $2 billion in steel facilities which, it was hoped, would finally return the trimmed-down industry to profitability by 1987. As the storms subsided, most of the unions finally reached agreement with the industry and, in effect, with the gov ernment whose continued financial support lies behind the benefits provided in July 1984.3 Early retirement and “ sus pension of activity” benefits for workers from 50 to 60 years old provided under the 1977 and 1979 (which had been extended till 1984) agreements, to relieve employment pressures, were continued under the 1984 accord. However, 36 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in recognition that new job cuts could not be absorbed by merely retiring workers over 50, management provided new retraining benefits for workers who are not eligible for “ sus pension of activity” or early retirement benefits. (Those facing “ suspension of activity” were also eligible for re training benefits. This reflected growing social discontent with taking relatively young workers out of useful activity at such an early age.) Under these “ reconversion” clauses, employees who are displaced are entitled to 2 years of training and benefits (70 percent of previous earnings— in line with those provided for “ suspension of earnings” status). If these “ trainees” have not found jobs by that time, their employers must, in the course of their training or at its expiration, make them two job offers (of a permanent type). At least one of these job offers must be within the steel basin in which they have been employed.4 The job offered is supposed to be one corresponding to earlier employment. These far-reaching benefits have been largely confined to displaced steel and shipbuilding workers, although employ ees in a few other large companies have also been similarly protected, with government approval and assistance. So long as steel unemployment was seen as something special, this proved no great problem. But as unemployment has risen to new general heights in France in recent years, it has begun to provoke protest among employees facing displace ment in some other industries. The weakness of the unions in small companies makes such protest less of a threat than in industries like steel where strong unionization and re gional pressures combine to support what, to an outsider, at least, look like a formidable and costly array of benefits.5 It is difficult to believe similar benefits could be extended to the bulk of the French work force— the cost to govern ment could be enormous. It should be added that this range of benefits was first begun under a conservative French government and then extended, and enlarged somewhat by the present Socialist one. Federal Republic of Germany To explain the benefits of displaced and laid-off workers in Germany, we will use, as an example, the Thyssen Co., a major steel producer. Prior to 1979, Thyssen and the works council (represen tatives who perform basic negotiating functions within the plants, by law) had agreed upon an extensive work sharing plan under which the regular 40-hour week was reduced to as low as 30 hours in some plants, to avoid layoffs. Under this arrangement, workers received 30 hours of full pay. In addition, they would also receive unemployment compen sation (approximately 68 percent of regular net pay) for the additional lost 10 hours, plus some small supplement from the company to close another part of the wage loss gap. In 1979, the company was confronted with the necessity to make some absolute employment reductions. With the works council, it negotiated a Sozial Plan under which a number of workers were moved into early retirement at age 59. During their 59-60 year, employees would receive un employment compensation, plus a supplement from the company which would leave them at about their previous net pay. During that year, too, they were eligible for the regular 13-month salary bonus, and they could continue in company housing (if they were in it) during retirement. Technically, employees might be offered new jobs (outside of steel), which could jeopardize their unemployment com pensation; however, several policies warded off this pos sibility. The labor market made new employment for a 59year-old a dubious possibility. Moreover, government of ficials informally cooperate with these social plans so that serious job offers are not likely. At age 60, under German law, the employees would be eligible for early retirement benefits (the latter usually begin at age 63, but where re structuring is involved, the age drops to 60). In addition, employees would be eligible for modest company pensions on retirement.6 Employees who were transferred to other jobs under the 1979 social plan, were guaranteed their old salaries for 1 year. Fuller compensation for longer periods was guaranteed to older and longer service employees.7 These plans run for set fiscal periods and then expire. Presumably when and if a new “ crisis” arises, a new plan must be negotiated. Similar plans have been negotiated in other German steel plants, as employment cuts had to be made. In some cases, provisions for early retirement has been made for employees at ages as low as 56 and 55.8 United Kingdom Layoff benefits. In 1979, the British Steel Corp. resolved to move forward with a policy of drastic closings of what it judged to be obsolete works, or parts of works. In the face of strong opposition to such closings by the Iron and Steel Trade Confederation, the corporations proceeded to negotiate special termination agreements on a works by works basis. While some efforts were made to transfer displaced em ployees to continuing operations, several factors led to few such transfers. In the first place, the shutdowns were far reaching, and few opportunities were available. Secondly, union and management both stress the traditional resistance of British workers to moving even short distances. There have, however, been a number of cases in which young and old workers have changed places, permitting the former to retain his steel employment while the latter chooses layoff (with its benefits) or early retirement (not too many cases). The agreements negotiated with the various unions (jointly, works by works) provide significant ex gratia (severance) benefits, beyond those provided under national legislation and by the European Economic Community (through its Coal and Steel Community). Under national legislation (Redundancy Payments Act of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1965, amended in 1979), terminated workers’s benefits are scaled to their previous service and age. Thus, for each year of service a worker has completed between ages 18 and 21, he could be entitled to Vi week of pay; for service between ages 22 and 41, 1 week per year; and for each service year between 42 and 64, IVi weeks of pay. Under the Act, for example, a worker who started his employment with British Steel Corp. at age 36, and terminated at 51, would be entitled to \9Vi weeks of pay (13V2 weeks for service years from 42 to 51, and 6 weeks for his service from ages 3641). As part of the various works’ termination collective agree ments, British Steel Corp. also agreed to increase the re dundancy payments by an additional 50 percent. A combination of regular unemployment benefits and spe cial benefits for steel workers, under the European Economic Community is available for a displaced worker who takes a new job that pays less than his old (British Steel Corp.) job. He would be eligible for a make up benefit to bring his total compensation up to 90 percent of his previous earnings. This would be available for a maximum period ranging from 104 to 130 weeks, depending on the worker’s age at termination. Those enrolled in “ approved” retraining courses are eligible for benefits up to 52 weeks. Workers transferred to other steel works jobs are guaranteed pay equal to their last jobs, for a period ranging from 20 to 26 weeks (depending on their age) and thereafter from 70 to 122 weeks at 90 percent of their previous pay (again depending on their age).9 (Similar types of European Economic Community unemployment assistance are available to other member countries’ displaced steel workers, including France and Germany.) There is an additional tier of large ex gratia or severance payments for terminated workers, which was negotiated in the 1979 closure agreements. These payments vary mod erately from works to works, as the company has sought to gear them to local labor market conditions in its negotiations with the unions. Under these provisions, employees have generally received payments usually varying from 16 to 26 weeks,10 but in individual cases, payments range as high as 48 or 50 weeks. In addition to these recently negotiated ex gratia pay ments, there are some ex gratia payments carried over from earlier agreements in the industry, usually for 300 pounds (about $375). Aside from formal ex gratia payments, the collective agreements also provide payments in lieu of notice benefits (which vary with years of service), and accumulated va cation pay benefits (usually 9 weeks) for terminated em ployees. Job creation programs. All of the European countries un der study here have made special endeavors to assist regions where steel shutdowns have created serious unemployment problems. These efforts have been particularly notable in 37 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Conference Papers France, and especially in the Lorraine (Eastern) region, where the historic concentration of the industry has made the region particularly vulnerable. The British Steel Corp. went beyond governmental ef forts, however, and established its “ own job creation agency, British Steel Corp. (Industry) Limited— a wholly owned subsidiary” whose purpose was “ not simply to bring new job opportunities to closure areas,” but to help “ create a climate conducive to job creation.” The board of directors of this new company included 6 trade unionists as well as the British Steel Corp. chairman. British Steel Corp. reports that although aid from several sources (the European Eco nomic Community as well as the British government) was already available for such stricken steel areas, the new com pany helped give “ more executive muscle, considerably more power and access to substantial resources” to busi nessmen and depressed communities.11 These efforts have had some useful results, but they have been made in a difficult economic environment, as unem ployment has reached depression-like levels in Great Brit ain. By 1982, the British Steel Corp. was indicating that it was planning to phase this program out, as it could “ no longer . . . afford” its cost.12 The corporation recently re ported as of April 1984 British Steel Corp. (Industry) Lim ited had “ become self-supporting” and would no longer need funding from British Steel Corp. It reported having assisted 1,400 companies, and “ forecast the creation of 30,000 new jobs by March 1986, well over half of which already exist.” 13 United States Interplant transfers. Under collective agreements nego tiated between major basic steel companies and the United Steelworkers of America, typically, employees (with 2 or more years of service) who are on layoff, and who are not eligible for pensions are to “ be given priority over other applicants” for hiring “ at other steel plants of the company located within a limited agreed upon geographical region.” On application, an employee and his family are eligible for relocation allowances ranging from $600 to $1,450 (single employees less), depending on the distance of the move. At the new plant, the employee is “ subject to all the rules and conditions of employment” including the wage rates in effect there. Except for vacation pay computation, his sen iority record begins anew. (Presumably his old seniority would also continue to apply to his pension status.) Severance pay. Where a facility or department is per manently closed down, employees who are terminated (and are not entitled to other employment, by reason of their seniority), receive severance benefits ranging from 4 to 8 weeks pay, depending upon the length of company service, for example, 8 weeks for 10 years or more service. (There 38 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis fore, benefits are an alternative, not in addition to Supple mental Unemployment Benefits.) Supplemental Unemployment Benefits. Under collective agreements in the major basic steel companies, typically employees who are laid off and have met eligibility re quirements are entitled to special supplemental compensa tion benefits— these are in addition to State unemployment compensation benefits.14 While an employee’s benefits are calculated in accordance with his previous earnings, in any week in which he receives a government unemployment benefit, the supplemental weekly maximum is $170 ($185 in August 1, 1985), plus $1.50 for each dependent up to four. For weeks when he is not eligible for government benefits (presumably after he has exhausted government benefits, usually from 26 to 39 weeks in duration, varying by States), the employee can draw supplemental unem ployment benefits up to a maximum of $220 ($235 as of August 1, 1985), plus $1.50 for each dependent up to four. These benefits are available for most employees for a period of up to 52 weeks. Employees who have 20 years of con tinuous service are eligible for an additional 52 weeks of benefits. Retirement benefits. Special early retirement benefits are provided for employees whose service is interrupted by a plant, department, or subdivision shutdown.15 Under the basic steel collective agreements, some six different com binations of company pension, regular unemployment com pensation, and s u b options are available to employees whose jobs are terminated. One survey concludes that as a result of these options only workers “ who are under age 41 and have less than 20 years of service” lack some kind of life time income protection. The others, by the combinations just referred to, with the addition of social security after age 62, “ are afforded income security from the time of layoff through death.” 16 These benefits vary according to the option for which the employee is eligible. ---------- FOOTNOTES---------A c k n o w l e d g m e n t : Grants from the German Marshall Fund of the United States helped make possible travel in Western Europe, which provided much of the information in this paper. My thanks are to the many unions, employer, and government officials whom I met with in the course o f the study. 1 These benefits are spelled out, in detail, in the Convention de Protection Sociale de la Sidérurgie de l'Est et de Nord, dated June 3, 1977, and a similarly titled document dated July 24, 1979. The latter document was renewed, with amendments until July 1984. In that month it was supple mented by new retraining provisions. 2Ibid. These details are spelled out and summarized in greater detail in an unpublished manuscript o f mine. 3 Convention Générale de Protection Sociale Pour le Personnel des Entreprises Sidérurgique Concernées par les Restructurations, Protocole d ’accord de 24 Juillet 1984. (Mimeographed). The Communist metal union denounced the agreement on the grounds that it accepted “ restructuring” that would bring “ the elimination o f a massive number o f job s.” The engineers and supervisors’ union— c g c , felt the agreement gave a “ blank check” for massive layoffs, and also refused to sign. Le Monde, July 16, and August 1, 1984. Our description of the terms of the new agreement is taken from the text, French newspapers, and from conversations with union and employer association officials. 4Protocole de 24 Juillet 1984, Title VII, pp. 3 -4 . 5 See The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 12, 1983, for a report on complaints o f employees in small French companies. 6All o f this is provided in Sozial Plan, Thyssen Aktiengesselschaft, Duisburg, 1979. 7Ibid. 8The benefits available to employees under the reorganization plan adopted in the Saar in 1977, are described in my earlier manuscript referred to in footnote 2. 9 Description taken from the following British Steel Corp. leaflets: Ben efits for Redundant Workers, 5th ed., January 1980, and Benefits [for] Redeployed Industrial Grades, 5th ed., January 1980. 10D. Grieves, British Steel Corp. director of personnel, “ La Sidérurgie et les ressources humaines-leur influence sur le productivité,” address to the International Institute o f Iron and Steel Congress, Tokyo, October 1982, reproduced in Union des Industries Métallurgiques et Minières ( u im m ), Social International, February 1983, Annexe, pp. 3 and 13. SI is the monthly international news journal of the French Metal manufacturing Employers’ Association-uiMM. 11 Sir Charles Villiers (past chairman o f British Steel Corp.), “ Job Cre ation by the British Steel Corporation in Major Steel Closure Areas,” Document No. 8, in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel opment, Steel in the 80s (Paris, 1980). pp. 2 0 0 -0 3 . l2The Wall Street Journal, Apr. 6, 1982. 13British Steel Corp., Report and Accounts, 1983-84, p. 18. 14This description o f S U B benefits is taken from sub Supplemental Un employment Benefit Plan, effective March 1, 1983, for Employees of United States Steel Corp., pursuant to agreement with United Steelworkers o f America. We have simplified some of the complex features o f this plan, to keep our description brief. 15This section is taken from Pension Agreement Between United States Steel Corporation and United Steelworkers of America, July 31, 1980. 16Survey by Camegie-Mellon University researchers, as reported in Daily Labor Report, August 30, 1983. Comparable worth in the job market: estimating its effects M ark R. K il l in g s w o r t h From a purely practical standpoint, comparable worth is likely to prove a mixed blessing. Reduced to its essentials, comparable worth amounts to a policy of raising the cost of employing low-wage, predominantly female labor.1 Hence, other things being equal, it will reduce employment of such labor. To the extent that it raises overall labor costs, it may also reduce employment in other categories, for example, predominantly male or integrated jobs.2 Thus, comparable worth “ solves” the problem of women’s low wages only to aggravate others. The key problem is to determine the likely magnitudes of both the wage and employment effects of comparable worth. Mark R. Killingsworth is an associate professor, Department of Economics, Rutgers University. The title o f his full paper is “ Economic Analysis o f Comparable Worth and its Consequences.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ir r a Wage effects George Johnson and Gary Solon investigated wage ef fects.3 Their results imply that comparable worth would raise the pay of women by only about 6.4 percent, on av erage, and would reduce the female-male wage gap of ap proximately 40 percentage points by no more than about 4 percentage points. However, their estimation procedure probably understates substantially the likely impact of comparable worth on wage rates. That procedure in effect assumes that comparable worth would correct only that portion of the aggregate malefemale wage differential among individuals that is associated with the proportion female in one’s occupation, other things being equal— where the “ other things” include not only such factors as education and job evaluation points (for factors such as skill requirements and physical demands), but also gender.4 Ronald Ehrenberg and Robert S. Smith do not attempt to estimate the effect of comparable worth on the aggregate female-male pay gap, but do consider its likely impact on women’s wages, using data taken from comparable worth job evaluations of State government employment in Con necticut, Minnesota, and Washington.5 Their estimates im ply that full implementation of comparable worth could be expected to raise pay in predominantly female jobs in these three States by about 15 to 20 percent.6 Employment effects On the assumption that comparable worth might therefore raise women’s wages by 20 percent, Ehrenberg and Smith then attempt to estimate the resulting effect on women’s employment. Their results imply that, if State and local government budgets remained fixed in the face of such wage increases, female employment would fall by no more than 6 percent. However, they add that it is likely that State and local government personnel budgets would increase some what in response to such cost increases. If so, they estimate, the decline in female employment would probably be halved, to about 3 percent. Ehrenberg and Smith note that these estimates are “ sur prisingly small,” but several caveats are in order. First, the Ehrenberg-Smith estimates are based on econometric results of somewhat doubtful solidity (for example, of 16 ownwage employment demand elasticities, seven are positive and only two are statistically significant at conventional levels). Second, they refer to broad aggregates (for example, all professionals and managers in local government noneducational employment) and do not allow for differential effects within those aggregates (for example, for a greater employment effect on nurses than on computer program mers). Third, they refer to State and local government, where labor demand elasticities are typically low, rather than to the private sector, where such elasticities— partic ularly in the long run— seem to be higher.7 39 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Conference Papers Australia’s experience The main difficulty in estimating the effects of comparable worth in the United States, however, is simply that com parable worth has been implemented here to any consid erable extent. In contrast, Australia has had a nationwide comparable worth-like policy since the early 1970’s. Al though Australia’s experience is not directly applicable to the United States, it is nevertheless instructive. Under Australia’s policy of “ equal pay for work of equal value,’’ which began in 1972, federal and state wage tri bunals set the same pay for all jobs judged to be comparable in terms of skill, effort, responsibility, and working con ditions. Between 1971 and 1977, the female-male earnings ratio for full-time nonmanagerial adults in the private sector rose from 0.607 to 0.766.8 Given the gradual pace at which most social change occurs, a reduction of the pay gap by this much in so short a time is remarkable. However, the policy also had several adverse side effects. First, women’s employment suffered. Results derived by R.G. Gregory and R.C. Duncan imply that, as of 1977, the cumulative impact of comparable worth was to reduce wom en’s employment growth relative to that of men by about 1.3 percentage points. Because the actual annual relative employment growth rate of women between 1972 and 1977 was about 3.0 percentage points, the reduction attributable to the policy was about 1.3/(3.0 + 1.3) = 0.30. In other words, Australia’s comparable worth policy reduced the rate of growth of women’s employment, relative to that of men’s employment, by almost one-third. In view of the EhrenbergSmith results just noted, it is interesting that Gregory and Duncan found no substantial disemployment effect only in the public authority and community services sector.9 Gregory and Duncan also analyzed the impact of the policy on female joblessness. Their estimates imply that the policy’s cumulative impact as of 1977 was an increase in the female unemployment rate of about 0.5 of a percentage point. (The actual female unemployment rate in August 1976 was 6.2 percent.) I n s u m , the possible adverse side effects of comparable worth should not be overlooked. Its shortrun employment effect on the public sector may not be substantial— though it should be noted that maintaining comparable worth there in the long run will necessarily require either higher taxes, or a larger deficit, or reductions in other expenditure cate gories. Moreover, Australia’s experience suggests that em ployment effects of comparable worth on the private sector may be much greater. be reduced until it equals the pay in comparable predominantly female jobs. However, comparable worth advocates appear to equate "fair” with "m ore,” and— not unmindful of the need to enlist as much support as they can get— often specify that under comparable worth no job’s pay would ever be reduced. 2 Reductions in employment in predominantly male jobs would be certain to occur if the substitution towards them, induced by the increase in the cost o f predominantly female jobs due to comparable worth, were smaller than the reduction in scale induced by the rise in labor costs and, hence, prices. In the nature of the case, substitution between male and female jobs is probably small, so adverse effects on predominantly male jobs seem quite likely. 3George Johnson and Gary Solon, Pay Differences Between Men’s and Women’s Jobs: The Empirical Foundations of Comparable Worth Legis lation (Cambridge, m a , National Bureau o f Economic Research, Inc., September 1984, nber Working Paper No. 1472). 4 Johnson and Solon fit least squares regressions of the form Y = Pa + Xb + e separately for microdata on male and female workers, where Y is the natural logarithm of salary, P is the proportion female in the worker’s occupation, X is a vector of other characteristics of the worker (schooling, potential experience, and so forth) and of his or her job (phys ical demands, skill requirements, and so forth), e is an error term, and a and b are parameters. Johnson and Solon then interpret comparable worth as requiring only that a be set at zero (or that its effect be completely offset) in both the men’s and wom en’s equations. However, the estimates of a in their regressions measure the extent to which an increase in the proportion female in the job one holds is associated with lower pay, other things— including gender— being equal. Thus, they assume that compa rable worth would leave undisturbed all of the male-female pay gap re sulting from either (1) uniformly lower wages for all women relative to comparable men (that is, a difference in regression intercepts) or (2) dif ferential pay for specific characteristics, such as education, depending on whether they are possessed by men or women (that is, a difference in regression slopes). However, when the regression approach has been sug gested by comparable worth proponents it has differed from the JohnsonSolon procedure in one subtle but crucial respect: under the proponents’ methodology, the regression would be fitted for men and women combined. This kind of regression, unlike the Johnson-Solon approach, treats all of the male-female wage differential between men and women with the same characteristics (X) as subject to comparable worth pay adjustments to the extent that it is associated with P. Depending on what other characteristics (X) are considered, the proponents’ procedure is therefore likely to lead to a considerably larger comparable worth pay adjustment than is the Johnson-Solon procedure. 5 Ronald Ehrenberg and Robert S. Smith, Comparable Worth in the m a , National Bureau of Economic Research Inc., September 1984, n b e r Working Paper No. 1471). Public Sector (Cambridge, 6Like Johnson and Solon, Ehrenberg and Smith estimate the wage effects of comparable worth by fitting two regression equations, but their meth odology differs from that of Johnson and Solon in two important respects. First, Ehrenberg and Smith use jobs (rather than individuals) as the unit of observation, and compute separate regressions for predominantly male and predominantly female jobs. Second, Ehrenberg and Smith calculate the wage effect of comparable worth on the assumption that comparable worth would eradicate or offset all differences in coefficients as between m en’s and wom en’s jobs (rather than just the "proportion female” coef ficients a considered by Johnson and Solon). The latter aspect o f the Ehrenberg-Smith approach probably explains why their estimate o f the comparable worth wage effect is much larger than the one derived by Johnson and Solon. 7Daniel S. Hamermesh, “ The Demand for Labor in the Long Run,” Orley Ashenfelter and Richard Layard, eds., Handbook of Labor Eco nomics (New York, North-Holland Publishing C o., forthcoming 1985). 8R.G. Gregory and R.C. Duncan, “ Segmented Labor Market Theories and the Australian Experience of Equal Pay for W om en,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 1981, pp. 4 0 3 -2 8 . ---------- FOOTNOTES---------'In theory, comparable worth need not require increases in pay for predominantly female jobs found to be comparable to, but lower paid than, other predominantly male jobs. For example, pay in the male jobs could 40 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 9For several reasons, the Gregory-Duncan results may understate the effect of the policy on wom en’s employment. First, Gregory and Duncan analyzed the effect of the policy on numbers o f women employed, without reference to hours worked; as a number o f observers have suggested, the policy may also have adversely affected wom en’s hours of work. Second, Gregory and Duncan analyzed the rate of growth of women’s employment relative to that o f men’s; to the extent that the policy raised overall labor costs and thereby reduced the rate of growth of men’s employment, policyinduced declines in the rate of women’s relative employment growth will therefore understate the decline in the absolute rate of women’s employ ment growth. (For example, if the policy reduces the rates of women’s and men’s employment growth by 3 percent and 1 percent, respectively, then the wom en’s relative employment growth rate falls by only 2 percent.) Finally, among the things Gregory and Duncan controlled for in the regres sion study that generated their results was the male unemployment rate, which, as just implied, may also have been affected by comparable worth. Technological changes in printing: union response in three countries M ic h a e l W a l l a c e Recent developments in union organization in the newspaper printing industry in three countries—the United States, Great Britain, and the Federal Republic of Germany— demon strate considerable variety in the degree to which workers have been able to retain control over the immediate labor process in the face of unprecedented technological change. Much of the variability is a function of adapting older or ganizational styles to new circumstances. Whereas the in terests of workers in the industry formerly were well-served by a ‘‘craft unionism” model, the urgency of moving toward an ‘‘industrial unionism” model is becoming apparent. The classic craft model of industrial organization is best exemplified by the situation in the United States and Great Britain prior to the onset of the major technological changes of the past two decades. Under this model, each of the major crafts in the industry— compositors, stereotypers, platemakers, and press operators— maintains its own union organization and apprenticeship program. I will argue that there are two intermediate phases in the transition to in dustrial unionism: a quasi-craft model, best exemplified by the current position of U.S. printing unions, and a quasi industrial model, which is approximated by the situation in Great Britain today. The industrial model of union orga nization, historically rare in printing and similar industries, is best demonstrated by the Federal Republic of Germany throughout the entire post-World War II era. The United States Traditionally, one could expect to encounter as many as 10 unions at a single major U.S. newspaper. While this situation still exists at a few papers, the trend has been toward either industry-level mergers of major craft unions or decertification of one or more bargaining units in a given Michael Wallace is assistant professor of sociology at The Ohio State University, Columbus. His full ir r a paper is entitled, “ Responding to Technological Change in the Newspaper Industry: A Comparison of the United States, Great Britain, and the Federal Republic of Germany.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis plant. Today there are three major unions in the industry: The Newspaper Guild, composed of reporters, editors, and a few other white-collar workers; the International Typo graphical Union ( i t u ) , consisting mainly of composing room and mailroom workers; and the recently created Graphic Communications International Union ( g c i u ) , representing pressroom and ancillary workers. A survey of the i t u ’ s Typographic Journal over the past 10 years reveals the reasons for the spate of mergers and for the current disarray among workers in the U.S. printing trades. New technology has radically altered traditional roles among the various functions of the newspaper, eroding craft jurisdiction over many jobs and creating the need for a more united front against employers. Nowhere has this been more true than among composing room workers, as technological advances threaten to eliminate all composing room functions within the next generation, i t u leaders have called for the formation of ‘‘one big union” for the industry, but old cleavages have proved difficult to overcome. After a merger with the Mailers Union in 1979, the i t u twice was unsuccessful in completing merger negotiations with the Guild. The second failed attempt in 1983 set the tone for a turbulent year during which the national leadership of the union as well as the rank and file became deeply divided over the future course of the union. The incumbent president sought a merger with the International Brother hood of Teamsters, a noncraft union that spans many in dustries. Other rru members, fearing that their union’s identity would be lost in the Teamsters organization, sought a merger with the only other major craft union in the industry, the newly formed g c i u . In the regular election for the i t u ex ecutive board in 1983, the incumbent president and his plan for merger with the Teamsters were voted down. But the president, seeking to close the impending deal with the Teamsters, asked the union’s canvassing board to overturn the results of the election on a technicality, which it did. The National Labor Relations Board, however, stepped in and declared that a new election would have to be held. In a separate action, six dissatisfied i t u members were granted an injunction to block the merger vote with the Teamsters pending the outcome of the new election. In the rerun of the election, held in July 1984, the anti-Teamster challenger and many of his supporters were voted into the union lead ership. The new president immediately recanted all past negotiations with the Teamsters and vowed to pursue ne gotiations with the g c i u . Shortly thereafter, there were claims that the Teamsters were “ raiding” i t u locals. In December 1984, in a decertification election in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Teamsters gained representational rights from the i t u in the composing room and mailroom.1 The i t u ’ s leadership cautioned members that this was part of a national campaign by the Teamsters to gain a toehold in the printing industry at the expense of their own organization.2 Prospects for the transition to an industrial union in the U.S. newspaper industry are not good. A large segment of 41 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Conference Papers the labor force remains unorganized. Longstanding rivalries among composing room workers and pressroom workers do not bode well for the merger negotiations between the it u and the g c iu . Differences among journalists and composing room workers over jurisdiction of cold-type technology re main a point of friction between the Guild and the i t u . The current configuration of union organization in this country can best be labeled a quasi-craft model: Instead of many craft unions in the industry, there are now only three, but the contentiousness inherent in the classic craft system is still evident. Each of the three unions continues to be or ganized along occupational lines and (in the case of the it u and g c iu ) there are continuing sources of internal friction based on earlier organizational structures (as between mailroom workers and composing room workers in the it u ). While there are perhaps many reasons for the failure of U.S. printing unions to retain their traditional control over the allocation of work, an important factor has been the belated and defensive nature of the merger pattern. The printing unions, particularly the it u , were slow to react to the changes wrought by the new technology and, as a result, turned to mergers out of desperation after questions of ju risdiction over the new technology had already been decided by publishers on a plant-by-plant basis. Lacking a coordi nated bargaining strategy at either the national or local level, the unions thus were vulnerable to the actions of the pub lishers, who demonstrated much more solidarity. Great Britain On the surface, the structure of union organization in Britain appears very similar to that of the United States. Whereas there were 12 major unions in the newspaper in dustry in 1948, there are currently three.3 The union ac counting for most of the skilled craft occupations is the National Graphical Association ( n g a ). Most of the 10 major unions that ultimately affiliated with the n g a had done so by 1967, prior to large-scale implementation of the new technology in British newspapers. The single union to hold out past 1969, the Society of Litho Artists, Designers, En gravers, and Process Workers ( s l a d e ), ultimately affiliated with the n g a in 1982. The second major union, the Society for Graphical and Allied Trades ( s o g a t ), resulted from the merger, dissolu tion, and remerger of two major unions. If one traces back far enough, one can see that s o g a t is the culmination of 35 earlier mergers including workers from all parts of the industry— distributors, warehouse workers, maintenance workers, and so forth, s o g a t is more industrial in orien tation than the craft-oriented n g a , but is currently the largest printing union in any European country.4 The third union in the British newspaper industry, the National Union of Journalists ( n u j ), organizes reporters and editors. But more than its U.S. counterpart, the Guild, the nuj seeks a broadbased membership of all white-collar workers in the indus try. 42 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis In contrast to the situation in the United States, the British trade unions have exhibited considerably more unity in their stance on new technology. The n g a and nuj have estab lished joint committees dealing with technology issues. In general, the journalists have supported the n g a ’ s contention that composing room workers should maintain jurisdiction over direct input of newspaper material into video display terminals ( v d t ’ s). This is an important departure from sit uations in the United States where this issue has remained a divisive factor between the two worker groups. A critical feature of the British experience has been the ability to maintain a de facto industrywide solidarity at crit ical times, in contrast to the relative disorganization of em ployers. This was clearly evident in the case of an 11-month strike at the London Times in 1979, during which workers joined ranks to support the n g a ’ s contention that its mem bers should control direct inputting.5 During the strike, while the Times was unable to continue publication, a committee was formed within the Trade Union Congress (t u c — the British equivalent of the a f l - c io ) to coordinate labor strat egy among the different unions and in other parts of the country. The victory that was ultimately achieved by the unions at the Times solidified ties between the n g a and n u j , and set the pattern for the resolution of other conflicts in Britain. Essentially, composing room workers have retained the right to control the input of all material into v d t ’ s, which is critical in the leverage they have with publishers. The industrywide solidarity demonstrated in the British case suggests that the union configuration in that country is a quasi-industrial one. While the resemblance to a quasi craft structure is apparent, British unions are much closer to the ultimate goal of achieving an industrial union struc ture. In 1977, the n g a and s o g a t agreed to a pact con cerning jurisdictional rights that has permitted them to coordinate their efforts to organize the nonunion portion of the industry. The n u j and the n g a have been holding merger negotiations since 1981. All three unions endorse the notion of eventually achieving one union for the industry. Going even further, the n g a has advocated the creation of one union for all print and nonprint media. Pursuant to this goal, it has begun cultivating linkages with the Association of Broadcasting Staffs ( a b s ) and the Association of Cinema tograph, Television, and Allied Technicians ( a c t t ).6 In con trast to their U.S. counterparts, the British trade unions have displayed considerable farsightedness in anticipating the im pact of technological changes in their industry and respond ing accordingly. Germany The industrial relations system in the Federal Republic of Germany is unique in several respects. First, the entire West German economy is organized on the “ one industryone union” principle. The largest labor organization— the German Trade Union Federation ( d g b )— consists of 17 in dustry-based trade unions, one of them being the Printing and Paper Workers Union ( i g d p ) . This union bargains col lectively for all workers in the printing industry except jour nalists, encompassing composing room workers, pressroom workers, clerical workers, and even security and mainte nance personnel. Journalists are represented by a second union, the d j v , but they work in close association with the i g d p because their interests are melded together at the plant level by codetermination. Second, individual workers are not required to join the unions (there is no “ closed shop” ), but all workers abide by the collective bargaining agreement made on their behalf. Third, through the German model of codetermination, workers and employers are represented on the boards of all sizable firms. Workers are also represented at the plant level by “ works councils,” which are worker advocate units elected by workers. All workers (including those not belonging to the union) have a vote in electing worker representatives to the board and to the works coun cils. Most plant-level decisions are processed through the codetermination model, which ensures a broad degree of worker participation at all levels of decisionmaking. Fourth, employers are generally represented in collective bargaining by one or more employers’ associations, which are also industry-specific. Employers’ associations frequently op erate at both the state and national levels. Fifth, total break down of collective bargaining is rare because of complex mediation processes. A byproduct of this institutional ar rangement is that strike activity is comparatively rare, and the workers’ right to strike is countervailed by the employ ers’ right to lockout.7 Effectively, then, the German newspaper industry is rep resented by two unions— the i g d p and the d j v . But because of the coordination they exhibit— in collective bargaining and other matters— the German trade union movement ap proximates the industrial model. The two unions must bar gain in tandem in an effort to balance the interests of the various occupational groups under their jurisdiction, a task that sometimes proves unwieldy in an industry in which craft lines are still visible. However, as technological ad vances began to erode traditional craft distinctions during the 1970’s, the industrial model proved a fortuitous instru ment for maintaining worker solidarity and preventing the lost of union control over the allocation of work. In 1975, when the threat of optical character recognition ( o c r ) and v d t equipment became apparent to the i g d p , the union requested negotiations with the employer association in the printing industry ( b d ). The b d and the state-level associations stalled for nearly a year, but eventually talks began. Nearly a year after the i g d p ’ s original request, the b d entered negotiations over the implementation of new technology. At this point, the i g d p and the d j v made a joint proposal for rules governing utilization of the new equip ment, basically centering on the restriction of the number of hours journalists could work on v d t ’ s and upon the maintenance of wage scales for composing room workers who moved to v d t ’ s . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis After several months of unfruitful negotiations and em ployer counteroffers, the union requested mediation of the dispute. In November 1977, the i g d p rejected the proposals of the mediators. After a brief renewal of the negotiations, talks were broken off by the b d . Having exhausted every alternative, the i g d p voted overwhelmingly to conduct a selective strike against five of the largest newspapers on February 28, 1978. In retaliation, the b d ordered 25 of its remaining plants to begin a lockout, hoping to divide the workers who were striking from those who were locked out. But because of the disunity among employers, only 7 of the 25 firms followed the lockout order. On March 2, the i g d p and the b d simultaneously ordered a strike and lockout of all printing firms, which remained in force for most of the month. Finally, on March 28, 1978, the employers capit ulated and signed a 5-year contract implementing most of the union demands. Among the key features of the agree ment were job security measures, health/safety measures for working with v d t ’ s , and a “ social plan” for retraining and reassigning displaced workers to jobs agreeable to those workers. Composing room workers were “ upgraded” to salaried status with no loss of income.8 The industrial model ultimately worked to the advantage of the German newspaper workers because it created the basis for achieving a uniform nationwide agreement on printing technology. In contrast to the U .S . and British situations, craft demarcations did not inhibit the process of adjustment as technology was introduced. Also, contrary to the U .S . situation but somewhat akin to the British, publishers dis played confusion and disunity that ultimately led to an agree ment favorable to the workers. Because of the industrial level of the negotiations, the German agreement was more comprehensive and holds better prospects for a permanent solution than either the U .S . or British examples. For all these reasons, the industrial model seems a more desirable approach for unions which must adapt to rapid technological changes in the newspaper industry. □ ---------- FOOTNOTES---------1 See Donald Sabath, “ PD Printers, Mailers Vote Switch to Teamsters,” The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Dec. 5, 1984, pp. 1-E , 2 -E . 2See Billy J. Austin, “ With ‘Friends’ Like This . . . , ” Typographical Journal, November 1984, p. 6. 3 See Alan Marshall, Changing the Word (London, Comedia, 1983); John Gennard and Steve Dunn, “ The Impact of New Technology on the Structure and Organisation of Craft Unions in the Printing Industry,” British Journal of Industrial Relations, March 1983, pp. 17-32; and Tony Griffin, “ Technological Change and Craft Control in the Newspaper In dustry: An International Comparison,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 8, 1984, pp. 4 1 -6 1 . 4See Marshall, Changing the Word. 5See Griffin, “ Technological Change.” 6See Gennard and Dunn, “ The Impact of New Technology.” 