The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. Department of Labor
Robert B. Reich, Secretary
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Katharine G. Abraham, Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau o f Labor Statistics o f the U.S. Department
o f Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
R egional O ffices and C o m m issio n ers
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, DC 20212. Phone (202) 606-5900.
Subscription price per year— $25 domestic; $31.25
foreign. Single copy— $7 domestic; $8.75 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 o f Documents
Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20402
Region 1
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Anthony J. Ferrara
Region II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
John Wieting
10th Floor
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02114-2023
Phone (617)565-2327
Fax: (617)565-4182
Room 808
201 Varick Street
New York, NY 10014-4811
Phone: (212) 337-2400
Fax: (212) 337-2532
Make checks payable to Superintendent of
Documents.
The Secretary o f Labor has determined that the
publication o f this periodical is necessary in the
transaction o f the public business required by law
Region III
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Alan Paisner
3535 Market Street
P.O. Box 13309
Philadelphia, PA 19101-3309
Phone: (215) 596-1154
Fax: (215) 596-4263
o f this Department. Second-class postage paid at
Washington, dc, and at additional mailing addresses.
Information from the Monthly Labor Review is
available to sensory impaired individuals upon
request.
Voice phone: (202) 606-STAT.
(202) 606-5897.
Region IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Janet Rankin
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Phone: (404) 347-4416
Fax: (404) 347-0067
tod phone:
tod message
M U 1 N
referral phone: 1-800-326-2577.
1
H
L
l
»
L
A
B
O
R
REVIEW
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30367-2302
Region V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Lois L. Orr
9th Floor
Federal Office Building
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604-1595
Phone: (312) 353-1880
Fax: (312) 353-1886
Region VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Robert A. Gaddie
Room 221
Federal Building
525 Griffin Street
Dallas, TX 75202-5028
Phone: (214) 767-6970
Fax: (214) 767-3720
July cover:
Region VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Region VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Gunnar Engen
Region X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Sam M. Hirabayashi
"Civil War Drum,"
a 1939-40 water color, graphite
and colored pencil, and pen and ink,
by Wayne White.
From the Index of American Design,
National Gallery of Art.
Copyright 1995.
Cover design by Melvin Moxley
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Region IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands
1100 Main St.
Suite 600
Kansas City, MO 64105-2112
Phone: (816) 426-2481
Fax: (816) 426-6537
71 Stevenson Street
P.O. Box 3766
San Francisco, CA
94119-3766
Phone: (415) 744-6600
Fax: (415) 744-7138
Productivity measurement and trends
Editor-in-Chief
Deborah P. Klein
Executive Editor
Richard M. Devens, Jr.
Managing Editor
Anna Huffman Hill
Editors
Brian I. Baker
Leslie Brown Joyner
Mary K. Rieg
Stephen Singer
Editorial Assistant
BLS modernizes industry labor productivity program
Revisions to growth rates of output per hour
were small in most of the industries covered
Kent Kunze, Mary Jablonski, and Virginia Klarquist
3
Measurement of productivity growth in U.S. manufacturing
Measurement cannot be restricted to capital and labor factors,
as intermediate inputs constitute a large part of the costs
William Gullickson
13
Multifactor productivity: cotton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics
Over the 1972-91 period, the industry's performance
was influenced by technology and international competition
Mary Jablonski
29
Manufacturing multifactor productivity in three countries
Since 1956, rates in the United States
have been lower than those recorded for Germany and France
Wolodar Lysko
39
Manufacturing prices, productivity, and labor costs in five economies
Evidence suggests that the United States
continues to lead other major industrial economies
Bart van Ark
56
Ernestine Patterson Leary
Production Manager
Dennis L. Rucker
Production Assistants
Catherine D. Bowman
Phyllis L. Lott
Edith W. Peters
Catherine A. Stewart
Contributors
Michael H. Cimini
Constance B. DiCesare
Charles A. Muhl
Polly A. Phipps
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Departments
Labor month in review
Industrial relations
The law at work
Book reviews
Current labor statistics
2
73
78
80
83
Labor month in review
The July Review
Productivity is the linchpin of economic
structure. It affects the quantity and
quality of the goods and services we use
every day. It helps determine the number
and character of jobs. It is reflected in
prices, take-home pay, leisure time, and
so on. Hence, this special issue on recent
research on productivity and the
complexities of measurement.
Kent Kunze, Mary Jablonski, and
Virginia Klarquist lead the discussion
with an explanation of the Bureau’s
new methods of measuring industry
output. Their article, “ b l s modernizes
industry labor productivity program,”
concludes that the modernization ef
fort resulted in refinements to, rather
than dramatic changes in, productivity
measurement, and that the new proce
dures produce results that are broadly
similar to those from the old methods.
Among manufacturing industries,
productivity growth varied substan
tially over the 1949-92 period, reports
William Gullickson in “Measurement
of productivity growth in U.S. manu
facturing.” At the high end of the
growth scale was electrical and elec
tronic equipment (more than 2 percent
a year); at the low end was printing and
publishing (no growth). Since 1979,
the productivity growth leaders have
been industrial and commercial ma
chinery and computer equipment and
electrical and electronic equipment (3
percent or more a year).
M ary Jablonski continues the
Bureau’s analysis of productivity among
industries in “Multifactor productivity:
cotton and synthetic broadwoven fab
rics.” This industry reported a 0.8-percent increase per year over the 1972-91
period. Jablonski concludes that if cer
tain conditions continue in the industry,
productivity growth will continue to in
crease while the industry’s employment
decreases.
In “Manufacturing multifactor pro
ductivity in three countries,” Wolodar
Lysko compares productivity among
2
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July
three G-7 countries—United States,
Germany, and France. Productivity
rates increased in all three countries
over the 1956-93 period, but increased
the slowest in the United States.
Bart van Ark, an economist with the
University of Groningen (The Nether
lands) discusses four areas of competi
tiveness—producer price level, valueadded per hour worked, labor cost per
hour, and unit labor costs—for five of
the w orld’s main industrial nations
(United States, France, Germany, Ja
pan, and United Kingdom). He found,
in “Manufacturing prices, productivity,
and labor costs in five economies,” that
the United States continues to lead
most of the countries in the areas of
competition studied, van Ark main
tains that the most competitive nations
are those that have simultaneously op
erated at relatively low cost levels and
that have improved their productivity
through an increase in product volume
and product quality. An interesting fea
ture of van Ark’s paper is his explora
tion of methods for comparing the ac
tual levels of economic measures across
national boundaries. This should be
compared to the international compari
sons of changes in economic indexes in
Lysko’s article.
This issue also features Michael
Cimini and Charles Muhl’s summary of
developments in industrial relations;
Constance DiCesare’s report on deci
sions in labor law; and book reviews by
Henry Guzda (Workplace Industrial
Relations and the Global Challenge)
and Michael Wald (The State and La
bor in Modem America).
tions object to obtrusive monitoring
because it
Workers’ privacy
Next month
Workers in industrialized countries are
steadily losing workplace privacy, ac
cording to an ilo [International Labor
Organization] report, Monitoring and
surveillance in the workplace. Tech
nological advances allow employers to
monitor nearly every facet of time on
the job. Workers and worker organiza
The August Review features a special
section on family matters— day care
employment and health insurance cov
erage among families with children.
Other articles discuss fatalities among
the self-employed, unemployment indi
cators, income inequality, and employ
ment in textile and apparel industries.
1995
• violates basic human rights and
dignity
• allows employers to pry, undetec
ted, into the private lives of workers
• gives employees the feeling that
they are not trusted
• can be used by employers to dis
criminate or retaliate against work
ers
• can be used to exercise control
over workers and over data relating
to specific workers
Two-thirds of about 300 firms sur
veyed in Canada, Europe, and the
United States called such electronic
monitoring and searches “ineffective
or counterproductive.” The report
states that electronic monitoring prac
tices are fairly widespread among U.S.
firms, and somewhat less common in
Canada and Europe.
Inflation factors
When the editors of Blue Chip Eco
nomic Indicators polled their panel of
economic forecasters about the factors
most likely to affect inflation in 1996,
they found that 80 percent of the panel
thought slower economic growth, with
its attendant lessening of consumer de
mand and slackening of labor demand
and capital utilization would be the big
gest influence for keeping prices in
check. On the negative side of the ques
tion, 57 percent thought that the weaker
dollar could push up the prices of im
ported goods.
Modernized Productivity Program
modernizes industry
labor productivity program
bls
Revisions to growth rates of output per hour
in a new BLS method for constructing such measures
were small in most industries covered
Kent Kunze,
Mary Jablonski,
and
Virginia Klarquist
his article introduces a newly adopted
method for constructing the output meas
ures associated with industry labor produc
tivity statistics generated by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Little change in the long-term move
ments of labor productivity—output per hour—
occurred as a consequence of switching from the
original method to the new one. This suggests
that the original, athough not consistent with mod
em developments in the economic theory of pro
duction, was providing reasonable measures of the
trends in industry labor productivity.
T
bls
Kent Kunze is Chief,
Division of Industry
Productivity and
Technology
Studies, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
Mary Jablonski is a
supervisory
economist and
Virginia Klarquist is
an economist in
the Office of
Productivity and
Technology,
Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
studies of industry productivity
Studies of productivity in individual industries have
been earned out by the Bureau for many years. In
1898, the Bureau studied and reported on the dis
placement of human labor by machinery in 60
manufacturing industries.1 The impact of produc
tivity growth on employment remained a focus of
research at the Bureau at the time of the Great De
pression. During this era, the Bureau began to pub
lish indexes of output per hour. The indexes were
based on production data from the Bureau of the
Census and b l s employment data. In 1940, Con
gress authorized the Bureau of Labor Statistics to
undertake continuing studies of productivity and
technological change. In response, the Bureau ex
tended productivity measures that had been devel
oped by the National Research Project of the Works
Progress Administration2 and published measures
for selected industries.
The industry labor productivity program was
cut back during World War II because of a lack of
meaningful data on production and employee
hours for many manufacturing industries. Addi
tionally, the emphasis of the program shifted from
problems of unemployment to concern about the
most efficient use of scarce labor resources. The
Bureau conducted several studies of labor require
ments for defense industries, including the syn
thetic rubber and shipbuilding industries.
For several years after the war, the Bureau de
veloped measures for a small number of industries
from data collected at the plant for the explicit
purpose of measuring labor productivity.3 Because
of its high cost, this program was terminated in
the 1950’s.
Since the 1940’s, the industry productivity
program has been expanded to cover 178 manu
facturing and nonmanufacturing industries at the
two-, three-, and four-digit Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) levels. Labor productivity
measures for these industries are published on an
annual basis and are provided for periods beginning
as early as 1947. (See table 45 in the back of each
issue of the Review.)
In addition to measures of industry labor pro
ductivity, the Bureau also publishes multifactor
productivity statistics for certain industries. In
dustry multifactor productivity measures, which
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
3
Modernized Productivity Program
were first released in 1987, relate output to the combined
inputs of labor, capital, and intermediate purchases. Multi
factor productivity is equal to output per hour minus the ef
fects of changes in capital per hour and intermediate pur
chases per hour. These effects are measured as the change in
the ratio of nonlabor to labor inputs, weighted by the share
of nonlabor input in the total cost of output. The capital
effect, for example, is the change in the ratio of capital to
labor, weighted by capital’s share in the total cost of output.
While m ultifactor productivity is free of the effects of
changes in the ratio of capital to labor and the ratio of inter
mediate purchases to labor, labor productivity necessarily
reflects these changes. However, an enormous amount of
data is required to construct capital and intermediate pur
chases measures, and this has limited the number of industry
multifactor productivity measures published.4
Original measures
The original output-per-hour indexes were developed to
measure the effects of productivity on jobs. They were in
tended to answer questions about employment levels, such
as those listed in the 1939 report on productivity by the Na
tional Research Project: “What relative volumes of labor
time are required to produce a given composite of products
at different times?” and “What relative volumes of produc
tion of a given composite of products are obtainable at dif
ferent times with a given amount of labor time?”5
Wherever possible, the output measure in the numerator of
the original labor productivity ratios used unit employee hour
weights for combining the various categories of output of an
industry.6 A unit employee hour weight for a product, which is
also called a unit labor weight, equals the hours expended in
the production of a unit of the product. When unit employee
hour weights were not obtainable at the detailed product level,
substitute weights were found. The most common substitutes
were unit values, which were acceptable if they were believed
to be proportional to unit hours. A unit value is computed by
dividing the value of production by the number of units pro
duced. In some cases, a dual-level weighting system was used:
unit value weights to combine individual products and em
ployee hour weights to combine groups of products. The
weights were related to fixed periods and were updated peri
odically, usually in conjunction with economic censuses, which
are now conducted every 5 years.
With fixed weights, changes in the relative quantities of
the various outputs do not affect the productivity indexes.
Rather, the indexes are affected only by changes in unit la
bor requirements of the individual products. Thus, the pro
ductivity indexes show the changes in total labor require
ments of the industry resulting from changing production
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
processes for the various industry products.7
Recent literature stresses the use of index numbers that
are consistent with the economic theory of production and
costs. At the time of the development of the measures of
output per hour, emphasis was not placed on this theory in
the construction of the indexes. In fact, some of the litera
ture explicitly rejected the consistency criterion.8
Decision to revise weights
The b l s Office of Productivity and Technology undertook a
careful review of its m ethods of m easuring industry
productivity and decided, at the end of 1993, to revise these
methods. The review, carried out by senior economists,
examined the current status of the economic literature on
productivity and the rationales for various productivity
measures. The revision of the industry productivity measures
included adopting new measurement methods and was
carried out during 1994 and the early months of 1995.
Some important questions the Office grappled with were
the following: What are the industry labor productivity
measures supposed to mean? Should they be measures of
the effects of productivity change on industry employment?
Should they represent changes in overall efficiency by
industry? The original series on output per hour were
developed to measure the employment effects of productivity
changes in individual industries, whereas the revised series
are viewed as measures of efficiency in the industries.9
The revised measures of output per hour reflect the gen
erally accepted innovations and refinements in the economic
theory of production and costs of the past 30 years. There is
a consensus among prominent scholars of the subject that
productivity should be measured and analyzed in the con
text of the neoclassical theory of production and costs. At
the core of this theory is the concept of a production func
tion, which is a mathematical relationship between output
and the inputs that generate it.
Modem index number theory provides the basis for ag
gregating industry outputs. Certain index number formulas
are consistent with particular functional forms of the pro
duction function. The Tômqvist index, which is consistent
with the translogarithmic production function, belongs to a
class of so-called superlative index number formulas. A su
perlative index number is exact for a flexible aggregator
function.10 The translogarithmic production function is con
sidered flexible, as it is less restrictive than other common
functional forms, such as the Cobb-Douglas production func
tion.11 Changes in output consistent with the translogarithmic
production function are exactly measured by changes in
Tôrnqvist indexes.
The revised BLS measures of labor productivity incorpo
rate Tômqvist indexes of output. A Tôrnqvist index of in-
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
4
dustry output aggregates the growth rates of the various in
dustry products between two periods, with weights based on
the products’ shares in industry value of production—the
weight for each product equals its average value share in the
two periods.
The Tornqvist index addresses an “index number prob
lem” that arises when constructing an output measure. Sup
pose we wish to construct an index of output comparing two
periods: a base period and the current period. Suppose also
that growth rates for heterogeneous outputs are to be com
bined with value weights. Then a fixed-weight scheme, such
as the one used to construct the original b l s measures of
output per hour, would not fully allow for the possibility that
relative prices and the mix of products being produced can
change from the base period to the current period. Because
of large changes in these variables, the two periods’ market
baskets may be quite different. Hence, using weights based
on values in the base period can yield a measure of output
that is different from one based on values in the current pe
riod. This poses a dilemma when selecting one period’s
weights. The superlative indexes allow for the construction
of an output aggregate in which the weights incorporate
changes in prices and quantities occurring between the two
periods.
A similar problem arises with respect to the constant-dollar measures of output that are used in the development of
the major sector measures of output and productivity. These
problems are addressed on pages 13-28, this issue.
service, the output index is simply the ratio of the number of
units produced in the current year divided by the number of
units produced in the base year. Similarly, the employee
hour index equals hours expended in the current year divided
by hours expended in the base year.
More typically, industries produce a number of different
products or perform a number of different services. For these
industries, output is calculated with the Tornqvist formula12
(
n
£ Wi,t
(=1
c1it
a
ln
l
\1
q i.t-\J_
where
Qt-i
= the ratio of output in the current year (r) to
output in the previous year (t - 1)
n
= the number of products,
l n — ■’*- = the natural logarithm of the ratio of the
Qi.t-1 quantity of product i in the current year to the
quantity in the previous year, and
Wi,t
= the average value share weight for product i.
The average value share weight for product j is computed
as
wJ.t = {Sj,t + Sj,t-\) + 2
Formulation of revised measures
where
n
The revised labor productivity indexes measure the changes
in the relationship between output and the hours expended
in producing that output. To calculate a labor productivity
index, an index of industry output is divided by an index of
hours:
P- 7 T + -
Here,
Pt
= the index of output per hour in the current year,
t
= the current year,
o
= the base year,
O
u_
0
= the index of output in the current year, and
= the index of labor input in the current year.
For an industry producing a single uniform product or
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
s j,t ~ P j , t Q j,t ~
^ P i tt Q.i,t
j= t
and
Pi,t
= the price of product i at time t.
The Tornqvist formula yields the ratio of output in a given
year to that in the previous year. The ratios arrived at in this
manner then must be chained together to form a series. If
t
= 3 and the base year is denoted by o, then
( 0 3 ) ( 0 2 ) ( 0 i )
A
;
The resulting chained output index, Qt / Qo, is used in
the productivity formula. The employee hour index for an
industry with multiple products is calculated in the same
manner as in the single-output case.
The measures of output per hour relate output to one in
put—labor time; they do not measure the specific contribu
tion of labor, capital, or any other factor of production. The
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
5
Modernized Productivity Program
measures reflect the joint effect of a number of interrelated
influences such as changes in technology, capital investment
per worker, capacity utilization, intermediate inputs per
worker, layout and flow of material, skill and effort of the
work force, managerial skill, and labor-management rela
tions.
New output methodology
Industry output indexes are developed from basic data col
lected by the Bureau of the Census and other sources. Out
put indexes are developed as a deflated value of production
or physical quantity of production of an industry. Both of
these methods are discussed in this section.
Deflated-value output indexes. More than two-thirds of the
industry output indexes are derived from data on the value
of industry output, adjusted for price change. Because the
adjustment for price change is most often downward, the
method is generally referred to as a deflated-value method.
The resulting indexes are conceptually equivalent to indexes
that are developed using data based on physical quantities of
products. An index of these deflated values shows the change
in the real value of output between the past and the current
period.
The deflated-value output indexes are developed in two
stages. First, comprehensive data from the Bureau of the
Census’ economic censuses are used to generate benchmark
indexes covering the years for which economic censuses are
conducted. Second, less comprehensive data'are used to pre
pare the indexes for years that fall between censuses. The
latter indexes are adjusted to the benchmark indexes by
means of linear interpolation. For postcensus years, annual
indexes are linked to the most recent benchmark index.
Benchmark index. For manufacturing industries, with the
deflated-value methodology, current-dollar values of ship
ments are deflated with appropriate price indexes for each of
the five-digit product class groups, resulting in unweighted
quantities. Next, the unweighted quantity changes are cal
culated by taking the difference in the logarithms of the quan
tities in periods t and t -1 . The unweighted quantity changes
are then combined with value share weights, averaged over
periods t and t - 1, to derive weighted quantity changes for
each five-digit product class group. Finally, the antiloga
rithms of the sum of the weighted quantity changes are taken
and chained together to form the real-value-of-shipments in
dex for the industry. This aggregation procedure is called
the Tomqvist procedure. Additionally, to arrive at the final
benchmark output index of production, adjustments are made
to reflect net changes in inventories, changes in industry cov
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
erage, resales, and intraindustry transfers.13 It should be
noted that the original industry labor productivity measures
were not routinely adjusted for changes in resales and
intraindustry transfers. Benchmark indexes are developed
every 5 years, based on data from the quinquennial Census
o f Manufactures. Benchmark indexes for the mining indus
tries are computed from data reported in the Census o f Min
eral Industries.
For trade industries, benchmark indexes are computed
from sales data reported in the Census o f Retail Trade. With
the deflated-value methodology, current-dollar sales are de
flated with appropriate price indexes for each category of
merchandise in the industry, yielding constant-dollar sales.
The Tornqvist procedure is then used to calculate the real
sales index for the industry. Additionally, to arrive at the
final benchmark output index of production, an adjustment
is made to reflect changes in industry coverage. Benchmark
indexes are developed every 5 years, based on data from the
quinquennial Census o f Retail Trade.
Benchmark indexes for the service industries are com
puted from data reported in the Census o f Business. The
methodology is similar to that used in developing the in
dexes for the retail trade industries.
Annual indexes. For annual output indexes in manufactur
ing industries, the value of shipments for each primary prod
uct class (wherever the product is made) is deflated by an
appropriate price index to obtain product class quantities.
BLS industry-based product class price indexes are used if
available. If they are not available, deflators are developed
by weighting together individual b l s commodity price in
dexes with base-year value-of-shipments weights. The
Tomqvist procedure is then used to calculate the real valueof-shipments index for the primary products of the industry.
For each year, ratios for the industry (total value of indus
try shipments to total value of primary products, wherever
made) are used to adjust the wherever-made primary prod
ucts indexes to the industry basis. The resultant industry
indexes are further adjusted to reflect changes in inventory.
This adjustment yields the estimated industry indexes of pro
duction. The annual indexes for the industry are adjusted to
the benchmark levels of production by linear interpolation.
For industries in trade and services, data on the value of
sales for each year are divided by an industry price index to
derive a measure of the change in the industries’ real output.
These industry price indexes are, for the most part, producer
and consumer price indexes developed by the Bureau. In the
case of the retail trade industries, the industry price index is
developed by combining current-year consumer price indexes
with base-year sales for each category of merchandise.
Physical quantity output indexes.
Most physical quantity
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
6
output indexes are based on quantities of products combined
with average value share or unit value weights. The basic
data on quantities are generally primary products of an in
dustry classified into product groups. The finest level of
detail is used. For some industries, the annual indexes are
adjusted to deflated-value benchmark indexes by linear in
terpolation. The indexes for both the annual and benchmark
series are developed using the Tomqvist procedure.
Data for the physical quantity output indexes come from
numerous sources, including the Current Industrial Reports of
the U. S. Department of Commerce and the reports of various
trade associations. Physical quantity output indexes are used
primarily for the mining and transportation industries.
Labor input
The labor input indexes that are used in the productivity
m easures have not been revised. These indexes are
developed from basic data compiled by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the Bureau of the Census, and other sources.
Employment and hours indexes measure the change in the
aggregate number of employees and hours, respectively, over
a given time. Employees and hours are each treated as
homogeneous and additive; hence, changes in qualitative
aspects of employment, such as in the skills, education, and
experience of persons constituting the aggregate, are not
reflected in the indexes.14
The indexes of labor input are derived from production
worker hours, the number of nonproduction workers, and an
estimate of average annual hours paid for nonproduction work
ers. Production worker hours include all the hours paid for.
Overtime and other premium pay hours are included on the
basis of actual time spent at the plant. The estimates of
nonproduction worker average annual hours are prepared by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the two-digit SIC level and are
derived primarily from studies undertaken by the Bureau.15
Average hours for nonproduction workers are multiplied by
the number of nonproduction workers to obtain total
nonproduction worker hours. Indexes based on nonproduction
worker hours are subject to a wider margin of error than are
indexes involving only production worker hours, because it is
necessary to estimate the average hours of nonproduction
workers. Errors in such estimates, however, would have a
relatively insignificant effect on the trend in hours for all
employees.
Estimates of all hours for manufacturing industries are
derived by summing the aggregate hours for production
worker hours and nonproduction worker hours. For trade
and service industries, estimates of all-person hours are de
rived by summing the aggregate hours for paid employees
and the estimated aggregate hours for partners, proprietors,
and unpaid family workers. Hours indexes for the trade and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
services industries are based on data from the Bureau of La
bor Statistics, the Bureau of the Census, and the Internal
Revenue Service.
Original versus revised growth rates
All of the 178 published BLS measures of industry labor pro
ductivity were reviewed for possible revision. Of these 178
measures, 23 are for single-product industries, which do not
require any weighting of outputs. An example of such an
industry is the copper mining industry. The output of this
industry is simply the tons of ore recovered. The 23 single
product industries include 4 mining industries, 16 manufac
turing industries, and 3 service-producing industries. The
labor productivity indexes for these industries have not been
revised. Following a review of the remaining 155 measures,
2 indexes were judged to be inappropriate for value share
weighting of the outputs: the index for new and used car
dealers and the index for commercial banks. Labor weights
will continue to be used in the calculation of the output in
dexes for these two industries. The industry labor produc
tivity indexes for the remaining 153 industries have been
revised to incorporate Tomqvist indexes of output. The fol
lowing discussion refers to the effect of the revisions on the
rate of growth in labor productivity for these 153 industries.16
Although the labor productivity measures are provided for
periods beginning as early as 1947, only periods from 1973
to 1990 are discussed.17 The years 1973 and 1990 are se
lected because they are both peak years in the business
cycle.18
Long-term labor productivity growth rates, 1973-90. In
nearly 90 percent of the industries, the average annual growth
rates of output per hour for 1973-90 were revised by only
0.5 percentage point or less. In addition, the revisions were
distributed fairly symmetrically around zero. (See chart l.)19
The changes were not predominantly positive or negative,
indicating that there was no systematic bias in the original
measures, compared with the new ones.
For 34 measures, which represent about one-fifth of the
revised industry labor productivity statistics, incorporation
of the superlative indexes of output resulted in no change in
labor productivity growth for 1973-90. (See table 1, pp. 9 11.) Among this group are four of the largest industries, in
terms of employment, that are measured by the BLS produc
tivity program: eating and drinking places; grocery stores;
hotels and motels; and motor vehicles and equipment.
The labor productivity growth rates was revised by
between 0.1 percentage point and 0.5 percentage point in 100
industries for the 1973-90 period. Forty-five of those revi
sions were positive and 55 were negative. Among the indus
tries with upward revisions of one-half of a percentage point
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
7
Modernized Productivity Program
Chart 1.
Output per hour in 153 selected industries, revised growth rate minus original growth rate, 1973-90
Percentage-point difference
NOTE: Average annual percent change using compound rate formula.
Chart 2.
Output per hour in 153 selected industries, revised growth rate minus original growth rate,
selected periods, 1973-90
Number of
industries
Number of
industries
40
40
Less than
-0.5
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-
0.2
-
0.1
0
0.1
0.4
0.5
Percentage-point difference
More than
0.5
NOTE: Average annual percent change using compound rate formula.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
8
| Table 1. m
Output per hour in 153 selected industries, 1973-90
[Average annual p<;rcent change]
sic Code
Industry
Original
Index
Revised
Index
Revised index
minus
original index
Mining
101
12
131
14
142
Iron mining, usable ore ...................................................
Coal m ining..............................................................
Crude petroleum and natural g a s.................................................
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels.......................................
Crushed and broken sto n e................................................
3.4
3.2
-3.4
1.2
1.5
3.3
3.2
-3.4
1.3
2.0
-0.1
.0
.0
.1
.5
Manufacturing
2011,13
2011
2013
2015
202
2022
2026
203
2033
2037
Red meat products..................................................
Meat packing plants............................................
Sausages and other prepared meats.......................................
Poultry dressing and processing..........................................
Dairy products...........................................................
Cheese, natural and processed.....................................................
Fluid m ilk.................................................
Preserved fruits and vegetables.....................................................
Canned fruits and vegetables.....................................................
Frozen fruits and vegetables.................................................
1.8
1.8
1.9
3.7
3.2
2.4
4.2
1.3
1.7
.9
1.4
2.1
2.0
3.7
3.6
2.3
4.7
1.5
2.2
.8
-.4
.3
.1
.0
.4
-.1
.5
.2
.5
-.1
204
2041,45
2041
2047,48
2051,52
2061,62,63
2061,62
2082
2092
Grain mill products.......................................................
Flour (inc. flour mixes) and other grains........................................
Flour and other grain mill products..............................................
Prepared feeds for animals and fowls............................................
Bakery products.......................................................................
Sugar......................................................................
Raw and refined cane sugar...........................................................
Malt beverages..............................................
Prepared fresh or frozen fish and seafoods..................................
3.9
2.8
3.2
3.8
.8
.8
.6
5.6
-.5
4.1
2.3
2.7
4.4
.9
1.2
1.6
5.7
-.4
.2
-.5
-.5
.6
.1
.4
1.0
.1
.1
211,2,3
211,3
221,2
2251,52
2281
231
2421
2426
2431
2434
2435,36
2435
2436
244
Tobacco products..................................................................
Cigarettes, chewing and smoking tobacco....................................
Cotton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics......................................
Hosiery....................................................
Yarn spinning mills...................................................................
Men’s and boys’ suits and co a ts..................................................
Sawmills and planing mills, general................................................
Hardwood dimension and flooring............................................
Millwork..................................................
Wood kitchen cabinets........................................
Veneer and plywood......................................
Hardwood veneer and plywood......................................
Softwood veneer and plywood..................................
Wood containers 1......................
2.3
2.3
3.7
2.9
4.0
1.7
2.3
.6
-.4
.9
3.1
2.7
3.3
2.3
3.0
2.1
3.8
3.1
3.9
1.6
2.4
.8
-.4
.9
2.3
.7
2.7
2.5
.7
-.2
.1
.2
-.1
-.1
.1
.2
0
0
-.8
-2.0
-.6
.2
251
2511,17
2514
2515
252
2522
261,2,3
2657
2673,74
Household furniture......................................................
Wood household furniture............................................................
Metal household furniture..........................................................
Mattresses and bedsprings....................................................
Office furniture............................................................
Office furniture, except wood......................................
Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills..................................................
Folding paperboard boxes..............................................................
Paper and plastic b a g s ...................................................................
1.2
.4
1.9
2.5
1.3
1.5
2.6
1.3
.7
1.3
.5
1.9
2.3
1.4
1.8
2.5
.8
.0
.1
.1
.0
-.2
.1
.3
-.1
-.5
-.7
28
2812
2816
2819 (part)
2823,24
2841
2844
285
2869
287
Industrial inorganic chemicals........................................................
Alkalies and chlorine......................................................................
Inorganic pigments..........................................................................
Industrial inorganic chemicals, n.e.c.2 ...........................................
Synthetic fibers..........................................................:....................
Soaps and detergents....................................................................
Cosmetics and other toiletries.......................................................
Paints and allied products...............................................................
Industrial organic chemicals, n.e.c.2...............................................
Agricultural chemicals.....................................................................
.6
3.6
1.7
-.1
4.0
2.4
.8
3.2
2.1
2.5
1.5
5.2
2.0
1.0
4.0
2.3
.8
3.4
1.8
2.8
.9
1.6
.3
1.1
.0
-.1
.0
.2
-.3
.3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
9
Modernized Productivity Program
| T a b le
C ontinued— O u tp u t p e r h o u r in 153 s e le c te d in d u strie s, 1973-90
[Average annual pe rcent change]
sic Code
Industry
Original
index
Revised
Index
Revised index
minus
original index
2873
2874
Nitrogeneous fertilizers...............................
Phosphatic fertilizers......................................
3.7
2.5
3.0
3.1
-.7
.6
2879
291
Agricultural chemicals, n.e.c.2........................................
Petroleum refining...............................
2.2
1.8
2.1
1.5
-.1
-.3
301
3052
308
314
324
325
3251,53,59
3251
3271,72
331
3321
3324,25
3325
3331
3351
3353,54,55
Tires and inner tu b e s ....................................
Rubber and plastics hose and belting.................................
Miscellaneous plastics products, n.e.c.2....
Footwear...............................................
Cement, hydraulic....................................
Structural clay products...............................
Clay construction products.............................
Brick and structural clay tile .......................................
Concrete products.........................................
S teel...............................................
Gray and ductile iron foundries............................................
Steel foundries...................................................
Steel foundries, n.e.c.2.
Primary copper......................................
Copper rolling and drawing..................................................
Aluminum rolling and drawing..................................................•
4.1
1.2
1.9
.0
2.7
1.7
1.7
.6
1.0
2.7
1.0
-.6
.3
5.9
1.9
1.3
4.0
1.4
1.9
.2
2.7
1.3
1.5
.7
.7
3.2
.8
-.6
.3
5.9
1.1
.9
-.1
.2
.0
.2
.0
-.4
-.2
1
-.3
.5
-2
o
0
.0
-.8
-.4
3411
3423
3433
3441
3442
3452
3465,66,69
3469
3491,92,94
Metal cans..............................................
Hand and edge tools, n.e.c.2
Heating equipment, except electric.......................................
Fabricated structural m etal...................................
Metal doors, sash, and trim .........................................
Bolts, nuts, rivets, and washers..........................
Metal stampings.........................................
Metal stampings, n.e.c.2............................
Valves and pipe fittin g s...........................................
3.7
-.5
2.1
.1
.6
1.5
.9
.0
.6
4.2
-.7
2.1
-.1
.4
1.3
.9
-.1
.5
.5
-.2
.0
- 2
-.2
- 2
.0
-.1
-.1
3519
352
3523
3524
3531
3532
3533
3541,42
3541
3542
3545
3561,63,94
3561,94
3562
3563
3585
3592
Internal combustion engines, n.e.c.2....
Farm and garden machinery...................................
Farm machinery and equipment..................................
Lawn and garden equipment......................
Construction machinery.........................
Mining machinery............................
Oil and gas field machinery...............................
Machine tools........................
Metal cutting machine to o ls ..................
Metal forming machine tools..........................
Machine tool accessories.........................
Pumps and compressors..........................
Pumps and pumping equipment............................................
Ball and roller bearings...................
Air and gas compressors.........................
Refrigeration and heating equipment..................................
Carburetors, pistons, rings, and valves.............
1.5
1.7
1.7
2.2
1.7
.1
-1.6
.3
.5
-.3
.1
1.6
1.7
-.6
1.3
.5
.7
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.7
1.3
-.2
-1.9
-.1
.1
-.7
.1
1.3
1.2
-.9
1.3
.2
.4
-.1
-.4
-.6
-.5
-.4
-.3
-.3
- 4
-.4
-.4
o
-.3
-.5
-.3
.0
-.3
-.3
3612
3613
3621
3631,32,33,39
3631
3632
3633
3639
3641
3645,46,47,48
3651
Transformers, except electronic.....................
Switchgear and switchboard apparatus.............
Motors and generators............
Major household appliances................
Household cooking equipment.................
Household refrigerators and freezers..........................
Household laundry equipment..........................
Household appliances, n.e.c.2.
Electric lam ps.......................................
Lighting fixtures and equipment............................................
Household audio and video equipment..............................
1.1
1.3
.8
2.6
3.3
2.3
2.4
2.0
3.8
.7
9.0
.4
1.2
.8
2.4
2.9
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.4
.8
10.8
-.7
-.1
0
-.2
-.4
.2
-.2
.2
-1.4
.1
1.8
371
3721
3825
386
Motor vehicles and equipment............................
Aircraft.....................................................
Instruments to measure electricity........................
Photographic equipment and supplies.........................................
2.4
1.5
2.7
2.8
2.4
1.9
3.2
3.8
.0
.4
.5
1.0
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
10
Continued— Output per hour in 153 selected industries, 1973-90
[Average annual percent change]
sic Code
Original
Index
Industry
Revised
index
Revised index
minus
original index
Service producing 3
4011
4011
411,13,14 (parts)
4213
4213 (part)
4512,13,22 (parts)
481
491,2,3
491,3 (part)
492,3 (part)
5093
525
531
533
54
541
546
553
554
56
561
562
565
566
57
571
572,3
572
573
58
591
592
701
721
723,4
Railroad transportation, revenue traffic.........................................
Railroad transportation, car m ile s.................................................
Bus carriers, class I 4....................................................................
Trucking, except local4 5...............................................................
Trucking, except local, general freight4' 5.......................................
Air transportation 5...............................................................
Telephone communications...........................................................
Gas and electric utilities..............................................................
Electric utilities..............................................................
Gas utilities.......................................................................
Scrap and waste materials1...........................................................
Hardware stores..........................................................
Department stores...................................................................
Variety stores.................................................................
Food stores.........................................................................
Grocery stores........................................................................
Retail bakeries........................................................................
Auto and home supply stores............................................
Gasoline service stations...............................................................
Apparel and accessory stores........................................................
Men’s and boys’ clothing stores.....................................................
Women’s clothing stores...............................................................
Family clothing slores....................................................................
Shoe stores................................................................................
Home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores......................
Furniture and homefurnishings stores...........................................
Appliance, radio, television, and computer stores.........................
Household appliance stores...................................................
Radio, television, and computer stores..........................................
Eating and drinking places............................................................
Drug stores and proprietary stores...............................................
Liquor stores...............................................................................
Hotels and motels...........................................................................
Laundry, cleaning, and garment services......................................
Beauty and barber shops...............................................................
1 1977-90.
2 n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified.
3 Output per hour of all persons is used for all trade and service industries,
or less were air transportation, aircraft manufacturing, de
partment stores, and steel. Included in the group with down
ward revisions of one-half of a percentage point or less were
apparel and accessory stores, gas and electric utilities, re
frigeration and heating equipment, and retail bakeries. Clas
sifying these 100 industries into five categories based on the
magnitude of the change, regardless of the sign (absolute
value of 0.1 to 0.5) results in the biggest group consisting of
those industries with a revision of 0.1 percentage point (34
industries) and the smallest being made up of those with a
revision of 0.5 percentage point (12 industries).
In the remaining 19 industries, the growth rate of output
per hour from 1973 to 1990 was revised by more than 0.5
percentage point. Only 5 of those industries registered
changes larger than 1.0 percentage point. The largest in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5.8
3.9
-.7
2.9
3.4
2.7
5.8
.4
1.3
-2.5
1.8
1.6
2.5
-.4
-.9
-.8
-2.2
2.8
3.2
2.3
1.6
3.5
1.7
1.6
3.0
1.4
5.4
3.8
5.7
-.4
.9
.8
-.7
-.9
.5
5.5
3.9
-.7
2.9
3.4
3.2
5.5
.1
1.3
-2.5
1.8
1.7
2.6
-.7
-.8
-.8
-2.3
2.8
3.2
2.2
1.6
3.6
1.7
1.6
3.2
1.3
5.8
3.7
6.4
-.4
.7
.9
-.7
-.7
.7
-.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
-.3
-.3
.0
.0
.0
.1
.1
-.3
.1
.0
-.1
.0
.0
-.0
-.1
.1
.0
.0
.2
-.0
.4
-.1
.7
.0
-.2
.1
.0
.2
.2
except SIC’s 531, 551, and 602.
4 1973-89.
5 Output per employee.
crease in a productivity growth rate was in the household
audio and video equipment industry, whose average annual
growth rate was revised to 10.8 percent per year from 9.0
percent. The greatest drop in a productivity growth rate
was in the hardwood veneer and plywood industry, whose
rate of growth of output per hour was revised from 2.7 per
cent to 0.7 percent. Notice that none of the 1973-90 revi
sions is above 2.0 percentage points in magnitude.
Revisions in the shorter periods, 1973-79 and 1979-90.
The revisions to the rates of labor productivity growth for
shorter periods tended to be larger than the revisions to the
long-term rates of growth. (See chart 2, page 8.) A possible
reason for this is that, in a long period, the weights in the
original output measures were changed more times than in
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
11
Modernized Productivity Program
one of the subperiods; the greater number of changes in
weights in those long-term measures made them more like
Tomqvist indexes, in which the weights change annually.
In the first subperiod, 1973-79, the growth rates for 28
industries were unchanged by the revision in methodology,
compared with 31 in the second subperiod, 1979-90. Recall
that in the long run, 1973-90, the rates of growth for 34
industries stayed the same. At the other extreme, changes in
the growth rate of output per hour exceeding half a percent
age point were observed in 26 of the industries in 1973-79
and in 37 industries for 1979-90, whereas the total for the
long-term period was just 19. Additionally, in each of the
shorter periods, there were changes in growth rates of more
than 2.0 percentage points, which was not true in the long
run. Even so, there were only five such changes in the first
period and two in the second. The magnitude of the largest
of those changes was 4.7 percentage points: the average
annual growth rate of output per hour in household audio
and video equipment was revised upward from 5.1 percent
to 9.8 percent for 1973-79.
eac h of the three periods , 1973-79, 1979-90, and
1973-90, the vast majority of the revisions to the growth
rates of output per hour were small: at least three-quarters
of the changes in each period were less than or equal to 0.5
percentage point in magnitude. The new procedures yield
results very close to those generated by the original bls
methodology. Overall, the modernization of the methodol
ogy has produced refinements, rather than dramatic changes,
in the industry labor productivity growth rates.
□
F or
Footnotes
A cknowledgment : Paul Kem, an economist in the Office of Productivity
and Technology, Bureau of Labor Statistics, assisted in the preparation of
this
article.
1See C. D. Wright, Thirteenth Annual Report (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1898).
12 Note that the growth rate of q. in the Tomqvist formula is the natural
logarithm of the ratio of the quantity of product i in the current year to the
quantity in the previous year. This could also be expressed as the change in the
natural logarithm of q .
13The real-value-of-shipments index is combined with a series of adjust
ment ratios to yield an industry output index. The ratios are as follows:
2 Harry Magdoff, Irving H. Siegel, and Milton B. Davis, Production, Em
1. Inventory adjustment ratio = (value of industry shipments plus net addi
tions to inventories) / (value of industry shipments).
ployment, and Productivity in 59 Manufacturing Industries, 19 19 -19 3 6 , Re
port S—1, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, Works Progress Administration, National Re
search Project, 1939).
3 See, for example, Footwear, 194 7 to 1948: Trends in man-hours ex
pended p er pair (Bureau of Labor Statistics, October 1950); and Gray Iron
Foundries: Case study data on productivity and factory performance (Bu
reau of Labor Statistics, August 1951).
4 See Productivity Measures fo r Selected Industries and Government Serv
ices, Bulletin 2461 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1995) for details on the
methods underlying the calculation of industry multifactor productivity and for
the most current multifactor productivity indexes.
5 Magdoff, Siegel, and Davis, Production, Employment, and Productivity,
p.3.
6 Irving H. Siegel, “On the Design of Consistent Output and Input Indexes
for Productivity Measurement,” in Output and Productivity Measurement,
nber Studies in Income and Wealth, vol. 25 (Princeton, nj , Princeton Univer
sity Press, 1961), pp. 23-46.
7 Siegel, “Consistent Output and Input Indexes.”
8 Ibid., especially p. 23.
9The multifactor productivity measures discussed in the opening section of
this article are actually preferred measures of efficiency, because they take into
account capital and intermediate purchases. Labor productivity statistics are
regarded as the best measure of efficiency for those industries for which multi
factor productivity statistics are not available.
10 W. E. Diewert, “Exact and Superlative Index Numbers,” Journal o f
Econometrics, vol. 4, 1976, pp. 115-45. See also Douglas W. Caves, Laurits
R. Christensen, and W. Erwin Diewert, “The Economic Theory of Index Num
bers and the Measurement of Input, Output, and Productivity,” Econometrica
(November 1982), pp. 1393-1413.
11 For more information on translogarithmic production functions, see
Laurits R. Christensen, Dale W. Jorgensen, and Lawrence J. Lau, “Transcen
dental Logarithmic Production Frontiers,” Review o f Economics and Statistics
(February 1973), pp. 28-45.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2. Coverage adjustment ratio = (value of industry shipments) / (value
of shipments of primary products of the industry).
3. Double-counting adjustment ratio = (value of industry shipments, plus
net additions to inventories, minus value of shipments of intraindustry
transfers, minus value of shipments of resales) / (value of industry
shipments plus net additions to inventories).
14The effects of changes in workers’ characteristics are reflected in the labor
input indexes in the recent study, L a b o r C o m p o sitio n a n d U.S. P r o d u c tiv ity
G ro w th , 1 9 4 8 - 9 0 , Bulletin 2426 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 1993).
The bulletin uses data on the heterogeneity of workers in the examination of
productivity growth in the private business and private nonfarm business sec
tors. However, reliable data on workers’ traits are not available at the industry
level, and hours must be treated as homogeneous and additive in the industry
labor productivity measures.
15 The most recent survey was conducted in 1977.
16 The term ra te o f g r o w th refers to the rate of change. Thus, the rate can be
a positive or a negative number.
17 The entire time series has been revised for 123 of the industry labor
productivity measures. For 20 manufacturing industries and 10 service-pro
ducing industries, not all of the time series could be revised, due to data limita
tions. For these measures, the original indexes of the early years are linked to
the revised indexes of the later years.
18The period 1973-90 also encompasses all but five of the bls industry
labor productivity measures. Two measures begin in 1977, and three end in
1989. These five measures are included in the analysis of productivity growth
rate changes for the long-term period, 1973-90, and the shorter term periods,
1973-79 and 1979-90.
19Chart 1, chart 2, and table 1 present results for the 153 revised industry
labor productivity measures. Although the Bureau publishes productivity meas
ures for 178 industries, 25 measures were not revised and are not included in the
charts, table, or analysis.
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
12
Measurement of productivity
growth in U.S. manufacturing
Productivity measurement cannot be restricted
to capital and labor factors—intermediate inputs
constitute too large a part of the cost structure;
revised and extended data show upward trend
in multifactor productivity growth
William Gulllckson
he indexes of multifactor productivity for subsectors.3 In particular, early postwar and
two-digit manufacturing sectors pre more recent productivity growth trends are com
pared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics pared. When this comparison was last discussed
for sectors in manufacturing have been revised
in 1992, data were available through 1988, cov
and extended to cover the 1949-92 period. These ering a period of rapid growth following emer
indexes, also called the “ k l e m s ” multifactor gence from the 1982 recession.4 Because of this
measures, compare changes in output to changes growth, multifactor productivity growth seemed
in a composite of all the inputs used in produc to have regained much of its early postwar mo
tion—capital, labor, energy inputs, nonenergy mentum. It is now possible to examine recent
material inputs, and business services.1Because trends more comprehensively because the ex
of this comprehensive input list, these indexes tended series cover the 1990 business cycle peak,
give an indication of advances in technology and the brief recession that followed in 1991, and a
production efficiency in these broad sectors, im recovery period in 1992. These trends indicate
portant topics as the economy emerges from the that the productivity growth rates of the early
recession of the early 1990’s.
postwar period were not entirely regained dur
This article discusses the measurement of ing the 1980’s.
multifactor productivity for manufacturing and
analyzes growth trends within the sector. Issues in measurement
Through the years, a wide variety of productiv Until recently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
ity statistics have appeared in the literature, dis produced two distinct and fairly different mea
tinguished by the concepts underlying the mea sures of multifactor productivity for the manu
surement of output, the methods of aggregation, facturing sector. One measure was a comparison
and the inputs included for analysis. Recent ad of “net” output to capital and labor inputs.5 The
ditions of “superlative” indexes of gross domes other was the k lem s multifactor measure, issued
tic product (GDP) by industry to the U.S. National along with multifactor productivity measures for
Income and Product Accounts, prepared by the broad (two-digit S ic) manufacturing industries,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department which compares “sectoral” output to capital, la
of Commerce, have enhanced available alterna bor, and “intermediate” inputs.
tives for measuring manufacturing productivity.
In the future, b l s will use the measure based
Planned changes in the way BLS measures manu on sectoral output for both purposes, while con
facturing productivity are also discussed.2
tinuing to use a somewhat modified net outputMultifactor productivity growth trends are type multifactor productivity measure for its in
then examined for the overall manufacturing ternational comparisons of multifactor produc
sector and for 19 two-digit SIC manufacturing tivity. Some further background on measures
T
William Gulllckson is an
economist in the Office
of Productivity and
Technology, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M onthly Labor Review
July 1995
13
Measuring productivity growth
Alternative output measures
The Tornqvist gross output index\ This is obtained by
chain-weighting four-digit industry deflated values of ship
ments to the two-digit level, at which level inventory
change is added; then aggregating to total manufacturing.
Values of shipments are from the U.S. Bureau of the Cen
sus and are maintained, among other four-digit industry
data, in b l s ; deflated shipments for each industry are equal
to the census value of shipments adjusted by a four-digit
deflator which in turn is a composite of five-digit deflators
from the bl s producer price program, the Bureau of Eco
nomic Analysis, and other sources. All data are arranged
according to the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) system. A Tornqvist aggregate quantity index is a
chain of two-period indexes {Q ^Q l)> each ° f which is ob
tained as a weighted average of individual item indexes,
with weights based on cost or value shares taken from the
two periods. For further discussion of Tornqvist indexes,
see Trends in Multifactor Productivity, 1948-81, Bulletin
2178 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1983).
The Tornqvist sectoral output measure. “Sectoral” output
is the name given to gross output less intrasector transac
tions. This name was introduced by Frank M. Gollop. See
“Accounting for Intermediate Input: The Link Between
Sectoral and Aggregate Measures of Productivity Growth,”
in Measurement and Interpretation o f Productivity (Wash
ington, National Academy of Sciences, 1979), pp. 318-33.
Sectoral output thus represents deliveries to consumers out
side the industry. The BLS sector output index is a Tornqvist
index, obtained by removing estimated intrasector transac
tions from the Tornqvist gross output measure using cur
rent weights for the removal.
Sector output for an industry represents deliveries to
which help explain these changes are provided in the follow
ing sections. The main issues have to do with which inputs
and outputs should be included in a multifactor productivity
ratio and how heterogeneous inputs and outputs should be
weighted together.
Basic principles, bls is engaged in efforts to insure that its
measures conform, as nearly as possible, to some basic prin
ciples of productivity measurement which have been devel
oped in the economics literature.6 One of the basic principles
is that inputs be as comprehensive as possible, so that pro
ductivity growth does not merely reflect changes through time
in unmeasured inputs. Thus, the multifactor productivity
measures for manufacturing industries presented later in this
article take into account all intermediate inputs (energy and
14
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
consumers outside the industry; for total manufactur
ing, sector output represents deliveries to consumers
outside manufacturing. Intrasector transactions are es
timated from input-output tables published by the Bu
reau of Economic Analysis in benchmark years, and pre
pared by b ls for other years.
Benchmark-years-weighted gross output. This measure of
gross output underlies the estimation of benchmark-yearsweighted gross product originating; the latter series is pub
lished in the National Income and Product Accounts.
Benchmark-years-weighting is designed to achieve mov
ing weights even when all the requisite data are not avail
able annually. See Allan H. Young, “Alternative Measures
of Change in Real Output and Prices,” Survey o f Current
Business, April 1992; and Jack E. Triplett, “Economic
Theory and BEA’s Alternative Quantity and Price Indexes,”
Survey o f Current Business, April 1992.
Throughout the National Income and Product Ac
counts, but especially in manufacturing, more detailed
data are available in the years of the economic censuses,
usually 5 years apart. The benchmark-years-weighted
quantity index is the (geometric) mean of two fixedweighted indexes— a Laspeyres index, based on prices
of the first benchmark year and a Paasche index, based
on prices of the second. The averaging of Paasche and
Laspeyres indexes yields a “Fisher Ideal” index, which
has among its benefits the quality of “reversibility” : any
two of the benchmark-to-benchmark ratios of quantity,
price, and value suggest the third. The benchm arkyears-weighted gross output series are available for twodigit manufacturing industries from 1977 to 1987, ac
cording to the 1972 SIC.
other materials and business services). The importance of in
termediates first gained prominence in the literature because
of the events of the 1970’s.7 In the period following the OPEC
oil embargo, fuel prices rose almost 150 percent in a 4-year
period (1973-77) and researchers began to suspect that this
price increase was contributing to the emerging slowdown in
productivity growth. Since then, increases in the use of busi
ness services, such as equipment leasing, computer services,
and the use of temporary labor—all of which could have an
important impact on production and employment—have af
fected productivity measurement.
A second principle is that inputs and outputs be defined as
comprehensively as possible without double counting. In sec
tors as broad as those discussed in this article (two-digit sic),
there are inevitably transactions between establishments in
Alternative output measures
Benchmark-years-weighted gross product originating.
This measure was introduced to the National Income and
Product Accounts in 1993 and is available for two-digit
industries in manufacturing for the period 1977 to 1987.
The real gross product originating index and its
fixed-weighted counterpart are obtained by removing
an estimate of real intermediate inputs from an estimate
of real gross output. The use of weights from bench
mark years derives from the fact that data necessary for
annual reweighting of intermediate inputs are not avail
able. Although the total costs of materials are available
annually for m anufacturing industries, m aterials by
type are available only in the benchmark Census of
M anufactures, collected every 5 years. Thus, annual
estimates of gross product originating based entirely
on annual data are not possible.
The index of intermediate inputs for manufacturing in
dustries is obtained through the use of a benchmark-yearsweighted price composite using a wide variety of annual
commodity and service input prices, including BLS pro
ducer prices. Taking advantage of the reversibility of price
and quantity growth in this form of index, quantity growth
is computed as total cost change less price change.
Lastly, an index of real gross product originating is ob
tained by removing real intermediate inputs from real gross
output. The calculation is done in index form using weights
that ensure consistency with the benchm ark-yearsweighted gross output formula. Thus, between benchmark
years, a benchmark-years-weighted index combining real
gross product originating and real intermediate inputs
equals the index of real gross output. See Robert P. Parker,
“Gross Product by Industry, 1977-90,” Survey o f Current
Business, May 1993.
the same sector. It is best to include all inputs—including
raw and semi-finished material inputs along with primary
inputs of labor and capital— in a productivity measure which
is supposed to shed light on trends in industrial efficiency
and applied technology; but it is also important not to in
clude as inputs both a semi-finished good and the inputs
used to produce that semi-finished good. When there are
transactions between producers in the same sector, the avail
able data sources will often reflect such duplication and, to
prevent double-counting, BLS adjusts them.
A third principle which has emerged from the literature
concerns aggregation. Multifactor productivity measures for
broad industrial groups, such as the two-digit manufactur
ing industries discussed in this article and the BLS measure
for the private business sector, necessarily involve substan-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Fixed-weighted gross product originating. These are
the traditional measures of industry gross product avail
able from the U.S. National Income Product Accounts,
first published in the 1960’s. Presently, the series are
available for two-digit industries as well as for durable,
nondurable, and total m anufacturing, for the period
1977 to 1992, although, like the benchm ark-yearsweighted series, estimates for 1977-86 are based on the
1972 SIC.
The Federal Reserve B o a rd ’s Index o f Industrial
Production. The Federal Reserve Board prepares monthly
indexes of industrial production, which are averaged to re
flect annual movements in the index shown. The Board’s
indexes are based on 225 individual series, which are in
turn based either on physical quantities obtained by survey
or on measures of labor or energy inputs. In the latter cases,
output movements are inferred from labor measures from
the BLS establishment survey or estimates of kilowatt hours
from a Federal Reserve Board survey, together with his
toric input-output relationships. Most of the individual se
ries are benchmarked to deflated Census values of produc
tion (some of the physical quantity measures are not). Ag
gregate indexes, such as the total manufacturing one shown
in table 1 are “linked Laspeyres” indexes: weights for ag
gregation are periodically updated and then held constant
for a number of years. The weights used by Federal Re
serve Board for aggregating are based on value-added mea
sures taken from the Census of Manufactures. For a com
plete description of the Federal Reserve Board Index of In
dustrial Production, see Industrial Production 1986 Edi
tion (Washington, DC, Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, 1986).
tial aggregation. For the two-digit measures, outputs of indi
vidual industries are combined into a single measure for the
numerator, while highly diverse inputs are combined for the
denominator; for the private business indexes, the output
measure is a combination of all goods and services purchased
by final users from private industry. Because of the extent to
which aggregation takes place, the method of aggregation is
crucial. It is particularly important that, wherever possible,
aggregation be done according to a weighting procedure that
allows weights to change over time as the relative impor
tance of various inputs and outputs changes.
Alternative output measures. Because many of the issues con
cern the measurement of output, we begin the investigation by
comparing movements in several of the most prominent
M onthly Labor Review
July 1995
15
Measuring productivity growth
values of shipments from the Bureau of the Census, using
composite deflators based, in turn, on five-digit prices from
the BLS producer price program or other sources.
Several observations can be made from the data in table 1.
First, the similarity of Tomqvist and benchmark-years-weighting is apparent from the two gross output indexes. This fol
lows from the fact that both reflect contemporary economic
theory (both are associated with production functions which
are second order approximations to the “true” underlying func
tional form). The Tomqvist aggregate (annual) index is constructed by computing weighted average annual rates of
change, using value share data (averages for each pair of con
secutive years) for weights; and by
“chaining” (multiplying consecutive
Table 1. Alternative output measures for manufacturing, 1958-93
index numbers) into a time series index.
[Indexes, 1987=100]
The benchmark-years-weighted in
Bench
dex
is constructed in two stages. First,
Bench
FixedFederal
mark
mark
Reserve
Fisher Ideal index numbers are com
weighted
Tomqvist
years
Tomqvist
years
Board index
gross
weighted
sectoral
Year
gross
weighted
puted between each successive pair of
of industrial
product
output
output
gross
gross
preselected benchmark years. Then,
output
originating production
product
originating
annual index numbers for the interven
_
_
—
ing years are computed by averaging
30.61
39.3
37.0
1958 ...........
34.5
40.4
44.0
—
1959...........
—
—
two indexes, one constructed using
—
—
—
35.2
44.4
40.8
1960 ...........
weights from the first benchmark year,
35.3
—
—
—
41.1
44.3
1961 ...........
the other using weights from the sec
38.4
—
—
—
43.5
1962...........
47.8
40.7
—
—
—
ond. The benchmark-years-weighted
46.2
50.6
1963...........
43.5
53.8
49.3
1964...........
—
—
—
index is designed to reduce systematic
—
—
—
48.2
58.1
53.1
1965...........
drift which can occur with chained
—
—
—
52.6
62.4
57.3
1966...........
time series and at the same time to take
—
—
—
53.6
59.2
63.6
1967...........
56.6
—
—
—
62.1
66.8
1968 ...........
advantage of more detailed data avail
59.1
63.7
68.9
—
—
1969...........
—
able in benchmark years. As will be
—
—
—
56.4
61.7
65.1
1970...........
discussed later, the Fisher Ideal and the
—
—
—
57.3
63.4
1971 ...........
66.6
Tom qvist procedures are com pu
—
—
—
63.3
3.0
68.8
1972...........
68.9
—
—
—
74.4
78.9
1973 ...........
tationally similar and yield very simi
67.9
77.7
73.5
1974...........
—
—
—
lar results. Thus, estimates of total
—
—
—
61.1
70.5
68.1
1975...........
growth between benchmark years us
67.4
—
—
—
74.4
77.6
1976 ...........
73.3
84.4
78.7
ing the two indexing procedures are
84.0
83.6
80.2
1977...........
77.8
88.0
81.7
88.0
84.6
88.0
1978...........
likely to be similar. Larger differences
80.9
88.8
89.5
83.5
89.2
85.6
1979...........
are more likely in nonbenchmark
78.8
82.6
84.7
78.9
84.7
82.0
1980...........
years, as is seen in the comparison for
80.3
85.0
82.1
82.7
85.1
85.0
1981 ...........
76.6
81.0
79.0
79.9
79.3
80.8
1982 ...........
1983-86.
80.9
83.5
84.7
82.3
82.7
83.4
1983...........
The contrast between the fixed89.3
90.1
89.5
90.1
92.4
1984...........
90.8
w
eighted
and benchm ark-years92.3
91.6
93.4
91.9
91.4
92.1
1985...........
weighted gross product originating
94.3
93.3
92.4
95.2
93.0
94.2
1986 ...........
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1987...........
100.0
series demonstrates the usual rela
—
—
104.7
105.2
104.8
104.6
1988 ...........
tionship
between fixed and moving106.4
106.2
105.4
104.9
—
1989 ...........
—
weighted
aggregates. The disadvan
—
—
105.8
106.1
103.6
104.3
1990...........
—
—
103.8
103.9
tage of any fixed-weighted quantity
102.2
101.3
1991 ...........
108.0
105.3
—
—
107.4
106.8
1992...........
index is that relative expenditures for
112.9
—
1993 ............
—
—
—
—
various products, which indicate the
NOTE:
See box, pages 14-15 for definition of the indexes. Dash indicates data not available.
importance which should be given to
alternatives. Table 1 shows movements in six series in two
main groups, net and gross. (See box, pages 14-15.)
The net output series are the various measures of real gross
product by industry (sometimes called gross product origi
nating, or GPO) in manufacturing from the U.S. National
Income and Product Accounts.8 Measures of net output re
flect value-added concepts—they represent the real contribution of capital and labor in converting intermediate inputs
into finished products. The gross measures, by contrast, re
flect deliveries of the finished products. Both net and gross
measures, except for the Federal Reserve Board’s Index of
Industrial Production, are based on deflation of four-digit
16
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
each item in aggregation, change over time. The fixedweighted aggregate therefore, while roughly appropriate for
years close to the base year, may be subject to greater error
for years further removed from the base year, the degree, de
pending on changes in relative expenditures due to relative
price change or other reasons.
Because of changes in relative prices in manufacturing at
tributable largely to the rapidly declining prices of computers
and peripheral equipment, differences are substantial between
manufacturing aggregate indexes prepared using fixed weights
and moving weights. For years before the 1987 National In
come and Product Accounts base year, the use of fixed weights
based on 1987 prices understates the growth in the aggregate
because the rapid growth in the output of the computer indus
try is weighted, not by the price of computers in those years, but
by weights based on the lower 1987 price. Similarly, the fixedweighted aggregate for years after 1987 overstates aggregate
growth because the 1987 weight is based on a price greater
than actual prices in the later years.9
has certain advantages and disadvantages. An advantage is
that the relation between industry and aggregate (total
economy) measures is straightforward and simple: In the
fixed-weighted, constant-dollar case for example, the sum
of real (constant-dollar) gross product originating for all in
dustries is equal to real (constant-dollar) gross domestic
product; and the index of aggregate productivity is a
weighted average of industry indexes, where the weights are
fixed and based on industry gross product originating in the
price index base year.
However, the value-added specification also carries with
it a distinct drawback which has led to the development of
the k l e m s measures for industries reported in this article.
The existence of the value-added function requires that the
production of gross output is characterized by value-added
“separability,” as follows:
“N et” output productivity measures. BLS publishes several
productivity series based on “net” output. Among these pro
ductivity measures are the multifactor (K-L) measures for the
aggregates— the private business sector and the private non
farm business sector—and the quarterly labor productivity
series for business, nonfarm business, manufacturing, and
nonfinancial corporations. All compare real gross product
originating in the sector to inputs of labor or capital and la
bor together.
The real gross product originating measures for the eco
nomic aggregates are based on data provided by the Bureau
of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, most
of which are published with the U.S. National Income and
Product Accounts. Gross product originating represents the
contribution of each industry or sector to gross domestic pro
duct. Equivalent to the more familiar concept of value-added,
gross product originating is equal to gross output (sales or
receipts and other income, plus inventory change) minus in
termediate inputs (goods and service inputs purchased from
other domestic industries and foreign sources). Gross prod
uct originating represents, therefore, the value that is added,
by the application of capital and labor, to intermediate inputs
in converting those inputs to finished products; productivity
based on a value-added output measure is thus limited to capi
tal and labor as inputs. A productivity measure based on “net”
output concepts is thus in distinct contrast to the “gross” and
“sectoral” definitions of output underlying both the KLEMS
measures reported here and the BLS industry labor produc
tivity measures reported elsewhere, for which output is de
fined in terms of finished products purchased by consumers.
The use of gross product originating for a system of pro
ductivity accounts—both aggregate and industry measures—
In this specification, gross output is defined in terms of a
separable value-added subfunction (V) which includes tech
nology, and intermediate inputs (X). Important implications
of this specification are that intermediate inputs cannot be
the source of productivity growth; that, if technical change
is “augmenting,” that is, associated with changed usage of
particular inputs, it can augment only capital and labor; and
that developments in intermediate inputs, for example, price
change, cannot influence the relative use of capital and la
bor. In short, intermediate inputs are excluded from consid
eration in the value-added model on the basis of the assump
tion that they are insignificant to the analysis of productiv
ity growth.10
The predominance of intermediate inputs in the cost struc
ture of most manufacturing industries suggests that inter
mediates should not be ignored in the analysis of technical
change. For the two-digit industries discussed in this ar
ticle, costs of material and business service inputs together
represent 40 percent to 80 percent of all costs. Developments
such as the previously mentioned price increases in energy
and other materials in the 1970’s and the growth of service
inputs such as computer services and temporary labor are
clearly sufficient to affect production decisions. In addition,
many modern manufacturing productivity enhancement
techniques are aimed at improving the efficiency with which
both intermediate inputs and primary inputs are used. Justin-time production, statistical process control, computeraided design and manufacturing, and many other recent de
velopments in production technique, reduce error rates and
thus cut down on substandard, rejected production. In so
doing, they reduce the wastage of materials as well as work
ers’ time. The full benefits of such improvements can only
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Y = f[V(K,L,t),X].
M onthly Labor Review
July 1995
17
Measuring productivity growth
be measured with a productivity index which takes into ac
count all inputs.
In summarizing the discussion of value-added, it is im
portant to note that for large segments of the U.S. economy
such as private business as a whole, intermediates are a rela
tively small part of the input structure and can be ignored.11
But for industries, the value-added specification of output
rests on a restrictive version of production theory and for
this reason, the gross output specification is generally pre
ferred for industry productivity measurement.
Intrasector transactions. When one establishment provides
materials used by other establishments in the same industry,
a form of double counting occurs in the data on which KLEMS
multifactor measures are based: summing the unadjusted
data for all the establishments in the industry gives a total
input measure which includes both the intrasector-sector
transaction and the inputs required to produce it; the output
m easure based on unadjusted data includes both the
intrasector-sector transaction and the goods made from it
and sold to consumers outside the sector.
This double counting carries with it at least two potential
hazards for productivity measurement. The first of these is
that double counting tends to obscure the evidence of tech
nological change actually occurring in industries. If the
intrasector-sector transaction were not removed, it would
appear identically in both the numerator and the denomina
tor of the productivity ratio; with identical components in
cluded as both input and output, change in productivity is
always closer to zero than if that component is removed.
Another consideration is the possibility that the degree of
integration in the data on which the measures are based
might change over time, which would introduce a bias to
productivity growth trends. Over a long period (such as that
covered by the data presented in this article), changes in the
degree of integration reported to the Census Bureau and
therefore expressed in the data are bound to occur. For ex
ample, if a plant reporting to the census as one plant in one
year is divided into two plants the next year, with all output
of one consumed by the other, the result would be increases
in both output and material input reported to the Census
Bureau. In this case, the addition of equal quantities to both
output and input would result in a tendency toward zero in
the rate of change in the output/materials ratio and in the
growth rate of multifactor productivity, notwithstanding any
actual change in production, efficiency, technology, and so
forth.
The need to avoid the double counting of internal transac
tions has long been recognized.12 This problem is addressed
in the b l s productivity measures for major economic aggre
gates, such as for the business sector as a whole, by the means
of their definition: real aggregate output is defined as sales
18
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
to final consumers (governments, investors, households, and
net exports), and input includes only capital and labor. Thus,
“intermediate” transactions— sales from one producer to
another—are included in neither the output measure nor in
put and double counting is avoided.
For industries, the same goal is achieved by subtracting
from output, and from intermediates, those intermediates
purchased from other establishments within the industry be
ing studied, while leaving in purchases from outside the in
dustry or sector. This removal yields what has come to be
called “sector” input and output measures, for which output
is defined as deliveries to consumers outside the sector (plus
inventory change), and material inputs as all consumed items
obtained from outside the sector.13
It is important to note that the removal of intrasector trans
actions implies a notion of output which is dependent on the
level of industry or sectoral aggregation under consideration.
That is, as the sector size becomes larger, the proportion of
all transactions which are intrasector tends to rise, and the
ratio of intermediate inputs to value-added tends to fall.
The index number issue. In any construction of data for
large economic groups, such as the productivity measures
for two-digit industries discussed in this article, or the mul
tifactor measures for the total business sector done by b l s
and reported elsewhere, the means of aggregation is a fun
damental issue.
Aggregation methods for inputs and outputs for produc
tivity measurement were developed by Dale Jorgenson and
Zvi Griliches, using the economic theory of the firm.14It is
easiest to explain their procedure for input aggregation. A
production function is assumed:
Y = f( x , x , ... x , t)
1
2
n
where f is the technologically maximum amount of output,
T, which can be made from a set of inputs xt at time t. Multi
factor productivity is identified with a shift in / over time.
The multifactor productivity growth rate is defined as the
percent increase in Y which can be obtained from a given set
of inputs in one year. Because input quantities are changing
contemporaneously with output, a practical measurement
scheme must allow for changes in the input mix. To allow
for input change, the productivity ratio must compare the
output growth rate to a weighted average o f the input growth
rates.15 By assuming firms buy input factors in competitive
markets, the appropriate weights are the cost shares16 of the
respective inputs at the point in time at which growth rates
are being aggregated.
Once growth rates have been calculated for discrete
periods (usually years) the Jorgenson-Griliches procedure
“chains” the growth rates into an index number time series.
Each period’s index number is arrived at by multiplying the
previous period’s index number by the growth rate between
the two periods. The theory associated with this procedure
has been sharpened over the years to address such issues as
what problems can arise in chaining multifactor productivity
growth rates when prices are changing17 and what conditions
must be met to combine subgroups of inputs.18 However, the
key points are to aggregate inputs in terms of growth rates
and to weight with contemporaneous cost shares.
BLS makes use of annually chained Tomqvist index num
bers in aggregating together major input classes (capital with
labor and capital with labor and intermediates) in all of its
multifactor productivity measures. In addition, the chained
Tomqvist procedure is used for aggregating together subcat
egories of capital and of intermediates. In 1994, BLS intro
duced the procedure for aggregating subcategories of labor.19
Theory also recommends the use of growth rates and con
temporaneous weights for aggregating outputs. W. Erwin
Diewert discussed alternative ways to generalize a produc
tion function to describe tradeoffs faced by a multiproduct
firm.20 He concluded that growth rates of various outputs
should be weighted with their respective shares in the nomi
nal value of output, b l s has used annually chained Tomqvist
index numbers to aggregate outputs in its industry multifac
tor productivity measures since their inception. However,
until recently, b l s used constant, dollar output measures
(from the Bureau of Economic Analysis) in its major sector
multifactor productivity measures.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis subsequently made
available annually chained Fisher Ideal index measures of
output for private business and private nonfarm business and
BLS began using these as its main measures of output for
major sector multifactor productivity in 1994.21
The issue of aggregation again arises because there are
many measures available for manufacturing. As part of the
National Income and Product Accounts, the Bureau of Eco
nomic Analysis now prepares three types of output aggre
gates: the traditional, fixed-weighted constant-dollar esti
mates of both gross output and gross product originating;
the chain-weighted Fisher Ideal indexes; and the benchmarkyears-weighted indexes, b l s has, for many years, used the
Tomqvist method for aggregation in its multifactor produc
tivity program, a practice which continues in the two-digit
manufacturing measures reported on in this article.
The Fisher Ideal, the Tomqvist, and the benchmark-yearsweighted indexes are all from a class of aggregating proce
dures in which the weights used in averaging are based on
values or costs and are allowed to change through time. In
1976, Diewert showed that only a small class of index num
bers, which he named “superlative,” were consistent with a
flexible functional form.22 In connection with modem pro
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ductivity analysis, a flexible form of production function is
one which places few restrictions on the elasticities of sub
stitution among the inputs being aggregated. The Tomqvist
and Fisher Ideal indexes are two of the superlative indexes;
aggregation methods which use fixed weights, for example,
the summation of deflated dollar values traditionally used in
the National Income and Product Accounts, are consistent
with a specific, but rather restrictive production function.
While there has been a certain amount of debate about the
relative merits of Tomqvist and Fisher Ideal indexes, Diewert
concluded that neither has any compelling theoretical ad
vantage and suggested that users choose on practical
grounds. Nor is there much difference practically, as data on
manufacturing gross output shows. (See table 2.) The
Tomqvist manufacturing index presented in table 2 is the
Tomqvist gross output chain index, constructed from an
nual growth rates, also shown in table 1; these growth rates
are calculated using weights which are computed as geo
metric averages of current-value weights taken from each of
the 2 years over which growth is being measured.
Nevertheless, the two measures differ in certain ways
which may make either preferable to a given user. The Fisher
Ideal has the quality of being based on two computationally
simple and familiar indexes—the Paasche and Laspeyres—
as well as the quality of “reversibility” (discussed earlier).
The National Income and Product Accounts have tradition
ally been based on these two indexes—outputs have been
fixed-weighted (Laspeyres) aggregates and prices currentweighted (Paasche) indexes. The Fisher Ideal quantity in
dex, which is the geom etric average of Paasche and
Laspeyres quantity indexes, is easily understood by users of
the National Income and Product Accounts and for this rea
son, the Bureau of Economic Analysis has chosen to empha
size the chain index based on the Fisher Ideal procedure as a
new alternative gross domestic product measure published
as part of the National Income and Product Accounts.
The Tomqvist index, on the other hand, has been widely
used in productivity measurement since the 1970’s, and is
probably more familiar to productivity analysts. For that rea
son, it is used throughout the manufacturing multifactor pro
ductivity measurement program and presented in this ar
ticle.
It is worthwhile to summarize the discussion of the defi
nition of BLS industry multifactor productivity measures.
First, in reference to the two-digit and total manufacturing
data underlying this study, we use the term “sectoral output”
to refer to output measures because they can be classified
neither as gross output nor as value-added. In these, output
is measured in terms of gross output—that is, as the real
value of production—except that intra-industry sales are re
moved from the industry’s output. Correspondingly, intra
industry purchases of materials are left out of the materials
M onthly Labor Review
July 1995
19
Measuring productivity growth
Ittlâ S a
Tornavist a n d Fishe Id e a l indexes of
m anufacturing gro ss output, 1949-92
[1987=100]
Year
Tomqvist
Fisher Ideal
1949........................................
1950 ........................................
1951 ........................................
1952 ........................................
1953 ........................................
1954........................................
1955 ........................................
29.435
33.110
35.081
36.795
40.411
37.448
41.814
29.437
33.114
35.085
36.799
40.417
37.452
41.818
1956 ........................................
1957........................................
1958 ........................................
1959 ........................................
1960........................................
1961 ........................................
1962 ........................................
1963........................................
1964........................................
1965........................................
42.276
42.211
39.315
44.020
44.443
44.273
47.822
50.563
53.798
58.137
42.280
42.215
39.318
44.023
44.445
44.276
47.825
50.566
53.801
58.141
1966........................................
1967........................................
1968........................................
1969........................................
1970........................................
1971 ........................................
1972 ........................................
1973 ........................................
1974........................................
1975 ........................................
62.411
63.622
66.833
68.887
65.112
66.630
72.965
78.923
77.660
70.493
62.415
63.626
66.837
68.891
65.115
66.634
72.970
78.925
77.667
70.494
1976 ........................................
1977........................................
1978........................................
1979........................................
1980 ........................................
1981 ........................................
1982........................................
1983 ........................................
1984........................................
1985 ........................................
77.587
83.566
87.978
89.156
84.694
85.024
79.883
83.418
90.767
91.364
77.588
83.567
87.979
89.157
84.693
85.023
79.879
83.413
90.762
91.360
1986 ........................................
1987........................................
1988 ........................................
1989........................................
1990........................................
1991 ........................................
1992........................................
93.025
100.000
104.816
104.867
103.597
101.282
107.382
93.025
100.000
104.817
104.867
103.598
101.283
107.393
measure, while interindustry purchases are included. There
are several reasons for this. First, removing intra-industry
sales eliminates a degree of double counting. Inputs of mate
rials produced and consumed in the same sector are already
represented by the inputs used to make them. Counting both
the intrasector transaction and the inputs that they embody
tends to give an exaggerated importance to these inputs.
Also, because these transactions are shown in both the nu
merator and denominator of a productivity ratio, productiv
ity change is artificially reduced when intra-industry trans
actions are not removed.
Second, especially in any large aggregate such as the twodigit manufacturing sector measures, it is important to use
aggregation methods which employ current, value- or cost-
20
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
based share weights. The Tomqvist index is used here be
cause of its traditional use in productivity analysis and be
cause of its use of cost or value shares for both periods over
which growth is measured. There are no significant differ
ences between Tomqvist and Fisher Ideal indexes in the vari
ous productivity data sets we have worked with, however,
and we considered them interchangeable.
Last, it is important to consider all inputs actually used in
production in constructing data which is supposed to reflect
improvements in industrial efficiency. Intermediate inputs—
fuels, raw materials and semi-finished component inputs,
and business services—represent a large part of the cost
structure of manufacturing industries and developments in
these inputs (for example business services, including those
related to computers, and temporary labor) have clearly been
powerful forces in shaping production.
Net output discontinued. In a July 1994 news release, b l s
stopped showing a net output multifactor productivity measure
for manufacturing in its major sector news release.23There were
several reasons for discontinuing this practice. One reason was
that b l s began using the Fisher output measures developed by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis for the private business and
private nonfarm business multifactor productivity measures at
that time. Although a comparable, moving-weighted measure
(the benchmark-years-weighted index) is available for manu
facturing in the 1977-86 period, for years after 1987, the only
available manufacturing net output index is fixed-weighted.
Because alternative output measures were unavailable after
1987, the manufacturing numbers would not have been com
parable with the other sectors.
A second reason for discontinuing the manufacturing net
output multifactor productivity measures in 1994 was that it
was difficult to explain to users of our data why we had two
multifactor productivity measures for U.S. manufacturing.
The rationale for having the two measures had been that one
was more comparable to the net output for business and non
farm business, while the other was more comparable to the
sectoral output measures for two-digit manufacturing indus
tries. Further, we had recently concluded that the role of
manufacturing multifactor productivity in nonfarm business
multifactor productivity is best assessed by using Domar’s
approach.24 This involves using the sectoral output measure
for manufacturing.
A final reason for not showing a net output multifactor
productivity measure is that b l s introduced measures of
labor composition for private business and private non
farm business into the calculation of multifactor produc
tivity in the July 1994 release. Because similar measures
are as yet unavailable for manufacturing, this would have
represented another conceptual difference between the
multifactor productivity measures for major sectors pre-
viously published in a news release.25
In light of the foregoing discussion, the main b l s mea
sure of multifactor productivity in manufacturing will use
the sectoral measure of output. We plan to resume the pre
sentation of manufacturing data in our news releases on
major sector multifactor productivity. However, because of
differences in concept and differences in the timing of data
availability, b l s will present manufacturing multifactor pro
ductivity in a separate section which stresses these differ
ences and which briefly discusses how the manufacturing
numbers relate to the more aggregate measures.
b l s will continue to maintain a set of multifactor produc
tivity measures which compare net output to capital and la
bor inputs for U.S. manufacturing. These will be used for
international comparisons, because the information needed
to construct sectoral output and intermediate inputs for other
countries is generally difficult to obtain. These measures are
presented in this issue in the article by Wolodar Lysko.
Long-term trends in productivity
In any discussion of productivity growth trends, the produc
tivity slowdown, which commenced some time in the 1970’s,
and the degree to which we have emerged from it, are topics
that arise. Table 3 shows multifactor productivity growth
rates for selected periods and illustrates this general slowing
of productivity growth in recent years. Using 1973, a busi
ness cycle peak year, to delineate early and late periods and
comparing 1949-73 with 1973-92, most industries exhib
I
m h
M M
ited some degree of slowdown. In total manufacturing, the
growth rate dropped from 1.8 to 0.8 percent per year; among
the 19 industries, growth slowed by some degree in all but
five—apparel, leather and leather products, industrial and
commercial products and computer equipment, electrical and
electronic equipment, and instruments. In most other indus
tries, growth slowed substantially, by at least 0.3 percentage
points.
Table 3 also illustrates the problems presented by multifac
tor productivity performance in the 1973-79 period in analyz
ing the productivity slowdown. The multifactor productivity
level declined in manufacturing as a whole by a total of 0.6
percent over this 6-year period—an average annual decline of
0.1 percent. While there are several single-recession years in
which multifactor productivity declined, there is no other in
stance of a multi-year decline in multifactor productivity in
manufacturing since the beginning of the series in 1949.
Whether the 1973-79 performance was due to energy shocks,
the double-digit inflation that followed, or to an actual slowing
of innovation, the period seems to be uniquely dismal.
Extension of the data to 1992 allows average growth rates
for the period beginning with the 1979 business cycle peak
and ending in 1992 to be computed and these averages, also
shown in table 3, might be more representative of current
conditions and more appropriate for comparison with the
early years. These averages suggest that manufacturing pro
ductivity growth has regained some, although not all, of the
pace of the early postwar period. For manufacturing as a
whole, the average annual growth after 1979 in multifactor
Multifactor productivity growth in U.S. m anufacturing, selected periods, 1949-92
[Compound average annual growth rates]
Industry
1949-92
Total manufacturing......................................................
1.3
Nondurable manufacturing............................................
Food and kindred products.......................................
Textile mill products.................................................
Apparel and related products.......................................
Paper and allied products............................................
Printing and publishing...............................................
Chemicals and allied products.....................................
Petroleum refining and related industries....................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products..............
Leather and leather products.......................................
Durable goods...........................................................
Lumber and wood products........................................
Furniture and fixtures...................................................
Stone, clay, glass and concrete products...................
Primary metal industries..............................................
Fabricated metal products...........................................
Industrial and commercial products, and
computer equipment.................................................
Electrical and electronic equipment.............................
Transportation equipment............................................
Measuring, analyzing, and controlling........................
instruments...............................................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing......................................
.9
.8
1.9
1.1
.9
.0
1.4
.3
1.2
.2
1.5
1.0
.5
.6
.2
.6
1.7
2.3
1.0
1.9
.9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1949-73
1973-92
1973-79
1979-92
1.8
0.8
-0.1
1.2
1.6
1.0
2.1
1.0
1.5
.5
2.8
.8
1.3
.0
1.6
1.4
.7
1.0
.4
.9
.1
.5
1.6
1.3
.1
-.8
-.3
-.4
1.0
.4
1.3
.6
.3
.1
.0
.4
-.3
2.1
2.1
1.9
-.9
-.3
-1.7
-.4
-1.5
-.8
.0
.0
.2
-1.1
-1.9
-.6
.3
.6
1.3
1.0
.6
1.0
.3
-.4
2.2
.9
1.9
.9
.3
.6
.9
.8
1.0
2.2
1.6
2.7
2.6
.2
1.2
1.9
-.3
3.3
2.9
.5
1.8
1.5
2.0
.2
2.0
-.8
2.0
.7
M onthly Labor Review
July 1995
21
Measuring productivity growth
productivity was 1.2 percent per year, compared with the
1949-73 rate of 1.8 percent.
Multifactor productivity growth varies substantially across
industries, both in terms of total postwar growth and in the
pattern of growth through subperiods. At the high end of the
growth spectrum for the entire 1949-92 period are electrical
and electronic equipment (2.3 percent per year), textile mills
(1.9 percent), industrial and commercial machinery and com
puter equipment (1.7 percent), and measuring, analyzing, and
controlling instruments (1.9 percent). Primary metals, and
leather and leather products, with average growth rates of 0.2
percent, and printing and publishing (no growth) were at the
other end.
Since 1979, the leaders have been industrial and commer
cial machinery and computer equipment (3.3 percent per year),
electrical and electronic equipment (2.9), rubber and miscel
laneous plastics products (2.2), and measuring, analyzing, and
controlling instruments (2.0). The industries in which pro
ductivity grew fastest in the early period were not always the
same ones in which it has grown fastest more recently. Using
1949-73 to represent the early period and 1979-92 for the
late, we find that only textile mill products, electrical and elec-
C h art 1.
tronic products, and measuring, analyzing, and controlling
instruments were in the top third in both periods.
Thus, even though growth rates for manufacturing as a
whole were similar in the two periods 1949-73 and 197992, the sources of growth were rather different. Table 3
shows that, on average, multifactor productivity grew 1.8
percent per year in 1949-73 and 1.2 percent in 1979-92 in
total manufacturing. In the early period, growth rates in
durable and nondurable groups had been the same (1.6 per
cent), thus contributing to the total in roughly equal pro
portions. In the later period, however, multifactor produc
tivity growth in nondurable manufacturing declined almost
to nil; the source of manufacturing multifactor productiv
ity growth in the later period thus was growth in durable
industries, especially industrial and commercial products,
and computer equipment and electrical and electronic
equipment. Table 4, which shows the growth in inputs, in
output, and in multifactor productivity for early and late
periods, sheds some light on the improvement in produc
tivity growth over the last few years. The growth rate in
durable goods output as a whole was more than twice the
rate evidenced before 1979; there was a substantial im-
Output, input, and multifactor productivity indexes, 1949-92
(1949=100)
Index
400
Index
350
300
250
200
150
100
22
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
■ "■ ■ ■ ■
Input, output, and multifactor productivity growth, 1949-92 selected period S
[Compound average annual growth rates]
Intermediate
inputs
All
inputs
Multifactor
productivity
Industry
Capital
Total manufacturing
1949-73 ..................................................................
1973-79 ..................................................................
1979-92 ..................................................................
4.1
4.6
3.6
1.4
.3
-.9
2.6
4.1
.7
2.3
2.5
.6
1.8
-.1
1.2
4.1
2.4
1.7
Nondurable goods
1949-73 ..........................................................
1973-79 ..............................................................
1979-92 .............................................................
3.3
4.4
3.8
.7
-.2
-.2
2.5
3.9
1.2
2.0
2.7
1.3
1.5
-.3
.3
3.5
2.4
1.5
Food and kindred products
1949-73 ................................................................
1973-79 ..................................................................
1979-92 ..................................................................
1.5
3.5
2.6
-.4
-.2
-.2
1.9
3.3
1.5
1.4
2.7
1.3
1.0
.2
.6
2.4
3.0
2.0
Textile mill products
1949-73 ............................................................
1973-79 ............................................................
1979-92 .........................................................
1.2
1.2
.2
-.4
-2.4
-1.9
4.2
1.3
.5
1.9
-.1
-.3
2.1
2.1
1.3
4.0
2.0
1.0
Apparel and related products
1949-73 .............................................................
1973-79 .................................................................
1979-92 ..................................................................
4.2
2.9
.5
.8
-1.8
-1.5
2.5
-1.4
.8
1.9
-1.3
.3
1.0
1.9
1.0
2.9
.6
1.3
Paper and allied products...........................................
1949-73 ...............................................................
1973-79 .................................................................
1979-92 ..................................................................
3.8
5.5
3.4
1.8
-.4
.1
4.2
3.9
.5
3.3
2.7
1.3
1.5
-.9
.5
4.8
1.8
1.9
Printing and publishing
1949-73 ...........................................................
1973-79 ..........................................................
1979-92 ..............................................................
4.3
3.4
5.5
1.4
1.6
2.0
4.4
3.4
4.3
2.9
2.6
3.5
.5
-.3
.0
3.5
2.3
2.4
Chemicals and allied products
1949-73 ........................................................
1973-79 ...............................................................
1979-92 .......................................................
4.1
6.2
3.0
2.1
.9
.0
4.8
4.3
1.0
3.8
3.7
1.2
2.8
-1.7
.3
6.7
2.0
1.5
Petroleum refining and related industries
1949-73 .................................................
1973-79 ...................................................
1979-92 ........................................................
3.3
3.3
8.9
-.3
1.6
-2.1
3.9
2.8
-1.0
3.3
2.7
.6
.8
-.4
-.4
4.1
2.3
.2
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
1949-73 ......................................................
1973-79 ...............................................................
1979-92 ................................................................
6.3
5.4
2.9
3.8
4.6
.7
5.8
2.9
1.0
5.1
2.6
1.3
1.3
-1.5
2.2
6.5
1.1
3.5
Leather and leather products
1949-73 ..................................................................
1973-79 .......................................................
1979-92 ..........................................................
1.0
1.2
.2
-1.3
-2.6
-5.1
2.3
-1.1
-4.3
.5
-1.6
-3.7
.0
-.8
.9
.5
-2.4
-2.8
Durable goods
1949-73 ...................................................
1973-79 ..........................................................
1979-92 ..................................................................
4.8
4.6
3.4
2.0
.7
-1.4
4.0
3.4
.0
3.1
2.2
.0
1.6
.0
1.9
4.8
2.2
1.8
Lumber and wood products
1949-73 ..................................................................
1973-79 ...............................................................
1979-92 ..................................................................
3.3
4.7
-.7
.0
.0
-.8
3.7
.7
1.8
2.0
1.1
.4
1.4
.0
.9
3.3
1.0
1.3
Furniture and fixtures
1949-73 ..................................................................
1973-79 ..................................................................
1979-92 ..................................................................
3.7
4.0
3.0
1.9
-.9
.2
4.0
1.3
1.6
3.2
.7
1.5
.7
.2
.3
3.9
.9
1.8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Labor
M onthly Labor Review
Output
July 1995
23
Measuring productivity growth
I mmmU
Continued—Input, output, and multifactor productivity growth, 1949-92 selected periods
[Compound average annual growth rates]
Labor
Inter
mediate
All
Inputs
Stone, clay, glass and concrete products
1949-73 ........................................................................
1973-79 ........................................................................
1979-92 ........................................................................
3.2
4.6
2.1
1.4
-.5
-1.8
4.3
2.8
-1.2
3.0
1.7
-1.1
1.0
-1.1
.6
4.0
.6
-.4
Primary metal industries
1949-73 ........................................................................
1973-79 ........................................................................
1979-92 ........................................................................
3.9
2.5
-.5
.9
-.7
-4.1
3.7
1.4
-2.2
2.7
.9
-2.6
.4
-1.9
.9
3.1
-1.0
-1.8
Fabricated metal products
1949-73 ........................................................................
1973-79 ........................................................................
1979-92 ........................................................................
4.7
4.5
1.4
2.5
.1
-1.7
4.2
1.1
-.8
3.6
1.0
-.9
.9
-.6
.8
4.5
.4
-.1
Industrial and commercial products..................................
and computer equipment
1949-73 ........................................................................
1973-79 ........................................................................
1979-92 ........................................................................
4.3
6.5
5.3
2.5
2.2
-1.8
4.9
3.4
.3
3.8
3.2
.0
1.0
1.2
3.3
4.8
4.5
3.3
Electrical and electronic equipment
1949-73 ........................................................................
1973-79 ........................................................................
1979-92 ........................................................................
6.4
6.0
6.4
3.6
.8
-1.0
4.7
3.4
1.9
4.4
2.4
1.2
2.2
1.9
-2.9
6.7
4.3
4.1
Transportation equipment
1949-73 ........................................................................
1973-79 ........................................................................
1979-92 ........................................................................
5.6
2.9
3.2
2.0
.7
-.8
3.8
2.7
.6
3.4
1.9
.4
1.6
-.3
.5
5.0
1.6
.9
Measuring,
1949-73
1973-79
1979-92
analyzing, and controlling instruments
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
6.8
6.5
7.9
3.3
2.4
-.6
6.9
6.7
3.3
5.1
4.7
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
7.0
6.8
3.9
Miscellaneous manufacturing
1949-73 ........................................................................
1973-79 ........................................................................
1979-92 ........................................................................
4.0
3.7
1.5
.5
-.2
-.7
3.7
1.3
.5
2.4
1.0
.2
1.5
-.8
.7
4.0
.2
.9
provement in output growth rates in all durable industries
(led by industrial and commercial products, and computer
equipment). Chart 1 (page 22) shows the acceleration of
multifactor productivity growth coinciding with the rapid
growth in output which commenced around 1983.
Productivity’s effect on prices
Multifactor productivity represents the difference between
the growth of output and the growth of a composite of all
inputs and therefore represents the extent to which output
may grow beyond the increased use of scarce inputs. Multi
factor productivity also represents the difference between
output price change and the change in a composite price
for all inputs. Multifactor productivity is the residual in the
relationship between output and inputs and, identically, it
is the residual in the relation between output and input
24
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
Multifactor
productivity
Output
inputs
Capital
Industry
prices. It is in this connection that productivity takes on
a particular significance in the present, highly competi
tive manufacturing environment: productivity growth rep
resents the means by which a competitive position may be
enhanced in the absence of input price reductions; the
means by which the effects of input price increases may be
mitigated; or the means by-which payments to labor and
to the owners o f capital may rise w ithout increasing
price.26
Table 5 shows average movements in input prices, mul
tifactor productivity, and output price in selected postwar
periods. The im portance o f m ultifactor productivity
growth in offsetting the effects of input price increases is
suggested in this table. Averages for three periods are shown,
and special attention should be given to the contrasts be
tween the early and late periods and the 1973-79 years. It
was during the mid-1970’s when the economy suffered a
simultaneous increase in input price growth rates and a
U ä ä ilä l
Growth rates of input prices, multifactor productivity, and output price in manufacturing industries, selected
periods, 1949-92
[Compound average annual growth rates]
Capital
Labor
Intermediate
inputs
All
inputs
Total manufacturing (SIC 20-39)
1949-73 ...............................................
1973-79 ............................................
1979-92 ..........................................
2.0
4.9
2.2
5.4
9.9
5.4
3.1
10.6
3.2
3.9
9.5
4.0
1.8
-.1
1.2
2.1
9.6
2.8
Nondurable goods (SIC 20-23, 26-31)
1949-73 ...........................................
1973-79 ..............................................
1979-92 ............................................
2.3
7.3
3.1
5.1
9.8
5.6
2.7
11.3
2.2
3.4
10.4
3.3
1.6
-.3
.3
1.8
10.7
3.0
Food and kindred products (SIC 20)
1949-73 ............................................
1973-79 ........................................
1979-92 ..........................................
2.2
8.2
7.3
5.4
9.6
5.1
2.7
6.8
2.0
3.2
7.3
3.0
1.0
.2
.6
2.2
7.1
2.4
Textile mill products (SIC 22)
1949-73 .......................................
1973-79 ...........................................
1979-92 ................................................
1.6
6.2
5.7
4.5
8.2
5.3
1.4
6.5
3.0
2.7
7.1
4.1
2.1
.1
1.3
.6
4.9
2.7
Apparel and related products (SIC 23)
1949-73 ..............................................
1973-79 ................................................
1979-92 .................................................
.7
8.8
5.8
4.1
8.7
4.7
1.0
6.8
3.3
2.2
7.7
4.1
1.0
1.9
1.0
1.2
5.7
3.1
Paper and allied products (SIC 26)
1949-73 ...............................................
1973-79 .........................................................
1979-92 .......................................................
2.7
2.9
3.4
5.4
10.7
5.5
2.9
10.5
4.2
3.7
9.3
4.4
1.5
-.9
.6
2.2
10.3
3.8
Printing and publishing (SIC 27)
1949-73 .............................................
1973-79 ..........................................
1979-92 ...........................................
2.4
6.9
3.0
4.6
9.1
5.2
2.6
8.6
3.6
3.5
8.6
4.2
.5
-.3
-1.0
Chemicals and allied products (SIC 28)
1949-73 ........................................
1973-79 .......................................
1979-92 .............................................
2.7
3.1
4.7
5.7
10.5
6.3
2.5
12.6
3.1
3.5
10.1
4.3
2.8
-1.7
.3
.7
12.0
4.0
1.3
23.7
-13.3
5.1
12.7
4.5
2.2
24.7
.5
2.5
23.6
-.3
.8
-.4
-.4
1.6
24.1
.1
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products (SIC 30)
1949-73 .......................................
1973-79 ...........................................
1979-92 ..........................................
3.4
-.7
5.8
4.8
8.2
5.4
1.9
10.5
5.0
3.1
8.7
5.2
1.3
-1.5
2.2
1.7
10.4
3.0
Leather and leather products (SIC 31)
1949-73 .........................................
1973-79 ..........................................
1979-92 ...........................................
2.1
9.7
6.7
4.5
7.5
4.6
.5
9.6
3.1
2.6
8.8
4.3
.0
-.8
.9
2.5
9.7
3.3
Durable goods (SIC 24, 25, 32-39)
1949-73 ...........................................
1973-79 ................................................
1979-92 ........................................
1.8
2.8
.9
5.5
9.8
5.4
3.1
9.6
4.6
4.1
8.8
4.6
1.6
.0
1.9
2.5
8.8
2.6
Lumber and wood products (SIC 24)
1949-73 ..........................................
1973-79 ...............................................
1979-92 ................................................
4.2
6.0
2.2
5.9
9.2
5.0
3.1
9.8
2.8
4.5
8.9
3.5
1.4
-.2
.9
3.1
9.0
2.6
Furniture and fixtures (SIC 25)
1949-73 ......................................
1973-79 ........................................
1979-92 ...............................................
1.2
5.0
3.6
4.6
7.6
5.6
2.6
8.9
3.5
3.2
8.2
4.2
.7
.2
.3
2.5
8.0
3.9
Industry
Petroleum refining and related industries (SIC 29)
1949-73 .............................................
1973-79 ...............................................
1979-92 ....................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Multifactor
productivity
M onthly Labor Review
Output
3.01
8.9
5.3
July 1995
25
Measuring productivity growth
Table 5.
Continued—Growth rates of input prices, muitifactor productivity, and output price in manufacturing industries,
selected periods, 1949-92
[Compound average annual growth rates]
Capital
Labor
Inter
mediate
inputs
All
inputs
Stone, clay, glass and concrete products (SIC 32)
1949-73 .......................................................................
1973-79 .......................................................................
1979-92 .......................................................................
3.0
3.1
-1.1
5.4
10.0
5.0
2.6
10.6
3.6
3.8
9.4
3.7
1.0
-1.1
.6
2.7
10.6
3.1
Primary metal industries (SIC 33)
1949-73 .......................................................................
1973-79 .......................................................................
1979-92 .......................................................................
1.7
5.3
-1.9
5.8
11.1
4.6
2.9
11.4
3.4
3.7
10.5
3.3
.4
-1.9
.9
3.3
12.6
2.4
Fabricated metal products (SIC 34)
1949-73 .......................................................................
1973-79 .......................................................................
1979-92 .......................................................................
2.4
7.7
3.2
4.9
9.6
4.7
3.2
10.9
3.6
3.8
10.2
4.0
.9
-.6
.8
2.9
10.9
3.1
Industrial and commercial products, and computer
equipment (SIC 35)
1949-73 .......................................................................
1973-79 .......................................................................
1979-92 .......................................................................
2.8
4.6
-5.8
5.3
9.8*
5.3
3.0
9.7
3.9
4.0
9.2
3.5
1.0
1.2
3.3
2.9
7.9
.1
Electrical and electronic equipment (SIC 36)
1949-73 .......................................................................
1973-79 .......................................................................
1979-92 .......................................................................
1.4
.8
.7
4.7
9.5
6.2
3.2
8.8
4.0
3.6
8.3
4.5
2.2
1.9
2.9
1.4
6.3
1.5
Transportation equipment (SIC 37)
1949-73 .......................................................................
1973-79 .......................................................................
1979-92 .......................................................................
.3
-8.0
4.9
6.1
9.9
5.6
3.2
10.1
3.9
3.9
8.8
4.7
1.6
-.3
.5
2.3
9.1
4.1
Measuring, analyzing, and controlling
instruments (SIC 38)
1949-73 .......................................................................
1973-79 .......................................................................
1979-92 .......................................................................
4.5
2.5
8.9
5.9
9.4
7.2
2.3
8.3
3.5
4.2
8.5
5.7
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.3
6.4
3.6
Miscellaneous manufacturing (SIC 39)
1949-73 .......................................................................
1973-79 .......................................................................
1979-92 .......................................................................
1.6
3.0
8.5
4.9
8.2
4.6
2.5
9.4
2.9
3.4
8.4
4.2
1.5
.8
.7
1.9
9.3
3.5
Industry
productivity slowdown which, together, had disastrous con
sequences for growth in output prices.
In the pre-1973 period, multifactor productivity growth absorbed
about 46 percent of the increase in input prices, and in the post1979 period about 28 percent, judging from the data for total manu
facturing. In the 1973-79 period, there was no multifactor produc
tivity growth to dampen the extraordinary input price growth. For
12 of the two-digit industries, output price actually grew faster
than the prices of inputs. Declines in productivity occurred in all
12 industries in this period.
measures for industries provide important in
sights into technological change and price increases.This
article has presented evidence on the recovery of productiv
ity growth in manufacturing in recent years, and on the forces
Pr o d u c tivity
26
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
Multifactor
productivity
Output
underlying price change through the postwar period.
The form of productivity measures for industries has
also been discussed. In particular, analysis of produc
tivity for industries cannot be restricted to capital and
labor as inputs. In manufacturing, interm ediate in
puts—energy, nonenergy materials, and business ser
vices—constitute a large part of the cost structure.
Firm s’ managers make decisions based on prices of
all inputs and other market conditions, adjusting in
put mix, labor force, and investment levels accord
ingly. A specification of productivity which excludes
interm ediate inputs from consideration makes mismeasurement of growth trends more likely, while se
verely limiting the kinds of analyses to which the
measures can be put.
□
Footnotes
1 For a description of these bls measures, see William Gullickson and
Michael J. Harper, “Multifactor Productivity in U.S. Manufacturing, 194983,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October 1987, pp. 18-28. The current data set
updates the measures described in this article and incorporates several techni
cal improvements. For a thorough discussion of capital measurement proce
dures, see T ren ds in M u ltifa c to r P r o d u c tiv ity , 1948-81, Bulletin 2178 (Bu
reau of Labor Statistics, 1983). For a discussion of bls rental prices, see Michael
J. Harper, Ernst R. Bemdt, and David O. Wood, “Rates of Return and Capital
Aggregation Using Alternative Rental Prices,” in Dale W. Jorgenson and Ralph
Landau, eds., T e c h n o lo g y a n d C a p ita l F o rm a tio n (Cambridge, ma „ The mit
Press, 1989), pp. 332-72.
2bls plans to publish these changes in future press releases on multifactor
productivity in major sectors o f the U.S. economy.
’Tobacco manufactures is not reported separately because of the small size
of the industry and because of data limitations. The industry is, however, in
cluded in the nondurable goods and total manufacturing aggregates.
‘ William Gullickson, “M ultifactor Productivity in Manufacturing
Industries," M on th ly L a b o r R eview , October 1992, pp. 20-32. See also “Manu
facturing Costs, Productivity, and Competitiveness, 1979-93,” by Edwin R.
Dean and Mark K. Sherwood, M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , October 1994, pp. 3 16, in which multifactor productivity growth for two-digit manufacturing in
dustries is analyzed in the context of price change and competitiveness.
5This measure was issued in press releases on multifactor productivity for
major sectors (private business, nonfarm business, and total manufacturing).
See M u ltifa c to r P r o d u c tiv ity M e a s u r e s , 1 9 9 1 a n d 1 9 9 2 , usdl 94-327 (U.S.
Department of Labor) July 11,1994.
6Another article in this issue describes some of these efforts. See Kent Kunze,
Mary Jablonski, and Virginia Klarquist, “bls modernizes industry labor pro
ductivity program.”
’See especially Charles R. Hulten, James W. Robertson, and Frank C.
Wycoff, “Energy, Obsolescence, and the Productivity Slowdown,” in Dale W.
Jorgenson and Ralph Landau, eds., T e ch n o lo g y a n d C a p ita l F o rm a tio n , (Cam
bridge, ma, mit Press, 1989), pp. 225-58; Michael J. Harper and William
Gullickson, “Cost Function Models and Accounting for Growth in U.S. Manu
facturing, 1949-86,” paper presented at the National Bureau of Economic Re
search Summer Institute, July 1988; and J. R. Norsworthy, Michael J. Harper,
and Kent Kunze, “The Slowdown in Productivity Growth: Analysis of Some
Contributing Factors,” B ro o k in g s P a p e r s o n E c o n o m ic A c tiv ity , No. 2,1979,
pp. 388-421.
‘In productivity analysis, it is common to use the term output in a generic
sense when referring to the activities of industries, sectors, or the economy as a
whole, regardless of the concepts being followed in defining productivity and
the statistics used to estimate it. This term is not used in the U.S. National
Income and Product Accounts, which use special terms to refer to specific na
tional accounts series. For example, in the National Income and Products Ac
counts, the term “real gross product by industry” is used when referring to real
value-added, to avoid confusion with gross output.
The effect of computer prices on manufacturing aggregates is discussed in
Robert P. Parker, “Gross Product by Industry, 1977-90,” S u rv e y o f C u rre n t
B u s in e ss , May 1993.
10There is a substantial technical literature reporting on econometric tests of
the existence of a value-added function. Dale W. Jorgenson, Frank M. Gollop,
and Barbara M. Fraumeni, P r o d u c tiv ity a n d U .S. E c o n o m ic G ro w th (Cam
bridge, ma , Harvard University Press, 1987), pp. 211-60, describe these tests
extensively and reject the value-added function for 40 of 45 industries ana
lyzed, including all of the two-digit manufacturing industries, on these and other
grounds.
There is also a substantial literature relating elasticities of substitution and
the separability of production and cost functions into subfunctions. Since the
relationships between inputs (that is, elasticities) can be observed, the separa
bility of the production function (and in this case, the permissibility of ignoring
intermediates) can be investigated empirically. See Ernst R. Bemdt and Laurits
R. Christensen, “The Internal Structure of Functional Relationships: Separa
bility, Substitution, and Aggregation,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic S tu d ies, July 1973,
pp. 403-10 for a discussion of the history and alternative definitions of the
concept of separability.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
TTie question of the existence of a K-L aggregate, necessary for a measure of
K-L productivity, has been explored by several investigators. Ernst Bemdt and
David O. Wood, “Technology, Prices, and the Derived Demand for Energy,”
The R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta tis tic s , vol. LVII, no. 3, pp. 259-68, re
jected the K-L aggregate for total U.S. manufacturing (but could not reject a KE aggregate). J. R. Norsworthy and D. H. Malmquist, “Input Measurement and
Productivity Growth in Japanese and U.S. Manufacturing,” Th e A m e ric a n
E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , December 1983, pp. 947-67, also reject K-L separability.
“ For national aggregates such as the U.S. business sector, intermediate in
puts, defined according to “sectoi” concepts used here as including only goods
and services produced outside the sector, include only imported intermediates.
See Frank Gollop, “Growth Accounting in an Open Economy,” B o sto n C o l
le g e W orkin g P a p e r s in E c o n o m ic s, March 1981, on this point. While grow
ing in recent years, imported raw materials and components consumed by U.S.
producers are still too small to affect aggregate productivity visibly.
12 The removal of intrasector transactions from output and material input for
industry productivity measurement was first suggested by Evsey D. Domar.
See Evsey D. Domar, “On the Measurement of Technical Change,” The E c o
n o m ic J o u rn a l, December 1961, pp. 709-29. For additional discussion on this
point, see Richard G. Anderson, “On the Specification of Conditional Factor
Demand Functions in Recent Studies of U.S. Manufacturing,” in Ernst R.
Bemdt and Barry C. Field, eds., M o d e lin g a n d M e a s u r in g N a tu r a l R eso u rc e
S u b stitu tio n (Cambridge, ma, The mit Press, 1981), pp. 119-44; and Frank
Gollop, “Growth Accounting in an Open Economy,” B o sto n C o lle g e W orkin g
P a p e r s in E c o n o m ic s, March 1981.
In his original discussion of the “Residual,” Domar showed that the true
rate of growth for a sector in w h ic h th e r e a r e in tr a s e c to r tr a n s a c tio n s is equal
to the measured rate raised by the ratio l/(l-g ), where g is the share of the
sector’s internal transaction in the cost of all inputs. Domar demonstrated this
with the following industry production functions. The first shows the output of
an industry varying with inputs of capital and labor, and an input from another
industry ( R ) , and multifactor productivity change ( d ln A / d t) .
d ln Y fd t
= d ln A fd t
+ a ld ln L l / d t + b xd ln K x/ d t
+ g l d ln R 2/d t.
If the second industry’s production function for/?2is identical to that of the
integrating them gives:
i
i
i
Yt ,
i
The growth of the residual for the integrated industry (sector) becomes
dlnA
=
dlnA (1 + g + g 2 + g
î
i
i
\..) =
dlnA /(I - g ).
i
i
i
With this, Domar distinguished between a “gross” rate of productivity
growth—that measured as the change in gross output less the change in a
weighted composite of all inputs—and the underlying residual which more ac
curately reflects changing production technology. It is worth noting that the
gross measure of productivity change, computed from summed data for all es
tablishments in the sector, is always le s s than the productivity gain at the estab
lishment level where a technical improvement takes place.
It should be noted that some researchers have preferred not to adjust outputs
and intermediate inputs to remove intrasector transactions. See for example,
Ernst R. Bemdt and David O. Wood, “Technology, Prices, and the Derived
Demand for Energy,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta tis tic s , August 1975, pp.
259-68. The advantages of this treatment are: simplicity (in avoiding the need
to estimate these transactions); comparability with other countries’ data (for
which these transactions are most often not available); and a closer resemblance
to industry source data (such as the Census of Manufactures) and to “represen
tative” firm data, bls maintains all data underlying the multifactor productiv
ity measures, and will make unadjusted series available on request.
13
The removal of intra-sector transactions is accomplished by the use of
input-output tables published for the U.S. economy for various years since 1947
by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. The 1-0
tables used for the estimation of intra-industry transactions and for other pur
poses in the multifactor program are substantially modified, both for confor-
M onthly Labor Review
July 1995
27
Measuring productivity growth
mity with each other and to conform to multifactor productivity principles.
The intrasector transaction for each industry (and for the aggregated
manufacturing sector) is estimated as the proportion of total industry out
put consumed intra-industry in the 1-0 tables, applied to total industry
(sector) gross output underlying the estimates described in this article.
The use of proportions from the 1-0 tables, rather than absolute amounts,
is preferred because of incidental differences in industry concepts used
for 1-0 tables and by the Census Bureau (on whose data the multifactor
productivity measures are based).
Intrasector sales are deflated (at the two-digit level) using the produc
ing industry’s gross output deflators. It is not possible to distinguish be
tween intra- and interindustry sales with regard to price. Output net of
intrasectoral transactions is then obtained by “Tomqvist disaggregation,”
that is, as the weighted difference between growth rates in gross (dupli
cated) output and the growth in the intrasector transaction.
14Dale W. Jorgenson and Zvi Griliches, “The Explanation of Produc
tivity Change,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic S tu d ie s (July 1967), pp. 249-82.
15From the production function, we differentiate with respect to time
and divide by Y, obtaining:
( d Y /d t) /Y = ( d i / d x
) (d x
I
ld t)/x
l
+... + 0
V d x ) ( d x /d t ) /x ... + ( d f / d t ) / Y .
l
n
n
n
In this representation, the growth rate of output equals a weighted average
of the input growth rates plus a residual term, ( d i/d t)/Y , representing
productivity change.
16 Under the assumption that factor markets are competitive, each fac
tor is paid its marginal product (P x = d Y /d x ) and the elasticities of output
with respect to each input (3f/ dx ) are equal to the shares of each input in
the value of output (v ). Hence,
v=
( d Y /d x ) ( x /Y ) = x P x / Y
i
i
(d Y /d t)/Y
i
= v (d x l
I
28
/
l
and we may substitute
i
ld t) lx
l
+ ... + v
n
n
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
... + ( 3f/01 )/Y .
(d x ld t) lx
n
July 1995
17 Charles Hulten, “Divisia Index Numbers,” E c o n o m e tric a , vol. 41, no. 3,
showed that a chain index can give an ambiguous result when comparing two
remote points in time if the rate of multifactor productivity growth depends
on the path taken by prices during the intervening years. Jack Triplett “Eco
nomic Theory and bea ’s Alternative Quantity and Price Indexes,” S u rv e y o f
C u rre n t B u s in e ss , April 1992 has proposed an approach to estimating annual
index numbers which can reduce this problem.
“ Ernst R. Bemdt and Laurits R. Chistensen, “The Internal Structure of
Functional Relationships: Separability, Substitution, and Aggregation,” R e
v ie w o f E c o n o m ic S tu d ie s, July 1973, pp. 403-10.
“ See L a b o r C o m p o s itio n a n d U .S. P r o d u c tiv ity G ro w th , 1948-90, Bulle
tin 2426 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 1993).
20W. E. Diewert, “Functional Forms for Profit and Transformation Func
tions,” J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic T h eo ry , no. 6, 1973, pp. 284-316.
21This change was introduced in M u ltif a c to r P r o d u c tiv ity M ea su res, 1 9 9 1
a n d 1 9 9 2 , usdl 94-327 (U.S. Department of Labor) July 11,1994. Data were
updated in M u ltif a c to r P r o d u c tiv ity Trends, 1 9 9 3 , usdl 95—48 (U.S. Depart
ment of Labor) Feb. 14,1995.
22W. Erwin Diewert, “Exact and Superlative Index Numbers,” J o u r n a l o f
E c o n o m e tric s , vol 4, no. 4 (1976), pp. 115—45 shows that certain index num
ber formulas, including the Tomqvist and the Fisher Ideal, are consistent with
flexible production functions. In another paper, “Superlative Index Numbers
and Consistency in Aggregation,” E c o n o m e tr ic a , July 1978, pp. 883-900,
Diewert shows empirically that chained time series of superlative index num
bers are approximately consistent. The comparison in table 2 in this article is
similar to one presented by Diewert in “Superlative Index Numbers and Con
sistency in Aggregation.”
23M u ltif a c to r P r o d u c tiv ity M e a s u r e s , 1991 and 1992 (U.S. Department of
Labor), July 11, 1994.
24See Gullickson, “Multifactor productivity,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , pp.
20-32.
25For a discussion of the labor measures, see L a b o r C o m p o s itio n , Bulletin
2426, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
24See Dean and Sherwood, “Manufacturing costs, productivity, and com
petitiveness” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October 1994, pp. 3-16.
P ro d u c tiv ity in F a b ric s
Multifactor productivity: cotton
and synthetic broadwoven fabrics
Multifactor productivity in the industry
rose during the 1972-91 period;
major influences on industry performance
include technological advances
and international competition
Mary Jablonski
Mary Jablonski Is a
supervisory economist
in the Office of Pro
ductivity and Technol
ogy, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ultifactor productivity, an indicator
of economic performance that re
lates output to the combined inputs
of labor, capital, and intermediate purchases,
rose by an average 0.8 percent per year be
tween 1972 and 1991 in the cotton and syn
thetic broadwoven fabrics industry. Growth
in multifactor productivity can result from nu
m erous influences such as technological
change, economies of scale, changes in the
skills of the work force, and changes in the
organization of production. In the broadwoven
fabrics industry, technological change was per
haps the most important factor underlying
multifactor productivity growth in the period,
as there was widespread adoption of techno
logical advances, such as modern weaving
machines.
Another measure of productivity, output per
employee hour, grew at an average annual rate
of 3.1 percent during the 1972-91 period. The
growth rate of this labor productivity measure
exceeded that of multifactor productivity be
cause of the substitution of capital—equip
ment, buildings, land, and inventories—and of
intermediate purchases—materials, fuel, elec
tricity, and purchased services—for hours of
labor in the production process. The capitallabor ratio and the ratio of intermediate pur
chases to labor both increased substantially in
the cotton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics
industry during this period.
M
Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics has
published industry labor productivity measures
for decades, its first multifactor productivity
measures for detailed industries were intro
duced relatively recently, in 1987. The new
measure of multifactor productivity in the cot
ton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics industry
presented in this article joins the previously
published multifactor productivity measures
for the following detailed industries: motor ve
hicles, steel, footwear, tires and tubes, farm and
garden m achinery, railroad transportation,
household furniture, and metal stampings.1
Multifactor productivity
Multifactor productivity is equal to the ratio of
output to combined inputs of labor, capital, and
intermediate purchases. In the cotton and syn
thetic broadwoven fabrics industry, output fell
by 0.2 percent per year on average between 1972
and 1991, while combined inputs fell even faster,
at an average rate of 1.0 percent; as a result,
multifactor productivity grew at an average an
nual rate of 0.8 percent. In the early years of this
study, 1972-79, multifactor productivity growth
averaged 1.1 percent per year and was somewhat
higher than in the later years, 1979-91, when the
average was 0.7 percent.
In each of the periods studied, labor produc
tivity— calculated as output per employee
hour—advanced more rapidly than multifactor
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
29
Productivity in Fabrics
productivity in the broadwoven fabrics industry. (See table
1.) This is due to the capital and intermediate purchases
effects, which were positive in each of the periods; labor
productivity growth is the sum of multifactor productivity
growth, the capital effect and the intermediate purchases ef
fect. Each effect is measured as the weighted change in the
ratio of the nonlabor input to labor input, in which the weight
is the nonlabor input's share in output. Between 1972 and
1991, the intermediate purchases effect, which equaled 1.9
percent per year on average, accounted for more than half of
the growth of output per employee hour, which was 3.1 per
cent per year, and the capital effect, which equaled 0.4 per
cent per year, accounted for much less.
Labor productivity growth rose from an average annual
rate of 2.5 percent in the 1972-79 period to 3.5 percent in
the 1979-91 period, in contrast to the fall in multifactor pro
ductivity growth between those time periods. Output per
employee hour accelerated in broadwoven fabrics in spite of
the slowdown in multifactor productivity because both the
capital effect and the intermediate purchases effect were
higher in 1979-91 than in 1972-79. The capital effect
climbed from a yearly average of 0.3 percent in the first pe
riod to 0.5 percent per year in the second period, while the
intermediate purchases effect jumped from 1.2 percent to
2.3 percent.
The capital effect was higher in 1979-91 than in the pre
vious period, despite a decline in the growth rate of capital,
because the growth rate of labor shrank even more. While
the growth rate of capital decreased from an average of 0.7
percent in 1972-79 to -0.5 percent in 1979-91, the growth
rate of labor plummeted from a yearly average of -1.1 per
Table 1. Average annual growth rates in multifactor
productivity, output per employee hour, and
related measures, cotton and synthetic broad
woven fabrics industry, selected periods, 1972-91
Measure
Output per employee hour1 .............
Multifactor productivity....................
Capital effect2....................................
Intermediate purchases effect3........
Capital services................................
Employee hours................................
Capital per employee hour...............
Intermediate purchases...................
Intermediate purchases per
employee hour.................................
1979-91
1972-91
1972-79
3.1
.8
.4
1.9
.0
-3.3
3.3
-.2
2.5
1.1
.3
1.2
.7
-1.1
1.7
.8
3.5
.7
.5
2.3
-.5
-4.6
4.3
-.9
3.1
1.9
3.9
1Output per employee hour equals multifactor productivity plus the capi
tal effect plus the intermediate purchases effect. Each measure presented
in this table is computed independently. Therefore, the three components
may not sum exactly to output per employee hour due to rounding.
2The capital effect is the rate of change in the capital-labor ratio multi
plied by the share of capital costs in the total cost of output.
3The intermediate purchases effect is the rate of change in the interme
diate purchases-labor ratio multiplied by the share of intermediate pur
chases costs in the total cost of output.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cent to -4.6 percent. Together, these changes produced a
surge in the rate of growth of the capital-labor ratio, from an
average annual rate of 1.7 percent to 4.3 percent. This rise
drove the increase in the capital effect, because the other
component of the effect, capital's share of output, dropped
slightly, from an average of 15 percent in the initial period
to an average of 14 percent in the latter period.
The intermediate purchases effect was also larger during
the 1979-91 period, despite the fall in the average annual
rate of growth of intermediate purchases, from 0.8 percent
in the earlier period to -0.9 percent in the later period. The
increase in the intermediate purchases effect occurred pri
marily because of the dramatic drop in the labor growth rate,
which also fueled the escalation of the capital effect. Taken
together, the changes in the growth rates of intermediate
purchases and labor resulted in a substantial increase in the
growth of the intermediate purchases-labor ratio, from a 1.9percent average annual gain in 1972-79 to 3.9 percent per
year in 1979-91. Additionally, intermediate purchases' share
of output climbed from an average of 56 percent to an aver
age of 59 percent, which boosted the intermediate purchases
effect.
M ultifactor productivity growth can be viewed as a
weighted average of the growth rates of labor productivity,
capital productivity, and intermediate purchases productiv
ity, where each weight equals the input's share of output. Of
the three types of single-factor productivity, labor produc
tivity grew the fastest between 1972 and 1991; at 3.1 per
cent per year on average, its growth rate far exceeded that of
capital and of intermediate purchases productivity, which
registered at -0.2 percent and 0.0 percent. (See table 2.)
The average shares during the 1972-91 period were 28 per
cent for labor, 14 percent for capital, and 58 percent for in
termediate purchases. The growth rates of capital and inter
mediate purchases productivity during 1972-91 mask the
strikingly different performances of these measures in the
1972-79 and 1979-91 intervals. Both capital productivity
growth (0.8 percent) and intermediate purchases productiv
ity growth (0.6 percent) were positive in 1972-79 and both
were much lower—in fact negative—during the following
period; the capital productivity growth rate sank to -0.7 per
cent per year and the intermediate purchases productivity
growth rate slid to -0.3 percent per year.
The cotton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics industry is
one part of the textile mill products industry (sic 22). In
1991, the broadwoven fabrics industry accounted for 21.3
percent of the value of shipments in the textile industry.
There are several other major industries in the textile indus
try, including knitting mills, textile finishing (except wool),
carpets and rugs, and yam and thread mills. During the 1972
to 1991 period, multifactor productivity grew more rapidly
(1.3 percent per year) in the entire textile mill products inMonthly Labor Review
July 1995
30
dustry than it did in the broad woven fabrics industry (0.8
percent). Both the textile and the broadwoven fabrics indus
tries performed better in the 1970's than in more recent years.
The textile mill products industry registered an average an
nual increase in multifactor productivity of 1.7 percent in
the 1972-79 period and 1.0 percent between 1979 and 1991;
the cotton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics industry re
corded a growth rate of 1.1 percent in the earlier period and
a rate of 0.7 percent in the later period. This pattern of
slower growth after 1979 contrasts sharply to the perfor
mance of multifactor productivity in total manufacturing;
multifactor productivity growth was quite low in the manu
facturing sector in 1972-79 (0.3 percent annually), but it
jumped to 1.2 percent in 1979-91.
Related measures
Output. During the 1972-91 period, output in the cotton
and synthetic broadwoven fabrics industry declined at an av
erage annual rate of 0.2 percent. In the 1970's, output ex
panded in the industry at a pace of 1.4 percent per year, on
average, but then it contracted by 1.2 percent per year from
1979 to 1991. Production hit its low for the period in 1974
and its peak just 3 years later.
The cotton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics industry is
composed of two four-digit industries: SIC 2211, broadwoven
fabric mills, cotton and sic 2221, broadwoven fabric mills,
manmade fiber and silk (which will be referred to as "syn
thetic" in this article). Fabrics produced by the cotton
broadwoven fabrics industry are made wholly or chiefly of
cotton (by weight) and those produced by the synthetic
broadwoven fabrics industry are made wholly or chiefly of
manmade fibers and silk, so each industry manufactures
"blends" of cotton and manmade fiber as well as fabrics that
are made solely of one type of fiber. The fabrics are called
"broadwoven" because they are woven fabrics of more than
12 inches in width. A separate industry, narrow fabrics mills
(SIC 2241), manufactures fabrics with widths of 12 inches or
less, such as fabric labels and ribbons and safety belt web
bing. Although much of the output of the broadwoven fab
rics industry is used by the apparel, automotive, and home
furnishings industries, some of the products are finished and
ready for consumer use. Among these products are sheets,
pillowcases, terry towels, and bedspreads.2
In the 1970's, the shares of the two four-digit industries in
the value of shipments of the broadwoven fabrics industry
were fairly stable, with the cotton broadwoven fabrics in
dustry accounting for about 40 percent of value of shipments
and synthetics accounting for about 60 percent. Then in the
1980's there was a shift towards synthetics, with a peak share
in total industry value of shipments of 68 percent being
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b le 2 . 1
Multifactor a n d re la te d productivity indexes
in the cotton a n d synthetic b ro ad w oven fabrics
industry, 1972-91
(1987=100)
Year
Output per
Multifactor
productivity employee
hour
Output per
unit of
capital
Output per
unit of
intermediate
purchases
f
1972.1.........
1973...........
1974...........
1975...........
86.9
90.5
84.7
86.3
63.7
57.3
59.3
65.5
102.7
95.4
93.1
91.4
96.1
112.8
98.6
97.2
1976...........
1977...........
1978...........
1979...........
1980...........
93.8
95.6
89.1
93.6
99.3
65.8
75.4
70.5
75.8
78.7
103.9
112.7
101.0
108.4
107.1
108.9
103.3
97.0
100.1
109.2
1981...........
1982...........
1983...........
.1984...........
1985...........
92.1
90.0
96.3
95.5
93.8
80.8
85.8
93.0
91.3
94.9
101.9
87.5
99.9
97.0
88.9
96.3
92.7
97.5
97.6
94.7
1986...........
1987...........
1988...........
1989...........
1990...........
1991............
97.3
100.0
96.3
98.3
100.3
101.3
101.3
100.0
100.3
104.3
109.0
114.9
93.9
100.0
99.3
99.5
97.0
99.1
96.4
100.0
93.6
95.3
97.4
96.2
.8
1.1
.7
3.1
2.5
3.5
-.2
.8
-.7
.0
.6
-.3
Average annual
rates of change
(percent)
1972-91 ......
1972-79......
1979-91 ......
reached in 1984. However, in recent years, there seems to be
a shift back towards cotton in the broadwoven fabrics indus
try, as the synthetic share fell to 59 percent in 1991 and the
cotton share climbed to 41 percent.3 Cotton's popularity has
been on the increase in general lately, with worldwide con
sumption at record levels. In the total U.S. retail market for
clothing and home fabrics, cotton's share rose from 34 per
cent in 1975 to 50 percent in 1989.4
In the broadwoven fabrics industry, output has exhibited a
cyclical pattern during the period of this study, though it
clearly has been influenced by factors in addition to the busi
ness cycle. Broadwoven fabrics output was at low levels dur
ing the recessions of the mid-1970's and the early 1980's, but
it rebounded strongly as the U.S. economy emerged from
those downturns; production jumped by 12.5 percent from
1975 to 1976 and by 13.9 percent from 1982 to 1983.
At the beginning of the most recent recession, which
started in 1990, output fell by 4.1 percent. At first glance, it
looks as though output in the broadwoven fabrics industry
leads the business cycle, in that output has fallen in each of
the years prior to a recession (1973, 1981, and 1989). HowMonthly Labor Review
July 1995
31
Productivity in Fabrics
ever, it appears upon further investigation that factors such
as cotton prices and imports are responsible for those dips in
output. Between 1972 and 1973, the price of cotton soared,
driving up the cost of producing many kinds of broadwoven
fabrics. Although nominal value of shipments in broadwoven
fabric mills, cotton (sic 2211), and in broadwoven fabric
mills, synthetic (SIC 2221), rose in 1973, output fell by 9.1
percent because of hikes in the prices of the industry's prod
ucts. In contrast, during each of the three recessions since
1972, nominal value of shipments decreased in both segments
of the industry. The declines in output in 1981 and 1989
were almost certainly related to competition from imported
textile goods. Textile imports to the United States rose sig
nificantly in 1981 and 1989.5
The bulk of U.S. production of textiles is destined for the
nonapparel market (home furnishings and industrial uses)
and the percentage of U.S. textile output flowing to the non
apparel market has risen over the years. As of 1973, 54
percent of fabrics made and sold in the United States were
for the nonapparel market and by 1991, 63 percent of such
fabrics headed for that market.6 This increase is one conse
quence of the strong growth in imports of apparel and ap
parel fabrics that occurred in the 1980's. (See the section of
this article on imports and exports for further discussion of
imported textiles.)
Labor. Labor input, measured by employee hours, declined
rapidly in the cotton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics in
dustry between 1972 and 1991, at an average annual rate of
3.3 percent. In both subperiods, 1972-79 and 1979-91, em
ployee hours also dropped, by 1.1 percent per year on aver
age in the first period and by a quick 4.6-percent per year in
the second. The drop in labor in the 1970's occurred as out
put was expanding, while the drop in the 1980's accompa
nied a contraction of output.
Employment in the cotton and synthetic broadwoven fab
rics industry decreased markedly from 288,000 in 1972 to
160,000 in 1991. The number of employees in the industry
reached a high of 293,000 in 1976 and has fallen in most
years since then. Between 1972 and 1987, the number of
plants in the industry rose from 719 to 737, even though
employment tumbled by 35 percent.7 However, many of the
plants in operation in 1987 were quite small; 43 percent em
ployed fewer than 20 workers. The number of plants with 20
or more employees decreased by 26 percent, from 568 in 1972
to 421 in 1987.
Production workers comprise the vast majority of employ
ees in the broadwoven fabrics industry. In 1972, production
workers made up 90 percent of the industry’s work force and
in 1991, the percentage was virtually unchanged, at 89 per
cent. These figures are substantially above those for total
manufacturing, in which 73 percent of employees were pro
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
duction workers in 1972 and 68 percent were production
workers in 1991.
The average hourly earnings of production workers in the
cotton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics industry tripled from
1972 to 1991, rising from $2.75 to $8.73. In both years, the
average wage in broadwoven fabrics was well below the av
erage for all manufacturing, which was $3.82 in 1972 and
$11.18 in 1991. The gap between the two narrowed over the
period in relative terms, as average hourly earnings in
broadwoven fabrics went from 72 percent of the manufactur
ing average to 78 percent.
Although production workers in broadwoven fabrics
earned three times as much per hour in current dollars in
1991, compared with 1972, real average hourly earnings ac
tually fell slightly, from $6.34 to $6.19 in 1982 dollars. This
decline occurred despite the concurrent increase in output
per employee hour of 80 percent for the industry. Histori
cally, increases in output per hour in most industries have
been associated with higher real wages in the long run, but
in the past 20 years this relationship has not held in numer
ous manufacturing industries, including cotton and synthetic
broadwoven fabrics. The reduction of 2 percent in real aver
age hourly earnings in broadwoven fabrics was smaller than
the 8-percent reduction experienced in total manufacturing
in that time span. Also, during the entire period, the real
wage of production workers in broadwoven fabrics remained
within a narrow range, reaching a peak of $6.63 in 1978 and
a low of $6.08 in 1982.
Women made up 42 percent of the work force in the cot
ton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics industry in 1991, com
pared with 33 percent in total manufacturing. Both of these
percentages are higher than those in 1972, when women
made up 40 percent of employees in broadwoven fabrics and
29 percent of employees in manufacturing.
Intermediate purchases. Intermediate purchases, which in
clude materials, fuel, electricity, and purchased services, de
creased at an average rate of 0.2 percent annually between
1972 and 1991, the same rate at which output lessened. From
1972 to 1979, intermediate purchases rose by an average 0.8
percent per year in the cotton and synthetic broadwoven fab
rics industry; then, from 1979 to 1991, intermediate pur
chases dropped by 0.9 percent per year.
Expenditures on materials account for most of the cost of
intermediate purchases in the broadwoven fabrics industry.
As of 1972, materials represented 90 percent of total inter
mediate purchases cost, with purchased services far behind
at 6 percent, electricity at 3 percent, and fuel at just 1 per
cent. By 1991, materials cost had declined to 84 percent of
the cost of intermediate purchases, as services (10 percent)
and electricity (6 percent) became more significant, and fuel
was unchanged.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
32
In 1972, raw cotton was by far the largest single compo
nent of materials cost, with a share of 32 percent, while pur
chased spun yam (all fibers) was a distant second, with a 16percent share. By 1987, the latest year of data availability in
the study time-frame, purchased spun yam had taken the
number-one spot, with a share of 22 percent of materials cost,
and raw cotton was next at 20 percent. Polyester fiber's share
was third in both years; it equaled 14 percent in 1972 and 17
percent in 1987.
The prices of materials used in the cotton and synthetic
broadwoven fabrics industry fluctuated between 1972 and
1991, increasing in 11 years and decreasing in 7 of the re
maining 8 years. In the entire period, materials prices
climbed at an average annual rate of 4.7 percent, so that they
were over twice as high in 1991 as in 1972. Prices of mate
rials used in the formation of broadwoven fabrics advanced
much more quickly in the 1970's than in subsequent years—
at an average rate of 8.9 percent per year in 1972--79, versus
2.3 percent per year in 1979-91.
Rising energy prices in the 1970's and early 1980's were
reflected in the shares of intermediate purchases cost going
toward fuel and electricity in the industry. From 1975 to
1986, 2 percent of intermediate purchases expenditures were
for fuel, compared with 1 percent in both 1972 and 1991.
Electricity costs doubled in proportion between 1972 and
1991, rising from 3 percent to 6 percent (which was slightly
below the peak share of 7 percent reached in 1986).
Capital. Capital input was at virtually the same level in the
broadwoven fabrics industry in 1991 as in 1972—its average
annual growth rate was 0.0 percent in the period. Capital is
measured as the flow of services from the capital stock, which
consists of equipment; structures; land; and inventories of
finished goods, work in process, and materials and supplies.
Like intermediate purchases, capital increased in the 197279 period (at an average annual rate of 0.7 percent) and
shrank in the 1979-91 period (at a rate of 0.5 percent).
Of the four categories of capital input, only the services of
equipment increased between 1972 and 1991, at an average
rate of 0.8 percent per year. In both of the subperiods, 197279 and 1979-91, the services of equipment also rose, by 1.9
percent per year in the first period and by 0.2 percent per
year in the latter period. A significant part of the investment
in equipment in the 1970's was necessitated by newly insti
tuted Federal safety and health regulations regarding cotton
dust and noise levels.
The other three categories of capital input (structures,
land, and inventory) all declined in each of the periods being
considered. The services of structures, which are the build
ings used in the production process, dropped the fastest in
1972-91, at a rate of 1.4 percent annually. The capital input
from inventories of finished goods, work in process, and ma
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
terials and supplies decreased at 1.1 percent per year on av
erage and the input from land (on which the structures sit)
diminished by 0.8 percent per year. In the earlier years, 197279, the services of inventories descended at the swiftest rate
(1.5 percent average per year); those of structures fell by 0.6
percent per year and land, by 0.1 percent per year. Then in
the later years, 1979-91, inventories decreased at the lowest
rate (0.9 percent) of these three types of capital input; land
and structures both experienced steeper rates of decline (1.3
and 1.9 percent).
Imports and exports
Textile imports became a threat to the U.S. fabric and ap
parel industries in the 1980's. Import penetration into the
U.S. textile market (including apparel and nonapparel tex
tiles) was only 17 percent of the total domestic market in
1973 and 15 percent in 1979. By 1986, however, imports of
textiles surged to 38 percent of the total U.S. market.8 Most
of the growth in imports was in the apparel and apparel fab
ric market, where the percent that is imported doubled be
tween 1980 and 1986, from 28 percent to 56 percent. Much
of the increase in textile imports was due to the strengthen
ing of the dollar in the first half of the 1980's, which made
imports cheaper. Also, competition from low-wage coun
tries, such as China, contributed to the rise in imports of tex
tile products. Even with the protection of the average 20percent tariff on textiles, the cost of imported fabric and cloth
ing can be much lower than the cost of domestic products,
due to huge wage differences. For example, in a recent year,
the average hourly wage for textile workers in China was
only 37 cents.9 With the value of the dollar declining in the
late 1980's, the growth of textile imports slackened, and the
percent of total U.S. textiles that were imported just climbed
several percentage points to 43 percent in 1991.10
The enormous expansion of textile imports occurred de
spite the multi-fiber arrangement, officially known as the Ar
rangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles, which
was adopted in 1974 under the auspices of the General Agree
ment on Tariffs and Trade and which has been renegotiated
several times. The multi-fiber arrangement, a quota system
for textiles and textile products implemented through a set of
bilateral agreements, was designed to give domestic markets
time to adjust to changing conditions resulting from import
growth. Under the arrangement, annual quotas are set for
covered products and the quotas are increased each year, with
an overall minimum level of growth of 6 percent per year.
While the restrictions of the arrangement have been used in
the United States, the enforcement has not been viewed as
very strict.11 Also, compared with European quotas, U.S.
textile quotas are very specific, and some exporting countries
have been able to evade U.S. quotas by moving production
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
33
Productivity in Fabrics
into new lines that are not subject to quotas.12
The rise in textile imports in the 1980's affected the
broadwoven fabrics industry as well as other portions of the
domestic textile and apparel sector. Between 1980 and 1986,
output in the cotton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics indus
try fell by 11 percent cumulatively and labor hours dropped
by 31 percent. In the following 5 years, with the slowdown
in import growth, output declined by 3 percent and employee
hours, by 15 percent.
Exports account for a relatively small fraction of U.S. tex
tile output, about 13 percent.13 There has been significant
growth in the value of textile exports (both apparel and non
apparel) since 1986. The value of those exports more than
doubled from 1986 to 1991, after falling sharply between
1980 and 1986.14 The export of broadwoven fabrics rose
markedly between 1986 and 1991, from 334.6 million square
meters in the earlier year to 566.4 million square meters in
the latter.15
Technological developments
One of the biggest changes in the broadwoven fabrics indus
try in the past 20 years has been the massive shift to
shuttleless looms. A mere 3 percent of the looms in place in
U.S. broadwoven fabric mills were shuttleless in 1972. By
1991, 66 percent of looms in place were classified as
shuttleless.16 In traditional weaving, a shuttle, which is a
wooden projectile, carries the filling or crosswise yams (the
weft) back and forth between the alternating sets of length
wise yarns (the warp). The shuttle is "slam driven" by
wooden bars from one side of the loom to the other. With
shuttleless looms, various methods are used to move the fill
ing through the warp. The four main types of shuttleless
weaving machines are air jet, water jet, rapier, and projectile
(also known as missile). As an example of how shuttleless
looms function, air-jet looms operate by carrying the filling
across the loom using high-pressure streams of air. Simi
larly, with water-jet looms, a jet of water takes the filling
across the loom; however, water-jet looms are limited in that
they can only be used to produce 100 percent synthetic fab
ric. Modem weaving machines are superior to shuttle looms
in that they produce fabric of higher quality with fewer yam
breaks and they are faster, wider, and quieter. Because they
are quieter, the shuttleless looms help companies to comply
with Federal regulations regarding noise levels.
The popularity of air-jet weaving machines soared in the
1980's; the number operating in U.S. mills more than doubled
between 1982 and 1989. Water-jet looms increased by 10
percent during that period and projectile machines, by 25
percent. The number of rapier looms decreased by 19 per
cent from 1982 to 1989, as earlier-generation rapiers were
replaced with projectile machines and air-jet looms (as well
as with some newer, faster rapiers). Later-generation
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
shuttleless looms operate at much higher speeds than the
older ones. An advantage of air-jet weaving machines is that
they are generally less expensive to purchase and install than
rapiers and projectiles. However, a drawback is that plants
must also buy air compressors to use with air-jet looms. Even
with that additional expense, air-jet looms can be cheaper to
operate, because they are so productive. Their top operating
speed is more than twice that of the rapiers and projectiles.17
While some plants in the broadwoven fabrics industry
purchase yam and then weave it into fabric, many plants be
gin with bales of fiber, which they transform into yam that
they then use for weaving.18 Two major developments in
yam manufacture in the past two decades have been directfeed carding and open-end (or rotor) spinning. In traditional
yam manufacturing, workers move fiber from machine to
machine and in the process are exposed to high levels of cot
ton dust. With direct-feed carding, fibers are opened,
blended, and carded in a continuous system, which lowers
cotton dust generation and thus helps firms to meet Federal
requirements for lower dust levels. (Carding is a process
that initially parallelizes the fibers and turns them into a
loose, rope-like strand.) Direct-feed carding is also much
more productive than the older manual system.
Similarly, open-end spinning is a great deal more pro
ductive than conventional ring spinning. In yam manufac
ture, the final stages are drawing, roving, spinning, and wind
ing. In the drawing operation, several rope-like strands that
result from the carding process are merged and the parallel
ism of their fibers is increased. The roving operation re
duces the drawn strand to a smaller strand of fibers and adds
a slight twist. In the spinning process, the fibers finally be
come yam—the strand of fibers that emerges from the rov
ing process is stretched and a twist is imparted. The last
process, winding, transfers the yam from the spinning bob
bin to larger packages for weaving. In conventional ring
spinning, the spinning bobbin is rotated on a spindle to in
sert the twist and put the yam onto the bobbin. The size of
the yam package is limited and much power is necessary for
its rotation. Open-end spinning machinery integrates the
last three steps of the yam manufacturing process. In addi
tion to speeding up production, open-end spinning lowers
cotton dust levels and noise levels in spinning rooms. Openend spinning has not totally replaced ring spinning, at least
in part because open-end spun yams have different physical
properties than ring-spun yarns.
In addition to technological developments in weaving and
in yam manufacture, advances in computer technology have
had an impact on the broadwoven fabrics industry. Com
puter technology is playing a key role in "quick-response"
programs, which are coordinated efforts to improve com
munications among fiber, textile, apparel, and retail firms.
The primary goal of quick-response programs is to shorten,
often by many weeks, the time between the placement of
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
34
Table 3.
Output and input indexes in the cotton and
synthetic broadwoven fabrics industry, 1972-91
[ 1987= 100]
Combined Employee
Capital
inputs
hours
Intermediate
purchases
Year
Output
1972..............
1973..............
1974..............
97.3
88.4
87.4
112.0
97.7
103.2
152.7
154.2
147.4
94.7
92.7
93.9
101.3
78.4
88.6
1975..............
1976..............
1977..............
1978..............
1979..............
1980..............
87.9
98.9
110.4
99.9
107.5
107.6
101.9
105.4
115.5
112.1
114.9
108.4
134.3
150.3
146.5
141.7
141.9
136.8
96.2
95.2
98.0
98.9
99.2
100.5
90.4
90.8
106.9
103.0
107.4
98.5
1981..............
1982..............
104.5
90.8
113.5
100.9
129.3
105.8
102.6
103.8
108.5
98.0
1983..............
1984..............
1985..............
103.3
100.8
92.6
107.3
105.5
98.7
111.1
110.4
97.6
103.4
103.9
104.2
106.0
103.3
97.8
1986..............
1987..............
1988..............
1989..............
1990..............
1991..............
96.1
100.0
97.8
96.8
92.9
93.1
98.8
100.0
101.6
98.5
92.6
91.9
94.9
100.0
97.5
92.8
85.2
81.0
102.3
100.0
98.5
97.3
95.8
93.9
99.7
100.0
104.5
101.6
95.4
96.8
-.2
1.4
-1.2
-1.0
.4
-1.8
-3.3
-1.1
-4.6
.0
.7
-.5
-.2
.8
-.9
Average annual
rates of change
(percent)
1972-91 ........
1972-79........
1979-91 ........
orders by retailers and the delivery of goods to stores. Bar
codes and electronic data interchange are important elements
of quick response which facilitate communication between
customers and suppliers at various levels. Systems for bar
coding have been established by groups such as the Fabric
and Supplier Linkage Council so that vendors can label ship
ments with standard bar codes and workers at the purchas
ing firm can scan the codes and enter the delivery immedi
ately into inventory records. With electronic data inter
change, a textile firm can communicate with its suppliers
(such as fiber firms) and customers (such as apparel manu
facturers) by using computers. At a large textile manufac
turer which is a pioneer in quick response, purchase orders
to their vendors are processed electronically. Additionally,
the status of their customers' orders can be checked elec
tronically by the customers themselves.19
There are numerous potential advantages from quick-re
sponse efforts. Among these is a reduction in inventory costs
for textile mills, apparel manufacturers, and retailers. Also,
better communication among the companies can drastically
reduce warehouse time and in-process inventory. One textile
firm, which specializes in upholstery and is on the forefront
of quick response, has a customer in advance for every yard
of fabric it weaves.20 Other potential benefits of quick re
sponse include reductions in forced markdowns and in
stockouts. Forced markdowns of prices occur when goods
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
fail to sell as well as retailers expected. By reducing initial
order time and reorder cycle times, forced markdowns can
be decreased. Stockouts, which happen when a retail cus
tomer cannot find a particular size or style because it is out of
stock, often result in lost business. By speeding up the re
plenishment of styles and sizes that are selling well, stockouts
are diminished and sales are increased. A further possible
advantage of quick response is that it can make domestically
produced apparel and other textile products more appealing
to retail firms than similar imported goods.
Quick-response programs are relatively new and there is
a long way to go before they are widespread. Many technical
and institutional barriers will have to be overcome if quick
response is to become commonplace.
Another fairly recent development is the Textile/Clothing
Technology Corporation, known as (tc )2. (tc )2 is a joint
effort by the fiber, textile, and apparel industries, unions, and
the Federal Government to improve the productivity and per
formance of those industries. The organization was origi
nally called the Tailored Clothing Technology Corporation,
and the first union and industry participants were connected
with men's suit manufacturing. By late 1984, many other
industries in the fiber-textile-apparel complex had gained
representation by the corporation and the name was changed.
Initially, (tc )2emphasized the development of technology that
could revolutionize sewing. Lately, there has been more fo
cus on helping smaller firms to use existing technologies bet
ter. (TC)2 has also enhanced relationships between apparel
companies and manufacturers of textiles and fiber.
Outlook
The current trend in textile manufacturing is to reduce greatly
the number of workers necessary for the production process.
There is a movement towards "lights-out" operations which
are totally automated. In fact, fully automated open-end spin
ning has been achieved, in which spinning machines are run
without operators. This "lights-out" process made its debut
in 1991. Diagnostics and quality control systems help to
ensure the quality of the output of totally automated openend spinning machines.21 Complete automation of the weav
ing process may be more difficult to attain, but it is "on the
threshold of becoming a reality."22 Automated repair of
breaks in the filling (the crosswise yams) is now a reality,
with the use of electronics. However, warp repair might turn
out to be the main stumbling block on the way to completely
automated weaving that is economically feasible. One in
dustry executive has said that he does not foresee the total
elimination of weavers and does not expect to see fully auto
mated repair of warp breaks because of the complexity of
repair in terms of the location of breaks and the number of
categories of breaks.23
Another trend likely to persist is the shift towards natural
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
35
Productivity in Fabrics
fibers, especially cotton. Apparel manufacturers have intro
duced permanent press all-cotton products in the past few
years, which may intensify cotton's popularity. Cotton fab
rics can be treated to be permanent press before or after the
garment is constructed, but it is the "post curing" that is at
tracting the most attention, because a permanent crease and
pleats can be put into the garment. Although at first limited
to men's casual slacks, the use of permanent press cotton is
now expanding to women's wear and men's dress shirts and
slacks.24
International competition will continue to be a concern
for the U.S. textile industry. While the growth of import
penetration into the U.S. textile market slowed after 1986,
the percent of the market captured by imports has risen each
year since 1988, reaching 48 percent in 1993.25 A positive
trend for the cotton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics indus
try is that exports of broadwoven fabrics continue to climb.26
In an effort to make U.S. textiles more competitive, the
American Textile Partnership (AMTEX) was begun in 1993. As
a research agreement between the Department of Energy's na
tional laboratories and the integrated U.S. textile industry, this
partnership’s purpose is to develop technologies for use by the
industry. At least some of the technological developments are
to be spin-offs of existing government technologies (such as
those originally devised for the Department of Defense). More
than 100 companies are involved in these projects.27
Lastly, quick-response programs are becoming more
prevalent, as more retailers and apparel and textile firms dis
cover their benefits. Annual conferences have been held in
the past few years to educate companies on advances in quick
response. Retailers are also starting to expand their quickresponse efforts to include fashion items as well as basic
goods.28 While fashion goods may seem well suited to quick
response because they are often marked down or out of stock,
it can be more difficult to implement a quick-response pro
gram for fashion products than for basic products. One rea
son is that few domestic textile manufacturers have been pro
ducing short-run specialty fabric, which is needed for high
fashion items.29
1972 and 1991, multifactor productivity in the cot
ton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics industry increased by
an average 0.8 percent per year. From 1972 to 1979, multi
factor productivity experienced an average annual gain of
1.1 percent. In the subsequent period, 1979-91, the rate of
growth was about two-thirds as large, at 0.7 percent per year.
Labor productivity, measured by output per employee hour,
advanced at an average annual rate of 3.1 percent in 197291. The intermediate purchases effect, which equaled 1.9
percent per year, accounted for most of the difference between
labor productivity and multifactor productivity. The capital
effect, at 0.4 percent per year, explained the remainder of the
difference.
If automation of the production process continues to in
crease and the pressures from international competition per
sist, the broadwoven fabrics industry could continue to see
gains in multifactor productivity and losses in employment
in the near future. Rising exports of broadwoven fabrics and
the expansion of quick-response programs might boost pro
duction and diminish employment loss.
□
B etw een
Footnotes
1The Bureau of Labor Statistics also publishes multifactor productivity
measures for two-digit manufacturing industries, for utilities industries and
for three major sectors of the economy: private business, private nonfarm
business and manufacturing.
2When these items are made in establishments other than weaving mills,
they are classified in sic 2392, Home furnishings, except curtains and
draperies.
3 The shares in total industry value of shipments were computed with
data from the Annual Survey of Manufactures and the Census of Manufactures.
4 "Cotton: Picked Again," The Economist, July 28, 1990, p. 59.
5Textile Hi-Lights (Washington, American Textile Manufacturers Institute,
June 1994), p. 26.
6Textile Hi-Lights, (Washington, American Textile Manufacturers Institute,
March 1993), p. 24 and Textile Hi-Lights, June 1994, p. 26.
7 The latest year of data availability on number of plants in the study
period is 1987.
8Textile Hi-Lights, March
1993, p. 24. Import penetration is calculated
by dividing the amount of imported fabric by the total amount of fabric
consumed in the U.S. market. The imported fabric is measured in square
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
meter equivalents and includes the fabric in imported finished goods such as
garments as well as bolts of fabric.
9Walecia Conrad, "The Textile Industry is Looking Threadbare," Business
Week, Sept. 16, 1991, pp. 114-17.
10 T extile
H i-L ig h ts ,
June 1994, p. 26.
11 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The U.S. Textile and
Apparel Industry: A Revolution in Progress - Special Report, OTA-TET-332
(Washington, Government Printing Office, April 1987), pp. 85-86; and James
L. Kenworthy, "U.S. China Textile Relations," The China Business Review,
September-October 1991, pp. 40-44.
12MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity, "The US Textile Industry:
Challenges and Opportunities," in Working Papers o f the mit Commission on
Industrial Productivity, volume 2 (Cambridge, ma, The mit Press, 1989), pp.
43-44.
13 Conrad, "The Textile Industry is Looking Threadbare," p. 116.
14Textile Hi-Lights, June 1994, p. 27.
15 Textile Hi-Lights, March 1993, p. 31.
16 Current Industrial Reports, Series MQ-22T.1, June 1973 and Series
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
36
MQ-22T.2, June 1973, and Series MQ-22T, September 1992.
17"Air jets blow hot in the U.S. weaving market," Textile World, November
1989, pp. 42-43.
18The discussion of yam manufacture in this paragraph is drawn from the
following publications: Mark W. Dumas and J. Edwin Henneberger,
"Productivity trends in the cotton and synthetic broad woven fabrics industry,"
Monthly Labor Review, April 1988, pp. 34-38; The Impact o f Technology on
Labor in Four Industries, Bulletin 2228 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May
1985), pp. 18; and Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Textile and Apparel
Industry, pp. 42^14.
22 Walter N. Rozelle, "Electronics accelerate weaving developments,"
Textile World, April 1992, p. 31.
23 "Weaving features quick change, automation," Textile World, March
1993, p. 65-74.
24 Raye Rudie, "Permanent Press Makes a Smooth Comeback," Bobbin,
May 1993, pp. 66-70.
23Textile Hi-Lights, December 1994, p. 26.
26Textile Hi-Lights, March 1993, p. 31.
19 Bemie Knill, "Quick Response: Now for the Hard Part," Material
Handling Engineering, March 1990, pp. 67-78.
27John W. McCurry, "amtex Spurs New Ways of Thinking," Textile World,
June 1994, pp. 78-82.
20 Walter N. Rozelle, "Most Quick Response is foot dragging to Weave
Corp.," Textile World, December 1990, pp. 79-82.
28 Trevor Little, "Quick Response ’92," America's Textiles International,
May 1992, pp. 14-16.
21 McAllister Isaacs III, "Open-end spinning is ready for 'lights out,'"
Textile World, November 1992, p. 44.
29 M it Commission on Industrial Productivity, "The US Textile Industry:
Challenges and Opportunities," p. 63.
APPENDIX:
M easurem ent of multifactor productivity
Methodology and data definitions
The following is a brief summary of the methods and data that
underlie the multifactor productivity measure for the cotton and
synthetic broadwoven fabrics industry. A technical note, describing
the procedures and data in more detail, is available from the author
at the Office of Productivity and Technology, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Washington, DC 20212.
O u tp u t. The output measure for the cotton and synthetic
broadwoven fabrics industry is based on the weighted change in
the deflated value of shipments of various types of broadwoven
fabric products, as reported in the Censuses and Annual Surveys of
Manufactures. Deflated five-digit primary product shipments were
Tomqvist aggregated using the values of product shipments as
weights. This measure is in turn benchmarked to Tomqvist indexes
of constant-dollar-production calculated from detailed quantity and
value data published in the Census of Manufactures for 1972, 1977,
1982 and 1987.
For multifactor productivity measures for individual industries,
output is defined as total production, rather than the alternative of
value added. For a value-added measure, intermediate inputs are
subtracted from total production. Consequently, an important
difference between the multifactor productivity indexes b l s
publishes for individual industries and those for aggregate sectors
of the economy is that the latter measures are constructed within a
value-added framework. For the major sectors of the economy,
intermediate transactions tend to cancel out; intermediate inputs
are more important in analysis of production at the industry level.
Further, output in the measures for individual industries is
defined as total production that "leaves" an industry in a given
year in the form of shipments plus net changes in inventories of
finished goods and work in process. Shipments to other
establishments within the same industry are excluded, when data
permit, because they represent double counting, which distorts the
productivity measures.
Labor.
Labor input is measured by an index of employee hours,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
which reflects the movements of the total number of employee
hours. These hours are the sum of production worker hours and
nonproduction worker hours. Production worker hours are from
the b l s Current Employment Statistics (C ES) survey; nonproduction
worker hours are estimated by multiplying the number of
nonproduction workers (from the CES survey) by an estimate of
nonproduction worker average annual hours. The labor input data
are the same as those used in the previously published b l s outputper-hour series for this industry.
C apital. A broad definition of capital input, including equipment,
structures, land, and inventories, is used to measure the flow of
services derived from the stock of physical assets. Financial assets
are not included.
For productivity measurement, the appropriate concept of capital
is "productive" capital stock, which represents the stock used to
produce the capital services employed in current production. To
measure the productive stock, it is necessary, for each type of asset,
to take account of the loss of efficiency of the asset as it ages. That
is, assets of different vintages have to be aggregated. For the
measures in this article, a concave form of the age-efficiency
relationship (in which efficiency declines more slowly during the
earlier years) is chosen.
In combining the various types of capital stock, the weights
applied are cost shares based on implicit rental prices of each type
of asset. The rental prices reflect the implicit rate of return to
capital, the rate of depreciation, capital gains, and taxes. For an
extensive discussion of the measurement of capital, see Trends in
M u ltifa cto r P rodu ctivity, 1 9 4 8 - 8 1 , Bulletin 2178 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1983).
Intermediate purchases include materials,
fuels, electricity, and purchased business services. Materials
measured in real terms refer to items consumed or put into
production during the year. Freight charges and other direct charges
incurred by an establishment in acquiring these materials are also
included. The data from which the intermediate inputs are derived
include all purchased materials and fuels, regardless of whether
they were purchased by the individual establishment from other
In term ed ia te p u rch a ses.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
37
Productivity in Fabrics
companies, transferred to it from other establishments within the
same company, or withdrawn from inventory during the year. An
estimate of intraindustry transactions is removed from materials
and fuels.
Annual estimates of the cost of services purchased from other
business firms are also required for the measurement of multifactor
productivity in a total output framework. Some examples of such
services are legal services, communications services, and repair of
machinery. An estimate of the constant-dollar cost of these services
is included in the intermediate purchases input.
Factor cost shares for capital, labor, and intermediate purchases.
Weights are needed to combine the indexes of the major inputs
into a combined input measure. The weights for the cotton and
synthetic broadwoven fabrics industry are derived in two steps:
first, an estimate of cost in current dollars for each input is derived,
and then the cost of each input is divided by the total cost of all
inputs.
paid the value of its marginal product. In that case, the output
elasticities can be replaced by factor income shares; that is,
Wk -
(1)
Q(t) = Q[K(t), L(t), M(t), t]
P ,L
-■ ------
Wm
PaQ
-
Pm M
PaQ
where P q is the price of output and Pk, Pr and Pm, are the prices paid
for the capital (K ), labor (L), and intermediate purchases (M) inputs,
respectively.
Furthermore, if constant returns to scale are assumed, then wk + w,
+ wm= 1 and factor income shares are identical to factor cost shares.
Equation (2) can be rewritten as:
Conceptual framework
The general form of the production function underlying the
multifactor productivity measures is postulated as:
„ , wi
Pa Q
(3)
The multifactor productivity measure presented in this article is
computed by dividing an index of output by an index of the
combined inputs of capital, labor, and intermediate purchases. The
framework for measurement is based on a production function
describing the relation of the output and inputs and an index formula
consistent with this production function.
Pk K
A
A
Q
Q
K
Wk K
L
L
M
M
Wl — ~ Wm —
In this expression, the growth of multifactor productivity can be
seen as a measure of economic progress; it measures the increase
in output over and above the gain due to increases in inputs.
Equation (2) can also be transformed into a contribution
equation, which allows for an analysis of the change in output
per hour. First subtract L/L from both sides of the equation. Then,
because the weights sum to unity under the assumption of constant
returns to scale, apply the term (wt + w, + w j to the L/L term inserted
on the right-hand side. Finally, collect terms with the same weight,
to obtain:
(4)
where Q (t ) is total output, K {t) is input of capital services, l i t ) is
input of labor services, M (t) is input of intermediate purchases,
and t is time.
Differentiating equation (1) totally with respect to time and then
performing some algebraic manipulations yields the sources-ofgrowth equation:
( 2)
Q
Q
—=
A
K
L
M
F Wk-----F W l
Fw m
A
K
L
M
where AJA is the rate of change of multifactor productivity, w k is
output elasticity (percentage change in output due to a 1-percent
change in input) with respect to the capital input, w, is output
elasticity with respect to the labor input, and wmis output elasticity
with respect to the intermediate purchases input. (A dot over a
variable indicates the derivative of the variable with respect to time.)
K
Q L
o " I =Wk K
+ Wm
M
M
A
+—
A
The left side of equation (4) is the growth rate of output per hour.
The terms in brackets are the rates of change in the ratios of capital
to labor and intermediate purchases to labor. Thus, the rate of
growth in output per hour can be decomposed into the weighted
sums of changes in these ratios plus the change in multifactor
productivity.
Equations (2), (3), and (4) describe aggregation in continuous
form. The bls multifactor productivity indexes are constructed
according to a Tomqvist formula that represents aggregation at
discrete points in time and is consistent with a transcendental
logarithmic production function. The rate of change in output or
an input is calculated as the difference from one period to the next
in the natural logarithms of the variables. For example, Q/Q is
calculated as:
In Q (t) - In Q(t - 1).
Equation (2) shows the rate of change of output as the sum of
the rate of change of multifactor productivity and a weighted
average of rates of change of capital, labor, and intermediate
purchases inputs. Now, if it is assumed that input and output markets
are competitive and in long-run equilibrium, then each input is
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Indexes are constructed from the antilogarithms of this differential,
The weights we wp and wmare calculated as the arithmetic averages
of the respective shares in time periods t and t - 1.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
38
P ro d u c tiv ity in M a n u fa c tu r in g
Manufacturing multifactor
productivity in three countries
Multifactor productivity growth in the United States
has been lower than the growth rates recorded
by Germany and France since 1956 but only the U.S. rates
show a pickup since the post-1973 slowdown
,
Wolodar Lysko
Wolodar Lysko is an
economist in the
Division of Foreign
Labor Statistics,
Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
n a comparison of manufacturing multifac
tor productivity between three G-7 countries
over the 1956—93 period, the largest average
annual rate of increase, 3,1 percent, occurred in
France. Germany followed at 2.3 percent and the
United States with 2.1 percent.
After 1973, the growth rates slowed in all
three countries. The rate in the United States
picked up in the 1979-93 period, but evidence
of such a recovery in Germany and France re
mains to be seen. Because manufacturing multi
factor productivity is strongly affected by the
business cycle, observers must wait for cyclical
disturbances to subside in those countries for a
more definite answer.
Labor hours in U.S. m anufacturing rose
slightly over the full period studied; they de
clined significantly in Germany and France, par
ticularly after 1973. At the same time, capital
services inputs were increasing steadily in all
three countries. The result was an overall sub
stitution of capital for labor, which was espe
cially vigorous in Germany and France before
1973, and intensifying in the United States after
1973.
Over the period 1956-93, labor productivity
increased faster