7 See Hans-Helmut Ehm, “ The Impact of Technology on the Roles and Responsibilities of Labor and Management in the German Newspaper Industry” (unpublished, 1982); and Karl Romer, ed., Facts About Ger many (Butersloh, Berterlsmann Lexikon-Verlag, 1979). 8See Ehm, “ The Impact of Technology.” 43 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Conference Papers Estimating the effects of changing Social Security benefit formulas G a r y S. F ie l d s a n d O l i v i a S. M it c h e l l The U.S. Social Security system faces serious financial dif ficulties in both the short and the long run. The short-run problem is that the system has very meager financial re serves. In the long run— after the year 2010, when the postWorld-War-H baby-boom generation reaches retirement age— the financial problems of Social Security will intensify be cause of population aging and the consequent decline in the ratio of workers to retirees. These problems have led to proposed reforms aimed at assuring the financial stability of the system. The question addressed here is: what effects would these reforms have on three variables— retirement ages, retirement incomes, and the Social Security system? This paper highlights the estimated effects of four actual or proposed policy changes. The basic model and some of the effects are drawn from previous work.1 However, the estimates of the effects of Social Security reforms on the Social Security system itself are new. The life cycle framework The analytical framework is the economist’s model of life cycle decisionmaking. This model maintains that inter temporal choices are made with reference to intertemporal preferences and an intertemporal budget set. Perhaps the most familiar application is to educational decisionmaking, wherein the individual is thought to decide how much schooling to acquire on the basis of his or her preferences and the income and job opportunities associated with alter nate educational attainments. The retirement decision is also regarded in life cycle terms.2 That is, the individual is viewed as deciding how long to work and when to retire on the basis of the income from various sources that would be realized at alternate retirement ages and the associated amounts of leisure.3 The four reforms, similar to ones actually legislated in 1983 or proposed for legislation, can be described as fol lows: Experiment A, which increases the normal retirem ent age. This means that a worker who retires at age 65 no longer receives a benefit equal to his p ia . Experiment A simulates the effect of raising this age to age 68, as was widely proposed. (What in fact was legislated was a change Gary S. Fields is a professor at Cornell University’s Department o f Eco nomics and the Department of Labor Economics, New York State School o f Industrial and Labor Relations. Olivia S. Mitchell is an associate pro fessor at Cornell University’s Department of Labor Economics, New York State School o f Industrial and Labor Relations and a Research Associate at the National Bureau o f Economic Research. 44 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to age 66 by the year 2009 and to age 67 by the year 2027.) Under the simulated reform, the p i a multiple is 1.00 at age 68 and the early retirement reduction factor remains at 6% percent per year. Thus, the multiples under this experiment are .60 for retirement age 62 and .80 for retirement age 65, with corresponding reductions at other ages. (The 1983 leg islation set a minimum multiple of 70 percent.) Experim ent B, which delays the cost-of-living adjust ment. Rules in effect in 1982 specified that a cost-of-living adjustment would take place each July, reflecting increases in the Consumer Price Index during the preceding calendar year. The 1983 legislative amendments delayed these in creases by an additional 6 months. This delay reduces real benefits by half the rate of inflation, or 2.3 percent, and has a relatively small effect. Experiment C, which raises the late retirement credit. This means that benefits are increased faster than 3 percent if retirement is postponed beyond age 65. We simulated a 6% percent per year late retirement credit, the same as the early retirement reduction factor. The multiple for retirement at age 68 would have risen from 1.09 to 1.20. (As it turned out, in 1983, Congress mandated a gradual increase in the late retirement credit, eventually reaching 8 percent per year as of the year 2009.) Experiment D , which changes the early retirement reduction factor. This proposal reduces early benefits by 15 percent per year, rather than by the existing 6% percent. The mul tiple for retirement at age 62 would therefore be .55, rather than .80 as at present. (A similar proposal was rejected in Congress in 1981.) Effects on the intertemporal budget set Increasing the normal retirement age to 68 (Experiment A) lowers retirement benefits by more than $1,000 per year, or about $17,000 for men retiring in their early sixties; the reduction is almost as large for those deferring retirement until age 65. Another effect of Experiment A is to tilt the Social Security benefit structure toward actuarial neutrality, in stark contrast to the pre-reform situation, which contained a penalty for continuing to work. Thus, increasing the nor mal retirement age lowers benefits at all early retirement ages and provides new financial incentives to remain on the job longer. Experiment B, in which the cost-of-living adjustment is postponed 6 months, reduces annual benefits by $100 to $200, which translates into diminished present discounted values of at most $1,600. Because the income amounts involved are small, this reform does not appreciably alter the pattern of discounted benefit gains obtained by deferring retirement. Experiment C raises the late retirement credit to match the early retirement reduction factor. Benefits are increased after age 65, raising annual benefits by as much as $800 at age 68. Present value at age 68 increases by $6,000— still not enough to achieve actuarial neutrality, but substantially reducing the penalty (in present discounted value terms) for continuing to work beyond age 65. Experiment D lowers early Social Security benefits, hold ing benefits beyond age 65 the same. For a worker retiring at age 62 or before, the annual benefit would have fallen by $1,700 and present discounted value by some $21,000. The gain in present discounted value of Social Security benefits for an extra year of work before age 65 would be $6,000 to $9,000. This reform would create a powerful penalty for retiring early and a powerful incentive for con tinued work. Yet, as we shall see, even those forces would not change retirement ages very much. Effects on retirement ages In predicting the changes in retirement ages for each of the four reform s, we find the largest effect under Experiment D , which cuts benefits at the earliest retirement age while offering a larger reward for continued work after age 62. Workers would retire about 3 months later on av erage, as a result of this reform. Intermediate retirement responses are found under Experiment A, which changes the normal retirement age. Benefits are lowered by approx imately the same dollar amount at every age but the gain from working an additional year is unchanged. We predict that Experiment A would delay retirement by about IV2 months, on average. The smallest responses occur when early retirem ent benefits are altered the least. Both Experiment B (delaying cost-of-living adjustments) and Experiment C (raising the late retirement credit) are of this type. These reforms are estimated to delay retirement by an average of less than 1 week each. All in all, the results suggest that workers will work longer if Social Security benefits are cut, but not much longer. This generic conclusion is consistent with estimates obtained by others using different models and simulating different reforms. Effects on retirement incomes Some may have thought that in response to a lower benefit schedule, workers would postpone retirement by enough to keep their retirement incomes unchanged. However, small changes in retirement ages suggest otherwise. Indeed, the reforms would cut the Social Security benefits received, even after taking account of this lengthened worklife and consequent increase in annual Social Security benefits. These cuts are as large as 22 percent under Experiment A, which increases the normal retirement age. The effects are largest under this experiment than under the others, because it re duces early retirement benefits a great deal while retaining a small incentive for prolonged work. Even though retire https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ment is deferred somewhat, increased employer-provided pensions and earnings do not make up the difference. Effects on the Social Security system The Social Security system’s financial problems are al leviated under the various reforms to the extent that workers work longer or retirees receive less, or both. The increased contribution effect is found by multiplying the average de ferral of retirement by the average gross earnings in each year, and then applying the combined employer/employee contribution rate to the result (6.7 percent for each in 1982, the year for which calculations were made). The savings to the Social Security system from lower benefit payouts is simply the mirror image of the loss to workers in present discounted value of Social Security benefits. In each case, the Social Security system comes out ahead: by more than $15,000 in the case of Experiment A (increas ing the normal retirement age) and by more than $8,000 for Experiment D (changing the early retirement reduction fac tor). Given that there are millions of Social Security recip ients, the system would gain billions of dollars if these reforms were implemented. For example, if 20 million workers (the number now receiving Social Security benefits) were each to receive $15,000 less on balance in the course of their lifetime, the system would gain some $300 billion. This surpasses by more than $100 billion the Social Security deficit that was viewed as unacceptable and which prompted the Social Security amendments of 1983. Yet, even this huge sum would go only a small part of the way toward meeting the multi-trillion dollar long-term deficit of the system. D ---------- FOOTNOTES---------‘ See Gary S. Fields and Olivia S. Mitchell, Retirement, Pensions, MA, MIT Press, 1984). and Social Security (Cambridge, 2 Says Robert P. Quinn (forthcoming), who formulated one o f the earlier models: “ Until relatively recently, analysts tended to describe the mag nitude o f retirement income rights by the size o f the annual benefit, or by its close relative, the replacement rate. Though useful summary statistics, these annual flow concepts ignore key aspects of the retirement incentives, in particular, how annual benefits change with continued work or with inflation after retirement.” 3 Some might question whether retirement is a choice at all or whether it is compelled by poor health or mandatory retirement. The U .S. evidence shows that the great majority o f workers could go on working (that is, their health is sound and they have not yet reached the age o f mandatory retirement in their firms) but elect to retire earlier, presumably to enjoy more leisure. See Fields and Mitchell, Retirement, Pensions, and Social Security, for a summary of this literature. To estimate how Social Security and other income sources affect work ers’ choices of retirement ages, information is required on the actual re tirement age chosen and the intertemporal budget set facing each worker. We constructed the necessary data for a sample of 1,024 white males covered by the Longitudinal Retirement History Survey for the years 1969 through 1977. To these data, we fit an ordered logit model. 45 The A natom y of Price Change Trip expenditure comparisons from 1972-73 to 1980-81 A l ic e A . L ip p e r t Annual travel expenditures by Americans have increased dramatically since 1972-73, according to the 1980-81 Con sumer Expenditure Survey. Overall, urban families have increased their vacation and pleasure trip expenses by 145 percent, from $272 to $667. The largest increase was for transportation— 186 percent, followed by: entertainment and other expenses— 144 percent, lodging— 132 percent, and food and beverages— 99 percent. During this same period, prices for the transportation component of trips increased about 165 percent, entertainment services— 57 percent, and lodging out of town— 120 percent, while food prices about doubled.1 As a percentage of total trip expenses, families spent the most on transportation, followed by food and beverages, lodging, and all other expenses. Within respective expen diture categories, gas and oil increased the most for all consumer units— 205 percent. During this same period, the Consumer Price Index for gasoline and motor oil increased 246 percent. A comparison of income and age groups shows that the largest percentage increase for trips occurred in the lowest 20 percent quintile income group (296 percent) and in the under 25 age group (216 percent). (Ages given refer to the reference person.) However, the level of expenditures for these groups was only 40 percent and 60 percent of the all consumer unit average. Families in the 45 to 54 age group and families in the highest 20 percent quintile group con tinued to have higher-than-average dollar expenditures on vacation and pleasure trips. Overall, trip expenditures in creased by income class. Similarly, trip expenses rose by age group until the 65 and over category where expenditures declined. The over 65 age group spent less on trips than most age groups in both 1972-73 and 1980-81. Whereas trip expenditures tripled for most other age groups, expen ditures for families 65 and over only doubled.2 Alice A. Lippert was formerly an economist in the Division o f Consumer Expenditures, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. 46 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Scope and results Expenditures on trips are collected in the Quarterly In terview Survey— a major component of the Consumer Ex penditure Survey. It includes expenditures for transportation, food and beverages, lodging, and all other trip expenses. The last available source of such information was from the 1972-73 survey. In 1972-73, travel data were published as separate items under “ Recreation, Total.” In the current publications, trip data are part of each appropriate expen diture category. Thus, trip information is not identifiable nor is it published as a separate component. For example, in 1972-73, gas and oil expenditures on trips appeared under the heading of “ Transportation on Trips.” To obtain total gas and oil expenditures, the two parts— gas and oil on trips plus regular oil and gas expenses— had to be added. Because most users examine total amounts for particular expenditure items, such as food and gasoline, it is considered more useful in the current survey to present the data by these total components. However, requests are still made for the total cost of trip expenditures. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to provide a com parison of trip expenditures from 1972-73 to 1980-81 and to analyze how such expenses have changed. This is done by identifying and converting 1980-81 data to the 1972— 73 published format. Interview data for 1980-81 were pub lished for the urban population in b l s Bulletin 2225. The 1972-73 data were recalculated to reflect urban population only. In addition, because students were not sampled sep arately in 1972-73, these households were removed from the 1980-81 data for the comparisons.3 Table 1 displays trip expenditures by quintiles of income class. For each time period represented in the tables, com plete income reporters are ranked in ascending order ac cording to the level of total before-tax income reported by the consumer unit. The ranking is then divided into five equal groups. Incomplete income reporters are not ranked and are shown separately. It should be noted that the lowest 20 percent income class contains negative income values because some respondents reported income losses. Table 2 shows trip expenditures for consumer units by the age of the reference person, who is the first member mentioned by the respondent when asked to “ Start with the name of the person or one of the persons who owns or rents the home.” Table 1. Annual travel expenditures of urban consumer units classified by outlines of income before taxes, Interview Survey, 1972-73 and 1980-811 ____________________________________________________________ ____________ A ll consum er units Item Com plete reporting of Income Low est 20 percent Total com plete reporting Th ird 20 percent Second 20 percent Fourth 20 percent H ighest 20 percent Incomplete re porting of Income 1972-73 1980-81 1972-73 1980-81 1972-73 1980-81 1972-73 1980-81 1972-73 1980-81 1972-73 1980-81 1972-73 1980-81 1972-73 1980-81 Number of consumer units in universe (in thousands)........ 58,948 67,327 55,461 56,558 11,087 11,276 11,097 11,320 11,089 11,318 11,092 11,290 11,095 11,353 3,488 10,769 Consumer unit characteristics: Income beforetaxes2. $12,388 $20,225 $12,388 $20,225 $2,448 $3,720 $6,336 $10,085 $10,553 $17,075 $15,335 $25,325 $27,260 $44,798 3.4 3.8 2.7 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.3 2.3 1.8 2.7 1.5 2.8 2.7 2.8 Sizeof consumer unit. . 46.1 42.9 42.4 43.1 41.3 46.3 44.7 Age of householder. . . 47.1 46.6 47.0 45.7 54.4 53.8 48.2 Number in consumer unit: 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.1 1.0 .5 .6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 Earners ............. 2.4 2.9 2.9 2.5 1.4 1.8 2.0 1.2 .8 .6 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8 Vehicles............. 1 .4 1 .0 1 .3 1.0 .8 .7 1.1 .8 .4 .4 .8 1.0 .8 1.0 Children under 18 . . .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 .4 .2 .4 .5 .5 .3 .3 .3 .3 Persons 65 and over. 88 75 81 58 70 47 53 41 39 32 61 62 55 56 Percent homeowner. . . 3.0 49.7 2.6 51.6 .4 2.0 .9 .3 61 1.3 1.8 .6 .4 68 Vacation and pleasure $272 $667 $266 $657 $67 $265 $132 $381 $206 $531 $308 $669 $619 $1,437 $360 $718 trips, total.............. 332 637 148 311 236 270 122 206 85 61 143 314 33 317 108 111 Transportation, total. . . Gas and oil for 4 0 106 7 4 2 1 1 4 9 1 5 5 1 1 7 3 6 4 9 2 3 7 3 1 2 1 8 119 39 39 owned vehicles. . . 84 160 54 320 108 120 36 112 78 56 28 17 135 51 139 53 Plane fares......... 24 66 42 107 41 47 19 54 13 11 38 8 58 18 59 20 Other3.............. Food and beverages, 9 7 1 69 1 8 7 3 5 2 1 7 5 1 2 7 9 6 8 4 6 2 3 6 6 0 1 9 80 160 161 81 total ................ 80 143 117 132 293 57 37 85 22 60 42 9 119 52 123 53 Lodging................ 74 35 63 155 32 66 22 48 31 12 7 21 64 27 66 27 Other expenses........ respondent providedvaluesfor major sources of income, suchaswagesandsalaries, self1Urban population refers to all persons living in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas employment income, and social security Income. and in urbanized areas and urban places of 2,500 persons or more outside of 30ther includes trip expenditures for train, bus, and boat fares; taxis; tolls; rented vehicles; and other vehicle expenses. income values are derived from “complete Income reporters” only. The distinction between complete and incomplete income reporters is based in general on whether the (sm sa ’s ) s m s a 's . Table 2. Annual travel expenditures of urban consumer units classified by age of householder, Interview Survey, 1972-73 and 19 80 -811 _________ A ll consum er units U nder 25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 1972-73 1980-81 1972-73 1980-81 1972-73 1980-81 1972-73 1980-81 1972-73 1980-81 Item Number of consumer units in universe (in thousands)........ 58,948 67,327 5,564 6,467 12,043 16,058 9,983 11,422 10,807 9,683 55 to 64 65 and o ve r 1972-73 1980-81 1972-73 1980-81 9,343 10,410 11,208 13,287 Consumer unit characteristics: Income before taxes2........... $12,388 $20,225 $6,804 $12,495 $12,267 $20,972 $15,517 $25,727 $17,350 $28,112 $13,832 $22,312 $6,778 $10,898 1.7 2.4 1.6 3.4 3.4 2.3 3.8 4.2 2.8 3.1 1.8 1.9 2.7 2.8 Size of consumer unit........... 73.6 59.4 59.3 73.4 49.5 49.5 39.2 29.5 39.5 29.1 22.0 47.1 46.6 21.9 Age of householder............. Number in consumer unit: .4 1.4 .4 2.2 1.3 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 Earners ...................... 1.1 .9 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.3 1.8 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.9 1.8 Vehicles...................... .1 .0 .2 1.1 .9 .3 1.7 1.1 2.3 1.4 .4 .5 .8 1.0 Children under 18........... 1.4 .1 1.3 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .3 Persons 65 and over......... 70 71 80 62 78 72 66 70 37 50 7 13 62 56 Percent homeowner............ $ 2 2 1 $ 4 7 0 $ 3 3 2 $ 8 3 1 $ 8 7 1 $ 8 3 8 $ 3 5 9 $ 3 1 1 $ 5 8 9 $ 1 2 4 $ 3 9 2 $ 2 3 0 $ 6 6 7 Vacationandpleasuretrips, total . . $272 92 233 394 136 398 142 117 376 288 98 210 317 56 111 Transportation, total............. 71 23 142 45 138 48 143 123 45 40 27 95 119 39 Gas and oil for owned vehicles 50 103 69 190 186 70 53 163 118 71 43 20 139 53 Plane fares................... 58 2 0 2 2 7 0 6 5 6 8 2 5 4 7 1 9 4 5 1 5 8 59 20 Other3........................ in 58 98 195 111 216 210 99 84 70 145 36 161 81 Food and beverages, total...... 56 98 166 170 66 164 70 93 59 37 42 18 123 53 Lodging......................... 29 31 73 16 92 36 37 89 24 64 56 15 66 27 Other expenses................. respondent providedvaluesfor major sourcesof income, suchaswagesandsalaries, self1Urban population refers to all persons living in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas employment income, and social security income. and in urbanized areas and urban places of 2,500 persons or more outside of 30ther includestripexpendituresfortrain, bus, andboatfares; taxis; tolls; rentedvehicles; and other vehicle expenses. income values are derived from “complete income reporters” only. The distinction between complete and incomplete income reporters is based in general on whether the (s m sa sm sa 's ) ’s . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 47 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Anatomy o f Price Change It is with respect to this person that the relationship of other consumer unit members is determined. The Consumer Expenditure Survey The Consumer Expenditure Survey is the most compre hensive source of detailed information on household ex penditures and income related to the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the U.S. population. Since 1980, the survey has been conducted on an ongoing basis. Prior to that, the survey had been conducted about every 10 years.4 The survey consists of two major components: the Diary and the Quarterly Interview. The Diary Survey collects in formation on frequently purchased items, such as detailed food, food away from home, and household products. The Interview Survey is designed to collect information on rel atively large purchase items such as housing, education, vehicles, and major appliances. In addition, data are col lected for expenditures which occur at regular intervals, such as rent and utility bills. The Bureau of the Census collects the data for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Each survey contains its own indepen dent sample of approximately 5,000 consumer units. The Diary Survey is completed by participating households over a 2-week period (14 days). The Interview Survey is con ducted with rotating panels of consumers on a quarterly basis. Consumer units in this survey are interviewed for five consecutive quarters; one-fifth of the sample is new to the survey each quarter. Q ---------- FOOTNOTES---------' Implicit trips weights and relevant Consumer Price Indexes were used to estimate the transportation price change. 2Public use tapes are available from the 1980-81 Interview Survey. The tapes contain separate trip expenditures as well as other expenditure items. Users can perform similar analyses for any o f the characteristics on the tape: region, race, family size, dollar income levels, and so forth. 3 See b ls Bulletin 2225 for a description of all differences between the surveys in the two periods. 4 For a complete discussion of the history and methodology of the Con sumer Expenditure Survey see Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982), Ch. 6, p. 38. What wage level for the young? Wage levels were an issue in the 1970s’ youth initiatives, as they were in the New Deal youth programs, and as they continue to be in the debate over a youth minimum wage differential. Should 14-, 15- or 16year-olds with no skills or work experience receive the full minimum wage for summer or in-school jobs when the majority of young teenagers in unsubsidized employment earns less than the minimum, when the unem ployed parents of participants might be more than willing to accept min imum wage jobs, and when unrealistic wages reduce public support as well as the number who can be served in public programs? — N a t io n a l C o u n c il on E m p l o y m e n t Po l ic y , Investing in America’s Future: A Policy Statement by the National Council on Employment Policy (Washington National Council on Employment Policy, 1984), pp. 17 and 18. 48 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Research Summaries New monthly data series on school age youth A nne M cD o u g a ll Y oung A new monthly data series on the employment situation among youth 16 to 24 years old by their school enrollment status has recently been established. Publication began with data for January 1985 in the February 1985 issue of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment and Earnings. The monthly collection and publication of data from the Current Population Survey ( cps ) on the school enrollment status of youth was recommended by the National Com mission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics.1The Commission determined that current information on school age youth was needed “ to understand work and education choices, to design appropriate employment policies and training programs, and to help appraise the labor market attachment of students.’’2 Prior to 1985, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published two types of information on the school activity of youth. One series was based on the school enrollment status of ló to 24-year-olds that was collected annually in the October supplement to the cps .3 The other series was based on a “ major activity’’ concept of “ school” or “ other” for ló to 21-year-olds and was collected in the cps each month. A major drawback of this latter series was that the school total excluded part-time students who reported work as their major activity. In October 1983, for example, the cps sup plement recorded 1.2 million more persons 16 to 21 in both school and the labor force than the total derived from the regular, monthly major activity question. The new monthly series replaces both the major activity series, which was published in Employment and Earnings, and the annual series on school enrollment, published from the October cps supplement. The new data have been col lected on a trial basis since November 1983. For youth enrolled in school, employment is iterated by age, sex, race, level of school attended, full- or part-time college status, and full- or part-time employment status. For those not Anne McDougall Young is an economist in the Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis a 0 Q 01 a B O enrolled, the data are iterated by age, sex, race, years of school completed, and full- or part-time employment status. Table 1 shows the extent to which school and work are combined and how participation in these activities varies between a typical school month and the summer. In January 1984, 46 percent of the 16- to 24-year-old population was enrolled in school. About a third of the high school students and half of the full-time college students were in the labor force. Most students were employed only part time or were looking for part-time jobs; most youth not enrolled in school, as well as those enrolled only part time, were in the labor force on a full-time basis, with their labor force participation rates rising with the level of their educational attainment. At the peak of the summer (July 1984), only 15 percent of the youth were enrolled in school, mostly at the college level. Therefore, the effect of school vacation was to in crease sharply, and, of course, temporarily, the number of out-of-school youth in the labor force. It should be pointed out in this context that these statistics do not measure “ stu dents” per se but rather those currently enrolled in school. This is a very important distinction, because, clearly, there are many continuing students who do not attend school in the summer months and thus cause marked changes in en rollment between April and October of each year. Ideally, it would be appropriate to develop a “ students’ measure,” one that would determine that a person was enrolled in the past school year and intended to return to school in the fall. There are certain pitfalls with this approach, however— including the fact that intentions do not always come to fruition— but the bls is currently studying the possibility of expanding the measure in this way if it can be shown to have merit. The data for January 1985 show patterns similar to those of a year earlier. But despite the fact that the population had decreased as the baby-bust generation continued to re place the baby-boom generation in the 16-24 age group, the size of the student labor force was relatively unchanged, as higher participation rates offset this population decline. Among those not enrolled in school, relatively more were employed and fewer unemployed than a year earlier, re flecting the continued economic recovery. The new monthly school enrollment data are also a source of information on several other issues related to youth. One is the size of the pool of out-of-school youth available for MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Research Summaries Table 1. Employment status of persons 16 to 24 years old by school enrollment status, January 1984, July 1984, and January 1985 [Numbers inthousands] January July January School and employment status 1984 1984 1985 Population, 16to 24 years................ Enrolled In school................ Proportion enrolled.................... In high school................... Labor force........................ Employed full time................... Employed part time................. Unemployed................ Looking for full-time work........ Looking for part-time work........ In college.................... Full-time students...................... Labor force.................... Employed full time................ Employed part time................ Unemployed................... Looking for full-time work...... Looking for part-time work .... Part-time students...................... Labor force...................... Employed full time................ Employed part time................ Unemployed........... Looking for full-time work...... Looking for part-time work .... Not enrolled in school...................... Labor force........................ Employed........................... Full time........................ Part time................... Unemployed........................ Labor force participation rates School years completed: Less than 4years high school. . . . High school, 4 years only........ College, 1to 3 years.............. College, 4 years or more......... 35,772 16,614 46.4 8,374 2,991 211 2,185 595 51 544 8,239 6,773 3,264 825 2,075 361 90 271 1,466 1,279 856 285 137 101 37 19,158 15,447 12,876 11,886 990 2,571 35,385 5,431 15.3 1,506 690 272 218 200 91 109 3,925 2,381 1,464 760 533 171 109 62 1,544 1,240 831 301 108 83 25 29,954 23,611 20,478 17,505 2,973 3,133 34,936 16,246 46.5 8,200 3,133 239 2,294 599 65 534 8,046 6,857 3,375 935 2,107 333 94 240 1,189 1,067 724 268 75 49 26 18,690 15,264 12,944 12,006 938 2,320 64.6 83.0 89.4 94.8 62.8 84.2 88.7 91.8 65.8 84.1 89.8 95.1 civilian work or for the Armed Forces. Rather than once a year in October, these data are now available simultaneously with the release of the monthly report on the Nation’s em ployment situation. Another area of interest is the effect of students on the overall unemployment rate. The new series can help to measure that impact more precisely, using the data on fulland part-time enrollment status. In April 1985, for example, the overall civilian unemployment rate, not seasonally ad justed, would have been 6.8 instead of 7.1 percent if teen agers (16- to 19-year-olds) in high school and college full time had been excluded from the employed and unemployed counts. These data on youth according to their school enrollment status are published in table a —7 of Employment and Earn ings, the b l s ’ monthly statistical compendium of labor force, employment, and unemployment statistics. Other infor mation on these youth, such as the occupation of those employed, are available upon request. Q ---------- FOOTNOTES---------1 tics, fice, 1979). See also Harvey R. Hamel and John T. Tucker, “ Implementing the Levitan Commission’s recommendations to improve labor data, ’ ’ Monthly Labor Review, February 1985, pp. 16-24. 2Counting the Labor Force, p. 90. 3 School enrollment data from the October cps were published in the Special Labor Force Report series for the years 1959 through 1979 and in Special Labor Force Bulletin 2192 for 1980—1982. Recent data have ap peared in press releases and in Anne McDougall Young, “ Fewer students in work force as school age population declines,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1984, pp.34-37; unpublished data are available upon request. Tips: the mainstay of many hotel workers’ pay D onald G. S c h m it t Reported customer tips averaged about half the cash earn ings of waiters and waitresses in hotels and motels studied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics during July through Sep tember 1983. The survey, covering 23 metropolitan areas,1 found employer-paid wages making up the balance. In most areas, these wages averaged between $2 and $3 an hour, largely reflecting the tip allowance employers can apply toward meeting the Federal minimum wage of $3.35 an hour.2 Customer tips also contributed substantially to the earn ings of several other occupational groups. For waiter and waitress assistants, tips commonly averaged 16 to 22 percent of their earnings, 44 to 57 percent for bellpersons, 25 to 40 percent for public bartenders, and less than 20 percent for service bartenders. Among these occupations, service bar tenders usually had the highest employer-paid wages, rang ing from $3.99 an hour in Dallas-Fort Worth to $10.16 in Las Vegas.3 (See table 1.) Public bartenders, receiving tips to a greater extent than service bartenders, had wages av eraging from $3.55 an hour in Miami to $9.83 in San Francisco-Oakland. Although service bartenders, who prepare drinks for wait ers and waitresses to serve, usually averaged more in wages than public bartenders, this pattern was reversed when tips were included in the comparisons. Similar patterns occurred between other occupations, including waiters and waitresses and their assistants. For example, table waiters and wait resses in full-course restaurants averaged less in wages than their assistants in each area surveyed— usually by 30 to 60 percent. When tips were included in the comparisons, wait ers and waitresses averaged more— usually by 40 to 70 percent. Paid holidays, most commonly 6 to 8 days annually, were provided to at least three-fourths of the nonsupervisory, nonoffice workers in each area studied. At least nine-tenths of the workers in each area were also covered by paid National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statis Donald G. Schmitt is an economist in the Office of Wages and Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Counting the Labor Force (Washington, Government Printing Of 50 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 1. Averaqe hourly wages for selected occupations in hotels and motels, 23 metropolitan areas, July—September, »983 Em ployer-paid w ages Occupation Highest area average Low est area average M idrange of area a ve ra g es1 Nontipped occupations House porter ......................................................... Lodging quarters cleaner.............................................. Cashier, checkout .................................................... Roomclerk ........................................................... Dishwasher ........................................................... Pantry worker......................................................... Second cook ........................................................... General maintenance mechanic........................................ Stationary engineer ................................................... $3.71 3.67 4.00 4.47 3.62 4.01 5.46 5.04 6.98 Memphis Miami Memphis Kansas City Buffalo Memphis St. Louis Buffalo Miami $8.16 7.77 8.18 9.07 7.79 9.49 12.31 10.25 15.97 NewYork NewYork NewYork Las Vegas NewYork Las Vegas Atlantic City Atlantic City San Francisco-Oakland $3.95 3.80 4.40 5.01 3.78 4.40 6.75 5.62 8.35 — — — — — — — — — $4.85 4.75 5.52 6.30 4.84 5.30 10.12 7.00 12.45 Tipped occupations2 4.23 — 5.76 9.83 San Francisco-Oakland 3.55 Miami Bartender, public bar ................................................. 4.60 — 7.50 10.16 Las Vegas 3.99 Dallas-Fort Worth Bartender, service bar ................................................ 2.88 — 3.52 6.03 Las Vegas 2.53 Miami Bellperson ............................................................ Waiter and waitress assistant: 3.23 — 4.24 5.26 L a s V e g a s 2.77 B u ffa lo Full-course restaurant .............................................. 3.41 — 4.23 5.30 NewYork 2.60 Miami Other than full-course restaurant................................... Waiter and waitress: 2.21 — 3.00 5.03 Las Vegas 2.15 Houston, Memphis Cocktail lounges.................................................... 2.26 — 2.97 5.06 LasVegas 2.12 Houston Table, full-course restaurants ...................................... 2.27 — 3.87 5.03 Las Vegas 2.17 NewOrleans Table, other than full-course restaurants........................... 2.64 — 3.92 5.36 L a s V e g a s 2.43 N e w O rle a n s Other ................................................................ 10f the areas analyzed, one-fourth reported employer-paid averages above the highest however, “tipped employees” are defined asthose who customarily and regularly receive average shown and one-fourth, belowthe lowest average shown. more than $30 amonth in tips.) 2For purposes of this study, “tipped occupations” arethose inwhich most incumbents Note: The comprehensive bulletin on the study provides information on average tips customarily and regularly receive customer tips. However, some workers intipped occufor selected occupations and also presents data for counter waiters and waitresses, not pations did not receivetips during the survey period. (Under the Fair Labor StandardsAct, shown here. vacations, typically 1 week after 1 year of service, 2 weeks after 2 years, and 3 weeks after 10 years. Life, hospitali zation, surgical, basic medical, and major medical insurance (for which the employer paid at least part of the cost), were available to three-fourths or more of the workers in nearly all areas. Retirement pension plans were available to a ma jority of workers in 10 of the 23 areas. Also, food and beverage service workers typically received at least one free meal a day. The 2,050 establishments within scope of the survey em ployed a total of 356,000 workers during July through Sep tem ber 1983. Of this total, nonsupervisory, nonoffice employees represented five-sixths of the work force (296,000 workers). Nearly one-half of these workers were concen trated in Las Vegas (59,500 workers), Atlantic City (22,000), New York (20,600), Los Angeles-Long Beach (20,500), and Chicago (19,900). Corresponding employment in the remaining 18 areas ranged from about 14,000 in Dallas— Fort Worth, San Francisco-Oakland, and Washington to 1,750 in Buffalo. Nearly three-fifths each of the food service and other nonoffice workers were employed in hotels and motels with collective bargaining agreements covering a majority of such workers. The proportions, however, varied widely by area. For example, virtually all of the workers in Atlantic City were covered by labor-management agreements, but no es tablishment visited in Houston or Memphis had union agree ments covering a majority of their workers. The Service Employees International Union and the Hotel and Restaurant https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Employees Union, both a f l - c i o affiliates, were the major unions. A comprehensive report on the survey— Industry Wage Survey: Hotels and Motels, July-September 1983 ( b l s Bulletin 2227) may be purchased from any of the Bureau’s regional sales offices or the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. □ ---------- FOOTNOTES---------‘ The 23 areas for which data have been developed are Standard Met ropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by the U .S. Office o f Management and Budget through October 1979. They are: Northeast— Atlantic City, Boston, Buffalo, New York, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh; South— At lanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Memphis, Miami, New Orleans, and Washington; North Central— Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapo lis-S t. Paul, and St. Louis; West— Denver-Boulder, Las Vegas, Los A ngeles-L ong Beach, Phoenix, and San Francisco-Oakland. 2Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, tips received may be counted as part of wages in an amount up to 40 percent ($1.34) of the current $3.35 per hour minimum wage. The employer must inform tipped employees about this tip credit allowance before using the credit and the employee must be allowed to retain all tips (individually or through a pooling ar rangement). Tip pools are formal arrangements usually defined by man agement, where tipped employees contribute a specified amount o f their tips to a fund (pool) for distribution among themselves, to others (non contributors), or both. The employer must be able to show that the em ployee receives at least the minimum wage in the combination o f both wages and tips. The cost or fair value of providing meals and lodging may also be considered in meeting minimum wage requirements. 3Except where specifically noted, wage data exclude tips and the value o f free meals, room, and uniforms, if any were provided, and premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. Service charges added to customers’ bills and distributed by the employer to the employees were considered as wages rather than tips, and were included. 51 M ajor Agreements Expiring Next M onth This list of selected collective bargaining agreements expiring in August is based on information from the Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. Private industry is arranged in order of Standard Industrial Classification. Employer and location Private industry Labor organization1 Number of workers Independent contractors, South and West Florida (Florida)......................... Master Plumbers Association (Boston, ) ....................................................................................................... Mechanical Contractors Association, 2 agreements (Washington, ) National Electrical Contractors Association (Boston, ) ......................................................... National Electrical Contractors Association (Atlanta, ) ......................................................... Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... Operating Engineers....................... Plum bers......................................... Plum bers......................................... Electrical Workers (ibew) .............. Electrical Workers (ibew) .............. 1,250 1,250 2,900 2,000 1,400 National Electrical Contractors Association, American Line Builders Chapter (Interstate) Plumbing and Air Conditioning Contractors (Western Arizona).................. Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors (Honolulu, ) .................................................................. Wilson Foods Corp. (Interstate) .................................................................... Rath Packing Co. (Waterloo, ) ........................................................................................................................................ Construction ........................... Electrical Workers (ibew) .............. 1,800 Construction ........................... Construction ........................... Food products ......................... Food products ......................... Plum bers......................................... Plum bers......................................... Food and Commercial Workers . . . Food and Commercial Workers . . . 2,200 1,000 4,800 1,100 Associated Garment Industries of St. Louis (M issouri)................................ San Francisco sportswear industry (California) ........................................... Mead Corp. (O h io )......................................................................................... Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. (Pennsylvania) ............................................. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (St. Paul, ) ......................................................... Apparel.................................... Apparel.................................... Paper ....................................... Printing and publishing........... Chem icals................................ Ladies’ Garment W orkers.............. Ladies’ Garment W orkers.............. Paperworkers.................................. Newspaper G u ild ........................... Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers . 2,000 2,500 1,400 1,050 1,850 Gates Rubber Co. (Denver, c o ) .................................................................... National refractories agreement (Interstate) .................................................. Interlake, Inc. (Riverdale, ) ...................................................................................................................................................... Combustion Engineering, Inc. (Chattanooga, ) ..................................................................................... Remington Arms Co., Inc. (Ilion, ) ..................................................................................................................... Rubber .................................... Stone, clay, and glass products . Primary m etals......................... Fabricated metal products . . . . Fabricated metal products . . . . Rubber W orkers.............................. Aluminum, Brick and Glass Workers Steelworkers .................................. Boilermakers.................................. Employees’ Mutual Association (Ind.) 1,500 1,200 1,700 1,200 1,500 Bucyrus-Erie Co. (Interstate) ......................................................................... Raytheon Co. (Massachusetts) ....................................................................... GTE Sylvania Inc. (Interstate) ...................................................................... Goodyear Aerospace Corp. (Akron, ) ................................................................................................................. Bowman Transportation, Inc.(Georgia)......................................................... Delta Air Lines, pilots (Interstate)2 ................................................................ Machinery................................ Electrical products.................. Electrical products .................. Transportation equipment . . . . Trucking.................................. Air transportation.................... Steelworkers .................................. Electrical Workers (ibew) .............. V arious........................................... Auto Workers ................................ Steelworkers .................................. Air Line P ilo ts................................ 1,200 10,000 3,000 1,450 1,700 4,000 American Airlines, Inc., ground service (Interstate)2 .................................. General Telephone Company of Florida (Florida) ....................................... Laclede Gas Co. (M issouri)........................................................................... East Bay Restaurant Association (California)................................................ Air transportation.................... Communication ....................... U tilities.................................... Restaurants .............................. 10,400 8,000 1,500 2,300 Stanford University (Palo Alto, Services .................................. Transport W orkers......................... Electrical Workers ( ibew) .............. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Service Employees......................... m a d c m a g a h i ia m n il t n n y o h c a ) ............................................................................................................................... Government activity California: Florida: Idaho: Long Beach Unified School District Los Angeles County, 17 agreements Labor organization1 1,400 Number of workers Education ................................ Multidepartments.................... Education Association (In d .)......... Service Employees; State, County and Municipal Employees; Police Associations and Doctors’ Association 2,800 53,000 Leon County Board of Education, teachers . . . Okaloosa County Board of Education, teachers Education ................................ Education ................................ Education Association (In d .)......... Education Association (In d .)......... 1,400 1,250 Boise Board of Education, teachers .................. Education ................................ Education Associaton (Ind.) ......... 1,200 See footnotes at end of table. 52 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Continued—Major Agreements Expiring Next Month Labor organization1 Government activity Number of workers Illinois: Chicago Board of Education, teachers ......................................... Elgin School District...................................................................... University of Illinois, clerical unit ................................................ Education ................................ Education ................................ Education ................................ Teachers ......................................... Elgin Teachers Association (Ind.) . Service Employees......................... 26,000 1,400 1,400 Indiana: Indianapolis Board of School Commissioners............................. Education ................................ Education Association (In d .)......... 2,950 Flint Board of Education, teachers ........................................... Education ................................ United Teachers of Flint (Ind.) . . . 1,600 Lincoln Board of Education, teachers ....................................... Education ................................ Education Association (In d .)......... 2,450 Oklahoma: Tulsa Board of Education, teachers......................................... Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Board of Education, multidepartments, 4 agreements Education ................................ Education ................................ Classroom Teachers Association (Ind.) Teachers ......................................... Rhode Island: Providence School Committee, teachers............................. Education ................................ Teachers ......................................... 1,200 Knoxville County Independent School District, 2 agreements......... Education ................................ Education Association (Ind.) and others 4,400 Education ................................ Police protection .................... Education Association (In d .)......... Police Officers’ Guild ( I n d .) ......... 2,500 1,000 Michigan: Nebraska: Tennessee: Washington: Seattle School District, teachers ........................................... Seattle Police Department...................................................... 'Affiliated with afl - cio https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis except where noted as independent (Ind.). 2,500 25,200 information is from newspaper reports. New dimensions In the past three decades, for a variety of reasons—foreign competition, the introduction of labor-saving devices, and the movement from the Snowbelt to the Sunbelt among them— the percentage of union members in the labor force has been dropping steadily. To try to recoup their losses, the a f l - c i o , as well as individual unions, have renewed their efforts to or ganize the unorganized. To do so, many of the unions are reaching out to people working in jobs not usually associated with traditional union juris dictions. As a result, a number of unions have an increasingly diversified membership, with a variety of concerns and demands. The United Food and Commercial Workers, for example, represent not just retail clerks and meat cutters but barbers, racetrack tellers, and insurance salesmen as well. As a consequence, centralized bargaining, once so effective, is becoming less so, and is giving way to a more decentralized approach. — D o r is B . M c L a u g h l in in consultation with D o u g l a s A. F r a s e r , “ Collective Bargaining: The Next Twenty Years,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1984, p. 36. 53 Developments in Industrial Relations Goodrich contract sets pattern Bargaining at the four major rubber producers ended when 36,000 workers agreed to essentially identical 3-year con tracts. The contracts, reflecting the generally profitable con ditions in the industry, provided for specified wage increases, unlike the 1982 contracts negotiated during a period of op erating losses. The provision for automatic cost-of-living pay adjustments, which resulted in a total of $1.16 an hour in pay increases during the 1982 contracts, also was con tinued. Initially, the Rubber Workers concentrated on bargaining with Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., in accord with the union’s usual practice of pressing for a settlement with a “ target” company that can set a pattern for settlements with the other companies. Subsequently, the union shifted the focus to B . F. Goodrich Co. and negotiated wage and benefit terms that were later accepted by Goodyear, Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., and Uniroyal, Inc. At first, there was some doubt that Firestone would accept the pattern terms. Earlier, a Firestone official had informed union negotiators that “ the days of rich pattern settlements must be behind us . . . . Our approach is to assess the do mestic and foreign competition and make sure that our com pany maintains a realistic course for future survival and profits in the maufacturing part of our business.” The settlements with the four companies provided for specified increases in hourly pay of 25 cents effective in April 1985, 10 cents in April 1986, and 8 cents in April 1987. According to the union, the workers also could receive $ 1.89 an hour in automatic cost-of-living pay increases over the term if the bls Consumer Price Index rises 5 percent a year. The union reported that its members at the companies were receiving average compensation of about $22 an hour, including about $12.50 in wages, at the April 20 termination of the prior agreements. Benefit changes included a 2-cent-an-hour increase in employer financing of Supplemental Unemployment Ben efits; a $3.50 increase in the monthly pension rate for future “ Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben of the Division o f Developments in Labor-Management Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary sources. 54 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -JTJ- retirees, bringing it to $20 for each year of credited service ($18.50 at Uniroyal); a 50-cent increase in the pension rates for current retirees; and improved life insurance and sickness and accident benefits. The Goodyear and Uniroyal accords incorporated similar health care cost containment plans the parties had negotiated earlier in the year, while the Firestone and Goodrich accords established such plans, which differed somewhat from each other and from Goodyear and Uniroyal. (See Monthly Labor Review, March 1985, p. 48, for terms of the Uniroyal plan.) Teamsters, trucking companies settle In mid-May, the Teamsters union announced ratification of a 3-year contract with two major associations of trucking companies— Trucking Management, Inc. (t m i ) and Motor Carrier Labor Advisory Council ( m c l a c ). The vote tally was 62,296 for and 54,873 against the accord, t m i com prises about 35 national carriers, while m c l a c comprises regional, short-haul, and specialized carriers. The union also negotiated similar wage and benefit terms with a number of independent companies, and bargaining continued with oth ers. There was opposition from a group of Teamsters’ mem bers which initiated court action to overthrow the vote, contending that about 40,000 casual workers— whose pay was cut under the settlement— had not been permitted to cast ballots. The union maintained that there were only about 7,000 casuals involved, and that they had been traditionally excluded from voting on proposed settlements. Defending the accord, Teamsters President Jackie Presser said, “ we were able to successfully address areas of the greatest concern to the members, including wage increases, increased health and welfare and pension contributions, and perhaps most importantly, job security.” The opponents generally contended that the agreement did not provide for adequate wage increases for all em ployees, discriminated against new full-time and all parttime employees by establishing lower pay rates for them, and did not do enough to prevent the carriers from engaging in “ double-breasting” (forming subsidiaries employing nonunion workers). The accord provided for 50 cents an hour wage increases for local drivers on the April 1, 1985, termination date of the 1982 accord, and on April 1 of 1986 and 1987. In each case, the 50 cents includes a flat 31 cents “ cost-of-living adjustment” ( c o l a ) that is not contingent on the movement of the Consumer Price Index. Unlike the 1982 agreement, the c o l a adjustments are not subject to diversion to meet pension and health and welfare cost increases. Over-theroad drivers received increases of 1.25 cents per mile (in cluding a 0.775-cent c o l a adjustment) on the same dates. According to the union, hourly employees will earn $6,240 more over the contract term than under the previous contract (based on 2,080 hours compensated per year), and overthe-road drivers will earn $9,750 more than under the pre vious contract (based on 2,500 miles driven per week). Under the 1982 agreement, the employees did not receive any specified wage increases, and all but 47 cents of the total of $1.40 in automatic annual c o l a ’ s was diverted to help meet the employers cost of maintaining pension and health and welfare benefits. Full-time workers hired after the effective date of the 1985 contract will start at 70 percent of the current top pay rate for their job category, move to 80 percent of the rate after 1 year, to 90 percent after 2 years, and to the top rate after 3 years. Pay rates for all casual employees were set at $11 an hour on April 1, 1985, and will increase by 50 cents on April 1 of 1986 and 1987. As before, the casual employees will not receive any benefits. Previously, they earned $13.21 an hour. In the area of benefits, the agreement provides for a total of 30 cents an hour to be allocated between pension and health and welfare funds over the term. This will permit som e im provem ents, such as increasing the m onthly pension to $1,000 for 30-year employees retiring under the Central States Pension Fund. One of the new job security provisions says that em ployers will not “ subcontract or divert the work presently performed by, or hereafter assigned to, its employees, to other business entities owned and/or controlled by the sig natory employer, or its parent, subsidiaries, or affiliates.” Airline update At American Airlines, the Transport Workers agreed to a 45-month contract that provides for lump-sum payments in lieu of wage increases. The accord, covering 12,000 mechanics and other ground workers, calls for payments of $750 in April 1986, $1,000 in 1987, and $1,500 in 1988. The lifetime job guarantee program was expanded to cover some workers hired after the ratification date of the new contract. The program, which was established under the 1983 contract in return for lower entry pay rates and changes in work rules, originally covered only workers on the payroll when that contract was ratified. Provisions of the 1985 accord increased the probationary period to 180 days, from 90, for new hires, requires them https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to pay for their own insurance during their first year on the job, reduces their ultimate maximum vacation to 4 weeks, from 6, and permits American to hire more part-time workers. Other terms included a three-step increase in pension rates to a range of $25.05-$35 a month (varying by job classi fication) for each year of service for employees retiring at age 65; a new “ voluntary separation program” for em ployees who quit their jobs, with payments ranging from a minimum of $5,000 to a maximum of 23 weeks of pay. At Continental Airlines, the Machinists and the Flight Attendants unions ended their 18-month strike and asked the airline to reinstate their members. Continental agreed to do so, but specified that “ there will be no displacement of current employees under any circumstances as a result of the unions’ action.” This means that some of the strikers might have long waits before returning to work. About 50 percent of the members of both unions had earlier returned to work without union authorization and Continental had also hired some nonunion replacements. The dispute began in 1983, when the airline reacted to the Air Line Pilots and the Flight Attendants rejection of profit sharing in exchange for labor cost concessions by seeking protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, then resuming operation with employees paid substantially less than under prior union contracts. (See Monthly Labor Review, November 1983, p. 73.) Despite the two unions’ decision to return to work and negotiate with Continental on wages, benefits, and work rules, the Air Line Pilots continued their strike, even though 25 percent of its members had returned to work without authorization. One possible reason was that the striking pilots are receiving strike benefits of $2,400 a month from their union, compared with $70 a week for the mechanics and nothing for the flight attendants. Both the Flight Attendants and the Machinists unions said they were ordering the return to work because it was time for a change in strategies and because they wanted to correct a mistaken public impression that they were out to ruin Continental. An official of the Flight Attendants also conceded that, “ financially, our members could not deal with it any longer.” Despite the change of strategy, both unions noted that they had not withdrawn several lawsuits they had filed against Continental. A Continental spokesman said that the company earned a profit of $50.3 million in 1984, compared with a loss of $218.4 million in 1983, and that “ we are a much more efficient operation now, and we are better utilizing our work force.” At USAir, a settlement with the Machinists union for 2,100 ground service employees featured a lengthened pay progression schedule for new employees and a new “ vol untary separation program” to induce current employees to retire. The company said that it hopes that “ as many [em ployees] as possible” choose to leave so that it can reduce 55 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Developments in Industrial Relations costs by hiring replacements under the new pay progression schedule. Under the new schedule, workers will reach the maximum for their pay grade after 5 years of service, instead of the previous 18 months. The starting rates for employees hired after the effective date of the contract are $12.95 an hour for mechanics (formerly $16.22), $9.27 for utility workers (formerly $12.35), and $10.73 for stock clerks (formerly $12.96). The 3-year accord raised pay rates 9.9 percent, in steps, over the term. For mechanics at the top of their pay schedule, the resulting hourly rates are $16.90 retroactive to March 1, 1984 (formerly $16.65), $17.25 retroactive to November 1984, $17.60 in November 1985, $18 in September 1986, and $18.30 in January 1987. Over the term, top rates will rise to $13.10 (from $11.92) for utility workers and $15.17 (from $13.79) for stock clerks. The voluntary separation program, which is limited to employees eligible for retirement, provides for payments to participants calculated at 1 week’s pay for each year of service. The m inim um paym ent is $5,000 and the m axim um is 23 weeks’ pay. Other terms include 55 cents an hour pay (formerly 45 cents) for each of up to two Federal licenses held, improved dental benefits, and increases in tool insurance. Coordinated bargaining ends in steel industry Unified collective bargaining in the steel industry ended when the five remaining Coordinating Committee Steel Companies voted to disband and bargain individually with the United Steelworkers when their contracts expire in July 1986. In 1956, when the unified approach was initiated, 12 companies participated; since then the number has dwin dled. This was particularly true in the last few years as the industry has been buffeted by increased competition from foreign producers, the growing number of lower cost do mestic “ mini-mills,” and the increasing use of alternate materials. These conditions led some of the member com panies to merge, sell operations, or to seek and obtain con cessionary changes in the industry settlement pattern from the union in an effort to improve their competitive position. J. Bruce Johnston, executive vice president of U.S. Steel Corp., who was chief bargainer for the five Coordinating Committee Steel Companies, cited several reasons for the breakup, including “ sustained financial losses” by member companies, recent joint ventures between U.S. and foreign companies, and rising use of imported semifinished steel. He maintained that, “ very clearly, the union has abandoned pattern bargaining” by granting “ off-pattern settlements” at a large number of plants that placed U.S. Steel and the other four companies at a cost disadvantage. Reportedly, labor costs were $17 an hour or less at the companies that had obtained concessions from the union, compared with an average of more than $21 at other companies. Johnston 56 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis indicated that the competitive conditions in the industry might lead to bargaining on a plant-by-plant basis, not just on a company-by-company basis. Steelworkers President Lynn R. Williams disputed Johns ton, saying, “ there haven’t been any number of conces sions” that come “ quickly to my mind.” He said that the end to coordinated bargaining was “ not necessarily a dis aster for the union” and that the union would continue a coordinated approach to bargaining and resist pressures by the companies to “ trade off cheap wages and cheap benefits against one another. ’’ In addition to U.S. Steel, the other companies that par ticipated in the coordinated bargaining were Armco Inc., Bethlehem Steel Corp., l t v Steel Co., and Inland Steel Corp. Together, they employ 136,000 members of the Steel workers union. However, the end of the bargaining approach has wider implications because a number of smaller com panies had traditionally followed the settlement lead of the major companies. Union moves to stop ‘double breasting’ The Sheet Metal Workers union’s executive council ap proved a plan to halt the spread of “ double-breasted” con tractors who operate both union and nonunion shops in the sheet metal and other parts of the construction industry. Under the plan, double-breasted contractors will be barred from participating in the union’s 3-year-old program to aid unionized firms that are having difficulty competing with nonunion firms. The aid is in the form of cuts in wages and benefits and changes in work rules. The new policy requires employers to sign an “ integrity clause” before negotiating and receiving contract conces sions, and defines a “ bad faith employer” as one who operates or permits operation on a double-breasied basis. Sheet Metal Workers’ President Edward J. Carlough said that to grant the concessionary contract provisions to em ployers who then hire nonunion employees would violate the very purpose of the program. The Sheet Metal Workers also announced two actions to improve the financial conditions of its retirees. One action was the establishment of a cost-of-living adjustment ( c o l a ) trust fund that will provide annual lump-sum payments to 14,000 retirees, supplementing their regular monthly pen sion payments. The payment will be financed by employers at the rate of 5 cents for each hour worked by active em ployees covered by the union’s national pension plan. The annual lump-sum payment will equal 3 percent of the re tirees’ regular annual pension for each year of service, up to 15 years. The other new program will reimburse retirees and their spouses for most of the deductible and coinsurance costs not covered by Medicare Parts A and B. It will be financed by the union’s national pension trust, with retirees contrib uting $13 a month if single, and $26 if married. Service Employees asks for study of vdt safety Employees concern over possible adverse physical effects from video display terminals was reflected in a settlement between Service Employees Local 105 and the Kaiser Permanente health care plan. The 3-year agreement for 650 clerical, technical, and service workers in the Denver, co, area calls for Kaiser to study the issue and to “ formulate a reasonable safety standard guide to be issued to supervisors and employees which could be discussed and shared with the union.’’ A provision in the settlement eliminated benefits for em ployees who work less than 24 hours a week. Charlene Rotola, Kaiser’s director of labor relations, explained “ we didn’t really need benefits at that level to attract employees to part-time positions. We’d rather transfer the benefits to the full-time employees.” The part-timers will receive an additional 40 cents an hour in lieu of benefits. Previously, employees who worked 20 to 23 hours a week received a prorated share of the benefits received by full-timers. The agreement also provided for 4-, 4-, and 4.5-percent salary increases in the respective contract years, and elim ination of a pay progression step after 6 months of service in favor of a new top step after 10 years of service. The previous top step was after 5 years of service. Union leadership changes William G. Lindner, president of the Transport Workers, died May 1. He was 65. Lindner was the third president of the Transport Workers in its 50 year history. He joined the union in 1946 while working as a mechanic at American Airlines in Chicago, and became the first president of Local 512, which he helped to form. Subsequently, he held a series of progressively higher positions, culminating in election to the presidency in 1979. Under the union’s con stitution, John D. Lawe will serve as president until a suc cessor is elected at the union’s September convention. Lawe https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is president of Local 100 in New York City. J.C. Turner retired as president of the Operating Engi neers union on May 31, and was succeeded by sixth vice president Larry L. Dugan. Turner, who continued with the union as president emeritus, began his career in 1934 when he became a member of Local 77 in Washington, d c . He became president of the international union in 1975, after serving 3 years as vice president. Dugan, 55, held various posts in Local 428 in Phoenix, a z , before becoming an Operating Engineers vice president and assistant to the pres ident in 1979. Hotel and restaurant employees settle The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees and the Hotel-Restaurant Employers Council of Southern California negotiated new wage and benefit provisions extending to March 15, 1989. The parties bargained under a wage re opening provision of their previous contract which was scheduled to expire in 1986. The new agreement covered about 10,000 workers in the Los Angeles area and was expected to set a settlement pattern for 2,000 employees of independent hotels and restaurants. It is subject to reopening in March 1988 on wages and health and welfare benefits. Hotel employees who receive tips will receive pay in creases of 5 percent on April 1 of 1986 and 1987. For those who do not receive tips, the increases were 4 percent ret roactive to April 1, 1985, and 5 percent on April 1 of 1986 and 1987. Both tipped and nontipped restaurant employees will receive 4-percent increases on April 1 of 1986 and 1987. Other provisions permit employers to pay new workers at 80 percent of regular scale during their first 90 days on the job (previously, they received regular scale immedi ately), and increase employer payments to the health and welfare trust to $1.05 an hour (from 90 cents) over the term, with additional amounts to be diverted from the scheduled wage increases if needed to maintain benefit levels. □ 57 Book Reviews When employers join hands Employers Associations and Industrial Relations: A Com parative Study. Edited by John P. Windmuller and Alan Gladstone. New York, Oxford University Press, 1984. 370 pp. $39.95. John P. Windmuller, professor of industrial and labor relations at Cornell University and Alan Gladstone, an af filiate of the International Labor Organization, have edited a comparative study of employers associations in 10 coun tries: Australia, Great Britain, United States, Sweden, Federal Republic of Germany, The Netherlands, France, Italy, Israel, and Japan. In addition, the editors have each written summary essays: Windmuller on organization, structure, and administration of employers associations and Gladstone on functions and activities. The employers associations are in democratic market economies. The separate monographs follow a standardized format which includes history, structure and government, functions— including relationships to governments and po litical parties— and future prospects. The authors are all established scholars and have set out authoritative, wellwritten, well-organized, and useful monographs. Some monographs are, from my viewpoint, better than others. There are those who interpret their brief broadly to encompass not only the governance of the employers as sociation but its social and political setting. Some write with a sense of the sweep of events, others limit themselves pretty much to the organizational specifications. However else they differ, almost all employers associations originate as defen sive counter-union organizations. We have an interesting challenge-response chain here because unions originated as— and largely continue to be— counter-employer organiza tions. The interest of employers associations in challenging union power does not foreclose them from having internal conflicts any more than it does unions. Employers associ ations are not “ bosses unions,” however. Unions are the beginning principals. Employers associations are rarely principals, although the scope of delegated authority varies widely. 58 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis If you want to set up an employers association, this is the book to turn to for authoritative instruction. If you want to construct a theory of employers associations, this is also the book to turn to but you will have to extract the theory yourself—the editors specifically disclaim a concern with theory. It would not require all that much work to derive a theory from the raw material which the volume offers. With out too much extra effort a sort of theory could, for example, try to explain why some associations are ideologically anti union and others are not, why some are even “ prounion” in a manner of speaking; that is, if they don’t approve of unions they accept at least the legitimacy of the union func tion in a modem industrial society. Employers associations are part of the effort to institu tionalize conflict, which marks industrial relations systems in what I learned to call the i m e c ’ s (industrialized market economies). There are bargaining associations and legis lative associations and there are employers associations which, in concert with their union federations, “ legislate” eco nomic policy. It has been stylish in some academic circles to characterize these as corporatist and neocorporatist but the analogy is strained, when it isn’t wrong. Some employers associations proclaim an ideology like the social market or social partnership. Socially minded leaders use their position in the employers association to go beyond simple maximizing for their constituent employer groups to proclaim a social responsibility or to urge more constructive modes of relationships with their union coun terparts. It is bad form, I know, for a reviewer to impose his idea of what the book ought to have covered. The book does well what its editors intended it to do, namely to rescue from obscurity a side of industrial relations institutionalism that has been neglected for a long time. One might have wished that they had interpreted their mandate more broadly— which several of the individual contributions do. — Ja c k B a r b a s h Visiting Professor of Administration, University o f California, Davis A pyrrhic victory The Fighting Machinists: A Century o f Struggle. By Rob ert G. Rodden. Washington, Kelly Press, Inc., 1985. 304 pp. $5, paper. Historian Robert Zieger once stated that labor’s house has many rooms, inferring that the truncated state of labor literature creates a need for historical works. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, the more leftish interpretations held court and it carried over into the 1980’s. Yet, institutional histories, writings highlighting the development of trade unions and their leaders, have appeared in the past few years. Walter Galenson’s The United Brotherhood o f Carpenters is an example of this revived institutional interest. Robert G. Rodden’s The Fighting Machinists is not of the same caliber, but then it was not intended as such. It was written from the heart by a longtime member of the Machinists union for rank-and-file members. Rodden’s book charts the 96-year history (1888-1984) of the International Association of Machinists. It centers on the union’s chief executives and the main events which shaped the union during their tenures. Originating in 1888, the iam , the only international union with roots in the Amer ican South, experienced the typical problems associated with early American Federation of Labor craft organizations: eco nomic fluctuations, wars, dual unionism, jurisdictional dis putes, radicalism, internal dissention, and, of course, antiunion employers. The old Knights of Labor provided the foun dations and many members for the Machinists union, but, unlike that body, the ia m grew as technological changes in society (railroads, automobiles, mass production, airlines) created new opportunities for skilled machinists and related trades. Until 1926, the union, with a constitutionally guar anteed referendum and a strong Socialist-Populist elan, was one of the most democratically functioning labor organi zations. After 1926, changes in leadership moved the union toward a more conservative philosophy, but it never became authoritarian. The history of the ia m is rich and colorful. It was or ganized by itinerant railroad machinists called “ Boomers,” and was among the first American unions to accept women as equals in both pay and social status. The union conducted some notable work stoppages, including the famous 1922 Shopmen’s Strike against the railroad lines of E. H. Harriman, yet, in the same year, negotiated a famous labormanagement cooperative agreement with executives of the b & o Railroad. The ia m struggled in the 1930’s to retain a Gompersian philosophy while actively seeking to expand its membership in mass production industries. In the 1950’s, President A1 Hayes served as the paradigm for honest union leadership during a period marked by exposes of union corruption. In more recent times, the ia m has conducted important strikes against the airlines industry (1966), the railroads (1969), and the aerospace industry (1977). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Rodden’s coverage of this episodic journey is extensive, based on excerpts from the Machinists Monthly Journal, selected monographic sources, and oral reminiscence by ia m officials. This latter resource paradoxically is the author’s strength and weakness. As historian David Brody noted, “ oral histories are merely what their informants volun teered.” In addition, excerpts from the Machinists Monthly Journal are not counterbalanced by other trade union pub lications; the result is a very narrow point of view, ia m officials are “ trustworthy,” “ loyal,” and “ dignified.” Even when Rodden criticizes them, their halos tilt but do not tumble. Union dissidents, on the other hand, are described as “ hotheads” while employers are always “ haughty” and “ imperious.” U.S. President Warren G. Harding, in the author’s words, was “ empty-headed.” Rodden has the core of an interesting and valuable book but fails to avoid the pitfalls endemic in one whose life blood runs in concordance with that of his subject. The author says that this history was written for the benefit of fellow machinists. That is the book’s strength and also its weakness as history. — Henry P. Guzda Historian U .S. Department of Labor Moving toward center stage The Handbook o f Employee Benefits: Design, Funding and Administration. Edited by Jerry S. Rosenbloom. Homewood, i l , D ow Jones-Irwin, 1984. 1,096 pp. The Handbook o f Employee Benefits will be a valuable addition to the bookshelf of a specialist in employee com pensation. Benefit plans— for example, paid leave items and employer-financed pensions and health and life insurance— are growing in both cost and complexity. Once regarded as “ fringe benefits” — minor appendages to basic wages and salaries— they now commonly account for a fourth or more of expenditures on employee compensation. Furthermore, their increased complexity is a major reason for the growing professionalization of compensation ad ministration. Benefit plan administrators must have exper tise in a variety of areas, including tax and insurance laws, actuarial principles, and investment planning. They must also be familiar with such specialized legislation as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Additional complexi ties result from changes in the legislative framework. For example, in recent years benefit plans have been affected by the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and the Retirement Equity Act of 1984. The Handbook provides detailed discussions of the var59 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW June 1985 • Book Reviews ious issues involved in designing, funding, and adminis tering employee benefit plans. Edited by Jerry S. Rosenbloom, Professor of Insurance at the Wharton School of the Uni versity of Pennsylvania, its 1,096 pages include 60 chapters grouped into eight parts: Environment of Employee Benefit Plans; Designing Employee Benefits— Death Benefits; De signing Employee Benefits— Health Related Benefits; De signing Employee Benefit Plans— Additional Benefits and Services; Designing Employee Benefit Plans— Retirement and Capital Accumulation Plans; Costing and Funding of Employee Benefit Plans; Administration of Employee Ben efit Plans; and Issues of Special Interest in Employee Benefit Planning. Authors of the chapters include individuals with academic, actuarial, consulting, and legal backgrounds. Despite its broad scope, the Handbook does not cover the gamut of employee benefits. Instead, it focuses on major benefit areas commonly financed through trust funds or the purchase of insurance policies, for example, retirement and capital accumulation plans and life, health, and disability insurance. Individual chapters also are devoted to several benefits whose current incidence is relatively low— property and liability insurance, legal service plans, and financial counseling. Except for limited coverage of sick leave, how ever, there is no analysis of paid leave items, such as va cations and holidays. Among other items given little or no mention are severance pay, supplemental unemployment benefits, employer-financed child care, and educational as sistance. The Handbook’s treatment of individual benefits tends to concentrate on tax and other regulatory issues. Generally, less emphasis is given to data on the incidence of plan provisions. Although Internal Revenue Service require ments for integrating private pension and social security benefits are discussed, readers will receive only a sketchy indication of the extent of such integration and the relative 60 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis popularity of alternative techniques to accomplish this re sult. Consequently, readers will find it helpful to use the Handbook in conjunction with publications reporting on the findings of statistical surveys of the incidence and provisions of employee benefit plans. What type of reader is likely to use the Handbook? As implied by its title, this book is not recommended reading for an individual seeking a brief overview of the employee benefits area. It is designed for practitioners, such as a company’s manager of employee benefits, who need a ref erence work containing intensive treatment of a broad range of benefits. The Handbook will also serve as a comprehen sive textbook at the college or professional education level. Nevertheless, it is not a “ do-it-yourself” guide to designing and administering benefit plans nor does it substitute for the services of actuaries, attorneys, and investment advisers. Considering the rapidity of change in employee benefits, it is not too early to envision a second edition of the Hand book. What revisions might enhance the usefulness of the current version? The follow ing suggestions are o f fered: (1) Incorporate material on funding through salary reduction arrangements in the chapter on cafeteria ap proaches to benefit planning; (2) Give greater prominence to collectively bargained employee benefit plans; (3) To provide perspective on current practices, include informa tion on the historical development of employee benefits, either in a separate introductory chapter or in the discussion of individual benefits; and (4) To aid readers seeking ad ditional information, append bibliographies to the individual chapters. (A bibliography does follow the present edition’s two chapters on employee stock ownership plans.) — V ic t o r J. Sh e ifer Office o f Wages and Industrial Relations Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Labor Statistics Notes on Current Labor Statistics ...................................................................................................................................................... 62 Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series ........................................................................................... 62 Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes ......................................................................... 63 63 64 65 66 66 67 67 67 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-84 ................................ Employment status of the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex, seasonally ad ju sted ------Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, seasonally adjusted ................... 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 o f unemployment, seasonally ad ju sted ............................................................................................................................... Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes ... Employment, by industry, selected years, 1950-84 ......................................................................................................................... Employment, by State ............................................................................................................................................................................. Employment, by industry, seasonally ad ju sted .................................................................................................................................. Average hours and earnings, by industry, 1968-84 ......................................................................................................................... Average weekly hours, by industry, seasonally ad ju sted ................................................................................................................ Average hourly earnings, by industry .................................................................................................................................................. Hourly Earnings Index, by industry...................................................................................................................................................... Average weekly earnings, by industry................................................................................................................................................. Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased, seasonally a d ju sted ........................................................... 68 69 69 70 71 72 73 73 74 74 Unemployment insurance data. Definitions ............................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... 75 75 ........................................................................................................................................................ Consumer Price Index, 1967-84 ........................................................................................................................................................... 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, by special commodity gro u p in g s............................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes, by durability o f product ............................................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries ..................................................................................... 76 77 77 83 84 85 86 88 88 89 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations Price data. Definitions and notes 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Productivity data. Definitions and notes 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. ...................................................................................................................................... Annual indexes o f multifactor productivity and related measures,selected years, 1950-83 .................................................. Annual indexes o f productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,selected years, 1950-84 ........................... Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1974-84 .................................................... Quarterly indexes o f 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 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. ...................................................................................................... Employment Cost Index, 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 and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1980 to d a te ....................................................... Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1980 to date ...................... Work stoppage data. Definition ........................................................................................................................................................... 38. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date ................................................................................................ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 90 91 91 92 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 98 99 99 61 NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS This section of the R eview presents the principal statistical series collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A brief introduction to each group o f 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 b l s regional offices listed on the inside front cover o f this issue of the R eview . Some general notes applicable to several series are given below. Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate the effect o f such factors as climatic conditions, industry pro duction schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short-term movements o f the statistical series. Tables containing these data are identified as “ sea sonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are computed each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for several preceding years. Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 3 - 8 were revised in the February 1985 issue o f the Review, to reflect experience through 1984. Beginning in January 1980, the b l s introduced two major modifications in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure called X—11/ a r i m a , which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of the standard X - l l method. A detailed description o f the procedure appears in The X - l l a r im a Seasonal Adjustment Method by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 12-564E , January 1983). The second change is that seasonal factors are now being calculated for use during the first 6 months o f the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at mid-year for the July-Decem ber period. Revisions of his torical data continue to be made only at the end o f each calendar year. Annual revision o f the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in tables 11, 13, 15, and 17 were made in July 1985 using the X - l l a r i m a seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for productivity data in tables 29 and 30 are usually introduced in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent changes from month to month and from quarter to quarter are published for numerous Consumer and Producer Price Index series. However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U.S. average All Items CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are available for this series. Adjustments for price changes. Some data are adjusted to eliminate the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of 150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is $2 ($3/150 x 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as “ real,” “ constant,” or “ 1967” dollars. Availability of information. Data that supplement the tables in this section are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety o f sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical information published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published according to the schedule given below. More information from household and establishment surveys is provided in Employment and Earnings, a monthly publication o f the Bureau. Comparable household information is published in a two-volume data book— Labor Force Statistics Derived From the Current Population Survey, Bulletin 2096. Comparable establishment information appears in two data books— Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, and Employment, Hours, and Earnings, States and Areas, and their annual supplements. More detailed information on wages and other aspects o f collective bargaining appears in the monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. More detailed price information is published each month in the periodicals, the c p i Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price Indexes. Symbols p = preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series, pre liminary figures are issued based on representative but in complete returns. r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availability o f later data but may also reflect other adjustments, n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified. Schedule of release dates for BLS statistical series Release date Period covered Release date Period covered Release date Period covered MLR table number Employment situation ................................ July 5 June August 2 July September 6 August 1-11 Producer Price Index ................................ July 12 June August 9 July September 13 August 23-27 Consumer Price Index................................ July 23 June August 22 July September 24 August 19-22 Real earnings.......................................... July 23 June August 22 July September 24 August 12-16 August 27 2nd quarter Productivity and costs: Nonfinancial corporations........................ Nonfarm business and manufacturing . . . July 25 2nd quarter 29-32 Major collective bargaining settlements . . . . July 25 1st half 36-37 Employment Cost Index............................. July 30 2nd quarter 33-35 Export and Import Price Indexes.......................................... 62 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis August 1 2nd quarter 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 59,500 households selected to represent the U.S population 16 years o f 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 plo ym en t d ata 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 layoff 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 o f 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 who are 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 o f penal or mental institutions, sani tariums, 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 o f 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 of Employment and Earnings. Data in tables 2 - 8 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal ex perience through December 1984. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-84 [Numbers in thousands] Labor force Year Noninsti tutional population Unemployed Employed Number Percent of population Civilian Total Percent of population Resident Armed Forces Total Agriculture Nonagricultural industries Number Percent of labor force Not in labor force 1950 ............. 1955 ............. 1960 ............. 106,164 111,747 119,106 63,377 67,087 71,489 59.7 60.0 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 ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. 139,203 142,189 145,939 148,870 151,841 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 ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. 154,831 157,818 160,689 163,541 166,460 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 1983 1984 ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. 169,349 171,775 173,939 175,891 178,080 108,544 110,315 111,872 113,226 115,241 64.1 64.2 64.3 64.4 64.7 100,907 102,042 101,194 102,510 106,702 59.6 59.4 58.2 58.3 59.9 1,604 1,645 1,668 1,676 1,697 99,303 100,397 99,526 100,834 105,005 3,364 3,368 3,401 3,383 3,321 95,938 97,030 96,125 97,450 101,685 7,637 8,273 10,578 10,717 8,539 7.0 7.5 9.5 9.5 7.4 60,806 61,460 62,067 62,665 62,839 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 63 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 2. Household Data Employment status of the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex, seasonally adjusted [Numbers in thousands] Employment status and sex 1984 Annual average 1985 1983 1984 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 175,891 113,226 64.4 102,510 58.3 1,676 100,834 3,383 97,450 10,717 9.5 62,665 178,080 115,241 64.7 106,702 59.9 1,697 105,005 3,321 101,685 8,539 7.4 62,839 177,813 115,412 64.9 106,852 60.1 1,690 105,162 3,367 101,795 8,560 7.4 62,401 177,974 115,309 64.8 107,081 60.2 1,690 105,391 3,368 102,023 8,228 7.1 62,665 178,138 115,566 64.9 107,075 60.1 1,698 105,377 3,333 102,044 8,491 7.3 62,572 178,295 115,341 64.7 106,860 59.9 1,712 105,148 3,264 101,884 8,481 7.4 62,954 178,483 115,484 64.7 107,114 60.0 1,720 105,394 3,319 102,075 8,370 7.2 62,999 178,661 115,721 64.8 107,354 60.1 1,705 105,649 3,169 102,480 8,367 7.2 62,940 178,834 115,773 64.7 107,631 60.2 1,699 105,932 3,334 102,598 8,142 7.0 63,061 179,004 116,162 64.9 107,971 60.3 1,698 106,273 3,385 102,888 8,191 7.1 62,842 179,081 116,572 65.1 108,088 60.4 1,697 106,391 3,320 103,071 8,484 7.3 62,509 179,219 116,787 65.2 108,388 60.5 1,703 106,685 3,340 103,345 8,399 7.2 62,432 179,368 117,215 65.3 108,820 60.7 1,701 107,119 3,362 103,757 8,396 7.2 62,153 179,501 117,073 65.2 108,647 60.5 1,702 106,945 3,428 103,517 8,426 7.2 62,428 179,649 117,078 65.2 108,665 60.5 1,705 106,960 3,312 103,648 8,413 7.2 62,571 84,064 64,580 76.8 58,320 69.4 1,533 56,787 6,260 9.7 85,156 65,386 76.8 60,642 71.2 1,551 59,091 4,744 7.3 85,024 65,304 76.8 60,578 71.2 1,545 59,033 4,726 7.2 85,101 65,348 76.8 60,758 71.4 1,545 59,213 4,590 7.0 85,179 65,412 76.8 60,687 71.2 1,551 59,136 4,725 7.2 85,257 65,357 76.7 60,766 71.3 1,563 59,203 4,591 7.0 85,352 65,589 76.8 60,959 71.4 1,571 59,388 4,630 7.1 85,439 65,558 76.7 61,018 71.4 1,557 59,461 4,540 6.9 85,523 65,657 76.8 61,155 71.5 1,552 59,603 4,502 6.9 85,607 65,814 76.9 61,252 71.6 1,550 59,702 4,562 6.9 85,629 65,822 76.9 61,213 71.5 1,549 59,664 4,609 7.0 85,692 65,818 76 8 61,226 71.4 1,554 59,672 4,592 7.0 85,764 65,923 76.9 61,427 71.6 1,553 59,874 4,495 6.8 85,827 65,986 76.9 61,405 71.5 1,553 59,852 4,582 6.9 85,898 66,032 76.9 61,553 71.7 1,556 59,997 4,479 6.8 91,827 48,646 53.0 44,190 48.1 143 44,047 4,457 9.2 92,924 49,855 53.7 46,061 49.6 146 45,915 3,794 7.6 92,789 50,108 54.0 46,274 49.9 145 46,129 3,834 7.7 92,873 49,961 53.8 46,323 49.9 145 46,178 3,638 7.3 92,958 50,154 54.0 46,388 49.9 147 46,241 3,766 7.5 93,039 49,984 53.7 46,094 49.5 149 45,945 3,890 7.8 93,132 49,895 53.6 46,155 49.6 149 46,006 3,740 7.5 93,222 50,163 53.8 46,336 49.7 148 46,188 3,827 7.6 93,311 50,116 53.7 46,476 49.8 147 46,329 3,640 7.3 93,397 50,348 53.9 46,719 50.0 148 46,571 3,629 7.2 93,452 50,750 54.3 46,875 50.2 148 46,727 3,875 7.6 93,527 50,970 54.5 47,162 50.4 149 47,013 3,807 7.5 93,603 51,293 54.8 47,392 50.6 148 47,244 3,900 7.6 93,674 51,086 54.5 47,242 50.4 149 47,093 3,844 7.5 93,751 51,047 54.4 47,113 50.3 149 46,964 3,934 7.7 TOTAL Noninstitutional population1' 2 ..................... Labor force2 .......................................... Participation rate3 ........................ Total employed2 Employment-population rate4 . . . . Resident Armed Forces1 .................. Civilian employed............................. Agriculture .................................. Nonagricultural industries............. Unemployed........................................ 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 employed............................. Unemployed........................................ Unemployment rate5 ..................... Women, 16 years and over Noninstitutional population1' 2 ..................... Labor force2 .......................................... Participation rate3 ........................ Total employed2 .................................. Employment-population rate4 . . . . Resident Armed Forces1 .................. Civilian employed............................. Unemployed........................................ Unemployment rate5 ..................... 1The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation. 2Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. 3 Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population. 64 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4Total employed as a percent of the nonlnstitutional population. 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 [Numbers in thousands] 1984 Annual average Employment status 1985 1983 1984 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 174,215 111,550 64.0 100,834 57.9 10,717 9.6 62,665 176,383 113,544 64.4 105,005 59.5 8,539 7.5 62,839 176,123 113,722 64.6 105,162 59.7 8,560 7.5 62,401 176,284 113,619 64.5 105,391 59.8 8,228 7.2 62,665 176,440 113,868 64.5 105,377 59.7 8,491 7.5 62,572 176,583 113,629 64.3 105,148 59.5 8,481 7.5 62,954 176,763 113,764 64.4 105,394 59.6 8,370 7.4 62,999 176,956 114,016 64.4 105,649 59.7 8,367 7.3 62,940 177,135 114,074 64.4 105,932 59.8 8,142 7.1 63,061 177,306 114,464 64.6 106,273 59.9 8,191 7.2 62,842 177,384 114,875 64.8 106,391 60.0 8,484 7.4 62,509 177,516 115,084 64.8 106,685 60.1 8,399 7.3 62,432 177,667 115,514 65.0 107,119 60.3 8,396 7.3 62,153 177,799 115,371 64.9 106,945 60.1 8,426 7.3 62,428 177,944 115,373 64.8 106,960 60.1 8,413 7.3 62,571 74,872 58,744 78.5 53,487 71.4 2,429 51,058 5,257 8.9 76,219 59,701 78.3 55,769 73.2 2,418 53,351 3,932 6.6 76,073 59,572 78.3 55,663 73.2 2,443 53,220 3,909 6.6 76,176 59,668 78.3 55,861 73.3 2,448 53,413 3,807 6.4 76,269 59,730 78.3 55,846 73.2 2,444 53,402 3,884 6.5 76,350 59,771 78.3 55,935 73.3 2,406 53,529 3,836 6.4 76,451 59,892 78.3 56,075 78.3 2,414 53,661 3,817 6.4 76,565 59,913 78.3 56,182 73.4 2,334 53,848 3,731 6.2 76,663 59,994 78.3 56,269 73.4 2,434 53,835 3,725 6.2 76,753 60,131 78.3 56,372 73.4 2,494 53,878 3,759 6.3 76,760 60,033 78.2 56,234 73.3 2,417 53,817 3,798 6.3 76,829 60,061 78.2 56,287 73.3 2,362 53,926 3,774 6.3 76,904 60,152 78.2 56,421 73.4 2,326 54,095 3,731 6.2 76,988 60,177 78.2 56,370 73.2 2,390 53,980 3,807 6.3 77,068 60,214 78.1 56,563 73.4 2,370 54,193 3,651 6.1 84,069 44,636 53.1 41,004 48.8 620 40,384 3,632 8.1 85,429 45,900 53.7 42,793 50.1 595 42,198 3,107 6.8 85,272 46,130 54.1 43,003 50.4 603 42,400 3,127 6.8 85,380 45,958 53.8 42,986 50.3 611 42,375 2,972 6.5 85,488 46,131 54.0 43,001 50.3 580 42,421 3,130 6.8 85,581 46,092 53.9 42,878 50.1 573 42,305 3,214 7.0 85,688 45,950 53.6 42,906 50.1 590 42,316 3,044 6.6 85,793 46,264 53.9 43,091 50.2 569 42,522 3,173 6.9 85,897 46,279 53.9 43,252 50.4 580 42,672 3,027 6.5 85,995 46,463 54.0 43,511 50.6 595 42,916 2,952 6.4 86,015 46,771 54.4 43,610 50.7 592 43,018 3,161 6.8 86,086 46,894 54.5 43,768 50.8 614 43,153 3,126 6.7 86,181 47,193 54.8 44,014 51.1 659 43,355 3,179 6.7 86,274 47,155 54.7 43,958 51.0 651 43,307 3,197 6.8 86,380 47,077 54.5 43,846 50.8 597 43,249 3,231 6.9 15,274 8,171 53.5 6,342 41.5 334 6,008 1,829 22.4 14,735 7,943 53.9 6,444 43.7 309 6,135 1,499 18.9 14,778 8,020 54.3 6,496 44.0 321 6,175 1,524 19.0 14,728 7,993 54.3 6,544 44.4 309 6,235 1,449 18.1 14,683 8,007 54.5 6,530 44.5 309 6,221 1,477 18.4 14,653 7,766 53.0 6,335 43.2 285 6,050 1,431 18.4 14,624 7,922 54.2 6,413 43.9 315 6,098 1,509 19.0 14,598 7,839 53.7 6,376 43.7 266 6,110 1,463 18.7 14,575 7,801 53.5 6,411 44.0 320 6,091 1,390 17.8 14,557 7,870 54.1 6,390 43.9 296 6,094 1,480 18.8 14,610 8,072 55.2 6,547 44.8 311 6,236 1,525 18.9 14,600 8,129 55.7 6,630 45.4 364 6,266 1,499 18.4 14,582 8,169 56.0 6,684 45.8 377 6,307 1,485 18.2 14,538 8,039 55.3 6,617 45.5 387 6,230 1,422 17.7 14,496 8,082 55.8 6,551 45.2 345 6,206 1,531 18.9 150,805 97,021 64.3 88,893 58.9 8,128 8.4 152,347 98,492 64.6 92,120 60.5 6,372 6.5 152,229 98,749 64.9 92,330 60.7 6,419 6.5 152,295 98,690 64.8 92,516 60.7 6,174 6.3 152,286 98,627 64.8 92,389 60.7 6,238 6.3 152,402 98,223 64.4 91,951 60.3 6,272 6.4 152,471 98,426 64.6 92,177 60.5 6,249 6.3 152,605 98,631 64.6 92,407 60.6 6,224 6.3 152,659 98,630 64.6 92,587 60.6 6,043 6.1 152,734 99,005 64.8 92,884 60.8 6,121 6.2 153,103 99,496 65.0 93,124 60.8 6,372 6.4 153,191 99,711 65.1 93,552 61.1 6,159 6.2 153,296 100,035 65.3 93,785 61.2 6,250 6.2 153,388 99,805 65.1 93,544 61.0 6,262 6.3 153,489 99,768 65.0 93,539 60.9 6,230 6.2 18,925 11,647 61.5 9,375 49.5 2,272 19.5 19,348 12,033 62.2 10,119 52.3 1,914 15.9 19,302 11,968 62.0 10,053 52.1 1,915 16.0 19,330 11,959 61.9 10,138 52.4 1,821 15.2 19,360 12,083 62.4 10,079 52.1 2,004 16.6 19,386 12,142 62.6 10,222 52.7 1,920 15.8 19,416 12,082 62.2 10,260 52.8 1,822 15.1 19,449 12,208 62.8 10,340 53.2 1,868 15.3 19,481 12,276 63.0 10,426 53.5 1,850 15.1 19,513 12,306 63.1 10,462 53.6 1,844 15.0 19,518 12,315 63.1 10,475 53.7 1,840 14.9 19,542 12,309 63.0 10,301 52.7 2,008 16.3 19,569 12,280 62.8 10,412 53.2 1,869 15.2 19,594 12,403 63.3 10,508 53.6 1,894 15.3 19,620 12,370 63.0 10,438 53.2 1,932 15.6 10,795 6,884 63.8 5,943 55.1 940 13.7 11,164 7,247 64.9 6,469 57.9 778 10.7 11,118 7,170 64.5 6,402 57.6 768 10.7 11,148 7,267 65.2 6,519 58.5 748 10.3 11,180 7,264 65.0 6,503 58.2 761 10.5 11,209 7,299 65.1 6,521 58.2 778 10.7 11,240 7,353 65.4 6,573 58.5 780 10.6 11,270 7,384 65.5 6,574 58.3 810 11.0 11,301 7,394 65.4 6,636 58.7 758 10.3 11,332 7,472 65.9 6,698 59.1 774 10.4 11,363 7,255 63.8 6,487 57.1 768 10.6 11,394 7,330 64.3 6,621 58.1 709 9.7 11,425 7,365 64.5 6,615 57.9 750 10.2 11,457 7,336 64.0 6,577 57.4 759 10.3 11,485 7,330 63.8 6,546 57.0 784 10.7 TOTAL Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............. Civilian labor fo rc e ................................... Participation ra te ........................... Employed .......................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Unemployed........................................ Unemployment rate ..................... Not in labor force ................................... Men, 20 years and over Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............. Civilian labor fo rc e .................................. Participation ra te .......................... Employed .......................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Agriculture........................................ Nonagricultural industries ................ Unemployed........................................ Unemployment rate ..................... Women, 20 years and over Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............. Civilian labor fo rc e .................................. Participation ra te ........................... Employed .......................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Agriculture........................................ Nonagricultural industries ................ Unemployed........................................ Unemployment rate ..................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 years Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............. Civilian labor fo rc e ................................... Participation ra te .......................... Employed ........................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Agriculture........................................ Nonagricultural industries ................ Unemployed........................................ Unemployment rate ..................... White Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............. Civilian labor fo rc e ................................... Participation ra te ........................... Employed .......................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Unemployed........................................ Unemployment rate ..................... Black Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............. Civilian labor fo rc e .................................. Participation ra te .......................... Employed .......................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Unemployed........................................ Unemployment rate ..................... Hispanic origin Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............. Civilian labor fo rc e .................................. Participation ra te .......................... Employed .......................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Unemployed........................................ Unemployment rate ..................... 1The population figures are not seasonally adjusted. 2Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. 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. 65 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 4. Household Data Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted [In thousands] Annual average 1984 1985 Selected categories 1983 1984 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. 100,834 56,787 44,047 37,967 24,603 5,091 105,005 59,091 45,915 39,056 25,636 5,465 105,162 59,033 46,129 39,060 25,658 5,606 105,391 59,213 46,178 39,060 25,734 5,622 105,377 59,136 46,241 39,123 25,719 5,626 105,148 59,203 45,945 39,073 25,772 5,496 105,394 59,388 46,006 39,071 25,715 5,429 105,649 59,461 46,188 39,054 25,897 5,378 105,932 59,603 46,329 39,337 25,995 5,396 106,273 59,702 46,571 39,443 26,122 5,396 106,391 59,644 46,727 39,441 25,912 5,584 106,685 59,672 47,013 39,357 26,108 5,525 1,579 1,565 240 1,555 1,553 213 1,580 1,549 239 1,578 1,566 211 1,519 1,557 220 1,453 1,562 209 1,565 1,555 195 1,511 1,487 187 1,593 1,555 204 1,733 1,485 212 1,596 1,531 227 1,611 1,503 242 1,610 1,502 263 1,705 1,491 231 1,611 1,507 196 89,500 15,537 73,963 1,247 72,716 7,575 376 93,565 15,770 77,794 1,238 76,556 7,785 335 93,780 15,744 78,036 1,327 76,709 7,745 323 93,845 15,713 78,132 1,297 76,835 7,815 347 93,768 15,639 78,129 1,238 76,891 7,744 318 93,680 15,758 77,922 1,199 76,723 7,807 321 94,140 15,881 78,259 1,198 77,061 7,752 318 94,415 15,997 78,418 1,213 77,205 7,782 314 94,442 15,785 78,657 1,228 77,429 7,731 357 94,725 15,858 78,867 1,257 77,610 7,786 357 95,068 15,738 79,330 1,374 77,956 7,783 343 95,348 16,009 79,339 1,304 78,035 7,673 340 95,756 16,004 79,752 1,210 78,542 7,809 320 95,617 15,968 79,649 1,208 78,441 7,696 304 95,772 15,905 79,866 1,259 78,607 7,665 283 6,266 2,833 3,099 12,911 5,744 2,430 2,948 13,169 5,625 2,286 3,042 13,250 5,831 2,326 2,984 13,090 5,759 2,373 2,832 13,248 5,582 2,371 2,743 13,210 5,690 2,461 2,943 13,144 5,710 2,514 2,879 13,126 5,623 2,449 2,855 13,142 5,814 2,596 2,873 13,239 5,628 2,431 2,848 13,355 5,335 2,212 2,835 13,647 5,664 2,599 2,744 13,624 5,664 2,580 2,755 13,278 5,912 2,658 2,888 12,905 5,997 2,684 2,993 12,417 5,512 2,291 2,866 12,704 5,377 2,153 2,949 12,799 5,549 2,160 2,911 12,621 5,482 2,214 2,756 12,786 5,384 2,254 2,675 12,747 5,449 2,306 2,847 12,669 5,483 2,364 2,821 12,679 5,413 2,319 2,782 12,670 5,596 2,473 2,793 12,778 5,389 2,287 2,749 12,861 5,077 2,040 2,751 13,157 5,400 2,405 2,649 13,137 5,374 2,390 2,668 12,834 5,617 2,457 2,803 12,483 Mar. Apr. May CHARACTERISTIC Civilian employed, 16 years and over ................... M en............................................................. Women........................................................ Married men, spouse present........................ Married women, spouse present .................. Women who maintain families ..................... 107,119 106,945 106,960 59,997 59,874 59,852 46,964 47,244 47,093 39,244 39,434 39,531 26,195 26,058 25,951 5,622 5,683 5,631 MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS OF WORKER Agriculture: Wage and salary w orkers............................. Self-employed workers ................................ Unpaid family workers.................................. Nonagricultural industries: Wage and salary w orkers............................. Government.......................................... Private industries.................................. Private households ........................ Other ............................................. Self-employed workers ................................ Unpaid family workers.................................. PERSONS AT WORK PART TIME1 All industries: Part time for economic reasons........................ Slack w o rk .................................................. Could only find part-time work ..................... Voluntary part tim e .......................................... Nonagricultural industries: Part time for economic reasons........................ Slack w o rk .................................................. Could only find part-time w o r k ..................... Voluntary part tim e .......................................... 1Excludes persons “ with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes. 5. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted [Unemployment rates] 1984 Annual average 1985 Selected categories 1983 1984 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Total, all civilian workers..................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs........................... Men, 20 years and o v e r................................ Women, 20 years and o v e r........................... 9.6 22.4 8.9 8.1 7.5 18.9 6.6 6.8 7.5 19.0 6.6 6.8 7.2 18.1 6.4 6.5 7.5 18.4 6.5 6.8 7.5 18.4 6.4 7.0 7.4 19.0 6.4 6.6 7.3 18.7 6.2 6.9 7.1 17.8 6.2 6.5 7.2 18.8 6.3 6.4 7.4 18.9 6.3 6.8 7.3 18.4 6.3 6.7 7.3 18.2 6.2 6.7 7.3 17.7 6.3 6.8 7.3 18.9 6.1 6.9 White, to ta 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 .................. 8.4 19.3 20.2 18.3 7.9 6.9 6.5 16.0 16.8 15.2 5.7 5.8 6.5 16.2 16.9 15.5 5.7 5.8 6.3 15.8 16.6 15.1 5.4 5.6 6.3 15.2 17.4 12.9 5.5 5.8 6.4 16.0 16.7 15.4 5.5 5.9 6.3 16.3 17.0 15.5 5.5 5.7 6.3 15.9 16.6 15.2 5.4 5.8 6.1 15.1 16.2 13.9 5.4 5.5 6.2 15.9 16.2 15.5 5.4 5.5 6.4 15.8 15.9 15.8 5.5 5.9 6.2 15.2 17.0 13.4 5.4 5.6 6.2 15.1 15.2 14.9 5.4 5.9 6.3 14.9 15.3 14.3 5.5 5.8 6.2 16.1 16.8 15.3 5.2 5.9 Black, to ta 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 ................... 19.5 48.5 48.8 48.2 18.1 16.5 15.9 42.7 42.7 42.6 14.3 13.5 16.0 44.4 41.4 48.1 14.3 13.7 15.2 37.1 38.2 35.8 14.6 12.6 16.6 42.3 42.3 42.2 15.5 13.8 15.8 41.3 40.5 42.2 14.1 13.8 15.1 41.9 41.0 43.0 13.5 12.6 15.3 40.2 43.8 36.2 13.4 13.4 15.1 41.2 42.0 40.2 12.8 13.5 15.0 42.1 43.8 40.1 13.3 12.7 14.9 42.1 45.3 38.5 12.7 12.8 16.3 43.1 41.1 45.3 14.4 13.9 15.2 41.9 40.9 43.1 13.3 12.9 15.3 39.0 38.5 39.5 13.6 13.2 15.6 40.4 38.4 42.5 13.6 13.7 Hispanic origin, total..................................... 13.7 10.7 10.3 10.5 10.7 10.6 11.0 10.3 10.4 10.6 9.7 9.7 10.2 10.3 10.7 Married men, spouse present........................ Married women, spouse present................... Women who maintain families ..................... Full-time workers.......................................... Part-time workers ........................................ Unemployed 15 weeks and over ................... Labor force time lost1 .................................. 6.5 7.0 12.2 9.5 10.4 3.8 10.9 4.6 5.7 10.3 7.2 9.3 2.4 8.6 4.6 5.8 10.0 7.2 9.4 2.5 8.6 4.6 5.7 9.8 6.7 10.0 2.3 8.4 4.5 5.8 9.8 7.2 9.6 2.3 8.5 4.5 5.8 10.3 7.1 9.6 2.3 8.5 4.6 5.7 10.1 7.1 9.3 2.3 8.5 4.5 5.7 10.4 7.1 9.1 2.2 8.4 4.4 5.4 10.8 6.9 8.6 2.1 8.2 4.4 5.4 9.6 6.9 8.8 2.1 8.3 4.6 5.7 10.0 7.1 9.3 2.0 8.2 4.4 5.4 11.0 7.1 8.7 2.1 8.2 4.2 5.9 10.2 6.9 9.6 2.1 8.2 4.3 5.9 10.8 6.9 9.7 2.1 8.2 4.0 5.8 10.9 6.8 10.3 1.9 8.3 9.9 17.0 18.4 11.2 12.1 10.0 7.4 10.0 7.2 5.3 16.0 7.4 10.0 14.3 7.5 7.2 7.8 5.5 8.0 5.9 4.5 13.5 7.3 8.8 14.7 7.2 7.1 7.3 5.7 8.0 5.7 4.7 13.8 7.0 7.5 14.6 7.3 7.2 7.5 5.3 7.3 5.5 4.2 12.3 7.4 7.7 14.6 7.5 6.9 8.5 5.9 7.8 5.9 4.5 14.3 7.4 10.2 14.1 7.4 6.9 8.1 5.9 7.7 6.0 4.4 13.1 7.3 8.6 13.9 7.4 6.9 8.1 5.9 8.0 5.6 4.5 14.7 7.2 10.5 13.7 7.3 6.9 7.8 5.3 7.9 5.7 4.4 13.7 7.2 11.7 14.2 7.2 7.0 7.4 5.2 7.6 5.8 4.3 11.2 7.2 10.7 13.7 7.2 7.1 7.2 5.0 7.5 5.9 4.4 12.2 7.3 10.1 13.4 7.6 7.2 8.1 4.9 7.7 5.9 4.1 15 5 7.3 10.9 13.4 7.5 7.1 8.2 5.5 7.7 5.7 3.9 13.6 7.2 11.0 13.3 7.7 7.4 8.1 4.6 7.5 5.7 3.9 12.2 7.3 10.9 13.3 8.0 7.8 8.3 5.4 7.3 5.7 3.7 13.1 7.2 7.3 10.2 7.8 7.8 7.7 5.2 7.9 6.2 3.9 11.5 CHARACTERISTIC INDUSTRY Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers . . Mining ........................................................ Construction ................................................ Manufacturing ............................................. Durable goods ..................................... Nondurable goods ................................ Transportation and public utilities................... Wholesale and retail trade............................. Finance and service industries ..................... Government workers .......................................... Agricultural wage and salary workers .................. 1Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force hours. 66 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6. Unemployment rates by sex and age, seasonally adjusted [Civilian workers] 1985 1984 Annual average Sex and age 1983 1984 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 ye a rs................ 16 to 17 years............. 18 to 19 years............. 20 to 24 years................ 25 years and over ............. 25 to 54 years ............. 55 years and over . . , . 9,6 17.2 22.4 24.5 21.1 14.5 7.5 8.0 5.3 7.5 13.9 18.9 21.2 17.4 11.5 5.8 6.1 4.5 7.5 14.1 19.0 20.6 17.9 11.6 5.8 6.0 4.5 7.2 13.2 18.1 20.1 16.8 10.8 5.7 5.8 4.5 7.5 13.6 18.4 20.7 16.7 11.2 5.8 6.1 4.5 7.5 13.9 18.4 21.2 16.7 11.7 5.7 6.0 4.5 7.4 13.9 19.0 20.9 17.7 11.4 5.6 5.9 4.5 7.3 13.5 18.7 20.2 17.8 11.0 5.7 5.9 4.7 7.1 13.2 17.8 20.0 16.8 10.9 5.5 5.8 4.4 7.2 13.5 18.8 21.0 17.7 10.9 5.5 5.8 4.1 7.4 13.6 18.9 21.2 17.4 10.9 5.8 6.1 4.2 7.3 13.7 18.4 20.0 17.4 11.2 5.6 5.9 3.9 7.3 13.5 18.2 20.9 16.5 11.1 5.6 5.9 4.0 7.3 13.3 17.7 20.7 15.8 11.0 5.7 6.1 4.0 7.3 14.2 18.9 21.1 17.3 11.8 5.5 5.8 4.3 Men, 16 years and over . . 16 to 24 years............. 16 to 19 years . . . . 16 to 17 years . . . 18 to 19 years . . . 20 to 24 years . . . . 25 years and over . . . . 25 to 54 years . . . 55 years and over . 9.9 18.4 23.3 25.2 22.2 15.9 7.8 8.2 5.6 7.4 14.4 19.6 21.9 18.3 11.9 5.7 5.9 4.6 7.4 14.3 19.5 21.7 18.1 11.7 5.7 5.9 4.6 7.2 13.9 18.9 22.4 17.0 11.5 5.5 5.7 4.5 7.4 14.5 20.4 22.6 18.5 11.6 5.6 5.8 4.6 7.2 14.3 18.8 22.2 16.6 12.1 5.5 5.7 4.6 7.2 14.6 19.7 21.0 18.7 12.2 5.5 5.6 ■4.8 7.1 13.8 19.8 21.3 18.9 10.9 5.4 5.6 4.7 7.0 13.7 18.9 20.3 18.3 11.2 5.4 5.6 4.7 7.1 14.1 19.4 19.8 19.3 11.5 5.4 5.6 4.4 7.2 13.8 19.1 21.2 18.0 11.2 5.5 5.8 4.3 7.1 14.4 19.5 20.7 18.6 11.8 5.4 5.6 4.0 7.0 13.9 18.1 22.2 15.7 11.7 5.3 5.6 3.8 7.1 13.6 18.2 21.5 16.2 11.3 5.5 5.8 3.9 6.9 14.8 19.4 22.2 17.4 12.5 5.0 5.2 4.1 Women, 16 years and over 16 to 24 years............. 16 to 19 years . . . . 16 to 17 years . . . 18 to 19 years . . . 20 to 24 years . . . . 25 years and over . . . . 25 to 54 years . . . 55 years and over . 9.2 15.8 21.3 23.7 19.9 12.9 7.2 7.7 4.7 7.6 13.3 18.0 20.4 16.6 10.9 6.0 6.3 4.2 7.7 13.9 18.4 19.4 17.7 11.5 5.9 6.2 4.3 7.3 12.5 17.3 17.6 16.5 10.0 5.9 6.0 4.5 7.5 12.7 16.4 18.7 14.7 10.8 6.0 6.4 4.2 7.8 13.5 18.1 20.3 16.7 11.1 6.1 6.5 4.3 7.5 13.2 18.3 20.9 16.6 10.5 5.9 6.2 4.0 7.7 13.2 17.4 19.0 16.5 11.1 6.0 6.2 4.8 7.3 12.6 16.6 19.7 15.1 10.7 5.7 6.1 3.9 7.2 12.8 18.1 22.3 16.0 10.2 5.6 6.0 3.7 7.7 13.3 18.6 21.2 16.7 10.5 6.1 6.4 4.2 7.5 12.9 17.3 19.4 16.2 10.6 5.9 6.3 3.8 7.6 13.2 18.2 19.5 17.4 10.5 6.0 6.4 4.2 7.5 12.9 17.1 19.8 15.5 10.7 6.0 6.3 4.2 7.7 13.5 18.4 19.9 17.3 10.9 6.1 6.5 4.6 7. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted [Numbers in thousands] Job losers .......................................................... On layoff ..................................................... Other job losers .......................................... Job leavers.......................................................... Reentrants.......................................................... New entrants........................................................ 1985 1984 Annual average Reason lor unemployment 1983 1984 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 6,258 1,780 4,478 830 2,412 1,216 4,421 1,171 3,250 823 2,184 1,110 4,373 1,187 3,186 812 2,184 1,170 4,271 1,162 3,109 809 1,989 1,134 4,475 1,165 3,310 850 2,111 1,092 4,227 1,146 3,081 833 2,294 1,088 4,188 1,110 3,078 841 2,254 1,057 4,261 1,151 3,110 829 2,150 1,060 4,141 1,068 3,073 869 2,161 1,024 4,176 1,070 3,106 858 2,218 1,011 4,313 1,229 3,084 884 2,244 1,049 4,251 1,240 3,011 865 2,233 1,035 4,158 1,163 2,995 848 2,341 1,090 4,228 1,208 3,019 838 2,312 1,072 3,935 1,059 2,876 868 2,428 1,159 100.0 58.4 16.6 41.8 7.7 22.5 11.3 100.0 51.8 13.7 38.1 9.6 25.6 13.0 100.0 51.2 13.9 37.3 9.5 25.6 13.7 100.0 52.1 14.2 37.9 9.9 24.2 13.8 100.0 52.5 13.7 38.8 10.0 24.8 12.8 100.0 50.1 13.6 36.5 9.9 27.2 12.9 100.0 50.2 13.3 36.9 10.1 27.0 12.7 100.0 51.3 13.9 37.5 10.0 25.9 12.8 100.0 50.5 13.0 37.5 10.6 26.4 12.5 100.0 50.5 12.9 37.6 10.4 26.8 12.2 100.0 50.8 14.5 36.3 10.4 26.4 12.4 100.0 50.7 14.8 35.9 10.3 26.6 12.3 100.0 49.3 13.8 35.5 10.0 27.7 12.9 100.0 50.0 14.3 35.7 9.9 27.4 12.7 100.0 46.9 12.6 34.3 10.3 28.9 13.8 5.6 .7 2.2 1.1 3.9 .7 1.9 1.0 3.8 .7 1.9 1.0 3.8 .7 1.8 1.0 3.9 .7 1.9 1.0 3.7 .7 2.0 1.0 3.7 .7 2.0 .9 3.7 .7 1.9 .9 3.6 .8 1.9 .9 3.6 .7 1.9 .9 3.8 .8 2.0 .9 3.7 .8 1.9 .9 3.6 .7 2.0 .9 3.7 .7 2.0 .9 3.4 .8 2.1 1.0 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION Total unemployed ................................................ Job losers .......................................................... On layoff ..................................................... Other job losers .......................................... Job leavers.......................................................... Reentrants.......................................................... New entrants........................................................ PERCENT OF CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE Job losers .......................................................... Job leavers.......................................................... Reentrants.......................................................... New entrants........................................................ 8. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted [Numbers in thousands] Less than 5 weeks................................................ 5 to 14 weeks..................................................... 15 weeks and over ............................................. 15 to 26 weeks............................................. 27 weeks and over........................................ Mean duration in weeks........................................ Median duration in weeks..................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1985 1984 Annual average Weeks of unemployment 1983 1984 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 3,570 2,937 4,210 1,652 2,559 20.0 10.1 3,350 2,451 2,737 1,104 1,634 18.2 7.9 3,275 2,440 2,833 1,173 1,660 18.5 8.3 3,229 2,303 2,630 1,012 1,618 18.1 7.5 3,409 2,449 2,672 1,088 1,584 18.0 7.6 3,513 2,406 2,621 1,116 1,505 17.6 7.6 3,313 2,533 2,605 1,106 1,499 17.3 7.6 3,395 2,406 2,527 1,092 1,435 16.7 7.3 3,352 2,324 2,428 990 1,438 17.4 7.3 3,282 2,516 2,374 972 1,402 17.3 7.4 3,662 2,552 2,243 941 1,302 15.3 6.7 3,524 2,469 2,416 1,076 1,340 15.9 7.2 3,590 2,478 2,400 1,065 1,335 15.9 7.1 3,558 2,525 2,377 1,022 1,354 16.1 6.7 3,659 2,635 2,247 1,040 1,207 14.9 6.2 67 EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n i n g s d a t a in this section are compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by over 200,000 establishments representing all industries except agriculture. In most industries, the sampling probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most large establish ments are therefore in the sample. (An establishment is not nec essarily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or warehouse.) Self-employed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the survey because they are excluded from establishment records. This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures between the household and establishment surveys. Definitions Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday and sick pay) for any part o f 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 12-16 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 ( c p i - 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 68 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 of 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 hours. 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 1983 issue, represents the percent of 185 nonagricultural industries in which employ ment was rising over the indicated period. One-half of 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 eco nomic indicator. 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 o f May 1985 data, published in the July 1985 issue of the Review. Con sequently, data published in the Review prior to that issue are not necessarily comparable to current data. Unadjusted data have been revised back to April 1983; seasonally adjusted data have been revised back to January 1980. Unadjusted data from April 1984 forward, and seasonally adjusted data from January 1981 forward are subject to revision in future bench marks. Earlier comparable unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, 1909-84, b ls Bulletin 1312-12. 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,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 . See also bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982). 1 Employment, by industry, selected years, 1950- GO 9. [Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands] Goods-produclng Year Total Private sector Total Mining Service-producing Construc tion Manufac turing Total Transpor tation and public utilities Whole sale trade Retail trade Finance, insurance, Services and real estate Government Total Federal State Local 1950 ............................. 1955 ............................. I9602 ........................... 1964 ............................. 1965 ............................. 45,197 50.641 54,189 58,283 60,765 39,170 43,727 45,836 48,686 50,689 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 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 (1) 1,168 1,536 1,856 1,996 (1) 3,558 4,547 5,392 5,700 ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. 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 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 2,141 2,302 2,442 2,533 2,664 6,080 6,371 6,660 6,904 7,158 197 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 4,001 4,113 4,277 4,433 4,415 11,351 11,836 12,329 12,554 12,645 3,772 3,908 4,046 4,148 4,165 11,797 12,276 12,857 13,441 13,892 12,881 13,334 13,732 14,170 14,686 2,696 2,684 2,663 2,724 2,748 2,747 2,859 2,923 3,039 3,179 7,437 7,790 8,146 8,407 8,758 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. 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 19,682 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 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 5,160 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 3,273 3,377 3,474 3,541 3,610 8,865 9,023 9,446 9,633 9,765 19 8 1 ............................. 1982 ............................. 19833 ........................... 19843 ........................... 91,156 89,566 90,196 94,461 75,126 73,729 74,330 78,477 25,497 23,813 23,334 24,730 1,139 1,128 952 974 4,188 3,905 3,948 4,345 20,170 18,781 18,434 19,412 65,659 65,753 66,862 69,731 5,165 5,082 4,954 5,171 5,358 5,278 5,268 5,550 15,189 15,179 15,613 16,584 5,298 5,341 5,468 5,682 18,619 19,036 19,694 20,761 16,031 15,837 15,869 15,984 2,772 2,739 2,774 2,807 3,640 3,640 3,662 3,712 9,619 9,458 9,434 9,465 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1Not available. 2Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959. 10. 30ata have been revised to reflect March 1984 benchmarks and differ from data published previously. Employment, by State [Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands] State April 1984 March 1985 April 1985P State April 1984 March 1985 April 1985P Alabama.................................................. Alaska ..................................................... Arizona ................................................... Arkansas ................................................ California ................................................ 1,379.7 217.7 1,174.3 779.2 10,449.8 1,382.4 222.1 1,256.7 788.9 10,769,0 1,400.0 225.7 1,260.9 793.6 10,803.7 Montana.................................................. Nebraska ................................................ Nevada .................................................. New Hampshire........................................ 277.1 620.5 418.7 430.6 3 305 2 279.4 636.0 441.6 455.9 3 367 7 282.3 640.6 446.2 460 7 3 407 4 Colorado ................................................ Connecticut............................................. Delaware ................................................ District of Columbia ................................ Florida..................................................... 1,377.2 1,509.5 277.1 605.3 4,179.6 1,403.6 1,543.2 284.6 615.7 4,426.4 1,407.1 1,556.6 288.0 619.1 4,424.5 New Mexico............................................. New Y o rk ................................................ North Carolina ........................................ North Dakota.......................................... O hio........................................................ 497.9 7,497.9 2,542.4 250.0 4,208.9 510.0 7,584.2 2,599.1 247.9 4,273.6 513.9 7,638.1 2,617.6 250.5 4,319.3 Georgia ................................................... Hawaii..................................................... Idano ..................................................... Illinois..................................................... Indiana .................................................. 2,415.9 412.6 323.2 4,597.7 2,110.2 2,563.7 421.2 325.0 4,635.0 2,153.2 2,580.2 420.1 327.5 4,657.2 2,183.4 Oklahoma................................................ Oregon .................................................. Pennsylvania .......................................... Rhode Isla n d .......................................... South Carolina ........................................ 1,182.2 994.8 4,623.5 407.5 1,254.7 1,183.7 1,010.7 4,657.7 412.0 1,312.2 1,187.8 1,013.5 4,689.9 414.2 1,326.9 Iow a........................................................ Kansas ................................................... KentucKy ................................................ Louisiana ................................................ M aine..................................................... 1,060.7 955.1 1,200.8 1,593.8 434.1 1,052.4 971.7 1,229.1 1,588.5 437.5 1,061.5 981.3 1,238.4 1,586.7 443.3 South Dakota.......................................... Texas ..................................................... Utah........................................................ Vermont.................................................. 242.1 1 799 3 6Ì417.0 593.2 209.8 239.9 1 828 8 6^546.4 616.1 218.9 242.5 1 846 6 6,550.7 620.4 217.8 Maryland ................................................ Massachusetts ........................................ Michigan ................................................ Minnesota................................................ Mississippi ............................................. Missouri................................................... 1,781.4 2,815.2 3,313.8 1,800.0 818.9 2,011.7 1,846.8 2,917.4 3,387.3 1,838.3 838.3 2,020.2 1,861.4 2,956.5 3,403.9 1,864.2 844.0 2,041.0 Virginia .................................................. Washington............................................. West Virginia.......................................... Wisconsin................................................ Wyoming ............................................... 2,297.4 1,625.6 589.9 1,909.6 194.8 2,373.2 1,655.0 584.7 1,940.4 <1) 2,396.2 1,670.4 588.5 1,963.0 <1) Virgin Islands.......................................... 37.0 36.9 36.7 'Not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis p = preliminary. 69 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 11. Establishment Data Employment, by industry, seasonally adjusted [Nonagricultural payroll data, In thousands] Industry division and group 1984 Annual average 1983 1984 May 90,196 94,461 93,998 74,330 78,477 78,055 23,334 24,730 24,670 952 598 974 613 Construction ................................................................ General building contractors........................... 3,948 1,020 M anu facturing................................................ Production workers ..................................... 1985 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.P MayP 94,317 94,615 94,893 95,238 95,573 95,882 96,092 96,419 96,591 96,910 97,118 97,463 78,384 78,655 78,885 79,154 79,460 79,764 80,010 80,319 80,480 80,767 80,978 81,275 24,767 24,842 24,889 24,851 24,918 24,955 25,045 25,112 25,062 25,056 25,098 25,098 973 607 978 610 979 613 984 618 985 622 979 623 978 626 973 624 974 621 976 620 977 618 981 622 977 618 4,345 1,158 4,307 1,153 4,344 1,163 4,354 1,162 4,366 1,163 4,386 1,171 4,403 1,171 4,424 1,179 4,469 1,190 4,534 1,219 4,525 1,214 4,553 1,223 4,648 1,236 4,680 1,239 18,434 12,530 19,412 13,310 19,390 13,311 19,445 13,341 19,509 13,391 19,539 13,396 19,480 13,341 19,536 13,380 19,553 13,376 19,603 13,409 19,604 13,399 19,561 13,347 19,526 13,309 19,469 13,252 19,441 13,234 Durable goods ................................................ Production workers ..................................... 10,732 7,117 11,522 7,749 11,485 7,732 11,538 7,763 11,589 7,802 11,638 7,832 11,611 7,806 11,652 7,835 11,666 7,832 11,701 7,855 11,702 7,843 11,675 7,806 11,651 7,776 11,611 7,735 11,608 7,729 Lumber and wood products ........................... Furniture and fixtures..................................... Stone, clay, and glass products ..................... Primary metal industries ................................ Blast furnaces and basic steel products . . . . Fabricated metal products................................ 657 448 570 832 341 1,370 707 487 595 858 334 1,464 708 486 595 868 342 1,457 710 488 596 868 342 1,465 708 489 597 865 339 1,475 707 489 595 863 331 1,478 705 486 596 852 324 1,476 708 491 597 851 320 1,483 709 495 598 848 318 1,486 711 497 601 844 316 1,489 709 499 602 844 315 1,486 704 498 600 840 313 1,483 701 499 601 832 311 1,480 694 497 599 824 306 1,478 698 495 599 822 305 1,477 Machinery, except electrical .......................... Electrical and electronic equipment.................. Transportation equipment................................ Motor vehicles and equipment ..................... Instruments and related products ................... Miscellaneous manufacturing.......................... 2,033 2,013 1,747 754 692 371 2,197 2,208 1,906 860 714 384 2,189 2,199 1,888 848 712 383 2,205 2,210 1,900 853 714 382 2,220 2,224 1,911 857 716 384 2,232 2,237 1,934 880 717 386 2,225 2,241 1,927 866 718 385 2,233 2,247 1,935 869 720 387 2,232 2,250 1,940 873 722 386 2,232 2,253 1,965 888 723 386 2,228 2,252 1,974 891 723 385 2,224 2,248 1,972 876 725 381 2,220 2,243 1,969 867 727 379 2,207 2,226 1,983 876 726 377 2,208 2,217 1,984 876 729 379 Nondurable goods ................................................... Production workers ..................................... 7,702 5,413 7,890 5,561 7,905 5,579 7,907 5,578 7,920 5,589 7,901 5,564 7,869 5,535 7,884 5,545 7,887 5,544 7,902 5,554 7,902 5,556 7,886 5,541 7,875 5,533 7,858 5,517 7,833 5,505 Food and kindred products............................. Tobacco manufactures .................................. Textile mill products........................................ Apparel and other textile products.................. Paper and allied products................................ 1,615 68 741 1,163 661 1,619 65 746 1,197 681 1,618 65 755 1,209 681 1,618 65 752 1,202 684 1,625 65 748 1,201 684 1,617 64 744 1,196 684 1,610 66 738 1,181 680 1,617 66 730 1,181 683 1,620 65 726 1,180 682 1,630 66 722 1,184 683 1,633 67 720 1,182 683 1,633 66 712 1,175 682 1,638 66 706 1,167 682 1,629 66 708 1,164 681 1,628 65 701 1,149 682 Printing and publishing.................................. Chemicals and allied products ........................ Petroleum and coal products........................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products . . Leather and leather products.......................... 1,299 1,043 196 711 205 1,372 1,048 189 782 192 1,366 1,046 189 780 196 1,372 1,048 189 783 194 1,379 1,050 188 786 194 1,382 1,051 188 786 189 1,387 1,050 187 784 186 1,392 1,051 188 792 184 1,397 1,052 187 796 182 1,397 1,054 186 799 181 1,403 1,052 185 798 179 1,406 1,052 184 799 177 1,407 1,052 183 798 176 1,411 1,049 182 794 174 1,416 1,047 180 792 173 TOTAL PRIVATE SECTO R ................................................... GOODS-PRODUCING ................................................... Mining .......................................................... Oil and gas extraction................................ SERVICE-PRODUCING June 66,862 69,731 69,328 69,550 69,773 70,004 70,387 70,655 70,927 71,047 71,307 71,529 71,854 72,020 72,365 Transportation and public u tilitie s ......................... Transportation................................................ Communication and public utilities.................. 4,954 2,745 2,209 5,171 2,929 2,242 5,145 2,904 2,241 5,164 2,921 2,243 5,174 2,932 2,242 5,194 2,953 2,241 5,210 2,970 2,240 5,223 2,983 2,240 5,229 2,993 2,236 5,246 3,009 2,237 5,259 3,015 2,244 5,272 3,029 2,243 5,269 3,028 2,241 5,286 3,043 2,243 5,307 3,063 2,244 Wholesale t r a d e ......................................................... Durable goods ............................................. Nondurable goods ........................................ 5,268 3,070 2,197 5,550 3,272 2,278 5,516 3,252 2,264 5,532 3,268 2,264 5,557 3,286 2,271 5,573 3,296 2,277 5,610 3,311 2,299 5,636 3,321 2,315 5,647 3,334 2,313 5,665 3,347 2,318 5,686 3,358 2,328 5,697 3,367 2,330 5,714 3,377 2,337 5,735 3,390 2,345 5,756 3,408 2,348 Retail trade ................................................................ General merchandise stores ........................... Food stores .................................................. Automotive dealers and service stations........... Eating and drinking places ............................. 15,613 2,165 2,556 1,674 5,042 16,584 2,278 2,655 1,802 5,403 16,443 2,259 2,618 1,787 5,348 16,534 2,271 2,630 1,793 5,396 16,623 2,279 2,649 1,807 5,447 16,673 2,285 2,661 1,815 5,454 16,750 2,298 2,679 1,824 5,472 16,859 2,311 2,706 1,839 5,493 16,994 2,357 2,728 1,848 5,512 17,026 2,323 2,745 1,851 5,535 17,090 2,341 2,753 1,855 5,559 17,160 2,343 2,773 1,865 5,588 17,249 2,349 2,790 1,873 5,615 17,278 2,348 2,791 1,886 5,642 17,389 2,372 2,821 1,892 5,660 Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te ...................... Finance.......................................................... Insurance ..................................................... Real estate..................................................... 5,468 2,741 1,720 1,007 5,682 2,855 1,753 1,074 5,653 2,843 1,742 1,068 5,680 2,853 1,748 1,079 5,693 2,858 1,755 1,080 5,707 2,866 1,758 1,083 5,719 2,874 1,763 1,082 5,737 2,883 1,770 1,084 5,755 2,891 1,774 1,090 5,776 2,902 1,780 1,094 5,790 2,910 1,783 1,097 5,809 2,919 1,789 1,101 5,835 2,933 1,792 1,110 5,858 2,942 1,799 1,117 5,891 2,959 1,808 1,124 Services ...................................................................... Business services.......................................... Health services ............................................. 19,694 3,562 5,988 20,761 4,076 6,104 20,628 4,026 6,106 20,707 4,058 6,096 20,766 4,102 6,111 20,849 4,152 6,070 21,014 4,183 6,117 21,087 4,205 6,125 21,184 4,234 6,139 21,252 4,259 6,154 21,382 4,295 6,169 21,480 4,324 6,186 21,644 4,377 6,204 21,723 4,405 6,215 21,834 4,445 6,240 Government ................................................................ Federal.......................................................... State ............................................................. Local............................................................. 15,869 2,774 3,662 9,434 15,984 2,807 3,712 9,465 15,943 2,806 3,708 9,429 15,933 2,802 3,712 9,419 15,960 2,805 3,712 9,443 16,008 2,812 3,723 9,473 16,084 2,827 3,733 9,524 16,113 2,823 3,727 9,563 16,118 2,831 3,732 9,555 16,082 2,836 3,722 9,524 16,100 2,836 3,730 9,534 16,111 2,834 3,733 9,544 16,143 2,850 3,744 9,549 16,140 2,848 3,744 9,548 16,188 2,840 3,756 9,592 p = preliminary. 70 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 1984 benchmarks and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, data in this table differ from data published previously. 12. Average hours and earnings, by industry, 1968-84 [Production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls] Year Average weekly hours Average hourly earnings Average weekly earnings Average weekly hours Private sector Average hourly earnings Average weekly earnings Average weekly hours Mining Average hourly earnings Average weekly earnings Construction 1968 ............................................................. 1969 ............................................................. 1970 ............................................................. 37.8 37.7 37.1 $2.85 3.04 3.23 $107.73 114.61 119.83 42.6 43.0 42.7 $3.35 3.60 3.85 $142.71 154.80 164.40 37.3 37.9 37.3 $4.41 4.79 5.24 $164.49 181.54 195.45 197 1............................................................. 1972 ............................................................. 1973 ............................................................. 1974 ............................................................. 1975 ............................................................. 36.9 37.0 36.9 36.5 36.1 3.45 3.70 3.94 4.24 4.53 127.31 136.90 145.39 154.76 163.53 42.4 42.6 42.4 41.9 41.9 4.06 4.44 4.75 5.23 5.95 172.14 189.14 201.40 219.14 249.31 37.2 36.5 36.8 36.6 36.4 5.69 6.06 6.41 6.81 7.31 211.67 221.19 235.89 249.25 266.08 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. 36.1 36.0 35.8 35.7 35.3 4.86 5.25 5.69 6.16 6.66 175.45 189.00 203.70 219.91 235.10 42.4 43.4 43.4 43.0 43.3 6.46 6.94 7.67 8.49 9.17 273.90 301.20 332.88 365.07 397.06 36.8 36.5 36.8 37.0 37.0 7.71 8.10 8.66 9.27 9.94 283.73 295.65 318.69 342.99 367.78 198 1............................................................. 1982 ............................................................. 1983' .......................................................... 1984' .......................................................... 35.2 34.8 35.0 35.3 7.25 7.68 8.02 8.33 255.20 267.26 280.70 294.05 43.7 42.7 42.5 43.3 10.04 10.77 11.28 11.63 438.75 459.88 479.40 503.58 36.9 36.7 37.1 37.7 10.82 11.63 11.94 12.12 399.26 426.82 442.97 456.92 Manufacturing Transportation and public utilities Wholesale trade 1968 ............................................................. 1969 ............................................................. 1970 ............................................................. 40.7 40.6 39.8 $3.01 3.19 3.35 $122.51 129.51 133.33 40.6 40.7 40.5 $3.42 3.63 3.85 $138.85 147.74 155.93 40.1 40.2 39.9 $3.05 3.23 3.44 $122.31 129.85 137.26 1971............................................................. 1972 ............................................................. 1973 ............................................................. 1974 ............................................................. 1975 ............................................................. 39.9 40.5 40.7 40.0 39.5 3.57 3.82 4.09 4.42 4.83 142.44 154.71 166.46 176.80 190.79 40.1 40.4 40.5 40.2 39.7 4.21 4.65 5.02 5.41 5.88 168.82 187.86 203.31 217.48 233.44 39.5 39.4 39.3 38.8 38.7 3.65 3.85 4.08 4.39 4.73 129.85 144.18 151.69 160.34 183.05 ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. 40.1 40.3 40.4 40.2 39.7 5.22 5.68 6.17 6.70 7.27 209.32 228.90 249.27 269.34 288.62 39.8 39.9 40.0 39.9 39.6 6.45 6.99 7.57 8.16 8.87 256.71 278.90 302.80 325.58 351.25 38.7 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.5 5.03 5.39 5.88 6.39 6.96 194.66 209.13 228.14 247.93 267.96 198 1............................................................. 1982 ............................................................. 1983' .......................................................... 1984' .......................................................... 39.8 38.9 40.1 40.7 7.99 8.49 8.83 9.18 318.00 330.26 354.08 373.63 39.4 39.0 39.0 39.4 9.70 10.32 10.79 11.11 382.18 402.48 420.81 437.73 38.5 38.3 38.5 38.6 7.56 8.09 8.55 8.96 291.06 309.85 329.18 345.86 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Retail trade Finance, insurance, and real estate Services 1968 ............................................................. 1969 ............................................................. 1970 ............................................................. 34.7 34.2 33.8 $2.16 2.30 2.44 $74.95 78.66 82.47 37.0 37.1 36.7 $2.75 2.93 3.07 $101.75 108.70 112.67 34.7 34.7 34.4 $2.42 2.61 2.81 $83.97 90.57 96.66 197 1............................................................. 1972 ............................................................. 1973 ............................................................. 1974 ............................................................. 1975 ............................................................. 33.7 33.4 33.1 32.7 32.4 2.60 2.75 2.91 3.14 3.36 87.62 91.85 96.32 102.68 108.86 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.5 36.5 3.22 3.36 3.53 3.77 4.06 117.85 122.98 129.20 137.61 148.19 33.9 33.9 33.8 33.6 33.5 3.04 3.27 3.47 3.75 4.02 103.06 110.85 117.29 126.00 134.67 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. 32.1 31.6 31.0 30.6 30.2 3.57 3.85 4.20 4.53 4.88 114.60 121.66 130.20 138.62 147.38 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.2 36.2 4.27 4.54 4.89 5.27 5.79 155.43 165.26 178.00 190.77 209.60 33.3 33.0 32.8 32.7 32.6 4.31 4.65 4.99 5.36 5.85 143.52 153.45 163.67 175.27 190.71 198 1............................................................. 1982 ............................................................. 1983' .......................................................... 1984' .......................................................... 30.1 29.9 29.8 30.0 5.25 5.48 5.74 5.88 158.03 163.85 171.05 176.40 36.3 36.2 36.2 36.5 6.31 6.78 7.29 7.62 229.05 245.44 263.90 278.13 32.6 32.6 32.7 32.8 6.41 6.92 7.31 7.64 208.97 225.59 239.04 250.59 'Data have been revised to reflect March 1984 benchmarks and may differ from data published previously. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 71 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 13. Establishment Data Average weekly hours, by industry, seasonally adjusted [Production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls] Industry Annual average 1983 1984 1984 May June July Aug. 1985 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.P MayP PRIVATE SECTOR ................................................ 35.0 35.3 35.3 35.3 35.3 35.2 35.3 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.1 35.1 35.2 35.1 35.0 CONSTRUCTION............................................................. 37.1 37.7 37.6 37.8 37.5 37.6 37.9 37.7 38.0 37.8 37.7 37.8 38.1 38.0 37.4 MANUFACTURING Overtime hou rs..................................... 40.1 3.0 40.7 3.4 40.7 3.4 40.6 3.4 40.5 3.3 40.5 3.3 40.6 3.3 40.5 3.3 40.5 3.4 40.6 3.4 40.6 3.4 40.1 3.3 40.4 3.2 40.1 3.3 40.3 3.1 Durable goods .......................................................... Overtime hou rs..................................... 40.7 3.0 41.4 3.6 41.4 3.6 41.3 3.5 41.3 3.5 41.3 3.5 41.4 3.5 41.3 3.5 41.2 3.6 41.3 3.6 41.3 3.6 40.7 3.5 41.1 3.5 40.9 3.6 40.9 3.2 Lumber and wood products........................... Furniture and fixtures ................................... Stone, clay, and glass products .................. Primary metal industries................................ Blast furnaces and basic steel products . . . . Fabricated metal products............................. 40.1 39.4 41.5 40.5 39.5 40.6 39.9 39.7 42.0 41.7 40.6 41.4 39.8 39.7 42.1 42.0 41.3 41.4 39.6 39.3 41.9 41.7 40.9 41.3 39.5 39.8 41.9 41.5 40.1 41.3 39.6 39.3 41.8 41.2 39.8 41.2 40.1 39.8 41.9 41.3 40.1 41.4 39.7 39.6 41.9 41.3 40.1 41.3 39.6 39.7 41.8 41.5 40.9 41.1 39.8 39.6 41.8 41.2 39.8 41.4 39.7 40.4 41.7 41.0 39.9 41.4 38.9 39.5 41.6 40.9 40.5 40.9 39.6 39.5 42.0 41.1 40.5 41.1 39.5 39.2 42.0 41.1 40.6 41.0 39.6 38.7 42.0 41.6 41.5 40.9 Machinery, except electrical........................... Electrical and electronic equipment................ Transportation equipment............................. Motor vehicles and equipment..................... Instruments and related products.................. Miscellaneous manufacturing........................ 40.5 40.5 42.1 43.3 40.4 39.1 41.9 41.0 42.7 43.8 41.3 39.4 42.0 41.1 42.5 43.3 40.9 39.4 42.0 40.9 42.5 43.4 41.3 39.3 41.9 40.9 42.3 42.9 41.3 39.3 42.0 41.0 42.6 43.5 41.2 39.2 42.0 41.1 42.8 43.7 41.5 39.4 41.9 40.9 42.6 43.5 41.3 39.3 41.8 40.9 42.4 43.5 41.4 39.3 41.7 41.0 42.8 44.0 41.8 39.3 41.7 40.8 43.1 44.3 41.2 39.2 41.1 40.2 41.9 42.4 40.7 39.0 41.6 40.7 42.5 43.2 41.0 39.1 41.1 40.2 42.2 43.0 40.7 39.0 41.3 40.2 42.4 42.9 40.8 38.9 Nondurable goods ................................................... Overtime hours..................................... 39.4 3.0 39.6 3.1 39.7 3.1 39.6 3.2 39.5 3.1 39.5 3.1 39.5 3.0 39.4 3.0 39.5 3.1 39.6 3.0 39.5 3.0 39.3 2.9 39.4 2.9 39.1 3.0 39.3 2.9 Food and kindred products ........................... Tobacco manufactures.................................. Textile mill products..................................... Apparel and other textile products ................ Paper and allied products............................. 39.5 37.4 40.4 36.2 42.6 39.8 38.9 39.9 36.4 43.1 39.7 39.5 40.0 36.5 43.1 39.8 39.4 40.0 36.4 43.0 39.7 38.3 39.8 36.1 43.2 39.7 38.9 39.5 36.1 43.0 39.7 38.3 39.3 36.1 43.1 39.7 38.7 38.8 36.0 43.0 39.7 39.0 39.1 36.1 43.1 40.1 38.8 39.2 36.3 43.1 39.8 38.3 39.2 36.2 43.0 39.7 39.2 38.8 35.9 42.9 39.8 38.9 39.1 36.1 42.9 39.5 34.7 38.9 35.6 42.9 40.0 36.7 39.2 36.1 42.8 Printing and publishing ................................ Chemicals and allied products........................ Petroleum and coal products........................ Leather and leather products ........................ 37.6 41.6 43.9 36.8 37.9 41.9 43.7 36.8 38.0 41.9 43.6 36.6 37.8 41.9 43.4 36.7 37.8 41.9 43.5 36.9 37.8 41.9 43.9 36.2 37.9 41.8 43.4 36.5 37.8 41.7 43.6 36.6 37.8 41.8 43.4 36.6 37.7 41.9 43.0 36.9 37.8 42.0 43.2 36.8 37.7 41.9 43.1 36.4 37.6 42.1 43.3 37.1 37.6 41.9 43.3 36.9 37.3 41.9 42.7 36.9 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES 39.0 39.4 39.4 39.6 39.7 39.4 39.8 39.2 39.4 39.3 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.5 39.5 WHOLESALE TRADE 38.5 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.7 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.6 38.6 RETAIL TRADE 29.8 30.0 30.1 30.1 30.0 29.9 29.9 29.8 29.9 29.9 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.7 29.8 SERVICES 32.7 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.7 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.9 32.7 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.7 p = preliminary. NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 1984 benchmarks and updated seasonal adjustment 72 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis factors. Because of these revisions, data in this table may differ from data published previously. Publication of data for construction, miscellaneous manufacturing, and tobacco manufactures has been resumed. 14. Average hourly earnings, by industry [Production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls] 1984 Annual average Industry 1985 1983 1984 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.P MayP $8.02 (1) $8.33 (1) $8.28 8.29 $8.30 8.32 $8.32 8.35 $8.30 8.35 $8.43 8.40 $8.40 8.38 $8.43 8.42 $8.46 8.47 $8.50 8.44 $8.52 8.49 $8.52 8.53 $8.53 8.54 $8.54 8.55 MINING 11.28 11.63 11.61 11.62 11.63 11.62 11.72 11.58 11.63 11.70 11.86 11.90 11.91 11.90 11.82 CONSTRUCTION 11.94 12.12 12.08 12.03 12.06 12.10 12.24 12.23 12.10 12.26 12.30 12.33 12.22 12.20 12.25 8.83 9.18 9.12 9.15 9.19 9.15 9.24 9.24 9.31 9.40 9.43 9.43 9.45 9.48 9.48 Durable g o o d s ...................................................... Lumber and wood products................... Furniture and fixtures............................. Stone, clay, and glass products............. Primary metal industries........................ Blast furnaces and basic steel products Fabricated metal products..................... 9.39 7.80 6.62 9.28 11.35 12.89 9.12 9.74 8.03 6.85 9.57 11.47 12.99 9.38 9.68 7.95 6.78 9.54 11.53 13.09 9.35 9.72 8.08 6.82 9.58 11.50 13.02 9.35 9.73 8.07 6.87 9.64 11.49 13.03 9.35 9.70 8.10 6.88 9.63 11.38 12.90 9.33 9.79 8.20 6.94 9.65 11.43 13.01 9.43 9.78 8.11 6.93 9.64 11.36 12.86 9.40 9.85 8.06 6.95 9.67 11.49 12.99 9.44 9.96 8.09 6.99 9.68 11.49 12.95 9.58 9.99 8.10 7.01 9.70 11.55 13.07 9.59 9.99 8.09 7.01 9.73 11.69 13.42 9.59 10.01 8.06 7.07 9.71 11.66 13.27 9.62 10.03 8.05 7.08 9.79 11.66 13.34 9.65 10.05 8.14 7.10 9.80 11.67 13.34 9.64 Machinery, except electrical.................. Electrical and electronic equipment . . . . Transportation equipment ..................... Motor vehicles and equipment............. Instruments and related products........... Miscellaneous manufacturing ................ 9.55 8.67 11.67 12.14 8.48 6.81 9.96 9.04 12.22 12.74 8.85 7.04 9.90 8.94 12.06 12.56 8.75 7.04 9.93 8.97 12.17 12.72 8.82 7.03 9.96 9.00 12.16 12.66 8.88 7.07 9.93 9.05 12.16 12.64 8.89 7 01 10.02 9.13 12.26 12.74 8.96 7.05 10.02 9.15 12.32 12.86 8.93 7.05 10.07 9.20 12.45 13.02 8.95 7.06 10.16 9.32 12.62 13.27 9.03 7.16 10.13 9.33 12.67 13.41 9.00 7.23 10.14 9.33 12.63 13.35 9.11 7.19 10.15 9.39 12.59 13.29 9.10 7.20 10.19 9.39 12.62 13.37 9.11 7.22 10.22 9.42 12.59 13.29 9.14 7.30 Nondurable goods ................................................ Food and kindred products ................... Tobacco manufactures........................... Textile mill products ............................. Apparel and other textile products........... Paper and allied products ..................... 8.08 8.19 10.38 6.18 5.38 9.93 8.37 8.38 11.27 6.46 5.55 10.41 8.30 8.41 11.65 6.43 5.50 10.30 8.33 8.42 12.00 6.44 5.53 10.38 8.41 8.39 11.77 6.44 5.53 10.52 8.37 8.33 10.92 6.47 5.55 10.47 8.44 8.35 10.52 6.50 5.63 10.51 8.44 8.31 10.60 6.49 5.61 10.52 8.52 8.43 11.93 6.55 5.61 10.64 8.55 8.45 11.17 6.57 5.68 10.66 8.59 8.48 11.39 6.59 5.73 10.63 8.60 8.51 11.80 6.60 5.70 10.64 8.61 8.53 12.00 6.64 5.73 10.64 8.67 8.58 12.02 6.72 5.75 10.72 8.64 8.59 12.48 6.67 5.70 10.72 Printing and publishing........................... Chemicals and allied products................ Petroleum and coal products ................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products................................ Leather and leather products ................ 9.11 10.58 13.28 9.40 11.08 13.43 9.33 10.99 13.31 9.31 11.00 13.32 9.38 11.09 13.25 9.44 11.09 13.30 9.53 11.20 13.52 9.50 11.29 13.51 9.56 11.31 13.66 9.57 11.34 13.62 9.58 11.39 13.96 9.60 11.39 13.99 9.61 11.37 14.06 9.59 11.47 14.13 9.60 11.45 13.97 8.00 5.54 8.29 5.70 8.22 5.68 8.24 5.67 8.31 5.71 8.29 5.68 8.32 5.73 8.32 5.72 8.40 5.76 8.44 5.80 8.49 5.72 8.48 5.79 8.46 5.82 8.48 5.83 8.43 5.84 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC U TILIT IES............. 10.79 11.11 10.99 11.03 11.14 11.13 11.22 11.18 11.25 11.28 11.23 11.27 11.27 11.28 11.24 8.55 8.96 8.88 8.91 8.98 8.96 9.06 9.00 9.08 9.19 9.16 9.22 9.19 9.23 9.26 PRIVATE SECTOR Seasonally adjusted................................ MANUFACTURING WHOLESALE TRADE RETAIL TRADE 5.74 5.88 5.87 5.87 5.86 5.82 5.88 5.88 5.93 5.89 5.97 5.99 5.97 5.95 5.96 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE 7.29 7.62 7.55 7.58 7.60 7.57 7.76 7.67 7.71 7.78 7.77 7.87 7.87 7.88 7.90 SERVICES ...................................................................... 7.31 7.64 7.58 7.56 7.59 7.56 7.72 7.71 7.77 7.84 7.84 7.87 7.87 7.88 7.88 1Not available, NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 1984 benchmarks and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, data in this table may differ from data published previously. p = preliminary. 15. The Hourly Earnings Index, by industry [Production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls; 1977 = 100] Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted May 1984 Mar. 1985 Apr. 1985P May 1985P Percent change from: May 1984 to May 1985 ............. 159.9 164.3 164.7 164.8 3.1 159.9 163.0 164.0 164.4 164.7 164.8 0.1 M ining .................................................. Construction.......................................... Manufacturing................................................ Transportation and public utilities ............. Wholesale tra d e ............................................ Retail trade...................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate............. Services ................................................ 172.6 147.6 162.1 160.9 164.4 154.2 164.2 161.7 177.8 148.8 167.3 164.8 169.9 155.8 170.3 167.4 178.4 149.1 168.0 164.7 170.6 155.9 170.6 167.8 178.0 149.0 168.2 164.3 170.6 156.0 170.8 167.9 3.1 1.0 3.8 2.7 3.8 1.2 4.1 3.8 (1) 148.3 162.3 160.8 (1) 153.5 (1) 161.6 (1) 149.2 166.3 163.5 (1) 154.5 (1) 164.9 (1) 150.8 166.9 164.2 (1) 155.4 (1) 166.2 (1) 149.9 167.4 165.4 (1) 155.5 (1) 167.2 (1) 150.3 167.9 165.2 (1) 155.4 (1) 167.6 (1) 149.8 168.5 165.1 (1) 155.4 (1) 167.7 (1) - .4 .3 (2) <1) -.1 (1) .1 95.0 94.6 94.4 (3) <3) 95.0 94.5 94.7 94.5 94.3 (3) (3) Industry PRIVATE SECTOR (in current dollars) PRIVATE SECTOR (In constant dollars) 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. 2Percent change is less than .05 percent. 3Not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis May 1984 Jan. 1985 Feb. 1985 Mar. 1985 Apr. 1985P May 1985P Percent change from: Apr. 1985 to May 1985 p = preliminary. NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 1984 benchmarks and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, data in this table may differ from data published previously. 73 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 16. Establishment Data Average weekly earnings, by industry [Production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls] Annual average Industry 1984 1985 1983 1984 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.P MayP $280.70 (1) 171.37 $294.05 (1) 173.48 $291.46 292.64 173.18 $294.65 293.70 174.66 $296.19 294.76 174.85 $294.65 293.92 172.31 $298.42 296.52 173.50 $294.84 294.98 171.42 $295.89 296.38 172.23 $300.33 298.14 174.61 $294.95 296.24 171.28 $294.79 298.00 170.50 $298.20 300.26 171.68 $297.70 299.75 170.60 $298.90 299.25 MINING 479.40 503.58 501.55 507.79 500.09 505.47 515.68 500.26 505.91 515.97 508.79 514.08 519.28 517.65 515.35 CONSTRUCTION 442.97 456.92 460.25 464.36 464.31 464.64 471.24 464.74 451.33 460.98 447.72 451.28 460.69 461.16 464.28 MANUFACTURING Current d ollars............................................. Constant (1977) dollars................................ 354.08 216.17 373.63 220.43 371.18 220.55 373.32 221.29 370.36 218.63 369.66 216.18 376.07 218.65 374.22 217.57 378.92 220.56 387.28 225.16 380.03 220.69 374.37 216.52 381.78 219.79 380.15 217.85 381.10 (1) Durable goods ......................................................... Lumber and wood products ........................... Furniture and fixtures..................................... Stone, clay, and glass products ..................... Primary metal industries ................................ Blast furnaces and basic steel products........... Fabricated metal products................................ 382.17 312.78 260.83 385.12 459.68 509.16 370.27 403.24 320.40 271.95 401.94 478.30 527.39 388.33 400.75 318.80 267.81 404.50 483.11 540.62 388.03 403.38 325.62 270.07 407.15 481.85 536.42 388.96 397.96 318.77 269.30 406.81 474.54 525.11 381.48 397.70 324.00 272.45 406.39 464.30 506.97 382.53 406.29 332.10 278.29 409.16 474.35 524.30 390.40 403.91 322.78 278.59 406.81 464.62 506.68 388.22 407.79 315.95 278.70 406.14 475.69 524.80 389.87 419.32 321.98 283.79 404.62 477.98 516.71 405.23 410.59 315.90 276.19 392.85 473.55 517.57 395.11 403.60 309.85 270.59 393.09 478.12 544.85 387.44 412.41 317.56 277.85 404.91 481.56 540.09 396.34 409.22 317.98 276.12 411.18 482.72 553.61 394.69 411.05 324.79 273.35 414.54 485.47 554.94 394.28 Machinery except electrical............................. Electrical and electronic equipment.................. Transportation equipment................................ Motor vehicles and equipment..................... Instruments and related products ................ Miscellaneous manufacturing.......................... 386.78 351.14 491.31 525.66 342.59 266.27 417.32 370.64 521.79 558.01 365.51 277.38 413.82 365.65 514.96 550.13 357.00 276.67 417.06 367.77 520.88 559.68 364.27 275.58 412.34 363.60 509.50 539.32 363.19 275.02 412.10 368.34 507.07 534.67 364.49 274.09 420.84 376.16 519.82 550.37 373.63 279.18 417.83 374.24 523.60 556.84 367.92 279.89 422.94 379.04 531.62 565.07 373.22 280.99 434.85 389.58 554.02 597.15 382.87 285.68 422.42 379.73 546.08 594.06 369.90 279.08 415.74 373.20 524.15 559.37 369.87 276.82 424.27 383.11 537.59 576.79 374.01 282.24 417.79 375.60 536.35 581.60 368.96 280.86 420.04 376.80 535.08 575.46 372.00 283.24 Nondurable goods ................................................... Food and kindred products............................. Tobacco manufactures .................................. Textile mill products........................................ Apparel and other textile products................... Paper and allied products................................ 318.35 323.51 388.21 249.67 194.76 423.02 331.45 333.52 438.40 257.75 202.02 448.67 328.68 333.04 461.34 257.84 200.75 441.87 331.53 336.80 487.20 260.18 203.50 447.38 331.35 333.08 441.38 253.09 199.08 453.41 331.45 334.03 428.06 256.86 201.47 449.16 335.07 336.51 416.59 256.10 203.24 456.13 332.54 330.74 420.82 253.11 203.08 453.41 337.39 337.20 480.78 257.42 203.08 460.71 342.00 342.23 433.40 258.86 206.75 466.91 336.73 334.96 424.85 257.01 205.13 456.03 333.68 331.89 442.50 254.10 202.35 451.14 338.37 335.23 452.40 258.96 206.85 454.33 338.13 335.48 411.08 258.72 203.55 457.74 339.55 342.74 459.26 262.13 205.77 456.67 Printing and publishing.................................. Chemicals and allied products ........................ Petroleum and coat products.......................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products........................................ Leather and leather products.......................... 342.54 440.13 582.99 356.26 464.25 586.89 352.67 459.38 580.32 350.06 462.00 580.75 352.69 462.45 580.35 357.78 462.45 583.87 363.09 470.40 597.58 359.10 469.66 590.39 364.24 473.89 596.94 366.53 480.82 584.30 359.25 477.24 597.49 358.08 476.10 594.58 362.30 478.68 601.77 359.63 480.59 611.83 357.12 479.76 596.52 329.60 203.87 345.69 209.76 342.77 209.59 345.26 213.76 342.37 212.98 343.21 206.75 345.28 208.57 345.28 207.64 349.44 210.82 355.32 215.18 352.34 207.64 343.44 207.28 347.71 212.43 346.83 214.54 342.26 217.25 PRIVATE SECTOR Current dollars............................................. Seasonally adjusted.................................. Constant (1977) dollars................................ (1) TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES 420.81 437.73 430.81 438.99 445.60 441.86 447.68 438.26 444.38 445.56 440.22 440.66 442.91 443.30 441.73 WHOLESALE TRADE 329.18 345.86 342.77 344.82 348.42 347.65 351.53 348.30 351.40 357.49 351.74 352.20 353.82 354.43 357.44 RETAIL T R A D E ............................................................ 171.05 176.40 176.10 178.45 179.90 178.09 176.40 174.64 176.12 179.65 173.73 174.31 175.52 174.93 177.01 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE 263.90 278.13 274.07 275.15 278.92 275.55 284.02 279.96 280.64 285.53 282.83 286.47 286.47 286.83 286.77 SERVICES 239.04 250.59 247.87 248.72 251.99 249.48 253.22 252 12 254.08 257.94 254.80 256.56 256.56 257.68 256.89 1Not available. NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 1984 benchmarks and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, data in this table may differ from data published previously. p = preliminary. 17. Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased, seasonally adjusted [In percent] Time span Over 1-month span Over 3-month span Over 6-month span Over 12-month span Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1983 . . . . 1984 . . . . 1985 . . 52.2 67.3 57.6 45.9 72.7 50.3 59.7 66.8 55.9 70.0 67.3 P45.4 68.9 60.5 P54.6 63.0 64.3 72.7 65.7 69.5 58.1 73.2 48.4 74.1 66.5 66.8 55.1 68.9 63.5 1983 . . . . 1984 . . . . 1985 . . . . 46.2 78.1 58.6 53.2 75.9 54.1 63.0 77.6 P47.0 73.5 68.9 P45.1 71.9 69.7 73.8 67.0 72.7 65.4 80.3 60.3 80.8 60.0 78.6 56.5 74.6 67.0 74.3 60.0 1983 . . . 1984 . . . . 1985 . . . . 50.0 79.2 P51.9 62.4 77.8 P48.4 65.7 77.3 67.8 75.4 74.3 69.2 78.4 64.9 79.7 63.2 79.5 64.1 78.9 67.0 79.2 59.7 79.7 57.6 78.4 60.3 1983 . . . . 1984 . . . . 48.6 81.9 55.1 78.4 61.4 76.8 68.6 75.1 72.4 72.7 75.1 73.0 77.0 70.0 79.7 65.7 78.4 63.5 80.8 P60.3 81.6 P55.1 81.1 p = preliminary. NOTE: Figures are the percent of Industries with employment rising. (Half of the unchanged components 74 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis are counted as rising.) Data are centered within the spans. See the ' ‘Definitions" in this section. Data have been revised to reflect March 1984 benchmarks and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, data in this table may differ from data published previously. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA 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. Average weekly seasonally adjusted insured unemployment data are computed by b l s ’ Weekly Seasonal Adjustment program. This procedure incorporated the X - l l Variant of the Census Method II Seasonal Adjust ment program. 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 of overpayments or settlement of underpayments. However, total benefits paid have been adjusted. are compiled monthly by the Employment and Training Administration o f 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. N a t i o n a l u n e m p l o y m e n t in s u r a n c e d a t a 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. The total may include persons receiving Federal-State Extended Benefits. Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs for civilian em ployees, insured workers must report the completion of at least 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 18. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations [All Items except average benefits amounts are in thousands] 1984 Item All programs: Insured unemployment........................ State unemployment insurance program:1 Initial claims2 ..................................... Insured unemployment (average weekly volume)................................ Rate of insured unemployment............. Weeks of unemployment compensated . . Average weekly benefit amount for total unemployment ................... Total benefits paid ............................. May Apr. June July 1985 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Jan. Dec. Mar.P Feb. Apr.P 2,613 2,290 2,166 2,327 2,184 2,083 2,149 2,441 2,778 3,361 3,339 1,429 1,368 1,387 1,767 1,459 1,260 1,758 1,825 2,074 2,610 1,662 1,509 2,515 2.9 9,695 2,215 2.6 9,304 2,111 2.5 8,053 2,270 2.6 8,380 2,129 2.5 8,716 2,023 2.3 7,209 2,072 2.4 8,092 2,355 2.7 8,421 2,691 3.1 9,211 3,264 3.7 12,382 3,239 3.6 11,759 3,016 3.4 11,702 $125.26 $123.69 $1,173,601 $1,109,268 $121.96 $948,381 $120.24 $119.83 $974,135 $1,017,804 $122.49 $853,424 3,113 $123.19 $123.95 $125.36 $126.68 $127.28 $129.00 $962,856 $1,005,727 $1,114,781 $1,505,278 $1,450,239 $1,442,418 State unemployment insurance program:1 (Seasonally adjusted data) Initial claims2 ..................................... Insured unemployment (average weekly volume)................................ Rate of insured unemployment............. 1,569 1,614 1,559 1,661 1,618 1,707 1,746 1,765 1,602 1,766 1,814 1,711 2,507 2.9 2,300 2.7 2,356 2.7 2,457 2.8 2,355 2.7 2,567 3.0 2,461 2.8 2,551 2.9 2,541 2.9 2,532 2.8 2,585 2.9 2,614 2,9 Unemployment compensation for exservicemen:3 Initial claims1 ..................................... Insured unemployment (average weekly volume)................................ Weeks of unemployment compensated . . Total benefits paid ............................. 12 12 12 13 14 13 15 13 12 14 12 12 20 78 $10,349 18 79 $10,577 18 71 $9,467 18 71 $9,573 19 79 $10,715 20 72 $9,820 21 86 $11,766 22 87 $11,984 23 88 $11,930 24 102 $13,901 22 86 $11,720 21 82 $11,234 13 9 11 12 10 9 15 12 11 14 9 8 23 98 $11,844 20 88 $10,529 19 76 $8,994 20 80 $9,489 19 83 $9,776 19 69 $8,198 21 85 $10,088 23 89 $10,830 24 94 $11,386 27 113 $14,017 26 101 $12,847 24 101 $12,793 2 2 11 25 7 6 9 10 11 13 4 3 3 27 70 $196.32 $13,356 19 54 $188.45 $10,233 16 38 $187.37 $7,039 16 35 $189.06 $6,691 17 37 $197.85 $6,695 18 34 $196.15 $6,349 21 46 $195.20 $8,596 26 52 $198.85 29 61 $205.26 31 94 $206.99 34 74 $209.76 34 75 $209.66 23 64 $198.24 Unemployment compensation for Federal civilian employees:4 Initial claims........................................ Insured unemployment (average weekly volume)................................ Weeks of unemployment compensated . . Total benefits paid ............................. Railroad unemployment insurance: Applications........................................ Insured unemployment (average weekly volume)................................ Number of payments........................... Average amount of benefit payment . . . Total benefits paid ............................. Employment service:5 New applications and renewals............. Nonfarm placements ........................... 9,517 1,810 11nitial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program tor Puerto Rican sugarcane workers. 2 Excludes transition claims under State programs. Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs. ‘'Excludes data or claims and payments made jointly with State programs. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r4,803 r1,182 6,728 1,577 Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1-September 30). Data computed quarterly. r = revised, p = preliminary. NOTE: Data for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands included. Dashes indicate data not available. 75 PRICE DATA P r ic e d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100, unless otherwise noted). Definitions The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure of the average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and services. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau o f Labor Statistics began pub lishing c p i ’ s for two groups o f the population. It introduced a c pi for All Urban Consumers, covering 80 percent of the total noninstitutional pop ulation, and revised the c p i 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 c p i is based on prices o f food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs, trans portation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and serv ices 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 c p i ’ s are based on the ex penditures o f two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately reflect the experience o f individual families and single persons with dif ferent buying habits. Though the c p i 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 producers 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 o f 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. 76 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 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 o f 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 of product groupings, and a number of special composite groupings. Price indexes for the output of selected sic industries measure average price changes in commodities produced by particular industries, as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1972 (Washington, U .S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the economic activity of the spec ified 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 of Agriculture. Notes on the data Regional c p i ’ s cross classified by population size were introduced in the May 1978 Review. These indexes enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a better approximation of the CPI for their area by using the 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 c p i , see The Consumer Price Index: Concepts and Content Over the Years, Report 517, revised edition (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, May 1978). As o f January 1976, the Producer Price Index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 values of shipments. Additional data and analyses o f price changes are provided in the c p i Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price Indexes, both monthly publications of the Bureau. For a discussion of the general method of computing producer, and industry price indexes, see bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 7. For consumer prices, see bls Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (1976), chapter 13. See also John F. Early, “ Improving the measurement of producer price change,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1978. For industry prices, see also Bennett R. M oss, “ Industry and Sector Price Indexes,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1965. 19. Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-84 [1967 = 100] Food and beverages All items Year Index Percent change Index Apparel and upkeep Housing Percent change Index Percent change Percent change Index 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 1983 1984 ................ ................ ................ ................ 272.3 288.6 297.4 307.6 10.2 6.0 3.0 3.4 267.8 278.5 284.7 295.2 7.7 4.0 2.2 3.7 293.2 314.7 322.0 329.2 11.4 7.3 2.3 2.2 186.6 190.9 195.6 199.1 5.2 2.3 2.5 1.8 281.3 293.1 300.0 313.9 12.3 4.2 2.4 4.6 295.1 326.9 355.1 377.7 10.4 10.8 8.6 6.4 219.0 232.4 242 4 251.2 7.5 6.1 4.3 3.6 233.3 257.0 286.3 304.9 9.2 10.2 11.4 6.5 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] Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers All Urban Consumers 1985 1984 1985 1984 General summary Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. All ite m s ................................................................................................................... 308.8 315.3 315.5 316.1 317.4 318.8 320.1 304.1 311.9 312.2 312.6 313.9 315.3 316.7 Food and beverages ................................................................................ Housing ................................................................................................ Apparel and upkeep................................................................................ Transportation........................................................................................ Medical care Entertainment ........................................................................................ Other goods and services........................................................................ 294.5 333.2 199.2 309.6 375.7 253.8 302.8 296.3 340.9 205.2 316.1 387.5 259.0 316.5 297.2 341.2 203.2 315.8 388.5 260.1 316.7 299.3 342.0 199.8 314.7 391.1 261.0 319.1 301.4 343.3 201.8 314.3 393.8 261.3 320.5 301.6 344.7 205.3 316.7 396.5 262.2 321.1 301.6 345.9 205.9 320.0 398.0 263.3 321.8 294.7 322.7 198.2 311.9 373.9 249.8 300.4 296.2 334.4 204.2 318.3 385.6 254.8 312.6 297.1 335.0 202.1 317.9 386.7 255.8 312.8 299.1 335.7 198.5 316.7 389.3 256.6 315.6 301.2 337.2 200.7 316.3 392.0 256.9 317.1 301.6 338.2 204.2 318.7 394.6 257.3 317.6 301.2 339.5 204.9 322.0 396.1 258.6 318.3 Commodities.......................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages............................................. Nondurables less food and beverages.......................................... Durables..................................................................................... 280.1 268.7 275.7 265.2 283.0 272.2 278.2 270.0 282.8 271.4 277.0 269.8 282.7 270.0 274.4 270.2 284.0 270.7 274.7 271.4 285.3 272.8 277.9 271.9 286.8 275.1 281.5 272.6 279.2 267.8 277.5 258.5 282.8 272.3 279.9 264 5 282.7 271.8 278.7 264.6 282.5 270.3 275.8 264.9 283.5 271.1 276.2 266.2 285.2 273.1 279.4 266.7 286.7 275.5 283.2 267.3 Services ................................................................................................ Rent, residential ............................................................................. Household services less rent of shelter (12/82 = 10 0 )..................... Transportation services .................................................................. Medical care services ..................................................................... Other services ................................................................................ 358.1 246.4 106.2 315.8 406.3 291.3 369.9 254.8 108.8 328.9 418.5 305.2 370.6 256.1 108.5 330.1 419.3 306.1 372.1 257.1 108.9 331.8 422 4 307.1 373.5 258.4 108.9 332.2 425.3 307.8 375.0 259.2 111.5 333.2 428.1 308.6 376.2 260.4 109.8 334.1 429.4 309.9 350.1 245.7 365.9 254.0 366.8 255.3 312.1 403.9 288.3 325.1 416.1 301.5 326.1 417.0 302.3 368.3 256.3 100.4 327.7 420.1 303.5 369.6 257.5 100.4 328.1 423.1 304.2 371.0 258.4 101.1 328.8 425.7 304.9 372.2 259.6 101.2 329.6 427.1 306.2 308.6 105.1 316.2 107.6 316.2 107.6 316.3 107.8 317.4 108 2 319.1 108.7 320.8 109.2 303.3 312.6 312.7 312.7 313.7 315.4 317.2 266.5 270.7 312.1 286.3 106.8 350.6 279.4 280.6 421.3 414.2 300.5 298.3 251.8 352.2 $0,324 269.9 273.3 313.4 288.5 110.5 362.3 278.8 271.6 421.8 407.2 307.7 306.9 257.0 364.0 $0,317 269.2 272.2 312.8 288.3 110.6 363.0 279.9 276.0 418.9 404.1 308.2 307.3 256.7 365.0 $0,317 267 8 269.7 310.9 288.0 111.1 364.3 282.1 276.2 414.5 395.7 309.2 307.9 256.5 366.4 $0,316 268.6 270.2 310.8 289.6 111.3 365.5 284.8 275.2 411.4 391.3 310.9 309.5 258.1 368.0 $0,315 270.6 273.2 313.5 291.0 111.9 366.9 284.2 275.0 416.6 398.3 312.0 310.8 259.3 369.4 $0,314 272.8 276.5 318.1 292.7 112.2 368.1 283 3 273.3 424.4 410.8 312.7 311.8 260.0 370.7 $0,312 292.4 265.7 272.6 313.5 287.2 298.2 270.1 275.0 314.5 289.2 298.3 269.6 273.9 313.8 289.0 342.2 278.1 282.3 421.5 414.8 294.6 291.3 248.4 343.3 $0,327 358.2 277.2 273.0 421.5 407.8 303.2 301.6 254.2 359.4 $0,321 359.2 278.2 277.4 418.5 404.7 303.8 302.1 254.0 360.7 $0,320 268.2 271.2 311.8 288.6 100.5 360.4 280.4 277.5 413.8 396.2 304.7 302.7 253.8 362 0 $0,320 269 0 271.7 311.5 289.8 100.7 361.6 282.9 276.5 410.6 391.8 306.4 304.3 255.5 363.6 $0 319 271.0 274.7 314.4 291.6 101.2 362.8 282.5 276.6 416.0 399.0 307.4 305.5 256.6 364.9 $0,317 273.3 278.2 319.1 293.4 101.4 364 1 281.6 274.8 424.2 411.6 308.1 306.4 257.2 366.2 $0,316 Special indexes: All items less food.................................................................................. All items less homeowners’ costs .......................................................... All items less mortgage Interest c o s ts ..................................................... Commodities less food .......................................................................... Nondurables less food ........................................................................... Nondurables less food and apparel.......................................................... Nondurables.......................................................................................... Services less rent of shelter (12/82 - 100)............................................. Services less medical care ..................................................................... Domestically produced farm foods.......................................................... Selected beef c u ts .................................................................................. Energy .................................................................................................. Energy commodities .......................................................................... All items less energy ............................................................................. All Items less food and energy............................................................. Commodities less food and energy.................................................. Services less energy................................................................................ Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 ............................. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 77 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 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 General summary 1984 Apr. Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 1985 1984 1985 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. FOOD AND BEVERAGES 294.5 296.3 297.2 299.3 301.4 301.6 301.6 294 7 296.2 297.1 299.1 301.2 301.6 301.4 Food ...................................................... 302.3 304.1 305.1 307.3 309.5 309.7 309.6 302.3 303.7 304.7 306.9 309.0 309.3 309.2 Food at h o m e ............................................................. Cereals and bakery products .......................................................... Cereals and cereal products (12/77 = 100) ............................. Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 = 100)................... Cereal (12/77 = 100) ..................................................... Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 100) ........................ Bakery products (12/77 = 100)................................................ White bread..................................................................... Other breads (12/77 = 100)............................................. Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 100) ............. Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100) ........................ Cookies (12/77 = 100) .................................................. Crackers, 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 = 1 0 0 ) ............. 292.8 302.8 162.5 143.8 183.9 149.2 159.4 258.2 154.7 159.2 161.2 163.8 156.6 160.1 292.4 309.0 163.8 143.9 186.7 149.3 163.4 265.8 155.4 161.1 166.4 168.5 160.9 163.9 293.2 310.7 164.2 143.4 187.6 149.9 164.5 265.4 156.2 161.9 169.6 170.9 164.3 164.1 296.1 312.4 165.6 146.6 189.4 149.3 165.2 267.2 156.0 161.8 169.6 171.3 166.3 164.9 298.6 313.7 167.0 148.2 191.9 149.0 165.6 267.1 158.1 164.1 168.9 171.5 167.9 165.0 298.4 314.4 168.1 148.9 193.0 150.5 165.7 266.8 158.6 163.3 169.4 171.9 168.6 163.8 297.7 314.8 168.2 147.5 193.9 150.7 166.0 266.2 160.2 161.4 169.9 172.2 170.3 165.0 291.6 301.3 163.1 144.1 186.1 150.4 158.2 254.0 156.8 155.1 159.2 164.8 158.1 163.1 290.9 307.4 164.4 144.4 189.0 150.5 162.1 261.3 157.6 157.0 164.1 169.6 162.4 166.7 291.7 309.0 164.7 143.6 189.8 151.0 163.1 261.0 158.4 157.5 167.3 171.9 166.0 166.9 294.5 310.7 166.2 146.8 191.7 150.3 163.8 263.0 158.1 157.6 167.3 172.3 167.8 167.7 297.0 311.9 167.5 148.4 194.1 150.2 164.2 262.8 160.5 159.7 166.8 172.5 169.2 167.7 296.9 312.7 168.7 149.1 195.2 151.7 164.4 262.5 161.0 158.8 167.4 172.9 170.2 166.9 296.1 313.1 168.8 147.8 196.2 151.9 164.7 261.9 162.7 157.3 168.0 173.2 171.9 167.9 166.0 171.1 171.7 172.9 172.4 174.2 174.8 159.1 163.8 164.3 165.5 164.9 166.8 167.2 Meats, poultry, fish, and e g g s ..................................................... Meats, poultry, and f is h .......................................................... Meats ................................................................ Beef and ve a l................................................................ Ground beef other than canned.................................. Chuck roast ............................................................. Round ro a s t............................................................. Round steak............................................................. Sirloin ste a k............................................................. Other beef and veal (12/77 = 100) ........................... Pork............................................................................. 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) ..................... Poultry..................................................................................... Fresh whole chicken................................................... Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .......... Other poultry (12/77 = 100 )..................................... Fish and seafood ............................................................. Canned fish and seafood .......................................... Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100) . . . Eggs....................................................................................... 270.5 272.7 268.9 280.8 262.7 286.8 250.9 262.4 284.3 172.1 247.7 258.8 232.9 109.2 314.8 246.9 137.3 264.6 262.5 152.9 135.3 138.9 222.3 231.2 150.1 128.0 387.3 132.7 156.3 249.6 262.4 269.4 266.1 271.9 254.3 280.9 234.1 248.4 271.6 168.8 251.2 266.5 232.7 115.6 315.3 246.8 137.0 269.4 265.0 155.8 138.6 141.1 213.1 215.4 140.4 132.6 389.2 133.0 157.3 175.6 265.9 272.5 269.6 276.2 257.2 286.1 239.0 255.7 276.2 171.2 254.6 270.5 234.1 120.9 316.6 248.8 137.3 270.2 266.6 156.2 139.2 140.8 213.8 210.4 140.4 138.9 392.2 133.4 158.9 185.7 266.6 275.0 270.8 276.4 256.0 281.5 240.7 258.8 272.7 172.6 258.5 276.9 236.3 120.0 324.5 255.3 140.4 269.8 267.6 155.6 138.2 141.5 217.4 214.3 141.7 142.4 406.1 134.4 166.7 161.3 267.0 274.8 270.6 275.6 256.5 284.7 239.2 258.4 272.6 170.9 258.9 278.9 240.5 118.0 321.9 258.2 139.8 270.5 269.2 156.8 138.2 141.1 219.5 216.5 143.3 143.2 401.4 133.5 164.3 169.7 266.1 273.7 269.5 275.3 256.4 280.0 240.2 257.1 274.7 171.1 256.5 278.6 233.7 119.5 320.2 257.4 137.3 268.6 266.9 156.4 137.0 140.2 217.3 215.7 140.9 141.6 403.3 133.7 165.4 172.1 263.6 271.2 266.4 273.7 256.1 275.1 238.8 255.4 273.5 170.2 249.0 277.8 226.1 108.2 316.2 250.2 135.9 269.1 267.8 158.2 136.4 140.1 216.7 215.0 140.3 141.6 402.8 133.0 165.5 169.9 270.0 272.1 268.4 281.7 264.0 295.8 254.7 261.4 286.4 171.0 247.2 262.6 231.1 106.3 315.3 252.1 136.8 263.9 261.1 152.6 133.4 142.1 220.4 228.7 148.3 127.3 385.9 132.2 156.1 251.0 261.8 268.7 265.5 272.5 255.7 289.9 237.9 246.4 273.6 167.3 250.3 270.4 230.4 112.5 315.5 250.4 136.4 268.6 263.3 155.7 136.7 143.9 210.9 213.0 138.4 131.9 388.2 132.5 157.3 176.4 265.3 271.7 268.9 276.9 258.2 294.7 242.3 253.6 279.1 170.0 253.7 274.1 232.1 117.7 316.7 253.9 136.7 269.4 265.1 156.1 137.3 143.4 211.3 208.0 138.2 138.0 391.4 132.9 159.1 186.5 266.0 274.2 270.2 277.0 257.0 290.6 244.3 256.3 274.5 171.2 257.6 280.9 234.2 116.7 325.0 259.2 139.8 269.2 266.6 155.6 136.2 144.4 215.1 212.0 139.5 141.8 405.3 134.0 166.9 162.0 266.3 274.0 270.0 276.2 257.7 293.9 242.2 256.4 273.7 169.5 258.0 282.6 238.5 114.9 322.1 262.9 139.1 269.6 268.0 156.6 136.2 143.6 217.0 214.0 141.3 142.3 401.2 133.2 164.9 170.2 265.6 273.0 268.9 276.2 257.7 288.9 244.2 254.5 276.3 170.0 255.8 282.2 232.1 116.5 320.3 261.9 136.6 267.8 265.7 156.4 134.9 142.7 214.8 213.2 138.8 140.7 403.1 133.3 166.0 172.7 262.9 270.3 265.7 274.4 257.4 283.6 242.5 252.1 274.5 169.1 248.2 281.8 224.5 105.5 315.9 254.3 135.2 268.2 266.0 158.2 134.4 142.4 214.4 212.7 138.3 140.8 401.9 132.8 165.6 170.6 Dairy products................................................................................ Fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100)........................................ Fresh whole milk ............................................................. Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100)........................ Processed dairy products .................................................. Butter ................................................................ Cheese (12/77 = 1 0 0 )..................................................... Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 100).................. Other dairy products (12/77 = 100) ................................ 251.5 136.8 223.7 137.3 149.6 252.4 146.6 156.4 148.2 257.2 139.8 228.7 140.0 153.3 268.7 150.1 158.1 150.9 258.4 140.4 229.6 140.7 154.1 269.4 150.1 160.1 152.5 258.8 140.4 229.6 141.0 154.5 266.4 150.3 162.3 153.0 259.2 140.7 229.8 141.5 154.8 264.9 150.8 162.6 153.0 258.9 140.6 229.7 141.2 154.4 263.9 150.5 162.1 152.8 258.3 140.2 229.1 140.8 154.2 259.2 149.9 162.4 154.7 250.5 136.2 222.6 136.6 149.8 254.9 146.9 155.3 148.7 256.2 139.1 227.5 139.3 153.6 271.5 150.5 157.1 151.3 257.3 139.6 228.4 139.9 154.4 272.3 150.5 159.0 152.8 257.8 139.7 228.4 140.3 154.8 269.1 150.6 161.3 153.3 258.3 140.0 228.7 140.8 155.1 267.6 151.3 161.7 153.4 257.8 139.8 228.5 140.5 154.7 266.6 150.9 161.1 153.2 257.2 139.4 227.9 140.1 154.4 262.0 150.3 161.4 155.0 Fruits and vegetables ............................................................. Fresh fruits and vegetables ................................................ Fresh fruits ..................................................................... Apples ..................................................................... Bananas ............................................................. Oranges ................................................................ Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 100)................................ Fresh vegetables ............................................................. Potatoes.................................................................. Lettuce..................................................................... Tomatoes ................................................................ Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 100)........................ 315.3 326.5 304.2 299.3 275.2 309.5 161.5 347.4 367.3 244.4 280.4 218.9 314.8 323.4 343.9 302.8 234.9 473.6 175.3 304.4 313.1 350.5 245.3 164.3 309.7 312.6 331.6 297.5 225.2 428.0 174.3 294.8 327.3 276.0 232.4 167.4 320.8 332.7 341.5 304.1 248.6 429.7 180.0 324.5 331.5 385.6 238.0 177.3 333.0 354.1 362.6 318.5 268.9 448.6 193.0 346.3 335.7 339.7 282.4 205.0 332.1 352.1 362.9 321.4 281.6 437.4 193.2 342.0 338.3 306.7 322.4 199.5 333.2 353.5 367.2 328.8 301.2 444.3 191.7 340.8 342.9 263.5 410.0 191.5 311.2 321.0 294.0 300.4 273.1 283.4 155.1 345.4 360.1 247.1 286.6 217.2 308.9 314.6 329.3 304.5 232.7 434.1 168.1 301.5 305.1 349.2 249.7 162.6 303.9 303.9 317.6 299.3 224.0 390.2 167.0 291.6 320.4 274.4 236.0 165.2 314.9 323.6 326.1 304.9 246.7 388.9 172.0 321.5 323.5 386.6 240.6 175.2 327.1 344.9 347.0 319.5 267.9 408.7 184.6 343.2 327.5 341.7 285.6 202.8 326.8 344.2 348.3 322.4 281.0 399.0 185.4 340.7 331.0 311.9 326.0 198.0 328.1 346.1 353.7 329.7 300.1 407.4 184.8 339.5 335.8 266.9 413.5 190.5 Processed fruits and vegetables................................................ Processed fruits (12/77 = 1 0 0 )........................................ Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................ Fruit juices other than frozen (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............. Canned and dried fruits (12/77 = 1 0 0 )..................... 305.7 161.7 163.2 163.2 158.8 308.0 163.5 165.0 166.8 158.7 309.3 164.5 166.6 168.3 158.7 310.6 165.2 167.4 168.1 160.3 312.7 166.9 170.0 170.1 160.9 313.0 167.6 172.3 169.9 161.3 313.8 168.5 173.3 171.1 161.6 302.9 161.2 162.4 162.2 159.0 305.2 162.9 164.2 165.7 158.8 306.5 164.0 166.0 167.3 158.7 307.9 164.7 166.7 167.1 160.5 309.9 166.4 169.3 169.1 161.1 310.0 166.9 171.4 168.7 161.3 310.5 167.9 172.6 170.1 161.7 78 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 20. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers All Urban Consumers 1985 1984 1985 1984 General summary Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Fruits and vegetables—Continued Processed vegetables (12/77 - 1 0 0 )................................ Frozen vegetables (12/77 - 100) ............................. Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77 = 100). . . Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77 = 100) . . . . 145.6 156.0 148.5 138.9 146.1 156.9 149.7 138.9 146.5 156.9 150.8 139.0 147.1 158.9 150.7 139.3 147.5 159.6 150.0 140.1 147.1 159.0 150.2 139.6 147.1 160.0 149.7 139.2 144.3 157.7 145.8 137.2 145.0 158.7 147.1 137.3 145.3 158.7 148.0 137.4 146.0 160.9 148.0 137.8 146.4 161.6 147.4 138.5 146.0 160.9 147.5 138.1 145.9 162.0 147.1 137.6 Other foods at home........................................................................ Sugar and sweets .................................................................. Candy and chewing gum (12/77 - 100) .......................... Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77 = 10 0 )................... Other sweets (12/77 = 100)............................................. Fats and oils (12/77 = 100) .................................................. Margarine........................................................................ Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77 = 100) . . . Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77 = 100)........... Nonalcoholic beverages .......................................................... Cola drinks, excluding diet cola ........................................ Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77 = 100) . . . . Roasted coffee ................................................................ Freeze dried and instant coffee.......................................... Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77 = 100) ..................... Other prepared foods................................................................ Canned and packaged soup (12/77 = 100)........................ Frozen prepared foods (12/77 - 100) ............................. Snacks (12/77 - 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) . . 351.0 387.7 158.6 171.8 156.9 282.4 280.5 154.3 146.7 443.6 320.8 151.3 368 6 362.2 144.7 283.8 144.6 159.3 163.0 163.5 157.5 155.8 151.7 355.0 390.9 161.6 170.3 158.0 293.0 292.9 157.3 152.7 445.5 317.3 148.8 376.0 372.7 150.5 287.5 148.1 162.6 167.4 164.9 158.8 155.6 152.1 354.6 391.7 162.3 169.4 159.1 293.7 295.6 158.7 152.1 443.4 316.4 146.8 376.7 373.8 149.7 287.7 148.7 162.2 166.4 165.9 159.9 155.4 152.7 358.0 394.5 162.8 171.9 160.0 295.9 298.2 160.2 153.1 449.4 324.3 147.9 376.2 373.7 151.3 289.6 149.9 163.6 167.6 167.6 160.9 156.3 152.8 359.8 394.8 162.9 171.5 160.9 295.1 296.8 159.7 152.8 452.7 325.9 149.8 379.5 375.5 152.4 291.5 150.7 165.3 169.5 168.1 161.1 157.1 153.6 360.5 394 8 163.4 170.8 160.6 294.9 297.6 159.9 152.3 454.0 326.4 149.7 381.4 376.5 153.6 292.2 149.8 165.7 169.5 168.0 161.6 159.6 153.6 360.8 396.1 164.2 169.3 162.7 294.0 297.0 160.0 151.6 454.0 325.5 150.3 378.9 378.9 153.8 292.8 150.7 165.8 169.3 167.9 162.6 159.7 153.9 351.6 387.3 158.4 173.0 154.7 281.9 278.5 152.2 142.1 445.2 318.0 149.0 363.0 361.6 144.6 285.4 146.5 158.4 165.2 162.4 159.4 156.0 153.0 355.3 390.5 161.5 171.7 155.5 292.5 290.6 155.3 153.2 446.7 314.4 146.6 369.8 371.9 150.8 288.8 149.8 161.5 169.7 164.0 160.7 155.6 153.1 354.9 391.4 162.2 170.7 156.7 293.1 292.6 156.6 152.8 444.7 313.9 144.3 370.3 372.9 150.1 289.1 150.4 160.9 168.7 164.8 161.8 155.4 153.8 358.3 394.0 162.6 173.2 157.5 295.3 295.5 158.1 153.6 450.9 321.6 145.4 369.9 372.9 151.5 290.9 151.6 162.2 169.9 166.6 162.8 156.3 154.0 360.2 394.4 162.7 172.8 158.4 294.7 294.0 157.6 153.5 454.2 323.2 147.4 373.3 374.5 152.7 292.9 152.5 164.0 172.0 167.1 162.9 157.1 154.9 361.0 394.2 163.2 172.0 158.1 294.3 294.5 157.7 153.0 455.5 323.6 147.4 375.2 375.6 154.0 293.7 151.7 164.4 171.9 167.1 163.4 159.7 154.9 361.3 395.5 164.1 170.6 160.3 293.7 294.4 158.1 152.3 455.6 322.7 148.3 372.8 378.0 154.1 294.2 152.6 164.8 171.8 166.8 164.3 159.8 155.1 Food away from home .......................................................................... Lunch (12/77 - 1 0 0 )..................................................................... Dinner (12/77 - 100)..................................................................... Other meals and snacks (12/77 = 1 0 0 ).......................................... 330.9 159.6 159.6 163.7 337.7 163.2 162.8 166.5 339.2 163.8 163.6 167.3 339.9 164.4 163.8 167.5 341.4 164.9 164.7 168.1 342.6 165.5 165.3 168.8 343.9 165.9 166.1 169.7 334.1 161.2 161.3 164.2 340.9 164.7 164.6 167.1 342.3 165.3 165.4 167.8 343.0 165.8 165.6 168.0 344.6 166.5 166.6 168.6 345.8 167.0 167.2 169.3 347.1 167.4 168.0 170.1 Alcoholic beverages ............................................................................................ 221.3 223.8 223.9 224.3 225.8 226.5 226.7 224.6 227.1 227.2 227.6 229.1 229.9 229.9 Alcoholic beverages at home- (12/77 - 100) .......................................... Beer and ale .................................................................................. Whiskey.......................................................................................... Wine ............................................................................................. Other alcoholic beverages (12/77 - 1 0 0 ) ........................................ Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77 - 100) ............................. 142.3 229.9 153.1 233.4 122.8 153.6 143.2 231.9 154.3 233.0 123.5 158.2 143.2 232.5 154.0 232.2 122.8 158.5 143.5 232.9 154.1 233.3 123.2 158.6 144.3 234.5 154.8 234.4 124.3 160.2 144.8 235.9 154.9 234.2 124.5 160.4 144.7 235.4 154.7 234.9 124.7 161.5 144.5 228.9 153.7 241.7 122.7 154.8 145.4 230.7 154.6 241.3 123.3 159.5 145.4 231.6 154.1 239.7 122.5 159.8 145.7 232.0 154.1 241.0 122.9 159.9 146.5 233.4 154.7 242.0 123.7 161.5 147.1 234.7 154.9 241.8 124.2 161.8 146.9 234.2 154.6 242.6 124.4 162.7 HOUSING 333.2 340.9 341.2 342.0 343.6 344.7 345.9 322.7 334.4 335.0 335.7 337.2 338.2 339.5 Shelter (CPI U ) ...................................................................................................... 357.4 368.9 370.1 371.2 373.3 374.3 375.9 Renters' co sts........................................................................................ Rent, residential ............................................................................. Other renters' costs ........................................................................ Homeowners’ c o s ts ............................................................................... Owners' equivalent r e n t.................................................................. Household insurance........................................................................ Maintenance and repairs ........................................................................ Maintenance and repair services ..................................................... Maintenance and repair commodities................................................ 107.4 246.4 371.2 106.2 106.2 106.1 356.3 408.1 259.2 110.9 254.8 379.1 109.4 109.4 108.8 362.9 412.6 266.5 111.3 256.1 375.1 109.8 109.8 108.9 364.4 414.2 267.7 111.8 257.1 378.5 110.0 110.0 109.0 366.0 414.7 269.9 112.4 258.4 381.9 110.7 110.7 109.5 366.8 415.8 270.5 112.9 259.2 386.1 110.8 110.9 110.4 370.0 422.2 270.6 113.5 260.4 390.9 111.3 111.3 111.4 368.0 418.2 270.4 341.3 357.7 359.0 360.0 362.0 363.0 364.7 259.6 Shelter (CPI W ) ...................................................................................................... Rent, residential..................................................................................... Lodging while out of town................................................................ Tenants’ insurance (12/77 - 1 0 0 ).................................................. Homeownership..................................................................................... Home purchase ............................................................................. Financing, taxes, and insurance....................................................... Property insurance.................................................................. Property taxes ........................................................................ Contracted mortgage interest c o s ts .......................................... Mortgage interest rates..................................................... Maintenance and repairs.................................................................. Maintenance and repair services................................................ Maintenance and repair commodities................................................ Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and equipment (12/77 = 100)............................................. Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77 = 100).......... Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling supplies (12/77 - 100) .................................................. Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 )........... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 245 7 254.0 255.3 256.3 257.5 258.4 370.7 393.8 159.8 374.9 291.7 480.8 440.3 244.8 601.6 203.9 354.2 401.0 255.9 378.7 394.8 163.3 394.4 301.0 519.5 446.6 252.9 657.1 216.9 358.5 406.6 257.8 374.6 388.3 163.5 395.9 301.4 522.4 447.6 254.4 661.0 217.6 359.8 407.7 259.3 377.8 393.4 163.5 380 8 397 8 164.2 385.3 404.3 166.2 391.0 412.8 360.9 407.8 260.8 361.5 408.8 261.1 364.3 414.8 261.6 363.1 411.7 261.6 147.3 124.5 149.1 122.4 151.0 122.5 152.5 128.4 152.2 127.8 152.1 128.3 151.8 128.1 140.2 141.7 142.0 145.5 142.0 145.2 141.0 144.8 143.5 145.2 146.1 145.5 145.8 145.7 79 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 20. Consumer Prices Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] All Urban Consumers General summary 1984 Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 1985 1984 1985 Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Fuel and other u tilitie s ................................................................ 380.9 387.5 386.0 387.2 386.5 388.2 388.7 382.6 388.7 387.1 388.3 387.5 389.2 389.7 Fuels..................................................... Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas........................................... Fuel oil ........................................................... Other fuels (6/78 = 100) ..................................................... Gas (piped) and electricity................................................................ Electricity.......................................... Utility (piped) gas .................................................................. 476.0 650.7 660.9 195.6 432.3 338.9 573.2 482.6 626.9 633.0 194.9 444.7 350.9 584.9 480.2 625.9 631.5 195.6 442.2 348.2 583.0 481.2 621.6 626.5 195.6 444.1 351.0 582.9 480.8 623.4 628.4 194.9 443.3 352.6 576.8 482.2 620.8 626.3 194.2 445.5 354.2 580.1 483.0 623.5 630.1 193.7 445.9 355.7 578.2 475.4 652.9 663.1 196.3 431.1 338.0 569.8 482.1 629.3 635.6 195.4 443.7 350.5 580.9 479.7 628.4 634.0 196.2 441.0 347.3 579.7 480.7 623.9 628.8 196.1 443.2 350.1 580.2 480.3 625.7 631.3 195.5 442.3 351.7 574.3 481.6 623.1 628.7 194.7 444.4 353.2 577.2 482.3 625.9 632.5 193.7 444.6 354.6 575.0 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................................................ 228.2 186.4 157.8 122.3 123.7 371.4 234.4 191.1 166.9 116.2 125.4 382.8 234.1 190.4 166.5 116.2 124.1 384.4 235.3 190.8 167.1 116.2 124.0 389.6 234.3 189.1 164.6 116.2 123.9 391.3 236.3 191.3 167.7 116.2 124.3 391.4 236.4 191.1 167.5 116.2 124.2 393.2 229.2 187.0 158.4 122.7 123.6 375.7 235.3 191.6 167.4 116.6 125.2 386.8 235.0 190.9 167.0 116.5 124.0 388.3 236.3 191.3 167.6 116.5 123.9 393.3 235.1 189.5 164.9 16.6 123.9 395.0 237.2 191.2 168.2 116.6 124.2 395.1 237.3 191.7 168.0 116.6 124.2 396.8 Household furnishings and operations ...................................... 242.3 244.2 244.2 244.2 246.2 246.9 247.9 238.9 240.6 240.5 240.4 242.6 243.2 244.1 Housefurnishings ..................................... Textile housefurnishings........................................................ Household linens (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................... Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing materials (12/77 = 100) ................................................ 199.9 235.2 139.0 200.2 240.5 145.2 199.7 239.9 141.6 198.8 237.1 138.9 200.7 244.5 146.6 200.6 241.4 142.2 201.7 239.5 140.5 197.7 238.6 139.9 197.6 244.6 146.6 197.3 244.1 143.0 196.3 240.5 140.2 198.3 247.9 147.9 198.2 245.2 143.5 199.2 243.0 141.7 154.7 154.9 158.0 157.3 158.6 159.3 158.7 159.2 159.4 162.9 161.3 162.3 163.8 163.0 Furniture and bedding.......................................... 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 freezers........................................ Laundry equipment.......................................................... 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 = 100) ................................ 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 = 100)........................................ Lawn equipment, power tools, and other hardware (12/77 = 100) ........................... 222.8 154.2 121.2 125.5 144.6 150.1 103.4 96.7 110.3 190.4 195.8 146.7 126.1 227.4 160.7 122.2 127.5 145.9 146.0 99.9 92.1 107.7 186.7 197.3 148.1 121.8 225.6 160.1 122.3 125.8 143.9 145.2 99.2 92.5 106.1 185.9 197.5 147.6 121.0 224.1 154.1 121.6 125.7 147.2 145.2 99.1 92.0 106.4 186.0 197.1 146.8 121.3 225.0 154.7 121.3 125.9 148.5 145.8 99.7 91.9 107.6 186.5 197.2 147.1 121.8 226.7 156.5 121.4 126.7 149.8 145.4 99.5 92.3 106.9 185.7 195.2 148.4 121.2 231.7 165.5 124.5 126.9 149.1 145.3 99.0 90.9 107.2 186.6 196.0 148.5 121.9 218.9 149.6 121.3 126.3 140.2 151.4 102.4 95.3 109.3 192.0 202.2 147.6 124.9 223.4 156.3 122.0 127.9 141.4 148.0 98.9 90.7 106.6 189.2 203.2 149.1 119.9 222.5 156.4 121.9 126.4 140.4 147.3 98.2 91.3 105.0 188.6 203.8 148.9 118.9 220.4 150.5 121.2 126.2 142.9 147.1 98.1 90.7 105.2 188.5 203.5 147.8 119.1 221.5 151.2 120.7 126.9 144.6 147.9 98.6 90.5 106.4 189.2 203.3 147.9 119.8 223.1 152.1 121.0 128.1 145.2 147.6 98.5 91.0 105.7 188.8 201.0 149.3 119.7 228.0 161.2 123.7 128.1 145.0 147.3 97.9 89.5 106.0 189.5 201.8 149.6 120.2 126.3 122.4 121.8 121.5 122.4 122.7 122.8 125.4 120.6 120.2 119.5 120.7 121.2 121.0 126.2 143.2 121.5 142.8 120.5 143.9 121.4 143.6 121.4 145.1 120.0 144.9 121.3 144.9 124.2 140.7 119.0 139.8 117.4 140.7 118.4 141.0 118.7 142.6 117.9 142.1 119.1 141.9 147.6 137.4 148.4 137.4 152.0 137.2 150.9 135.2 153.0 137.3 152.2 135.8 151.1 136.6 139.0 132.9 137.8 132.6 141.9 132.5 140.5 131.0 142.4 133.2 142.4 131.6 140.7 132.2 149.2 147.6 145.5 146.0 147.0 148.3 148.2 145.1 143.4 140.9 142.8 142.4 144.8 144.1 134.9 134.8 139.1 140.0 141.2 140.4 140.6 140.5 140.2 144.3 144.6 146.0 144.9 145.1 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 = 10 0 )........................... 301.8 297.1 153.8 151.6 142.0 159.2 147.5 306.2 302.3 157.1 156.1 145.5 162.1 143.4 307.5 305.7 157.1 155.8 145.2 161.5 146.3 309.9 308.0 158.4 156.6 145.4 163.5 147.9 311.5 309.1 158.8 158.7 145.3 163.9 149.8 311.8 308.6 159.1 160.0 146.0 163.9 148.6 312.6 309.4 157.8 161.4 147.3 163.6 150.0 298.5 292.8 152.5 151.6 145.1 153.7 140.5 303.5 297.6 155.7 155.8 149.1 156.7 137.5 304.6 301.1 155.7 155.6 148.8 156.0 140.3 306.9 303.3 156.9 156.4 149.1 158.0 141.6 308.5 304.3 157.2 158.4 149.0 158.4 143.9 308.9 303.9 157.6 159.7 149.8 158.6 142.4 309.8 304.8 156.5 161.0 151.1 158.2 144.3 Housekeeping services ............................. Postage............................................. Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and drycleaning services (12/77 = 10 0 ).................................. Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 1 0 0 )..................... 325.7 337.5 330.3 337.5 330.6 337.5 331.3 337.5 333.9 349.4 337.4 371.9 337.9 371.9 326.0 337.5 330.9 337.5 331.1 337.5 331.8 337.5 334.9 349.8 338.5 372.7 339.0 372.7 171.8 149.4 176.0 155.4 176.6 155.3 177.9 155.0 180.2 155.8 181.4 156.4 182.1 156.7 172.1 147.5 176.4 152.9 176.9 152.8 178.2 152.6 180.9 153.4 182.0 154.0 182.6 154.4 APPAREL AND UPKEEP 199.2 205.2 203.2 199.8 201.8 205.3 205.9 198.2 204.2 202.1 198.5 200.7 204.2 204.9 Apparel com m odities...................................... 186.3 191.9 189.6 185.7 187.5 191.3 191.8 185.9 191.6 189.2 185.1 187.2 190.9 191.5 Apparel commodities less footwear.......................... 182.6 188.3 185.9 181.9 183.7 187.6 188.2 181.9 187.8 185.3 180.9 183.1 187.0 187.7 Men’s and boys’ ................................................ Men's (12/77 = 100) ................................................ Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100)............. Coats and jackets........................................ Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 1 0 0 )................ Shirts (12/77 = 100) ..................................................... 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) . . 190.6 120.2 112.0 99.0 146.0 127.3 113.0 123.2 119.7 137.2 120.3 197.8 124.5 115.7 106.6 152.0 129.4 117.6 128.5 125.9 138.9 126.4 196.0 123.2 113.3 105.6 151.7 128.3 116.6 128.1 123.9 139.2 126.9 193.2 121.7 112.3 101.5 149.1 127.4 116.0 125.0 117.1 138.1 126.0 192.8 121.6 112.2 100.9 149.0 128.0 115.4 124.4 116.2 138.9 125.1 195.2 123.2 113.5 100.7 150.6 130.6 117.3 125.9 120.0 138.2 125.6 197.4 124.7 115.7 100.4 151.3 132.5 119.1 126.6 121.9 138.8 125.3 191.2 121.0 105.4 102.4 142.1 130.1 119.9 121.8 122.0 132.7 117.6 198.6 125.4 109.2 109.9 147.8 132.2 124.3 127.1 128.3 134.4 123.7 196.8 124.1 106.8 108.8 147.6 130.7 123.1 126.5 125.6 134.7 124.2 193.6 122.5 105.6 104.4 145.2 129.9 122.4 123.2 118.0 133.9 123.4 193.1 122.2 105.5 103.3 144.8 130.5 121.6 122.8 117.3 134.5 122.8 195.7 123.8 106.5 103.0 146.0 133.7 123.8 124.5 122.0 133.8 123.2 197.8 125.4 108.6 103.3 146.9 135.5 125.7 125.2 123.6 134.4 123.1 80 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 20. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers All Urban Consumers 1985 1984 1985 1984 General summary Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Women’s and girls' ........................................................................ Women’s (12/77 - 100) ........................................................ Coats and jackets............................................................. Dresses .......................................................................... Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100) ........................ Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 100) ........... Suits (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ........................................................ Girls’ (12/77 - 100)................................................................ 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) ........................................ 163.2 108.6 164.9 175.0 92.8 136.9 85.1 108.2 100.6 104.3 170.4 113.4 181.9 175.8 103.6 138.5 87.6 112.7 106.8 107.7 167.2 111.3 175.0 174.3 100.8 138.8 81.6 110.9 104.0 106.2 161.3 107.3 161.7 168.1 96.1 137.9 76.8 106.9 96.2 104.1 164.1 109.3 161.0 172.3 98.6 139.0 80.9 108.3 100.3 103.4 169.9 113.4 164.8 182.5 102.4 140.4 88.7 110.7 105.1 105.0 170.0 113.6 168.2 178.7 103.2 141.1 89.1 110.7 102.0 106.8 164.5 109.9 170.1 160.6 93.5 136.6 104.2 107.6 98.1 105.2 171.9 114.9 186.0 162.4 104.1 138.1 106.6 111.8 105.8 106.9 168.6 112.6 178.2 160.7 101.5 138.3 99.9 109.9 101.8 106.3 162.1 108.3 164.6 154.8 96.5 137.3 93.0 105.9 94.8 103.1 165.8 110.9 166.3 159.7 98.7 138.5 100.2 107.7 100.1 102.3 171.5 114.9 169.8 168.7 102.7 139.8 109.8 110.6 104.9 104.9 172.0 115.2 172.7 166.9 103.6 140.5 108.9 111.0 102.4 107.5 128.1 289.2 217.6 122.6 148.3 131.6 290.2 215.4 120.1 147.4 130.9 291.9 213.3 121.9 144.7 129.8 290.3 212.2 120.9 144.1 130.5 298.8 215.5 122.0 146.6 130.7 302.1 216.9 122.9 147.6 132.1 295.3 215.8 121.4 147.3 126.9 299.7 205.5 120.8 138.4 130.2 302.1 203.1 118.4 137.2 129.6 302.9 201.0 120.5 134.3 128.6 299.7 199.9 119.1 133.9 129.5 310.1 203.0 119.5 136.7 129.7 314.5 204.2 120.5 137.4 131.1 306.4 203.3 119.8 136.8 Footwear................................................................................................ Men’s (12/77 - 1 0 0 )..................................................................... Boys’ and girls’ (12/77 - 100)........................................................ Women’s (12/77 - 100) ................................................................ 208.9 135.8 131.4 126.7 212.9 138.4 136.3 127.6 211.4 137.1 135.3 127.0 208.6 136.5 135.3 123.2 210.1 136.5 136.9 124.6 213.1 139.1 137.1 127.0 213.2 139.1 134.5 128.6 209.4 137.9 133.9 123.4 213.1 140.2 139.0 123.6 211.7 138.9 138.3 122.9 209.5 138.5 138.4 119.5 210.8 138.5 139.7 120.8 213.4 140.9 139.5 123.1 213.3 141.1 136.9 124.6 Apparel services 301.5 310.8 311.5 312.5 316.0 317.1 318.4 299.4 308.8 309.3 310.2 313.6 314.7 316.1 187.2 162.3 189.3 163.9 190.2 164.3 190.8 165.2 179.4 156.9 184.4 162.5 184.9 162.6 185.3 163.5 187.3 165.2 188.2 165.5 188.8 166.5 ................................................................................................... 186.3 161.1 186.9 161.2 Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100) ........... Other apparel services (12/77 = 100 )..................................................... 181.0 155.7 TRANSPORTATION 309.6 316.1 315.8 314.7 314.3 316.7 320.0 311.9 318.3 317.9 316.7 316.3 318.7 322.0 P riv a te ...................................................................................................................... 304.8 310.8 310.4 309.1 308.7 311.0 314.6 308.3 314.4 313.9 312.6 312.2 314.6 318.0 New cars................................................................................................ Used cars ............................................................................................. Gasoline ................................................................................................ Automobile maintenance and repair ........................................................ Body work (12/77 = 100) ............................................................. Automobile drive train, hrake, and miscellaneous mechanical repair (12/77 = 100) ................................................ Maintenance and servicing (12/77 - 100)........................................ Power plant repair (12/77 - 100) .................................................. Other private transportation..................................................................... Other private transportation commodities ........................................ Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 = 100) ............. Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 = 100) ..................... T ire s................................................................................ Other parts and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 )........................ Other private transportation services................................................ Automobile insurance ............................................................. Automobile finance charges (12/77 = 100) ............................. Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100). . . . State registration ............................................................. Drivers' licenses (12/77 = 100 )........................................ Vehicle inspection (12/77 - 1 0 0 )..................................... Other vehicle-related fees (12/77 = 10 0 ).......................... 207.4 370.0 374.0 338.9 171.4 211.4 383.6 369.2 345.8 175.8 212.0 382.7 365.7 346.2 176.1 213.1 382.8 356.8 346.9 176.9 213.9 384.6 351.6 348.2 178.4 214.1 386.1 351.6 348.5 178.3 214.1 386.4 373.8 348.2 178.2 206.9 370.0 375.7 339.6 170.1 210.8 383.6 370.5 346.7 174.3 211.3 382.6 367.1 347.1 174.7 212.0 382.8 358.2 347.9 175.5 213.1 384.6 353.2 349.2 177.0 213.4 386.2 353.2 349.6 177.1 213.4 386.4 375.3 349.3 176.7 165.1 154.2 162.4 269.0 202.4 152.7 127.7 172.9 134.0 289.3 321.8 160.9 149.5 198.0 158.0 139.8 164.3 169.6 156.8 164.9 280.7 201.0 155.3 126.4 170.2 134.1 304.6 335.9 172.2 158.0 213.5 163.7 142.2 169.1 169.7 157.0 165.1 282.3 202.2 156.2 127.1 171.4 134.5 306.2 340.0 170.9 158.4 213.5 163.7 142.2 170.1 170.0 157.1 165.7 283.9 202.0 155.7 127.0 171.4 134.2 308.3 345.1 169.6 158.5 213.6 164.6 142.2 170.3 170.2 157.4 166.6 284.4 203.8 156.0 128.3 174.0 133.9 308.5 346.3 168.1 159.1 213.6 164.6 142.2 171.8 170.6 157.2 167.0 284.5 201.9 156.4 126.8 171.4 133.5 309.1 348.3 166.6 159.6 214.6 164.6 142.4 172.2 170.9 156.8 167.0 285.8 202.8 156.1 127.6 173.0 133.4 310.5 351.8 165.6 159.9 214.6 164.6 144.7 172.7 169.2 153.4 161.9 269.9 204.8 151.9 129.4 176.5 133.6 289.7 321.0 160.4 150.4 198.2 158.3 140.3 171.5 173.8 156.1 164.6 281.9 203.5 154.4 128.1 174.0 133.5 305.3 334.9 171.9 159.2 212.9 164.1 142.3 176.7 174.0 156.3 164.8 283.3 204.7 155.2 128.9 175.1 134.0 306.7 338.9 170.5 159.6 212.9 164.1 142.3 177.8 174.2 156.6 165.4 284.7 204.2 154.5 128.6 174.9 133.6 308.6 343.9 169.2 159.8 213.1 164.9 142.3 178.0 174.5 156.8 166.4 285.2 206.1 155.2 129.9 177.7 133.2 308.7 345.2 167.7 160.4 213.1 164.9 142.3 180.0 175.1 156.5 166.8 285.1 204.2 155.4 128.5 175.0 132.8 309.2 347.2 166.2 161.0 214.1 164.9 142.5 180.5 175.4 156.0 166.9 286.3 205.1 154.7 129.2 176.5 132.8 310.4 350.5 165.2 161.3 214.1 164.9 144.4 181.4 ...................................................................................................................... 378.0 391.8 392.8 394.5 394.4 397.3 398.0 370.6 382.4 382.8 384.2 384.2 386.7 387.4 Airline fa re ............................................................................................. Intercity bus fare .................................................................................. Intracity mass tra n s it............................................................................. Taxi fare ............................................................................................... Intercity train f a r e .................................................................................. 429.6 426.7 342.3 308.8 373.4 455.4 447.0 345.9 311.3 383.5 456.2 455.4 346.7 311.3 388.2 458.9 459.6 347.0 313.4 390.2 468.7 456.5 347.0 315.0 390.3 464.3 454.4 347.7 317.4 390.3 466.2 453.5 347.6 317.4 390.2 425.4 427.6 342.1 317.9 373.7 450.6 447.8 345.9 320.1 383.8 451.1 455.4 346.5 320.3 388.7 454.1 459.3 346.7 322.4 390.7 453.8 455.2 346.8 324.1 390.7 459.9 452.2 347.5 326.7 390.7 462.1 451.7 347.4 326.8 390.7 MEDICAL CARE 375.7 387.5 388.5 391.1 393.8 396.5 398.0 373.9 385.6 386.7 389.3 392.0 394.6 396.1 Medical care com m odities.................................................................................. 236.9 245.6 247.3 248.2 249.8 251.9 253.9 237.1 245.6 247.2 248.0 249.6 251.5 253.5 Prescription drugs.................................................................................. Anti-infective drugs (12/77 - 100).................................................. Tranquilizers and sedatives (12/77 = 100) ..................................... Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 = 1 0 0 )........................................ Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and prescription medical supplies (12/77 = 100 )................................ Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 = 1 0 0 )............................. Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and respiratory agents (12/77 - 1 0 0 )................................................ 230.7 164.8 198.4 166.1 242.2 171.0 216.2 174.4 244.4 171.8 218.8 174.9 245.4 171.5 220.1 176.0 247.6 171.9 223.2 178.5 250.9 174.0 227.9 180.9 253.6 175.7 233.9 182.7 232.2 167.3 198.3 165.5 243.8 173.8 216.3 173.7 245.9 174.6 218.9 174.2 247.0 174.3 220.2 175.3 249.2 174.7 223.1 177.8 252.4 176.7 227.8 180.1 255.1 178.4 233.8 181.8 212.5 187.7 223.8 194.4 228.3 198.2 228.9 196.6 229.6 198.1 230.8 200.9 231.3 202.7 214.7 190.0 226.1 196.3 230.7 197.2 231.2 198.7 232.2 200.3 233.2 203.0 233.9 204.6 173.2 178.3 179.1 180.6 183.2 185.7 187.1 173.9 179.0 179.7 181.2 184.0 186.4 187.9 Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 = 100)..................... Eyeglasses (12/77 - 100) ............................................................. Internal and respiratory over-the-counter d ru g s ................................ Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 = 100) . . . 162.1 138.9 264.9 156.5 166.0 142.2 271.5 159.8 166.8 141.9 273.7 160.3 167.3 142.5 274.7 160.2 168.0 144.0 275.1 161.2 168.6 144.5 276.6 161.1 169.5 144.7 278.5 161.7 163.0 137.6 266.1 158.0 166.9 141.2 272.7 161.5 167.8 140.9 275.0 161.9 168.2 141.4 275.8 161.6 168.9 143.0 276.2 162.8 169.5 143.4 277.6 162.6 170.4 143.4 279.6 163.1 Public https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 81 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 20. Consumer Prices Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] All Urban Consumers General summary 1984 Apr. Medical care services ...................................................................... Nov. Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 1985 Dec. Jan. Feb. 1984 1985 Mar. Apr. Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 406.3 418.5 419.3 422.4 425.3 428.1 429.4 403.9 416.1 417.0 420.1 423.1 425.7 427.1 Professional services ............................................................................. Physicians' services........................................................................ Dental services................................................................................ Other professional services (12/77 = 100) ..................................... 342.5 373.5 322.5 159.5 353.1 383.0 336.6 161.5 354.0 383.8 337.7 166.1 356.8 386.1 339.7 165.9 359.3 389.6 340.4 168.0 361.9 392.6 343.3 168.4 363.0 393.9 344.5 168.5 343.0 377.5 320.5 155.8 353.4 387.0 334.3 157.8 354.4 387.9 335.3 158.4 357.2 390.2 337.2 162.3 359.7 393.9 338.0 164.3 362.4 397.0 340.7 164.7 363.6 398.5 342.0 164.8 Other medical care services..................................................................... Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100)........................... Hospital ro o m ............................................................................. Other hospital and medical care services (12/77 = 100) ............. 483.4 207.5 660.3 204.2 497.7 217.2 691.3 213.6 498.2 217.6 690.8 214.4 501.7 219.4 697.7 216.0 505.2 220.6 700.7 217.3 508.0 221.6 703.6 218.4 509.6 222.0 704.2 219.0 480.0 205.6 652.9 202.4 494.6 214.7 680.8 211.7 495.3 215.1 680.9 212.5 498.8 216.9 687.0 214.2 502.3 218.1 690.3 215.5 505.0 215.8 692.2 216.3 506.6 219.2 692.9 216.8 ENTERTAINMENT 253.8 259.0 260.1 261.0 266.3 262.2 263.3 249.8 254.8 255.8 256.6 256.9 257.3 258.6 Entertainment commodities ...................................................... 253.4 256.0 256.8 257.1 257.9 258.7 259.5 247.7 250.2 250.9 251.1 251.9 252.2 253.2 Reading materials (12/77 = 100) ........................................................... Newspapers ............................................................................. Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100)........................... 164.5 312.6 170.7 167.8 319.2 174.1 168.8 320.1 175.6 169.6 320.7 176.9 171.5 323.2 179.6 173.3 324.3 182.8 173.7 325.8 182.8 164.0 312.9 170.8 167.2 319.4 173.7 168.2 320.4 175.4 168.8 321.0 176.6 170.7 323.5 179.4 172.4 324.5 182.2 172.9 326.1 182.7 Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 )........................................ Sport vehicles (12/77 = 100) ........................................................ Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100)................ Bicycles........................................................................... Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 )........................ 139.1 144.6 117.5 201.1 135.6 140.0 146.0 118.2 198.1 137.3 139.6 145.9 118.0 198.4 134.4 140.2 146.9 117.3 198.4 135.1 139.9 146.7 117.6 199.5 133.2 140.2 147.0 118.1 200.0 132.6 140.4 147.3 118.0 201.4 132.6 132.6 134.1 115.6 202.2 135.3 133.6 135.8 116.4 199.1 136.5 133.0 135.4 116.1 199.5 134.0 133.9 136.8 115.5 199.8 134.3 133.7 136.6 115.8 200.9 132.9 133.4 136.0 116.3 201.6 132.3 133.8 136.5 116.1 202.9 131.9 Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100) ........................... Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 100)........................ Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100) ..................... Pet supplies and expenses (12/77 = 100)........................................ 141.0 134.3 132.9 149.9 141.8 138.1 134.9 153.4 142.5 139.1 135.1 154.0 142.1 137.7 134.9 155.2 142.2 137.8 135.1 155.2 142.0 137.3 136.0 154.9 142.6 138.4 135.8 155.2 140.0 135.8 134.2 151.0 140.9 134.8 136.2 154.5 141.5 135.6 136.4 155.3 141.0 134.1 136.1 156.3 141.1 134.3 136.3 156.3 141.0 133.8 137.2 156.0 141.6 135.0 136.9 156.3 Entertainment s e rv ic e s ............................................. 254.9 263.8 265.5 267.0 266.7 267.6 269.2 254.7 264.0 265.6 267.4 266.8 267.4 269.2 Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 100)................................... Admissions (12/77 = 100)..................................................................... Other entertainment services (12/77 = 100) ........................... 159.5 149.4 134.8 165.1 156.8 136.7 165.9 158.2 138.0 166.5 160.3 137.9 166.5 159.4 138.2 166.9 159.4 139.8 167.7 160.7 140.4 160.1 148.3 135.7 166.2 155.6 137.0 166.8 156.9 138.5 167.6 159.1 138.4 167.5 158.1 138.6 167.4 158.4 140.3 168.5 159.7 140.8 ......................................................................... 315.6 317.1 317.6 318.3 OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES 302.8 316.5 316.7 319.1 320.5 321.1 321.8 300.4 312.6 312.8 Tobacco p rodu cts......................................................... 305.9 314.7 314.6 321.0 323.2 323.7 324.0 305.6 314.3 314.2 320.8 323.0 323.4 323.6 Cigarettes ................................................................ Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100)............. 314.1 157.6 323.4 160.6 323.2 161.0 330.3 161.6 332.5 163.1 332.8 164.7 332.9 165.5 313.1 157.6 322.2 160.6 322.1 161.0 329.2 161.5 331.4 163.0 331.7 164.8 331.7 165.6 Personal c a r e ............................................................................. 268.9 276.3 276.6 277.2 278.2 278.7 279.8 266.9 274.0 274.4 274.9 275.9 276.3 277.5 Toilet goods and personal care appliances................................................ Products for the hair, hairpieces, and wigs (12/77 = 100) ............. Dental and shaving products (12/77 = 100) ................................... Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure and eye makeup implements (12/77 = 100)................................ Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100) . . . 267.3 154.9 165.1 273.4 156.9 170.9 273.5 156.5 172.1 274.0 156.4 173.5 275.4 152.0 175.8 276.0 157.2 174.5 277.1 157.4 176.2 268.1 154.1 163.3 274.0 156.2 168.9 274.2 155.8 170.0 274.6 155.6 171.4 275.9 156.1 173.5 276.5 156.3 172.3 277.5 156.6 173.8 151.8 151.6 154.9 155.5 155.3 154.7 155.3 154.8 155.6 155.3 155.8 157.5 155.9 158.3 152.7 155.2 155.8 159.1 156.3 158.3 156.3 158.5 156.8 158.9 156.8 161.1 156.8 162.0 Personal care services .................................................. Beauty parlor services for women ................................................ Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) . . . 271.4 274.4 150.4 279.9 283.1 155.0 280.4 283.8 155.1 281.1 283.9 156.2 281.7 284.3 156.8 282.0 285.1 156.3 283.3 286.2 157.2 266.1 267.5 149.2 274.4 275.8 153.8 275.0 276.6 153.8 275.7 276.7 154.9 276.3 277.1 155.5 276.5 277.8 155.1 278.0 279.2 156.0 Personal and educational expenses............................................................. 356.9 384.1 384.3 385.6 386.9 387.6 388.3 359.7 386.2 386.4 387.9 389.3 390.1 390.7 Schoolbooks and supplies .................................................. Personal and educational services ................................................ Tuition and other school fe e s .......................................... College tuition (12/77 = 100).......................................... Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100) .................. Personal expenses (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ................................... 317.6 366.1 184.4 184.7 183.9 202.0 333.8 395.4 201.3 201.4 201.3 208.9 334.0 395.5 201.3 201.3 201.4 209.5 340.7 395.9 201.2 201.3 201.4 210.7 343.8 396.9 201.4 201.5 206.4 212.6 343.9 397.9 201.4 201.5 201.4 214.9 344.5 398.5 201.5 201.6 201.4 216.5 322.2 369.0 185.3 185.5 184.9 202.8 338.7 397.6 202.3 202.3 202.8 209.2 338.9 397.8 202.3 202.2 202.9 209.7 345.5 398.3 202.3 202.2 202.9 211.0 348.7 399.4 202.5 202.5 202.9 212.7 348.8 400.3 202.5 202.5 202.9 214.8 349.4 401.0 202.6 202.5 202.9 216.6 369.8 365.6 362.3 353.8 348.7 356.7 369.9 371.2 359.1 374.9 358.3 377.6 360.6 381.8 360.9 381.8 363.6 442.8 355.9 382.7 358.1 357.5 374.1 366.8 440.4 357.1 381.9 350.2 358.5 373.7 371.4 410.3 347.0 376.6 355.0 348.0 368.6 357.6 383.3 356.7 386.6 358.9 390.9 359.1 391.1 Special indexes: Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products..................................... Insurance and finance................................................................ Utilities and public transportation............................................................. Housekeeping and home maintenance services........................................ 82 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 21. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure category and commodity and service group [December 1977= 100] Size class A (1.25 million or more) Category and group 1984 Dec. | Feb. Apr. Dec. | Feb. 1984 1984 1984 | Size class D (75,000 or less) Size class C (75,000-385,000) Size class B (385,000-1,250 million) | Apr. Dec. | Feb. | Apr. Dec. | Feb. | Apr. EXPENDITURE CATEGORY All Items ................................................................................ Food and beverages ........................................................ Housing.......................................................................... Apparel and upkeep ........................................................ Transportation ................................................................ Medical care .................................................................. Entertainment.................................................................. Other goods and services ................................................ 164.3 154.1 169.7 125.5 173.0 181.4 151.3 178.9 165.5 157.0 170.5 124.9 173.0 184.5 151.8 180.7 166.7 157.7 171.2 127.6 174.8 187.1 153.9 181.9 169.9 152.3 181.2 126.7 176.8 183.5 149.8 177.4 171.5 156.0 184.3 121.3 176.4 185.2 146.8 179.8 173.5 156.5 186.7 128.7 178.1 186.9 147.5 179.9 174.4 155.8 187.5 138.2 176.3 184.1 155.4 181.5 175.8 158.3 189.9 134.2 176.3 185.5 157.1 184.5 177.8 158.3 193.1 136.9 177.7 189.1 159.0 185.5 169.7 151.4 176.9 138.7 176.9 192.8 156.5 180.9 170.3 153.6 177.4 137.7 175.5 194.0 158.2 182.7 174.2 155.2 185.9 137.4 177.7 195.9 158.1 183.4 COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP Commodities.......................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages ............................. Services.................................................................................. 155.1 155.4 175.3 156.7 156.0 176.2 157.6 157.1 177.6 161.0 164.9 183.1 161.7 163.6 186.1 163.5 166.2 162.3 160.6 162.7 196.1 161.3 162.2 198.7 162.2 163.7 202.0 159.0 162.3 185.3 159.6 161.9 185.8 160.8 163.0 193.5 North Central Region EXPENDITURE CATEGORY All items ............................................................................. Food and beverages ..................................................... Housing........................................................................ Apparel and upkeep ..................................................... Transportation ............................................................. Medical care ................................................................ Entertainment................................................................ Other goods and services ............................................. 173.2 150.4 191.8 120.8 173.7 182.1 148.4 173.0 174.3 152.5 193.6 120.1 172.8 184.6 150.2 175.7 175.9 152.4 194.6 123.9 176.2 186.6 150.8 176.0 169.2 149.6 178.3 132.5 174.3 184.6 139.9 186.1 169.7 151.3 178.5 132.9 172.7 188.2 142.2 188.7 171.7 151.1 180.6 135.6 177.4 189.4 142.5 188.6 166.4 149.9 174.0 129.3 176.7 176.3 154.2 169.6 166.7 151.7 173.3 131.3 175.6 178.3 155.6 170.8 168.6 151.9 175.5 135.7 179.0 180.1 156.0 169.9 167.6 158.5 171.0 128.0 174.9 186.2 146.4 181.8 168.2 158.9 172.1 126.5 173.7 189.4 147.3 184.9 169.1 158.9 171.7 129.4 178.1 191.1 144.1 186.1 COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP Commodities........................................................................ Commodities less food and beverages ........................... Services................................................................................ 159.0 163.1 193.7 159.7 162.8 195.5 161.7 166.0 196.6 157.8 161.0 187.2 158.1 160.6 188.0 160.4 164.2 189.7 155.9 158.5 183.1 156.1 157.9 183.4 157.9 160.6 185.5 156.7 155.8 184.8 156.2 154.8 186.8 158.0 157.6 186.6 South EXPENDITURE CATEGORY All items ............................................................................. Food and beverages ..................................................... Housing........................................................................ Apparel and upkeep ..................................................... Transportation ............................................................. Medical care ................................................................ Entertainment................................................................ Other goods and services ............................................. 170.3 157.8 176.1 137.0 176.8 184.2 151.8 177.2 171.0 160.0 177.2 135.3 175.5 185.6 153.1 178.4 172.4 159.9 178.1 138.7 178.5 188.1 154.4 179.2 172.0 157.4 177.2 132.0 180.7 185.3 162.6 180.6 173.0 159.5 178.2 130.8 180.2 187.9 163.8 182.5 173.7 158.9 178.0 132.7 183.3 189.3 163.5 184.7 170.2 153.8 175.6 130.7 179.0 193.1 156.2 178.7 171.2 156.3 177.1 129.5 178.2 195.8 154.9 181.1 172.2 155.7 177.3 130.2 181.6 197.1 157.5 181.5 170.4 158.1 178.2 117.8 174.1 199.0 152.7 173.9 170.1 160.0 176.7 114.9 173.1 199.9 153.4 176.0 171.6 159.9 177.9 113.0 176.9 201.0 154.7 175.6 160.8 162.0 183.1 160.9 160.8 184.5 163.0 164.1 185.2 162.3 164.1 186.2 163.0 163.8 187.5 164.5 166.7 187.3 160.0 162.8 185.9 160.6 162.3 187.5 161.7 164.4 188.2 159.3 159.5 186.9 159.6 158.9 185.7 161.5 161.6 187.0 COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP C o m m o d i t i e s ............................................................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages .......................... Services................................................................................ West EXPENDITURE CATEGORY All items ............................................................................. Food and beverages ..................................................... Housing........................................................................ Apparel and upkeep ..................................................... Transportation ............................................................. Medical care ................................................................ Entertainment................................................................ Other goods and services ............................................. 172.1 157.6 179.8 126.7 181.2 187.9 146.9 183.0 173.5 158.9 182.2 127.8 180.1 191.8 147.9 185.7 174.6 158.9 182.4 127.3 184.2 193.4 149.6 186.5 170.9 161.5 174.1 131.8 181.8 184.5 154.6 179.8 172.0 163.1 176.2 131.0 180.3 186.8 155.5 181.7 174.4 162.9 179.2 133.9 184.5 190.0 156.6 182.6 162.9 155.2 160.9 125.6 177.0 193.5 158.0 175.0 164.2 158.2 161.9 126.8 176.0 196.0 162.6 176.9 166.9 168.7 164.2 130.3 181.7 198.1 165.8 177.8 170.1 164.3 171.2 146.1 173.4 189.9 169.3 180.3 170.0 166.2 171.6 146.6 172.5 192.5 157.1 182.0 170.8 166.3 172.2 144.0 173.9 193.5 159.5 183.7 COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP Commodities........................................................................ Commodities less food and beverages ........................... Services................................................................................ 157.8 157.9 190.0 158.3 157.8 192.4 159.9 160.5 193.0 161.4 161.0 183.7 161.8 160.7 185.4 163.9 164.1 188.4 157.9 158.6 168.7 158.5 157.8 170.8 161.7 162.6 172.9 159.0 156.3 186.3 158.6 154.5 186.5 159.5 155.7 187.3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 83 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 22. Consumer Prices Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average, and selected areas [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] All Urban Consumers Area1 U.S. city average2 ............................. Anchorage, Alaska (10/67 = 100 ).......................................................... Atlanta, Ga.......................................................... Baltimore, Md.......................................... Boston, Mass........................................ Buffalo, N.Y................................................................ Chicago, III.-Northwestern Ind....................................... Cincinnati, Ohio—Ky. —Ind................................................... Cleveland, Ohio .................................................. Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex.................................................................... Denver-Boulder, Colo......................................................... Detroit, Mich................................................................. Honolulu, Hawaii ............................................................. Houston, Tex........................................................... Kansas City, Mo.— Kansas................................................................ Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif............... ............................. Miami, Fla. (11/77 = 10 0 ).......................................... Milwaukee, Wis................................................................... Minneapolis—St. Paul, Minn.—Wis........................................................ New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J.................................................. Northeast, Pa. (Scranton)................................................ 1984 1985 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 308.8 315.3 315.5 316.1 317.4 318.8 320.1 304.1 311.9 312.2 312.6 313.9 315.3 316.7 324.6 309.3 303.2 324.6 278.3 318.2 315.3 307.8 293.0 306.9 314.0 308.7 311.8 168.3 324.3 322.0 300.9 San Francisco-Oakland, Calif............................................................ Seattle Everett. Wash.................................................... Washington, D.C.— Md.—Va.............................................. 316.4 308.0 301.1 306.0 316.7 310.9 313.0 305.1 322.1 304.8 309.1 363.7 308.4 301.5 306.3 325.8 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 Area is used for New York and Chicago. 314.7 309.2 323.8 310.9 304.9 310.4 286.6 319.1 296.4 342.4 335.6 320.7 316.5 315.8 292.7 335.3 319.8 315.9 298.6 289.0 324.8 299.7 298.9 333.6 311.8 321.1 291.2 312.4 324.3 299.0 301.5 Average of 85 cities. 301.7 299.8 302.5 318.9 304.3 301.2 300.6 309.2 307.9 304.6 301.2 308.1 302.0 301.0 309.4 304.0 300.3 331.1 304.4 309.1 306.0 309.8 312.4 306.0 304 2 304.2 313.5 321.8 329.6 306.3 300.1 332.8 309.7 311.2 329.2 305.1 315.3 306.8 299.8 311.0 333.7 324.2 306.7 317.7 306.2 171.3 346.9 306.0 303.6 297.4 310.4 329.1 321.5 305.5 319.8 304.7 322.2 329.9 350.7 169.8 343.4 323.8 301.6 295.7 307.1 328.8 311.1 304.0 291.9 319.8 346.2 300.0 297.6 330.9 304.0 306.5 322.3 320.2 312.3 288.1 318.6 325.0 169.6 342.7 330.4 321.4 319.2 289.8 302.6 319.3 273.1 320.3 315.1 307.8 345.1 309.0 314.3 369.2 328.7 319.5 314.6 305.4 170.1 327.8 330.4 310.2 306.8 313.3 364.1 318.1 315.8 315.5 271.7 316.0 315.1 306.5 355.1 313.7 292.6 333.6 314.6 314.1 168.6 324.6 327.9 308.0 317.4 328.4 340.4 333.2 350.6 309.1 289.8 333.4 313.7 311.1 270.9 320.7 314.4 301.3 315.1 325.1 339.7 330.7 349.4 305.6 283.2 325.7 309.1 302.8 280.0 322.6 315.2 309.4 303.4 313.9 325.4 332.8 323.9 298.2 318.6 84 1984 Apr. Philadelphia, Pa— N.J........................................................................... Pittsburgh, Pa..................................................... Portland, Oreg.— Wash............................................... St. Louis, Mo— III........................................................................... San Diego, Calif.......................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 1985 326.1 309.0 322.3 23. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing [1967 = 100] Annual average 1984 Finished g oo ds..................................................................... Finished consumer goods ............................................. Finished consumer foods .......................................... Commodity grouping 1985 1984 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.1 Feb. Mar. Apr. May r291.1 291.1 290.9 292.3 291.3 289.5 291.5 292.3 292.0 r292.3 292.5 292.4 293.1 294.2 r290 3 r273.3 r281.6 270.3 r337.3 r236.8 r239.0 r294.0 290.3 271.7 270.7 269.6 338.9 236.6 238.7 293.9 290.1 270.8 258.9 269.7 339.2 236.4 238.7 293.9 291.6 275.3 270.8 273.4 339.2 236.6 240.1 294.6 290.4 274.0 274.6 271.7 336.9 236.7 240.1 294.6 288.7 273.0 270.3 271.1 336.2 233.0 240.8 292.5 290.3 271.1 269.5 269.1 337 8 238.3 240.6 295.9 291.2 272.0 257.6 271.0 338.9 239.0 241.1 296.5 290.9 273.6 263.0 272.3 336.7 239.2 240.7 295.6 r290 6 r273.7 r255.4 r273.1 r334.9 r240.2 r242.8 r298.5 290.7 275.5 287.1 272.2 332.8 241.1 243.7 299.1 290.4 274.2 283.9 271.1 333.4 240.8 244.1 299.5 291.2 272.4 286.9 268.9 336.9 241.1 244.6 300.0 292.6 269.7 262.6 268.2 342.6 241.5 245.1 299.8 Intermediate materials, supplies, and components.................. 320.0 320.9 321.6 321.7 321.1 320.3 320.1 320.4 319.9 319.6 318.6 318.6 319.4 319.9 Materials and components for manufacturing.................. 301.8 303.3 303.4 303.2 302.5 301.9 301.4 301.7 301.1 r300.6 300.5 300.1 300.7 300.6 269.5 289.8 323.1 289.7 268.2 289.2 321.9 289.9 r265.2 r288.9 r320.6 r290.4 264.1 288.2 320.9 290.6 263.5 287.3 320.2 291.0 263.3 287.2 322.5 291.1 261.3 286.9 322.9 291.2 FINISHED GOODS Nondurable goods less fo o d s ..................................... Durable goods .......................................................... Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy . . . Capital equipment.......................................................... INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS Materials for food manufacturing................................ Materials for nondurable manufacturing ..................... Materials for durable manufacturing .......................... Components for manufacturing.................................. r271.1 290.5 325.1 287.5 276.0 292.8 327.2 287.0 275.2 292.8 326.9 287.5 276.4 292.7 325.4 287.9 272.4 291.3 325.1 288.4 270.0 290.9 323.5 288.9 267.6 290.4 322.3 289.4 Materials and components for construction..................... 310.3 309.8 310.3 310.9 312.0 311.7 311.8 311.8 312.4 r313.4 313.0 313.1 313.8 315.8 Processed fuels and lubricants........................................ Manufacturing industries............................................. Nonmanufacturing industries ..................................... r566.2 r483.5 r638.1 567.2 485.5 638.2 575.2 490.4 649.1 576.6 491.4 650.9 569.2 484.7 643.0 565.3 481.8 638.1 564.1 483.4, 634.3 566.6 486.1 636.5 561.3 483.0 629.2 r556.3 r478.7 r623.5 546.5 470.2 612.6 548.2 472.3 614.0 552.5 474.8 619.8 558.2 477.7 628.2 Containers..................................................................... r302.3 300.9 301.8 303.0 304.1 305.2 308.8 310.1 310.4 r311.1 311.9 312.4 312.1 311.2 r283.4 279.0 285.9 215.8 300.6 284.3 278.4 287.6 229.2 300.0 283.9 279.0 286.7 221.6 300.5 283.2 279.2 285.6 211.7 301.0 284.1 280.9 286.0 208.3 302.2 283.6 280.7 285.3 203.0 302.3 283 2 281.5 284.4 195.4 302.7 283.1 282.9 281.7 . 282.2 283.8 283 8 192.4 191.1 302.8 302.6 r283.9 r283.5 r284.5 r190.1 r303.8 283.'8 283.8 284.1 185.6 304.2 283.8 284.2 283.8 180.4 304.8 283.9 285.0 283.6 176.3 305.4 283.5 284.9 283.0 172.6 305.4 Crude materials for further processing .................................. r330.8 338.0 333.0 334.1 328.9 326.2 319.6 323.2 322.4 r318.9 318.3 312.9 311.3 310.0 Foodstuffs and feedstuffs................................................ r259.5 266.4 260.3 263.6 256.5 252.7 244.9 252.8 253.0 r250.7 250.7 243.6 240.5 237.0 485.0 484.6 480.3 475.2 472.0 r466.0 464.2 462.2 464.0 467.0 374.7 383.9 276.3 369.2 377.6 276.3 366.4 374.4 276.4 r361.9 r368.9 r279.7 356.9 362.7 283.6 358.3 364.1 284.4 360.5 366.3 287.0 357.9 363.2 287.7 929.8 r916.6 1,089.7 r1,072.2 r807.5 817.3 931.7 1,091.8 819.2 913.0 1,067.3 804.9 911.8 1,065.8 804.1 943.9 1,108.9 827.5 Manufacturing industries............................................. Nonmanufacturing industries ..................................... Other supplies........................................................ CRUDE MATERIALS Nonfood materials.......................................................... r484.5 492.3 489 6 486.4 Nonfood materials except fu e l..................................... Manufacturing industries ........................................ r380.5 r390 1 278.7 389.9 400.2 282.7 386.1 395.7 283.5 380.9 390.1 282.0 376.8 386.1 277.6 379.3 388.5 279.9 Manufacturing industries ........................................ r931.3 r1,092.2 818.1 928 4 1,088.1 816.1 932.6 1,094.5 818.4 940.2 1,103.5 825.1 953.1 1,120.1 835.1 937.6 1,100.0 823.3 Finished goods excluding fo o d s............................................. Finished consumer goods excluding foods ..................... Finished consumer goods less energy............................. 294.8 294.1 r257.8 295.3 294.9 257.1 295.4 294.9 256.7 295.7 295.0 258.9 294,8 293.8 258.5 292.7 291.7 257.2 296.1 295.0 258.2 296.9 295.9 258.9 295.8 294.8 259.3 r296.3 r294.3 r260.5 295.9 293.6 261.7 296.2 293.7 261.3 297.8 295.8 261.0 300.1 299.1 260.4 Intermediate materials less foods and feeds .......................... Intermediate materials less energy.................................. 325.0 r303.8 325.4 304.6 326.4 304.7 326.7 304.7 326.3 304.7 325.7 304.2 325.8 304.1 326.1 304.3 325.6 304.1 325.4 304.2 324.6 304.1 324.7 303.9 325.6 304.4 326.4 304.5 253.1 260.8 257.8 255.3 251.4 248.1 244.0 244.3 243.0 r240.7 238.4 236.3 234.8 232.3 r547.0 r255.5 554.0 263.3 552.5 257.6 549.8 258.5 548.8 251.9 546.6 249.9 542.4 242.6 535 9 248.0 532.3 247 8 r525 4 r246.2 525.8 245.9 521.6 240.9 523.0 239.1 527.5 235.3 934.0 935.9 1,097.6 r1,095.1 820.7 822.1 SPECIAL GROUPINGS 1Data for January 1985 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 l I r = revised. 85 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 24. Producer Prices Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] Code Annual average 1984 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.1 Feb. Mar. Apr. May All commodities ...................... All commodities (1957-59 = 1 0 0 ) ................ 310.3 r329.2 311.5 330.5 311.3 330.3 311.9 330.9 310.7 329.7 309.3 328.2 309.4 328.3 310.3 329.2 309.8 328.7 r309.7 r328.6 309.2 328.1 308.7 327.5 309.3 328.2 309.9 328.8 Farm products and processed foods and feeds . Industrial commodities r262.4 322.6 265.8 323.2 262.8 323.8 264.9 323.9 261 4 323.3 259.4 322.3 255.3 323.4 258.1 323.8 258.6 323.0 r257.6 r323.1 257.8 322.5 255.0 322.6 253.3 323.8 250.6 325.3 Commodity group and subgroup 1984 1985 FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS AND FEEDS 01 01-1 01-2 01-3 01-4 01-5 01-6 01-7 01-8 01-9 Farm products.......................... Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables..................... Grains................................ Livestock........................ Live poultry................................ Plant and animal fibers ............................. Fluid m ilk ............................. Eggs..................................................................................... Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ..................................... Other farm products.......................... r255.8 r278.1 239.7 251.8 240.6 228.4 278.3 210.8 256.3 r285.6 260.8 251.9 256.2 254.8 240.6 259.1 271.7 201.0 297.0 288.2 257.1 273.7 257.8 250.0 227.7 252.7 271.8 177.9 272.4 279.1 258.7 281.9 248.9 260.1 259.2 235.8 273.9 184.9 245.8 277.4 253.3 293.7 236.9 253.7 218.6 211.3 276.8 181.2 242.6 284.3 249.8 290.1 231.4 244.9 239.7 210.3 282.1 177.6 228.4 296.5 240.2 267.3 219.0 233.9 219.2 202.8 286.7 179.9 219.1 294.0 245.7 251.2 219.7 247.7 247.1 201.4 287.6 176.0 227.3 297.9 245.7 252.0 212.5 252.3 231.7 203.0 287.5 187.5 227.4 293.8 243.2 r259.0 217.5 247.4 232.7 204.5 284.6 141.9 226.2 289.4 244.6 289.2 217.2 249.7 222.4 200.6 281.0 161.5 214.6 275.0 238.7 277.7 216.1 236.6 215.5 200.4 278.4 167.6 212.0 285.8 236.9 277.8 220.6 231.3 202.3 211.3 271.1 175.1 213.8 285.3 230.4 250.9 214.1 227.7 214 6 202.8 264.9 150.2 213.4 283.5 02 02-1 02-2 02-3 02-4 02-5 02-6 02-7 02-8 02-9 Processed foods and feeds............................................. Cereal and bakery products............................................. Meats, poultry, and f is h ................................................ Dairy products ................................................ Processed fruits and vegetables.................................. Sugar and confectionery............................. Beverages and beverage materials ........................................ Fats and o i l s .................................. Miscellaneous processed fo o d s ............................. Prepared animal feeds............................. r265.0 r270.5 r254.4 251.7 r294.3 r301.2 r273.1 r301.3 r278.0 220.5 267.5 268.7 257.1 248.9 297.7 303.8 273.5 328.5 276.2 232.3 264.8 271.4 247.4 249.6 298.2 304.1 272,8 328.1 279.9 225.5 267.3 272.3 258.7 251.4 296.2 305.0 273.9 312.7 281.3 216.7 264.8 271.7 252.2 251,2 295.7 303.7 274.6 305.9 280.4 213.9 263.6 271.9 249.5 255.0 291.8 302.4 274.6 298.5 281.1 209.2 262.6 272.7 245.5 256.4 295.8 299.8 276.1 301.6 281.2 202.4 263.8 273.7 250.4 257.3 292.3 297.0 276.0 311.9 280.9 199.7 264.5 273.6 255.9 255.8 293.5 295.7 275.6 297.6 281.0 198.8 r264.4 r276.6 r256.6 r255.3 r296.6 r293.5 r275.9 r280.5 r281.5 r198.0 263.9 278.2 255.9 254.1 295.4 290.4 277.6 286.0 280.7 193.7 262.9 277.8 252.1 253.4 300.2 291.6 277.6 290.7 281.0 189.3 261.2 278.2 246.3 251.4 298.7 292.8 277.2 303.2 281.7 185.7 260.6 277.6 245.8 250 1 297.7 293.6 277.9 296.1 283.1 182.6 03 03-1 03-2 03-3 03-4 03-81 03-82 Textile products and apparel........................................ Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 1 0 0 )........................... Processed yarns and threads (12/75 = 100) ............. Gray fabrics (12/75 = 10 0 )..................... Finished fabrics (12/75 = 100 )................ Apparel.................................................. Textile housefurnishings.......................................... r210.0 159.6 r142.8 153.7 r126.7 r201.3 r238.9 210.5 160.6 144.3 153.7 127.3 201.3 238.8 210.2 160.5 143.8 154.3 127.1 200.8 239.0 210.5 160.1 143.7 154.5 126.9 201.6 239.1 210.1 159.9 142.1 154.4 127.1 201.0 240.0 210.7 159.2 142.2 154.6 127.3 202.2 240.5 210.4 158.2 141.4 154.8 126.9 201.9 241.3 210.2 157.5 140.8 153.7 126.6 202.2 241.4 210.0 157.7 140.8 154.0 126.6 202.1 238.3 r210.3 157.6 r141.4 r153.8 r126.6 r202.7 r239.5 210.6 157.7 141.9 153.1 126.9 202.8 243.1 210.4 156.6 141.4 152.5 127.1 203.2 240.6 210.5 156.8 141.1 151.8 127.0 203.6 241.0 210.7 157 2 141.3 152.3 127.0 203.6 240.9 04 04-2 04-3 04-4 Hides, skins, leather, and related products . . . . Leather ............................................. Footwear ................................ Other leather and related products .................. r286.3 372.3 r251.7 r263.6 288.5 390.7 251.5 259.8 290.1 387.8 250.5 267.9 288.9 383.2 250.1 267.2 298.7 378.1 250.9 267.7 288.7 371.4 252.0 267.6 287.7 369.3 252.1 268.1 283.8 359.8 252.4 267.9 283.6 354.5 252.6 266.9 r283.7 r358.1 r252.8 r270.0 284.8 351.9 256.6 273.5 283.1 348.5 255.5 274.5 285.5 351.6 255.3 275.2 283.6 350.1 253.9 271.8 05 05-1 05-2 05—3 05-4 05-61 05-7 Fuels and related products and power............................. Coal..................................... Coke..................................... Gas fuels3 .......................................... Electric power ............................................. Crude petroleum4 ............................. Petroleum products, refined5 ................ 06 06-1 06-21 06-22 06-3 06-4 06-5 06-6 06-7 Chemicals and allied products.................. Industrial chemicals6 ................................ Prepared paint Paint materials........................................ Drugs and pharmaceuticals.......................... Fats and oils, inedible.................. Agricultural chemicals and chemical products . . . Plastic resins and materials............................. Other chemicals and allied products ........... r300.8 r341.3 272.5 329.7 r240.0 r371.4 r284.8 308.6 r277.5 302.7 345.3 270.0 337.6 240.1 399.2 286.8 310.6 277.2 302.2 345.4 270.9 337.4 237.3 414.3 286.5 311.1 275.9 302.6 345.6 274.0 334.8 240.5 378.8 285.0 310.6 277.3 301.1 340.9 276.4 334.3 240.7 350.1 283.0 310.3 278.3 300.9 337.7 277.0 333.0 239.7 359.4 285.0 311.8 279.6 301.3 335.9 277.8 332.5 244.7 365.1 285.5 309.4 279.7 301.6 334.7 277.1 334.3 246.9 380.1 282.5 309.0 281.3 300.7 334.8 277.8 334.7 245.0 376.7 282.5 306.2 280.1 r301.6 r336.8 278.2 r332.6 r247.4 r346.2 r282.7 r305.2 r282.0 302.2 336.4 279.0 332.9 251.5 342.5 281.6 306.8 282.0 302.8 336.8 279.7 334.2 253.2 343 1 282.6 305.5 282.4 303 6 335.8 280 4 336.0 254 7 348 9 283.0 308 1 283.4 303 2 335.3 277 8 337 4 257 5 331 5 282.5 306 3 283.0 07 07-1 07-11 07-12 07-13 07-2 Rubber plastic products ............................. Rubber and rubber products . . . . Crude rubber ............................. Tires and tubes............................. Miscellaneous rubber products ............. Plastic products (6/78 = 100) ........................ r246.8 r266.1 276.8 r242.1 r290.6 139.5 247.5 266.3 277.7 243.2 289.3 140.2 247.6 266.5 277.2 243.0 290.5 140.2 247.5 266.5 275.6 243.5 290.0 140.2 247.7 267.6 273.0 243.7 293.7 139.7 248.3 268.1 273.9 244.2 294.0 140.1 246.6 264.8 271.2 239.2 292.9 140.1 246.1 263.9 270.4 238.3 291.8 140.0 245.9 263.7 272.1 237.1 292.5 139.8 r246.7 r264.3 275.5 r238.4 r291.1 140.4 246.7 265.7 273.4 240.8 292.3 139.6 246.6 265.7 270.7 241.2 292.6 139.5 246 8 265.1 270.4 239.1 294.1 140.1 246 6 264.8 268.1 239 6 293 3 140.0 08 08-1 08-2 08-3 08-4 Lumber and wood products ........................ Lumber.......................... Millwork..................... Plywood................................ Other wood products..................... r307.4 349.8 307.8 241.6 r234.5 308.5 355.6 304.2 235.4 234.7 307.1 350.5 305.3 236.3 235.0 304.4 342.6 306.8 237.2 235.2 304.7 342.3 307.2 245.9 236.5 303.3 338.2 307.4 243.4 235.9 300.3 334.3 307.0 240.1 236.6 301.0 336.6 309.5 234.9 236.5 303.0 339.5 311.6 234.2 237.9 r304.4 r343.0 r312.6 r234.2 r237.9 303.3 342.9 311.5 226.6 236.6 303.4 345.0 309.9 223.7 238.8 301.7 340.5 309.5 222.7 239.1 307.0 349.9 310.8 232.1 236.0 INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES See footnotes at end of table. 86 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r656.8 r546.5 436.4 r1,109.0 r439.9 r669.8 r665.1 660.6 665.9 547.4 544.3 441.6 442.9 1,104.1 1,109.1 433.1 446.7 673.9 673.3 677.6 679.7 665.0 657.9 652.3 654.4 655.3 648.5 r636.8 625.9 625.8 633.6 648.3 548.1 550.0 549.1 548.9 548.6 547.7 r548.0 550.1 549.3 548.2 547.3 441.9 437.3 435.7 432.4 432.8 435.1 439.7 439.8 433.6 430.1 429.2 1,110.8 1,116.9 1,104.6 1,112.5 1,113.4 1,103.1 r1,073.0 1,068.7 1,046.8 1,045.0 1,086.1 453.5 456.7 456.4 445.4 443.0 440.8 M46.0 446.4 448.0 449.4 448 2 672.6 671.1 670.6 669.8 655.8 649.4 r631.2 616.0 615.4 618 3 621 5 673.3 654.8 646.5 655.5 661.5 652.3 r635.5 615.9 620.7 636.5 657.6 24. Continued— Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] Code Commodity group and subgroup 09 09-1 09-11 09-12 09-13 09-14 09-15 09-2 Pulp, paper, and allied products................................................ Pulp, paper,and products,excluding building paper and board Woodpulp............................................................................. Wastepaper.......................................................................... Paper .................................................................................. Paperboard .......................................................................... Converted paper and paperboard products............................. Building paper and board ..................................................... 10 10-1 10-17 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 Annual average 1984 1985 1984 Feb. Mar. Apr. May May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.1 r318.5 r293.3 r397.2 240.1 r302.9 r281.5 r281.2 r259.0 317.7 292.7 407.9 259.3 301.3 277.8 280.1 265.2 318.4 293.3 410.3 257.3 301.6 279.1 280.6 265.1 319.8 295.7 410.6 254.7 307.7 279.1 282.1 262.9 321.3 296.3 410.2 254.5 307.0 285.1 282.4 259.8 322.0 297.5 409.1 249.6 306.7 288.6 284.4 259.4 323.1 299.3 408.2 235.6 306.7 293.7 286.9 257.7 324.1 299.7 397.3 221.4 306.9 294.3 289.0 253.7 324.1 298.9 392.1 206.0 305.7 293.4 289.3 253.4 r327.1 r298.1 r381.2 190.8 r306.3 r287.2 r290.4 r255.3 326.9 297.4 368.4 192.6 304.7 287.8 291.0 256.2 327.0 295.4 353.9 170.2 303.7 285.7 290.4 256.3 327.3 294.3 347.9 154.4 303.6 284.0 290.0 257.6 327.2 293.3 342.4 144.0 304.6 282.1 288.8 258.6 Metals and metal products........................................................ Iron and steel........................................................................ Steel mill products................................................................ Nonferrous m etals................................................................ Metal containers .................................................................. Hardware............................................................................. Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings ..................................... Heating equipment................................................................ Fabricated structural metal products ..................................... Miscellaneous metal products................................................ r316.1 r356.9 366.0 r277.1 r350.0 r296.9 r302.7 r252.9 r310.7 295.3 317.4 357.3 364.7 284.1 348.0 295.3 301.6 252.4 310.6 293.4 317.3 357.0 365.4 282.8 348.0 296.2 302.4 252.7 311.2 294.3 316.1 357.4 367.6 277.0 348.0 297.1 302.8 255.2 311.7 294.1 316.2 357.4 368.1 275.3 352.0 298.0 304.6 255.5 312.3 295.0 315.6 357.9 368.1 271.8 352.3 299.0 304.4 255.7 312.1 295.8 316.0 358.4 368.6 266.8 357.4 299.9 306.2 256.1 313.8 301.5 316.4 357.7 368.0 269.4 357.4 299.9 309.2 256.0 312.7 301.6 315.5 357.1 367.9 266.0 357.2 300.9 309.3 256.4 313.2 301.8 r315.0 r357.1 r367.3 r263.3 r357.4 r302.6 306.4 r256.3 r313.5 301.8 315.6 357.7 367.2 265.2 358.3 302.5 307.1 257.4 313.3 301.9 315.4 358.2 367.1 262.9 357.5 304.0 307.9 257.3 314.3 301.9 316.9 357.8 367.5 268.6 358.0 305.0 311.3 257.8 314.3 302.1 316.3 356.3 367.3 268.1 358.2 304.8 312.7 258.4 314.7 301.8 11 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-6 11-7 11-9 Machinery and equipment ........................................................ Agricultural machinery and equipment .................................. Construction machinery and equipment.................................. Metalworking machinery and equipment................................ General purpose machinery and equipment .......................... Special industry machinery and equipment............................. Electrical machinery and equipment........................................ Miscellaneous machinery ..................................................... 293.1 r336.1 r357.0 r334.0 314.1 r348.7 r248.7 r274.4 292.6 338.2 357.8 333.5 313.2 348.2 248.1 273.7 293.1 337.8 358.1 333.4 314.0 348.6 249.1 273.9 294.0 338.6 358.3 334.2 315.2 351.9 249.4 274.2 294.1 338.8 356.9 334.7 315.5 352.8 249.4 274.1 294.3 337.2 357.2 335.6 315.9 351.1 249.8 274.5 294.8 337.3 357.5 337.1 316.0 351.5 250.8 274.4 295.3 337.0 357.6 338.1 316.5 351.8 251.5 274.8 295.6 337.6 357.8 338.7 316.9 352.4 251.7 274.5 r297.9 338.5 r378.6 r338.6 r318.3 r355.7 r253.0 r275.0 297.4 338.3 361.7 339.4 318.5 356.9 253.0 276.7 298.0 339.0 361.8 340.6 319.9 357.2 253.3 277.0 298.3 339.0 361.2 340.8 320.5 358.4 253.2 278.0 298.8 339.3 362.4 341.5 321.1 359.0 253.9 277.7 12 12-1 12-2 12-3 12-4 12-5 12-6 Furniture and household durables............................................. Household furniture ............................................................. Commercial furniture............................................................. Floor coverings..................................................................... Household appliances .......................................................... Home electronic equipment.................................................. Other household durable goods............................................. r218.7 r242.1 r297.1 M91.2 r211.0 r83.8 r318.6 219.1 241.5 297.4 191.7 210.8 84.5 321.6 219.1 242.3 297.0 192.7 211.1 83.9 319.9 219.2 242.2 298.1 192.7 211.5 84.2 318.6 219.2 242.7 298.4 192.6 211.9 83.8 316.8 219.0 243.4 297.5 192.5 211.6 83.1 316.8 219.2 244.3 297.3 193.0 211.1 83.1 317.7 220.0 245.1 300.7 192.9 210.9 83.1 320.5 220.1 245.5 299.6 193.2 211.3 82.7 320.7 220.3 r246,9 r300.3 r193.7 r211.2 r80.8 r322.5 220.7 247.4 302.3 191.1 211.2 81.8 323.6 221.1 247.7 303.5 192.1 211.1 81.9 324.5 221.4 248.2 305.0 192.4 212.3 80.9 323.6 221.4 249.9 305.9 190.6 212.4 79.9 323.0 13 13-11 13-2 13-3 13-4 13-5 13-6 13-7 13-8 13-9 Nonmetallic mineral products 337.6 226.1 328.0 309.4 285.6 361.8 398.7 360.9 361.9 494.9 338.3 226.3 326.7 310.0 286.2 361.8 394.2 360.3 365.0 499.2 339.8 226.3 327.1 310.6 286.4 361.8 394.5 359.7 366.3 507.1 340.8 219.6 328.4 311.3 288.2 361.6 408.4 359.5 366.1 511.4 340.5 219.7 328.2 311.7 289.4 361.6 408.0 355.4 364.6 509.8 340.0 219.9 327.6 312.0 289 5 361.6 409.1 339.0 364.9 508.9 339.6 218.5 328.5 311.8 289.6 365.6 410.1 334.4 364.2 505.8 340.1 218.6 329.6 312.2 289.7 365.6 412.1 330.6 364.2 507.3 r341.7 r221.3 r331.0 r314.6 r291.3 r365.9 r409.6 r328.6 363.7 r514.2 342.7 220.9 334.1 314.3 291.0 367.0 408.3 330.2 364.2 513.3 343.6 221.2 335.8 315.0 291.8 368.0 404.6 320.9 370.7 513.9 344.8 220.5 336.7 316.9 291.7 370.0 414.3 317.8 371.4 518.3 347.1 .................................................. 337.3 r224.5 r325.7 r309.6 r286.8 r361.2 399.5 r346.7 360.7 r500.1 14 14-1 14-4 Transportation equipment (12/68 = 100).................................. Motor vehicles and equipment................................................ Railroad equipment............................................................... r262.7 r261.5 r355.6 262.5 261.5 354.4 262.2 261.1 354.4 262.5 261.4 356.5 262.3 261.1 357.7 257.8 255.2 357.6 265.0 263.8 358.8 265.7 264.3 358.9 265.0 263.5 358.9 r266.8 r265.2 r359.9 268 1 266.7 361.7 268.0 266.6 362.7 268.5 266.6 364.0 268.4 266.5 362.6 15 15-1 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-5 15-9 Miscellaneous products............................................................. Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammunition..................... r295.9 227.1 r398.4 283.2 r214.6 163.3 r350.5 294.3 226.8 390.6 283.9 213.6 163.7 350.4 295.7 226.5 400.2 283.9 213.6 162.7 350.0 297.3 226.5 408.7 283.9 213.8 162.9 350.1 298.2 226.5 406.7 283.9 215.5 163.2 353.2 296.7 227.0 406.7 283.9 215.5 163.6 346.9 296.5 227.4 402.3 283.5 215.6 163.6 348.5 296.5 227.6 402.7 283.5 212.9 164.4 349.6 296.7 227.7 402.9 283.6 213.2 164.3 350.1 r299.2 r228.0 r420.1 283.6 r213.6 r164.3 r347.2 300.7 231.8 420.4 284.1 213.9 164.4 350.0 300.5 231.3 420.6 284.1 215.9 164.4 347.7 301.7 231.2 420.7 285.6 215.8 164.5 352.2 301.1 230.2 420.7 285.6 215.8 164.6 350.9 INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES— Continued .................................................. Concrete ingredients............................................................. Concrete products ................................................................ Structural clay products, excluding refractories ..................... Refractories.......................................................................... Asphalt roofing..................................................................... Gypsum products ................................................................ Other nonmetallic minerals Photographic equipment and supplies .................................. Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)................................................ Other miscellaneous products................................................ 1Data for January 1985 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. 2Not available. 3Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month. ^Includes only domestic production. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 221.8 339.2 320.2 291.7 372.3 414.4 317.5 372.3 522.7 5 Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month, 6Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month. r = rev'se°' 87 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 25. Producer Prices Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] Commodity grouping Annual average 1984 May June 1984 July Aug. 1985 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.1 Feb. Mar. Apr. May 315.5 All commodities— less farm products......................... 313.8 314.7 314.8 315.3 314.4 313.3 314.2 314.7 314.1 r314.2 313.6 313.5 314.3 All f o o d s ......................... r269.2 268.9 267.5 271.7 269.6 268.6 266.6 267.3 268.5 r267.8 269.6 268.4 267.1 264.3 Processed foods r269.8 271.4 269.0 272.8 270.0 269.1 268.3 270.3 271.2 r271.1 270.7 269.9 268.4 267.6 Industrial commodities less fu e ls ........................ Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 1 0 0 ).................. Hosiery ..................................................... Underwear and nightwear..................................... Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber and fibers and yarns.................................................. 287.6 r142.2 147.6 r230.0 287.8 142.7 147.4 230.9 288.0 142.7 147.4 228.8 288.2 142.7 147.9 230.2 288.3 142.9 148.0 230.3 287.6 143.0 148.0 230.6 288.7 142.9 148.1 230.6 289.1 142.8 148.1 230.5 288.9 142.3 148.0 230.3 290.2 r142 3 r148.1 r232.5 290.6 143.0 148.6 231.9 290.7 142.6 148.6 232.3 291.3 142.5 148.7 234.7 291.4 142.3 148.7 234.9 289.7 291.1 290.5 291.3 290.2 289.9 290.0 290.0 289.4 290.6 291.2 291.5 292.2 292.0 Pharmaceutical preparations.................................................. Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork..................... Steel mill products, including fabricated wire products .......... Finished steel mill products, excluding fabricated wire products .................................................. Finished steel mill products, including fabricated wire products..................................................................... r243.1 318.5 363.7 241.9 320.4 362.4 240.6 317.2 363.1 244.6 312.2 365.2 245.1 315.0 365.8 243.9 311.4 365.9 249.7 307.6 366.5 251.9 307.4 365.9 250.0 309.6 365.8 r253.4 311.5 r365.2 257.3 308.8 365.1 259.5 309.2 365.1 260.6 305.8 365.5 263.6 315.4 365.5 367.4 r366.8 366.7 366.6 367.0 366.8 365.5 364.1 364.8 367.0 367.5 367.5 368.1 367.5 363.0 361.6 362.4 364.4 365.0 365.1 365.7 365.2 365.1 r364.5 364.4 364.3 364.8 364.8 Special metals and metal products ....................................... Fabricated metal products................... Copper and copper products.................................................. Machinery and motive products.......................................... Machinery and equipment, except electrical .......................... r300.0 r304.1 r186.0 286.3 r319.3 300.8 302.9 191.8 285.9 318.8 300.6 303.6 189.5 286.1 319.2 300.0 303.9 184.4 286.8 320.3 299.9 305.0 183.3 286.8 320.6 297.2 305.4 182.5 284.8 320.6 301.0 308.7 178.1 .288.4 320.9 301.3 308.5 183.0 289.0 321.3 300.5 308.9 180.1 288.8 321.6 r300.9 r309.1 r179.3 r291.0 r324.5 301.9 309.2 184.9 291.3 323.8 301.8 309.6 182.2 291.6 324.5 302.7 310.0 189.0 292.0 325.0 302.3 310.1 188.8 292.2 325.4 Agricultural machinery, including tractors ............................. Metalworking machinery.......................................... Total tractors................................................................ Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts..................... r353.6 364.9 r381.5 r341.0 357.0 363.2 386.8 343.6 356.5 363.3 386.7 343.0 357.2 364.6 386.9 344.0 357.5 365.1 385.7 344.3 355.2 366.6 382.6 342.3 354.8 368.8 381.0 342.0 354.0 370.4 379.5 341.5 354.8 371.4 379.7 342.3 r355.9 r370.3 r385.2 r343.3 355.5 371.9 383.8 343.1 356.5 374.9 384.2 343.9 356.6 374.6 384.4 343.9 357.0 375.1 385.2 344.4 Farm and garden tractors less parts ..................................... Agricultural machinery, excluding tractors less parts ............. Construction materials.......................................................... r360.4 r348.5 r306.4 365.8 350.1 306.2 365.7 349.2 306.3 366.0 350.4 306.7 367.0 350.1 307.6 362.3 349.8 307.2 359.9 350.8 307.2 357.6 351.3 307.0 358.0 352.5 307.7 r360.4 r352.4 308.5 359.0 353.0 308.1 359.6 354.2 308.1 360.0 354.0 308.6 360.3 354.6 310.6 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.1 Feb. Apr. May 'Data for January 1985 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. r = revised. Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product [1967 = 100] Commodity grouping Total durable goods ........................................................ Annual average 1984 1984 May June July Aug. 1985 Sept. Mar. r293.6 293.8 293.8 293.8 293.9 292.7 294.4 294.9 294.8 r295.8 296.3 296.4 297.1 297.5 Total nondurable goods ..................................................... 323.3 325.3 324.9 326.0 323.7 322.3 320.9 322.1 321.3 r320.1 318.9 317.9 318.4 319.2 Total manufactures............................................................... Durable .................................................................. Nondurable ............................................................... 302.9 r293.9 312.3 303.8 293.9 314.1 303.9 294.0 314.2 304.3 294.2 314.8 303.3 294.5 312.6 302.2 293.2 311.7 303.2 295.1 311.6 303.9 295.6 312.5 303.5 295.5 311.7 303.9 r296.5 r311.4 303.2 296.9 309.6 303.3 297.0 309.8 304.1 297.7 310.7 305.0 298.2 312.0 Total raw or slightly processed goods .................................. Durable ........................................ Nondurable ..................................................... r346.6 266.7 r351 4 350.1 277.9 354.3 348.0 273.3 352.3 349.6 264.5 354.7 346.9 259.6 352.2 344.4 260.6 349.4 339.1 255.9 344.2 341.0 254.2 346.3 339.8 252.2 345.1 r336.7 r256.0 '341.5 337.4 259.6 342.0 333.3 261.1 337.5 332.7 262.2 336.8 331.2 255.6 335.7 1Data for January 1985 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. 88 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r = revised. 27. Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] 1972 SIC code Industry description 1985 1984 Annual average 1984 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.1 Feb. Mar. Apr. May 264.3 r913.7 273.7 914.1 271.6 918.4 264.6 921.6 249.1 928.3 257.1 918.2 271.6 916.2 276.6 906.2 267.9 901.6 264.1 r880.3 262.1 879.2 262.1 866.8 260.0 868.6 243.7 891.6 MINING 1092 1311 Mercury ores (12/75 = 100) ................................ Crude petroleum and natural gas .......................... 2074 2083 2098 Cottonseed oil m ills................................................ Malt ..................................................................... Macaroni and spaghetti.......................................... 209.2 240.4 261.6 245.3 241.6 261.9 243.1 241.6 261.9 223.2 241.6 261.9 210.2 241.6 261.9 205.0 241.6 261.9 172.9 241.6 261.9 166.9 234.5 261.9 177.7 234.5 258.6 166.4 226.5 258.6 169.1 226.5 258.6 163.2 226.5 261.9 164.8 226.5 258.6 165.0 226.5 258.6 2298 2381 2394 2448 Cordage and twine (12/77 = 100) ........................ Fabric dress and work gloves ................................ Canvas and related products (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) .......... Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 1 0 0 ).................. r138.9 310.5 r151.1 r164.2 139.4 315.6 150.6 165.1 139.4 315.6 150.6 165.4 138.6 315.6 150.6 168.6 138.5 315.6 150.6 168.6 138.5 315.6 152.1 168.7 138.5 315.6 152.1 168.3 138.5 315.6 152.1 168.2 138.5 315.6 152.1 168.5 138.5 313.5 r152.1 169.0 138.5 314.9 152.9 169.3 138.5 314.9 152.9 169.4 138.5 314.9 152.5 170.1 138.5 314.9 152.5 170.1 2521 2654 2655 2911 Wood office furniture............................................. Sanitary food containers ........................................ Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100) Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) .......................... r290.4 r279.1 193.7 244.2 289.2 280.6 193.1 248.1 289.2 280.7 193.1 248.8 289.1 280.6 194.7 246.5 289.2 280.7 194.7 240.1 291.1 281.3 194.7 237.5 291.2 281.4 194.8 240.9 295.1 281.5 197.8 242.7 298.6 281.4 197.8 239.4 r299.8 r283.9 199.1 r233.2 301.0 288.3 200.0 225.4 301.0 289.7 200.0 226.7 303.1 289.8 200.0 232.7 303.2 288.6 199.9 240.9 3253 3255 3259 3261 3263 Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 = 100) ............. Clay refractories..................................................... Structural clay products, n.e.c................................. Vitreous plumbing fixture s..................................... Fine earthenware food utensils................................ r151.2 r371.9 r232.6 292.7 r377.5 149.6 371.5 232.4 290.8 376.5 149.6 371.7 232.4 292.5 372.1 149.6 371.6 232.4 293.1 373.3 153.4 371.4 232.3 293.9 374.0 153.4 371.4 232.4 295.6 374.8 153.4 371.4 232.4 297.7 375.9 153.4 378.8 232.4 297.6 378.2 153.4 378.8 232.5 298.1 379.4 r153.4 r379.4 r237.1 297.9 r382.3 150.5 381.5 237.6 298.8 395.2 150.5 383.3 237.5 298.1 385.5 150.5 387.3 237.6 299.3 369.5 150.5 391.7 237.7 302.7 373.7 3269 3274 3297 3482 Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ................ Lime (12/75 = 100) ............................................. Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 10 0 )........................ Small arms ammunition (12/75 = 100).................. r192.1 183.0 219.2 r190.3 192.2 184.1 220.1 190.3 186.3 183.3 220.1 190.3 187.6 180.3 219.9 190.3 187.6 179.6 219.9 190.3 197.7 187.2 220.3 190.3 195.2 180.5 219.9 190.3 195.3 182.1 220.2 190.3 195.3 183.0 220.2 190.3 r198.8 r187.4 220.5 r195.9 199.4 185.2 220.4 205.5 199.4 185.2 220.4 205.5 198.9 182.3 220.4 205.5 199.0 182.5 220.5 205.5 3648 3671 3942 3944 3955 Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 = 1 0 0 )............. Electron tubes, receiving type ................................ Dolls (12/75 = 1 0 0 )............................................. Games, toys, and children’s vehicles..................... Carbon paper and Inked ribbons (12/75 = 100) . . . 186.6 497.2 r134.4 r239.5 145.7 185.6 490.9 133.4 239.1 149.1 185.7 491.3 133.6 239.2 149.1 186.3 491.6 133.6 239.2 146.7 188.1 491.6 133.6 239.1 146.7 188.2 491.8 133.6 239.3 146.7 194.4 492.0 133.6 239.4 139.7 196.9 527.2 133.6 239.4 139.7 196.9 527.2 133.6 239.4 139.7 196.9 r546.9 r134.6 r240.9 139.7 197.4 547.0 134.4 241.6 139.4 196.1 547.0 134.5 243.1 129.5 195.5 547.0 134.5 242.9 128.6 195.7 547.1 134.5 242.9 126.3 3996 Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) .......... 167.5 166.4 166.4 168.7 168.8 168.8 169.7 169.7 169.7 r172.1 171.4 172.1 172.1 172.1 MANUFACTURING 1Data for January 1985 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 r = revised. 89 PRODUCTIVITY DATA P r o d u c t iv it y d a t a are compiled by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics from establishment data and from measures of compensation and output supplied by the U .S. Department of Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board. Definitions Output is the constant dollar gross product produced by the particular sector. Output per hour of all persons (labor productivity) measures the value o f goods and services in constant prices produced per hour of labor. Output per unit of capital services (capital productivity) measures the value o f goods and services in constant dollars per unit of capital services input. Multifactor productivity measures the output per unit of combined labor and capital input. The traditional measure of output per hour reflects changes in capital per hour and a combination of other factors— such as, changes in technology, shifts in the composition of the labor force, changes in capacity utilization, research and development, skill and efforts of the work force, management, and so forth. The multifactor productivity meas ure differs from the familiar bls measure of output per hour of all persons in that it excludes the effects of the substitution of capital for labor. Compensation per hour includes wages and salaries of employees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private benefit plans. 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 costs measure the labor compensation costs required to produce a 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 o f output. They are computed by subtracting com pensation o f all persons from current dollar gross product and dividing by output. Unit nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits and the value o f inventory adjustments per unit o f output. The implicit price deflator is the price index for the gross product of the sector reported. It is derived by dividing the current dollar gross product by the constant dollar figures. Hours of all persons measures the labor input of payroll workers, selfemployed persons, and unpaid family workers. Output per all employee 90 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis hour describes labor productivity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed. The capital services input index used in the mul tifactor productivity computation is developed by b ls from measures of the net stock of physical assets— equipment, structures, land, and inven tories— weighted by rental prices for each type of asset. Combined units of labor and capital input are computed by combining changes in labor and capital inputs with weights which represent each component’s share o f total output. The indexes for capital services and combined units o f labor and capital are based on changing weights which are averages o f the shares in the current and preceding year (the Tomquist index-number formula). Notes on the data In the business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the output meas ure employed in the computation of output per hour is constructed from Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National Product. Multifactor productivity measures (table 28) for the private business and private non farm business sectors differ from the business and nonfarm business sector measures used in the traditional labor productivity indexes (tables 2 9 -3 2 ) in that they exclude the activities o f government enterprises. There is no difference in the sector definition for manufacturing. Output measures for the business sectors are derived from data supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U .S. Department o f Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to annual estimates o f output (gross product originating) from the Bureau o f Economic Analysis. Com pensation and hours data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau o f Economic Analysis. The productivity and associated cost measures in the tables describe the relationship between output in real terms and the labor time and capital services involved in its production. They show the changes from period to period in the amount of goods and services produced per unit o f input. Although these measures relate output to hours and capital services, they do not measure the contributions of labor, capital, or any other specific factor of production. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of many influences, including changes in technology; capital investment; level of output; uti lization o f capacity, energy, and materials; the organization of production; managerial skill; and the characteristics and efforts of the work force. For a more complete description o f the methodology underlying the multifactor productivity measures, see Bulletin 2178, “ Trends in Multifactor Produc tivity, 1 9 4 8 -8 1 ” (September 1983). 28. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years, 1950-83 [1977= 100] Item 1950 1960 1970 1973 1974 1975 1976 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 49.7 98.6 63.6 39.5 64.8 98.5 75.4 53.3 86.1 98.5 90.2 78.3 94.8 103.0 97.5 91.8 92.5 96.5 93.8 89.9 94.5 92.0 93.6 88.0 97.6 96.1 97.1 93.7 100.5 101.8 101.0 105.5 99.3 100.3 99.7 107.9 98.7 95.6 97.6 106.4 100.6 94.1 98.3 109.2 100.8 89.6 96.8 106.3 103.7 92.3 99.6 111.1 79.4 40.1 62.1 50.4 82.2 54.1 70.7 65.8 90.8 79.4 86.7 87.4 96.8 89.1 94.1 92.0 97.2 93.1 95.8 95.9 93.1 95.7 94.0 102.8 95.9 97.5 96.5 101.6 105.0 103.6 104.5 98.7 108.6 107.5 108.2 98.9 107.8 111.4 109.0 103.3 108.5 116.0 111.0 106.9 105.4 118.7 109.8 112.6 107.2 120.3 111.5 112.3 55.6 98.2 68.1 38.3 68.0 98.4 77.6 52.3 86.8 98.6 90.7 77.8 95.3 103.2 97.9 91.7 92.9 96.5 94.1 89.7 94.8 91.7 93.6 87.6 97.8 96.1 97.2 93.6 100.6 101.9 101.0 105.7 99.0 100.1 99.4 108.0 98.2 95.2 97.2 106.4 99.6 93.2 97.4 108.7 99.9 88.7 95.9 105.9 103.5 91.9 99.3 111.3 69.0 39.0 56.2 56.6 77.0 53.2 67.4 69.1 89.7 78.9 85.9 88.0 96.2 88.8 93.6 92.4 96.5 93.0 95.3 96.3 92.4 95.6 93.5 103.4 95.7 97.4 96.3 101.8 105.1 103.7 104.6 98.7 109.1 107.9 108.7 98.9 108.4 111.7 109.5 103.1 109.1 116.6 111.6 106.8 106.0 119.4 110.4 112.6 107.6 121.2 112.0 112.6 49.4 94.5 59.9 38.6 60.0 88.0 67.0 50.7 79.2 91.8 82.3 77.0 93.0 108.2 96.8 95.9 90.8 99.6 93.1 91.9 93.4 89.4 92.2 85.4 97.6 96.1 97.1 93.6 100.9 101.5 101.1 105.3 101.6 99.5 101.0 108.2 101.7 90.7 98.8 103.5 104.9 89.9 100.8 106.1 107.1 82.9 100.3 99.3 111.6 87.6 104.9 104.4 78.2 40.9 64.5 52.3 84.4 57.5 75.6 68.2 97.3 83.9 93.5 86.2 103.1 88.6 99.0 85.9 101.2 92.2 98.7 91.1 91.4 95.5 92.6 104.5 95.9 97.4 96.3 101.6 104.4 103.8 104.2 99.4 106.5 108.8 107.1 102.1 101.7 114.1 104.8 112.2 101.1 118.0 105.2 116.7 92.7 119.8 99.0 129.2 93.5 119.2 99.5 127.5 PRIVATE BUSINESS SECTOR Productivity: Output per hour of all persons........................ Output per unit of capital services.................. Multifactor productivity.................................. Output................................................................ Inputs: Hours of all persons........................................ Capital services ............................................. Combined units of labor and capital input . . . . Capital per hour of all persons ........................... PRIVATE NONFARM BUSINESS SECTOR Productivity: Output per hour of all persons........................ Output per unit of capital services.................. Multifactor productivity................................... Output................................................................ Inputs: Hours of all persons........................................ Capital services ............................................. Combined units of labor and capital input . . . . Capital per hour of all persons ........................... MANUFACTURING Productivity: Output per hour of all persons........................ Output per unit of capital services.................. Multifactor productivity.................................. Output................................................................ Inputs: Hours of all persons........................................ Capital services ............................................. Combined units of labor and capital input . . . . Capital per hour of all persons ........................... 29. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1950-84 [1977= 100] Item Business sector: Output per hour of all persons........................ Compensation per h o u r.................................. Real compensation per h o u r ........................... Unit labor c o s ts ............................................. Unit nonlabor payments.................................. Implicit price deflator..................................... Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons........................ Compensation per h o u r.................................. Real compensation per hour ........................... Unit labor c o s ts ............................................. Unit nonlabor payments.................................. Implicit price deflator..................................... Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all persons........................ Compensation per h o u r.................................. Real compensation per hour ........................... Unit labor c o s ts ............................................. Unit nonlabor payments.................................. Implicit price deflator..................................... Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons........................ Compensation per h o u r.................................. Real compensation per h o u r ........................... Unit labor c o s ts ............................................. Unit nonlabor payments.................................. Implicit price deflator..................................... 1Not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 50.4 20.0 50.5 39.8 43.4 41.0 58.3 26.4 59.7 45.2 47.6 46.0 65.2 33.9 69.5 52.1 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 94.6 85.6 96.4 90.5 90.4 90.4 100.5 108.5 100.8 108.0 106.7 107.5 99.3 118.7 99.1 119.5 112.8 117.2 98.8 131.1 96.4 132.6 119.3 128.1 100.7 143.4 95.5 142.4 136.7 140.4 100.9 155.0 97.3 153.6 136.8 147.9 103.7 161.7 98.4 156.0 145.5 152.4 107.0 168.6 98.4 157.6 157.0 157.4 56.3 21.9 55.1 38.8 42.7 40.1 62.8 28.3 64.0 45.1 47.8 46.0 68.3 35.7 73.1 52.3 50.4 51.6 80.5 42.8 82.3 53.2 58.0 54.8 86.8 58.7 91.5 67.6 63.8 66.3 94.8 86.1 96.9 90.8 88.5 90.0 100.6 108.6 100.8 108.0 105.3 107.1 99.0 118.4 98.8 119.5 110.4 116.5 98.3 130.6 96.0 132.8 118.6 128.1 99.8 143.1 95.3 143.5 135.0 140.6 100.0 154.5 97.0 154.5 136.9 148.6 103.4 162.0 98.6 156.6 147.0 153.4 106.2 168.7 98.4 158.8 156.9 158.2 (1) <1) (1) (1) <1) (1> (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) <1) 68.0 37.0 75.8 54.4 54.6 54.5 82.0 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 97.0 90.2 90.8 90.4 100.8 108.4 100.7 107.5 104.2 106.4 100.6 118.6 99.0 117.8 106.9 114.1 99.7 130.8 96.2 131.2 117.4 126.4 101.6 143.1 95.3 140.9 135.1 138.9 102.6 154.6 97.0 150.6 138.1 146.3 106.1 161.0 97.9 151.8 149.1 150.9 108.5 166.6 97.2 153.6 158.8 155.4 49.4 21.5 54.0 43.4 54.3 46.6 56.4 28.8 65.1 51.0 58.6 53.2 60.0 36.7 75.1 61.1 61.1 61.1 74.6 42.8 82.3 57.5 69.4 61.0 79.2 57.6 89.8 72.7 65.1 70.5 93.4 85.5 96.2 91.5 87.3 90.3 100.9 108.3 100.6 107.3 102.7 106.0 101.6 118.8 99.2 117.0 99.9 112.0 101.7 132.7 97.6 130.5 97.9 120.9 104.9 145.2 96.8 138.4 111.6 130.6 107.1 158.0 99.2 147.6 110.5 136.7 111.6 163.4 99.4 146.4 128.8 141.2 115.6 169.4 98.8 146.5 P140.3 P144.7 p = preliminary. 91 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 30. Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1974-84 Business sector: Output per hour of all persons ............. Compensation per h o u r ........................ Real compensation per hour ................ Unit labor costs .................................. Unit nonlabor payments........................ Implicit price deflator ........................... Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons ............. Compensation per h o u r ........................ Real compensation per hour ................ Unit labor costs .................................. Unit nonlabor payments........................ Implicit price deflator ........................... Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all employees........... Compensation per h o u r ........................ Real compensation per hour ................ Unit labor costs .................................. Unit nonlabor payments........................ Implicit price deflator ........................... Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons ............. Compensation per h o u r ........................ Real compensation per hour ................ Unit labor costs .................................. Unit nonlabor payments........................ Implicit price deflator .......................... Annual rate of change Year Item 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 -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 8.5 2.6 5.1 4.0 4.7 2.4 7.7 1.2 5.1 6.4 5.6 0.5 8.5 0.8 8.0 6.7 7.5 -1 .2 9.4 -1 .7 10.7 5.8 9.0 -0 .5 10.4 -2 .7 11.0 5.7 9.3 -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 5.1 2.2 7.5 1.0 5.2 6.9 5.7 0.6 8.6 0.8 8.0 5.3 7.1 -1 .5 9.0 -2 .0 10.7 4.8 8.8 -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 4.6 4.8 1.8 7.6 1.1 5.7 5.3 5.6 0.8 8.4 0.7 7.5 4.2 6.4 -2.4 10.6 -0 .3 13.3 -1 .8 9.0 2.9 11.9 2.5 8.8 25.9 13.1 4.5 8.0 2.1 3.4 7.5 4.6 2.5 8.3 1.8 5.7 6.5 6.0 0.9 8.3 0.6 7.3 2.7 6.0 1Not available. 31. Productivity 1982 1983 1984 1.9 9.4 -0 .9 7.3 14.6 9.6 0.2 8.1 1.9 7.9 0.1 5.3 2.7 4.3 1.1 1.6 6.3 3.0 3.2 4.2 -0 .7 10.3 -2 .8 11.1 7.4 10.0 1.5 9.6 -0 .7 8.0 13.8 9.8 0.2 8.0 1.7 7.7 1.4 5.7 -0 .2 9.4 -1 .7 9.6 2.6 7.2 -0 .9 10.3 -2 .8 11.3 9.8 10.8 1.9 9.4 -0 .9 7.4 15.1 9.8 0.7 9.7 -1 .4 9.0 -2 .6 5.7 0.2 11.7 -1 .6 11.5 -2.1 7.9 3.1 9.4 -0 .9 6.1 14.1 8.0 1950-84 1974-84 1.0 r7.9 3.2 2.2 6.5 2.0 4.1 3.9 4.0 1.5 8.0 0.3 6.4 7.2 6.7 3.5 4.9 1.6 1.4 7.4 3.2 2.7 4.1 -0.1 1.4 6.7 3.1 1.9 6.2 1.7 4.2 3.9 4.1 1.3 8.0 0.2 6.5 7.5 6.8 1.0 8.0 1.8 6.9 2.3 5.3 3.3 4.2 0.9 0.8 7.9 3.1 2.3 3.5 -0 .8 1.1 6.5 3.0 (1) <1) <1) (1) (1) (1) 15 8.3 0.2 6.7 7.8 7.1 2.1 8.8 2.5 6.6 -1 .0 4.7 4.3 3.4 0.2 -0 .8 16.5 3.3 3.5 3.6 -0 .6 -0.1 8.9 2.5 2.5 6.3 1.8 3.6 2.8 3.4 2.4 8.3 0.3 5.7 7.3 6.1 0.0 r = revised. 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 hour........................... Unit labor costs............................................. Unit nonlabor payments ................................ Implicit price deflator..................................... Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons ..................... Compensation per hour ................................ Real compensation per hou r........................... Unit labor costs............................................. Unit nonlabor payments ................................ Implicit price deflator..................................... Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all employees.................. Compensation per hour ................................ Real compensation per hou r.......................... Total unit costs............................................. Unit labor costs..................................... Unit nonlabor costs................................ Unit profits .................................................. Implicit price deflator..................................... Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons ..................... Compensation per hour ................................ Real compensation per hour........................... Unit labor costs............................................. r = revised. 92 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Quarterly indexes Annual average 1982 III 1983 1983 1984 IV 103.7 161.7 98.4 156.0 145.5 152.4 107.0 168.6 98.4 157.6 157.0 157.4 100.9 156.7 97.3 155.3 135.8 148.7 101.6 158.4 98.0 155.9 136.5 149.3 102.2 160.2 99.0 156.8 139.8 151.0 103.6 161.0 98.5 155.4 144.6 151.7 103.4 162.0 98.6 156.6 147.0 153.4 106.2 168.7 98.4 158.8 156.9 158.2 100.3 156.0 96.8 155.6 136.8 149.3 100.5 157.9 97.7 157.1 136.4 150.2 101.6 160.1 99.0 157.6 140.6 151.9 106.1 161.0 97.9 155.2 151.8 164.9 117.2 150.9 108.5 166.6 97 2 156.4 153.6 164.3 147.6 155.4 103.3 156.2 97.0 154.7 151.3 164.4 86.6 146.9 103.2 157.7 97.5 157.0 152.9 168.8 75.6 147.7 111.6 163.4 99.4 146.4 115.6 169.4 98.8 146.5 108.8 159.8 99.2 146.9 107.9 161.0 99.6 149.3 1 II 1984 1985 IV I 104.3 161.8 97.9 155.1 147.9 152.7 104.7 164.2 98.4 156.8 149.1 154.2 105.7 166.7 98.6 157.7 151.6 155.6 107.0 167.5 98.2 156.5 157.2 156.7 107.2 169.3 98.3 158.0 158.5 158.1 108.0 171.1 98 5 158.4 160.2 159.0 r107.1 r173.3 '99.0 r161.9 '159.5 '161.1 103.6 161.5 98.8 155.9 146.4 152.7 104.1 162.4 98.3 155.9 149.4 153.8 104.4 164.0 98.3 157.1 151.4 155.2 105.2 166.5 98.4 158.3 152.2 156.3 106.6 168.0 98.4 157.6 156.8 157.3 106.3 169.5 98 4 159.5 158.0 159.0 106.9 171.0 98.5 160.0 160.3 160.1 '106.2 '173.3 '99.0 '163.2 '160.9 '162.4 104.0 159.2 98.4 156.7 153.1 167.0 92.5 149.4 105.8 160.6 98.2 155.2 151.7 165.1 111.8 150.2 107.2 161.8 97.9 154.4 150.9 164.4 126.6 151.2 107.2 162.6 97.4 154.7 151.7 163.3 135.9 152.6 108.1 164.8 97.5 155.0 152.5 162.0 143.2 153.6 108.9 165.8 97.2 155.0 152.3 162.8 151.1 154.6 108.2 167.1 97.1 157.5 154.5 165.9 145.3 156.1 108.8 168.7 97.1 158.0 155.0 166 4 147.6 157.1 P108.1 P170.4 P97.3 P160.5 P157.6 P168.6 P150.3 P159.3 109 2 162.7 100.6 149.0 110.9 163.0 99.6 147.0 113.4 163.5 98.9 144.1 113.0 164.6 98.6 145.7 114.0 167.1 98.8 146.6 115.0 168.3 98.6 146.4 117.0 169.9 98.7 145.2 116.3 172.1 99.1 147.9 '116.5 '174.5 '99.6 149.8 p = preliminary. III II III IV 1 32. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted at annual rate Quarterly percent change at annual rate III 1983 to IV 1983 Business sector: Output per hour of all persons.......... Compensation per hour..................... Unit labor costs................................ Unit nonlabor payments .................. Implicit price deflator........................ Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons........... Compensation per hour..................... Real compensation per h o u r............. Unit labor costs................................ Unit nonlabor payments .................. Implicit price deflator........................ Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all employees . . . Compensation per hour..................... Real compensation per h o u r............. Total units costs ............................. Unit labor costs ........................... Unit nonlabor costs ..................... Unit profits ..................................... Implicit price deflator........................ Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons.......... Compensation per hour..................... Real compensation per h o u r............. Unit labor costs................................ r = revised. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis IV 1983 to I 1984 I 1984 to II 1984 II 1984 to III 1984 Percent change from same quarter a year ago III 1984 to IV 1984 IV 1984 to I 1985 IV 1982 to IV 1983 11983 to 1 1984 II 1983 to II 1984 III 1983 to III 1984 IV 1983 to IV 1984 I 1984 to I 1985 1.4 6.1 1.9 4.6 3.1 4.1 4.0 6.2 0.8 2.1 7.0 3.7 4.9 1.9 -1.8 -2 .9 15.4 2.9 0.6 4.4 0.7 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.1 4.4 0.8 1.2 4.3 2.2 -1 .9 5.7 2.3 7.8 -0 .7 4.8 3.1 3.7 04 0.6 9.2 3.3 3.5 4.1 -0 4 0.6 8.4 3.0 3.3 4.0 -0 3 0.7 8.7 3.3 2.7 4.6 04 1.9 7.1 3.6 3.2 4.2 01 1.0 7.4 3.1 r1.2 r3.9 r0 4 r2.7 r5.2 r3.5 1.0 4.1 5.5 3.7 -1 .7 12.5 2.8 -1.1 3.6 0.1 4.7 3.1 4.2 2.2 3.7 0.1 1.4 5.9 2.9 -1 .2 6.0 2.6 7.3 1.9 5.5 3.9 3.9 0.6 3.0 5.3 3.7 2.9 6.1 0.7 3.1 2.3 2.8 10.9 3.3 3.5 4.0 -0 .5 0.4 8.3 2.9 2.9 4.0 -0 .3 1.1 7.1 3.0 2.1 4.4 0.2 2.3 5.7 3.4 2.4 4.3 0.2 1.9 5.9 3.2 f 1.0 r4.1 r0.5 r3.1 r5.7 r3.9 -0 .2 2.0 -2.1 0.8 2.1 -2 .6 32.6 3.6 3.6 5.7 0.4 0.6 2.0 -3 .2 23.4 2.7 2.8 2.4 -1 .3 0.2 -0 .4 2.0 23.8 2.6 -2.5 3.2 -0 .4 6.5 5.9 8.0 -14.5 3.9 2.5 3.7 0.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 16.0 2.7 P-2.8 P4.0 P0.7 P6.6 P7.0 P5.5 P-1.3 P5.7 3.9 3.1 -0.1 -1 .5 -0 .8 -3 .2 79.8 3.3 4.0 3.6 -0 .9 -1.1 -0 .4 -3 .0 54.8 2.8 2.9 3.3 -1 .0 -0.1 0.4 -1 .4 35.2 2.9 0.9 3.3 -0 .9 2.0 2.4 0.9 14.7 3.2 1.6 3.8 -0 .3 2.1 2.2 1.9 10.9 3.0 POO P3.3 P0.2 P3.6 P3.4 P4.1 P4.9 P3.7 -1 .4 2.9 -1 .2 4.3 3.5 6.2 0.8 2.6 3.6 r2.9 -0 .8 -0 .6 7.1 3.7 0.1 -3.1 -2 .2 5.2 1.6 7.6 r0.6 r5.8 r2.4 5.1 4.8 2.2 -1 .0 -2 .4 4.4 2.7 -1 .7 -1 .6 3.7 3.3 -1 .0 -0 .4 3.1 3.9 -0 .3 0.8 2.9 4.5 0.4 1.5 r2.2 r4.4 r0.8 2.1 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 p = preliminary. 93 WAGE AND COMPENSATION DATA D a t a for t h e e m p l o y m e n t c o st in d e x 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. 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. Benefits 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. First-year wage or compensation changes refer to average negotiated changes for workers covered by settlements reached in the period 94 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and implemented within the first 12 months after the effective date o f the agreement. Changes over the life of the agreement 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. Wage-rate changes are expressed as a percent o f straight-time hourly earn ings; compensation changes 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 o f 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 provided 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 o f changes presented in the eci are also available. For a more detailed discussion o f the ECI, see chapter 11, “ The Em ployment Cost Index,” of the bls Handbook o f Methods (Bulletin 2 1 3 4 1), and the Monthly Labor Review 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 compensation changes appear in Current Wage Developments, a monthly publication o f the Bureau. 33. Employment Cost Index, by occupation and industry group [June 1981 = 100) Percent change 1983 Series March Civilian workers' ............................................................................................ Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers.................................................................. Blue-collar workers .................................................................. Service workers ....................................................................... Workers, by industry division Manufacturing .......................................................................... Nonmanufacturing..................................................................... Services ............................................................................... Public administration2 .......................................................... Private industry w orkers............................................................................ Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers ............................................................. Blue-collar workers............................................................... Service workers..................................................................... Workers, by industry division Manufacturing....................................................................... Nonmanufacturing.................................................................. State and local government w o rk e rs ...................................................... Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers ............................................................. Blue-collar workers............................................................... Workers, by industry division Services ............................................................................... Schools............................................................................. Elementary and secondary ............................................. Hospitals and other services3 ............................................. Public administration2 .......................................................... June 1984 Sept. Dec. March June 1985 Sept. Dec. March 3 months ended 12 months ended March 1985 113.2 114.5 116.5 117.8 119.8 120.8 122.4 123.9 125.5 1.3 4.8 113.7 112.3 114.3 114.9 113.6 115.1 117.6 114.8 116.7 118.9 115.8 119.1 120.9 117.7 122.0 122.1 118.6 122.1 124.0 119.6 124.6 125.5 120.9 126.8 127.3 122.2 127.8 1.4 1.1 0.8 5.3 3.8 4.8 112.5 113.5 116.6 116.2 113.5 114.9 117.1 117.0 115.0 117.2 121.1 119.8 116.0 118.6 122.6 121.4 117.9 120.7 125.0 122.9 119.1 121.6 125.5 123.7 120.4 123.3 128.8 126.9 122.0 124.8 130.9 128.6 123.9 126.2 131.9 130.1 1.6 1.1 .8 1.2 5.1 4.6 5.5 5.9 112.6 113.9 115.6 117.0 119.0 120.1 121.1 122.7 124.2 1.2 4.4 112.8 112.1 113.8 114.2 113.5 114.6 116.5 114.6 115.1 117.9 115.7 117.9 119.9 117.5 121.5 121.4 118.4 121.2 122.4 119.3 123.2 123.9 120.6 125.7 125.8 121.9 126.3 1.5 1.1 .5 4.9 3.7 4.0 112.5 112.6 113.5 114:2 115.0 116.0 116.0 117.5 117.9 119.6 119.1 120.7 120.4 121.6 122.0 123.1 123.9 124.4 1.6 1.1 5.1 4.0 116.5 117.1 120.8 122.0 123.9 124.4 128.8 130.1 131.7 1.2 6.3 117.0 114.9 117.5 115.8 121.5 118.0 122.6 119.2 124.5 121.9 125.0 122.3 129.7 125.0 131.1 125.9 132.5 128.1 1.1 1.7 6.4 5.1 116.8 116.6 117.2 117.5 116.2 117.4 116.9 117.4 118.8 117.0 121.7 121.9 123.3 121.1 119.8 122.6 122.6 123.9 122.6 121.4 124.5 124.5 125.4 124.4 122.9 125.0 124.7 125.7 125.7 123.7 129.9 130.6 132.1 127.9 126.9 131.3 132.0 133.5 129.2 128.6 132.8 133.4 134.4 131.1 130.1 1.1 1.1 .7 1.5 1.2 6.7 7.1 7.2 5.4 5.9 'Excludes farm, household, and Federal workers. Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis includes, for example, library, social, and health services. 95 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 34. Wage and Compensation Data Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group [June 1981 = 100] Percent change 1934 1983 Series 1985 March June Sept. Dec. March June Sept. Dec. March 3 months ended 12 months ended March 1985 Civilian workers1 ............................................................................................ Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers.................................................................. Blue-collar workers .................................................................. Service workers ....................................................................... 112.2 113.4 115.3 116.5 117.9 118.8 120.3 121.7 123.1 1.2 4.4 113.0 110.8 113.2 114.2 112.0 113.9 116.7 113.1 115.1 117.9 114.0 117.4 119.3 115.3 120.0 120.4 116.1 119.8 122.2 117.0 122.3 123.5 118.2 124.3 125.2 119.3 124.8 1.4 0.9 .4 4.9 3.5 4.0 Workers, by industry division Manufacturing .......................................................................... Nonmanufacturing..................................................................... Services ............................................................................... Public administration2 .......................................................... 111.0 112.7 115.8 114.6 112.0 114.0 116.3 115.4 113.3 116.1 120.1 118.2 114.5 117.4 121.3 119.4 115.7 118.9 123.3 120.4 116.8 119.7 123.8 121.3 118.0 121.3 127.2 124.4 119.5 122.6 128.9 125.7 121.0 123.9 129.7 127.0 1.3 1.1 .6 1.0 4.6 4.2 5.2 5.5 Private industry w orkers............................................................................ Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers ............................................................. Professional and technical workers..................................... Managers and administrators ............................................. Salesworkers..................................................................... Clerical workers.......................................................... .. Blue-collar workers ............................................................... Craft and kindred workers.................................................. Operatives, except transport................................................ Transport equipment operatives.......................................... Nonfarm laborers............................................................... Service workers..................................................................... Workers, by industry division Manufacturing........................................................................ Durables............................................................................. Nondurables ..................................................................... Nonmanufacturing.................................................................. Construction ..................................................................... Transportation and public utilities........................................ Wholesale and retail tra d e .................................................. Wholesale trade ............................................................. Retail trade..................................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate..................................... Services............................................................................. 111.6 112.9 114.5 115.8 117.2 118.2 119.2 120.6 122.0 1.2 4.1 112.2 114.8 112.0 105.7 113.4 110.7 112.2 110.0 108.0 109.0 112.9 113.6 115.9 114.0 107.1 114.6 111.9 113.4 111.1 110.3 109.8 113.5 115.9 119.9 114.8 108.4 116.7 112.9 114.3 112.3 110.7 110.8 113.7 117.2 120.4 115.7 111.2 118.3 113.9 115.4 113.6 110.2 112.1 116.5 118.5 122.2 118.0 110.2 119.8 115.1 116.5 114.9 111.7 112.9 119.8 119.9 123.8 119.2 111.9 120.7 115.9 117.3 115.8 112.7 114.1 119.3 120.9 125.2 121.0 110.5 122.0 116.7 118.0 116.6 113.4 114.7 121.2 122.3 127.3 122.2 111.6 122.9 118.0 119.4 117.9 114.0 115.9 123.7 124.0 127.7 123.8 116.3 124.7 119.1 120.8 118.9 114.5 116.7 123.8 1.4 .3 1.3 4.2 1.5 .9 1.2 .8 .4 .7 .1 4.6 4.5 4.9 5.5 4.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 2.5 3.4 3.3 111.0 111.1 110.9 112.0 110.4 112.9 108.5 111.8 107.2 110.6 116.0 112.0 111.8 112.3 113.4 112.1 114.7 110.8 114.1 109.4 111.1 116.6 113.3 112.9 113.9 115.2 112.2 115.7 111.5 115.7 109.9 113.5 120.4 114.5 114.4 114.6 116.5 112.9 116.8 112.3 116.5 110.6 116.9 121.9 115.7 115.7 115.8 118.0 113.3 118.5 114.3 118.2 112.8 116.1 124.2 116.8 116.6 117.1 119.0 114.0 119.3 116.0 120.0 114.4 116.9 124.7 118.0 117.7 118.6 119.9 114.3 119.9 116.5 120.7 114.9 115.3 127.1 119.5 119.1 120.2 121.2 114.4 120.7 118.1 122.9 116.2 115.8 129.5 121.0 120.6 121.6 122.6 115.5 121.7 118.8 123.7 116.9 122.0 129.9 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 .7 .6 5.4 .3 4.6 4.2 5.0 3.9 1.9 2.7 3.9 4.7 3.6 5.1 4.6 State and local government w o rk e rs ...................................................... Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers ............................................................. Blue-collar workers............................................................... Workers, by industry division Services............................................................................... Schools............................................................................. Elementary and secondary ............................................. Hospitals and other services3 ............................................. Public administration2 .......................................................... 115.1 115.7 119.2 120.0 121.6 122.0 126.1 127.1 128.4 1.0 5.6 115.6 113.3 116.1 114.3 119.8 116.4 120.6 116.9 122.2 119.1 122.5 119.6 127.1 121.9 128.0 122.5 129.3 124.2 1.0 1.4 5.8 4.3 115.5 115.2 115.6 116.5 114.6 115.9 115.4 115.8 117.7 115.4 119.8 119.9 121.1 119.7 118.2 120.6 120.6 121.7 120.6 119.4 122.2 122.2 122.9 121.9 120.4 122.5 122.3 123.0 123.1 121.3 127.2 127.8 129.3 125.1 124.4 128.1 128.7 130.2 125.9 125.7 129.4 129.9 130.8 127.7 127.0 1.0 .9 .5 1.4 1.0 5.9 6.3 6.4 4.8 5.5 Excludes farm, household, and Federal workers. Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 96 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis includes, for example, library, social, and health services. 35. Employment Cost Index, private industry workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size [June 1981 = 100] Percent change 1983 Series 1984 1985 3 months ended 12 months ended March June Sept. Dec. March June Sept. Dec. March Workers, by bargaining status1 Union .......................................................................................... Manufacturing .......................................................................... Nonmanufacturing..................................................................... 114.5 114.0 114.9 116.0 114.8 117.1 117.8 116.3 119.2 118.8 117.2 120.4 120.6 119.3 121.9 121.7 120.5 122.8 122.6 121.6 123.6 123.9 123.2 124.5 124.8 124.2 125.3 0.7 8 .6 3.5 4.1 2.8 Nonunion ..................................................................................... Manufacturing .......................................................................... Nonmanufacturing..................................................................... 111.5 111.2 111.6 112.8 112.3 113.0 114.4 113.8 114.7 115.9 114.9 116.4 118.0 116.6 118.6 119.2 117.9 119.8 120.3 119.3 120.7 121.9 120.8 122.4 123.8 123.6 123.9 1.6 2.3 1.2 4.9 6.0 4.5 Workers, by region1 Northeast ..................................................................................... South .......................................................................................... North Centra: ............................................................................... W est............................................................................................. 112.6 112.5 110.9 115.4 114.3 113.5 112.5 116.6 116.0 115.6 113.9 118.0 117.5 117.1 114.7 120.0 118.9 119.7 117.2 121.0 120.7 120.7 117.9 122.2 122.4 120.7 119.7 122.5 123.8 122.2 120.8 124.9 125.1 124.2 122.0 126.8 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.5 5.2 3.8 4.1 4.8 Workers, by area size1 Metropolitan areas ....................................................................... Other areas .................................................................................. 112.9 110.8 114.2 112.3 116.0 113.4 117.4 114.5 119.4 116.7 120.6 117.4 121.5 119.0 123.2 119.8 124.7 121.4 1.2 1.3 4.4 4.0 Workers, by bargaining status1 Union .......................................................................................... Manufacturing .......................................................................... Nonmanufacturing..................................................................... 112.9 111.4 114.3 114.2 112.3 116.0 116.0 113.7 118.3 116.9 114.8 118.9 118.1 116.1 120.1 119.0 117.1 120.7 119.8 118.1 121.3 120.9 119.5 122.1 121.7 120.4 122.8 .7 .8 .6 3.0 3.7 2.2 Nonunion ..................................................................................... Manufacturing .......................................................................... Nonmanufacturing..................................................................... 110.9 110.7 111.0 112.2 111.8 112.4 113.7 113.0 114.0 115.2 114.2 115.6 116.7 115.4 117.2 117.8 116.5 118.3 118.8 117.9 119.2 120.4 119.5 120.7 122.1 121.5 122.3 1.4 1.7 1.3 4.6 5.3 4.4 Workers, by region1 Northeast ..................................................................................... South .......................................................................................... Midwest (formerly North Central) .................................................. W est............................................................................................. 112.0 111.4 110.1 114.1 113.6 112.5 111.5 114.9 115.3 114.3 112.8 116.5 116.6 115.7 113.6 118.5 117.4 117.9 115.5 118.8 118.9 119.0 116.0 119.6 120.5 119.0 117.8 120.0 121.9 120.2 118.7 122.5 123.0 122.3 119.6 124.0 .9 1.7 8 1.2 4.8 3.7 3.5 4.4 Workers, by area size1 Metropolitan areas ....................................................................... Other areas .................................................................................. 111.9 110.1 113.2 111.4 114.9 112.3 116.2 113.4 117.6 115.1 118.6 116.0 119.5 117.5 121.0 118.3 122.4 119.6 1.2 1.1 4.1 3.9 March 1985 COMPENSATION 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 Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 1910. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 97 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW July 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 36. Wage and Compensation Data Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1980 to date [In percent] Quarterly average .V .M „ Measure 1983 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Total compensation changes, covering 5,000 workers or more, all industries: First year of contract .................. Annual rate over life of contract. . . 10.4 7.1 10.2 8.3 3.2 2.8 3.4 3.0 3.6 2.8 Wage rate changes covering at least 1,000 workers, all industries: First year of contract .................. Annual rate over life of contract. . . 9.5 7,1 9.8 7.9 3.8 3.6 2.6 2.8 Manufacturing: First year of contract .................. Annual rate over life of contract. . . 7.4 5.4 7.2 6.1 2.8 2.6 Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction): First year of contract .................. Annual rate over life of contract. . . 9.5 6.6 9.8 7.3 Construction: First year of contract .................. Annual rate over life of contract. . . 13.6 11.5 13.5 11.3 1 1984 1985 II III IV 1 II III IV IP -1.6 1.4 4.4 3.6 5.0 4.3 4.9 3.1 5.1 4.7 3.5 3.2 2.7 3.1 3.7 2.0 3.6 3.1 2.4 2.4 -1.2 2.2 2.7 2.8 3.7 3.6 4.2 2.8 2.8 3.3 2.6 2.7 2.1 2.6 2.3 1.5 2.8 3.0 0.4 2.1 2.3 1.5 -3.4 4.5 1.3 9 3.4 3.5 2.9 3.1 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.5 2.2 1.0 0.1 1.0 4.3 4.1 5.0 3.7 3.4 3.8 3.3 5.3 5.9 5.2 5.8 4.3 4.8 2.7 4.2 4.8 4.3 4.2 2.0 2.8 3.9 3.8 5.1 4.6 6.5 6.3 1.5 2.4 .5 1.0 .7 2.4 1.7 2.1 1.5 2.9 1.1 2.6 -3.6 -2.8 1.1 1.4 2.0 2.1 -2.8 - .8 -1.6 3 p = preliminary. 37. Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1980 to date Year and quarter Year 1984 1983 Measure 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 I 1985 II III IV I II III IV IP Average percent adiustment (including no change): All industries............................................................... Manufacturing ....................................................... Nonmanufacturing .................................................. 9.9 10.2 9.7 9.5 9.4 9.5 6.8 5.2 7.9 4.0 2.7 4.8 3.7 4.3 3.3 0.3 - .5 .9 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 9 1.2 0.9 1.2 .7 0.9 1.0 .9 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.7 1.1 .4 0.7 9 .6 From settlements reached in perio d............................. Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period . . . . From cost-of-living clauses.......................................... 3.6 3.5 2.8 2.5 3.8 3.2 1.7 3.6 1.4 .8 2.5 .6 .8 2.0 .9 - .2 .4 .1 .3 1.0 .1 .2 .8 .2 .6 .3 .2 .1 .4 .3 .1 .7 .2 .2 .7 .3 .3 .2 .2 .1 .6 .1 — 8,648 7,852 6.530 6.195 2,875 3,061 3,025 2,887 2,694 2,482 2,386 1,850 2,047 — 2,270 6,267 4,593 1,907 4,846 3.830 2,327 3,260 2,327 1,851 3,668 2,518 448 812 1,938 561 1,405 1,299 599 1,317 1,218 996 669 1,290 295 984 1,459 355 1,148 1,151 406 1,581 1,215 911 443 1,070 122 1,001 1,051 — 145 483 1,187 1,123 4,842 4,656 4,693 4,830 4,624 4,835 4,932 5,467 5,269 Total number of workers receiving wage change (in thousands)1 ....................................................... 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. 98 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis P = preliminary. WORK STOPPAGE DATA st o p pa g e s include all known strikes or lockouts involving 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. W o rk 38. Estimates of days idle as a percent of estimated working time measure only the impact of larger strikes (1,000 workers or more). Formerly, these estimates measured the impact o f strikes involving 6 workers or more; that is, the impact of virtually a ll strikes. Due to budget stringencies, collection of data on strikes involving fewer than 1,000 workers was discontinued with the December 1981 data. 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 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 .22 .38 .26 1951....................................................................................... 1952 ....................................................................................... 1953 ....................................................................................... 1954 ....................................................................................... 1955 ....................................................................................... 1956 ....................................................................................... 1957 ....................................................................................... 1958 ....................................................................................... 1959 ....................................................................................... 1960 ....................................................................................... 415 470 437 265 363 287 279 332 245 222 1 462 2 746 1 623 1 075 2 055 1 370 887 1 587 1 381 896 15,070 48,820 18,130 16,630 21,180 26,840 10,340 17,900 60,850 13,260 .12 .38 .14 .13 .16 .20 .07 .13 .43 .09 1961....................................................................................... 1962 ....................................................................................... 1963 ....................................................................................... 1964 ....................................................................................... 1965 ....................................................................................... 1966 ....................................................................................... 1967 ....................................................................................... 1968 ....................................................................................... 1969 ....................................................................................... 1970 ....................................................................................... 195 211 181 246 268 321 381 392 412 381 1 031 793 512 1 183 999 1,300 2 192 1 855 1 576 2 468 10,140 11,760 10,020 16,220 15,140 16,000 31,320 35,567 29,397 52,761 .07 .08 .07 .11 .10 .10 .18 .20 .16 .29 1971........................................................................................ 1972 ........................................................................................ 1973 ........................................................................................ 1974 ....................................................................................... 1975 ....................................................................................... 1976 ....................................................................................... 1977 ....................................................................................... 1978 ....................................................................................... 1979 ....................................................................................... 1980 ....................................................................................... 298 250 317 424 235 231 298 219 235 187 2 516 975 1 400 1 796 965 1 519 1 212 1 006 1 021 795 35,538 16,764 16,260 31,809 17,563 23,962 21,258 23,774 20,409 20,844 .19 .09 .08 .16 .09 .12 .10 .11 .09 .09 1981....................................................................................... 1982 ....................................................................................... 1983 ....................................................................................... 1984 ....................................................................................... 145 96 81 62 729 656 909 376 16,908 9,061 17,461 8,499 .07 .04 .08 .04 1984 1985P January ............................................................... February ................................................................ M arch.................................................................. A p ril..................................................................... May ..................................................................... Ju n e ..................................................................... 6 3 2 7 5 5 12 13 10 13 15 14 28.0 9.4 3.0 28.5 8.1 23.7 42.9 42.4 16.5 38.4 39.2 45.9 505.3 379.5 296.3 657.3 587.6 761.1 .03 .02 .01 .03 .03 .04 July ..................................................................... August.................................................................. September............................................................. October ............................................................... November............................................................. December............................................................. 8 5 10 4 4 3 20 19 18 16 15 13 70.8 24.2 107.9 18.0 12.0 42.5 106.4 103.9 122.9 39.6 32.3 59.0 1,228.0 1,634.5 731.0 562.1 500.1 655.8 .06 .07 .04 .03 .03 .04 January ................................................................ February............. .................................................. M arch.................................................................. A p ril..................................................................... May....................................................................... 2 4 4 3 2 9 13 12 8 8 4.7 29.3 15.2 6.2 6.9 16.0 43.9 48.2 14.1 14.8 278.3 259.3 698.5 229.5 203.3 .01 .01 .03 .01 .01 p = preliminary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 99 New from BLS Publications for Sale BLS Bulletins Bargaining Calendar, 1985. Bulletin 2231, 50 pp. $2.25 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-02839-3). Presents inform ation on anticipated labormanagement developm ents in private industry and in State and local governm ent in 1985. The inform ation— identified by em ployer and union— relates to m ajor bargaining situations (covering 1,000 or more workers) in which contracts expire or are subject to reopening, deferred wage changes com e due, or wages are subject to change under cost-of-living adjustm ent clauses. Consum er Expenditure Survey: Interview Survey, 1980-81. Bulletin 2225, 152 p p ., $6 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-02841-5). Presents detailed incom e and expenditure data from the Interview com p o nent o f the new, ongoing Consum er Expenditure Survey. D ata from the Diary com ponent were published in BLS Bulletin 2173. Linking Em ploym ent Problem s to Econom ic Status. Bulletin 2222, 46 pp. $2 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-02838-5). Based largely on the March 1984 Current P opulation Survey, this bulletin contains in form ation on the em ploym ent problem s faced by Am erican workers in 1983 and the im pact o f these problem s on the econom ic status o f their fam ilies and households. Three em ploym ent problem s are covered: unemploym ent; involuntary part-time em ploym ent; and low earnings am ong year-round full-tim e workers. Relative Im portance o f C om ponents in the Consum er Price Indexes. 1984 Bulletin 2233, 36 pp. $1.75 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-02844-0). Presents data on the relative im portance (value weights) o f com ponents in the Consum er Price Indexes. The data can be used in conjunction with the CPI Detailed Report. Trends in M anufacturing: A Chartbook. Bulletin 2219, 104 p p ., $5 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-02835-1). Portrays long-term trends in m anufacturing output, em ploym ent, productivity, and related econom ic indicators and, wherever possible, com parable interna tional data. It also devotes attention to developm ents in the last decade. Includes BLS projections o f em ploym ent and occupations for 1995 in the m anufacturing sector. Area Wage Surveys These bulletins cover office, professional, technical, m aintenance, custodial, and material m ovem ent jobs in m ajor m etropolitan areas. The annual series o f 70 is available by subscription for $102 per year. Individual area bulletins are also available separately. Chicago, Illinois, M etropolitan Area, March 1985. Bulletin 3030-12, 43 p p ., $1.75 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00012-80). Newark, New Jersey, M etropolitan Area, January 1985. Bulletin 3030-8, 40 p p ., $1.75 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00008-0). San Francisco— O akland, California, M etropolitan Area, March 1985. B u lletin 3 0 3 0 -9 , 39 p p ., $1.75 (GPO S tock N o . 829-001-00009-8). San Jose, California, M etropolitan Area, March 1985. Bulletin 3030-10, 36 p p ., $1.50, (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00010-1). useful for wage and salary adm inistration, union contract negotiation, arbitration, and G overnm ent policy considerations. H otels and M otels, July-September 1983. Bulletin 2227, 78 p p ., $3.25 (GPO Stock N o . 029-001-02840-7). Machinery M anufacturing, N ovem ber 1983. Bulletin 2229, 88 pp., $3.50 (GPO Stock N o . 029-001-02842-3). M en’s and B oys’ Shirts and Nightwear, May 1984. Bulletin 2232, 54 p p ., $2.50 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-02843-1). M en’s and B oys’ Suits and C oats, June 1984. Bulletin 2230, 52 pp., $2.25 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-02845-8). Periodicals CPI Detailed Report. March issue provides a com prehensive report on price m ovem ents for the m onth, plus statistical tables, charts, and technical notes. 102 p p ., $4 ($25 per year). Current W age D evelopm ents. May issue includes selected wage and benefit changes, work stoppages in 1985, and statistics on com pensation changes. 60 p p ., $2 ($21 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, hours, and earnings. 179 p p ., $4.50 ($31 per year). Producer Price Indexes. March issue includes a com prehen sive report on price m ovem ents for the m onth, a note on future changes in Producer Price Indexes for refined petroleum products, plus regular tables and technical notes. 167 p p ., $4.25 ($29 per year). Other Publications (Single copies available upon request while supplies last.) BLS Reports Em ploym ent in Perspective: W orking W om en, First Quarter 1985. Report 719. 3 pp. Describes w om en ’s labor force situation in the first quarter and summarizes inform ation about displaced female workers. BLS Summaries O ccupational Earnings and W age Trends in M etropolitan Areas, 1984. Summary 85-3 (N o. 3 o f 3). 10 pp. O ccupational Earnings in All M etropolitan Areas. O ccupational Earnings in Selected Areas, 1984. Summary 85-2 (N o . 3 o f 3). 7 pp. To Order; Sales Publications: Order bulletins by title, bulletin number, and GPO W orcester, M assachusetts, M etropolitan Area, March 1985. Bulletin 3030-11, 29 p p ., $1.25 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00011-0). stock number from the Superintendent o f D ocum ents, U .S . G overn ment Printing O ffice, W ashington, D .C . 20402, or from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Chicago Regional O ffice, 230 South Dearborn Street, P .O . Box 2145, C hicago, 111. 60690. Subscriptions, including m icrofiche subscriptions, are available only from the Superintendent o f D ocum ents. All checks— including those that go to the Chicago Regional O ffice— should be m ade payable to the Superintendent o f D ocum ents. Industry Wage Surveys Other Publications: Request from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, These studies include results from the latest BLS survey o f wages and supplem ental benefits, with detailed occupational data for the N ation, regions, and selected areas (where available). Data are U .S . Department o f Labor, R oom 241, 441 G Street, N .W ., W ashington, D .C . 20212, or from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Chicago Regional O ffice, 230 South Dearborn Street, P .O . Box 2145, C hicago, 111. 60609. W ashington, D .C .— Maryland— Virginia, M etropolitan Area, March 1985. B u lletin 3 0 3 0 -7 , 40 p p ., $1.75 (GPO S tock N o . 829-001-00007-1). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Do you sometimes feel like Stanley hunting for Livingstone, when confronted with the maze of economic and social statistics? If so, your search for a single source of reliable and comprehensive statistics and analysis is over. Subscribe to the M o n t h ly L a b o r R e view , the oldest government journal providing up-to-date information in economic and social statistics. and in te rn a tio n a l p rice s; e co n o m ic g ro w th ; and related to p ics. Each m on th , the R e v ie w also co n ta in s a rtic le s and in fo rm a tive reports. S om e re c e n t title s are: • Job Training and P a rtn e rsh ip A ct • O lde r w o rk e rs in th e la bo r m arke t • J a p a n ’s low u n e m p lo ym e n t • E m ployee-ow ned firm s • The labor fo rc e in 1995 • M u ltifa c to r p ro d u c tiv ity • Im p o rt p rice s fo r pe tro le u m • The e m p lo ym e n t co st index • W ork in ju rie s fro m falls • Youth jo b le ssn e ss Published continuously since 1915, the R e v ie w provides a 40-page section of current statistics covering employment and unemployment; wages, and strike activity; worker and capital productivity; unit labor costs and output; consumer, industrial, Order form: Please send the Credit card orders: (Send to Superintendent of Documents only.) M o n t h ly L a b o r R e v ie w Men’s and women’s earnings Occupational winners and losers Black workers’ gains Shortage of machinists? Price inflation remains low Employment in energy industries Collective bargaining Fatal injuries To subscribe to the Review, please fill out the following coupon and send to: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402. for 1 year at $24 (Foreign subscribers add $6). □ Enclosed is a check or money order payable to Superintendent of Documents. □ Charge to GPO Deposit Account No. □ VISA Account No. Expiration Date □ MasterCard Account No. Expiration Date Total charges $ Name Organization (if appropriate) Address City, State, Zip Code https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis • • • • • • • • https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER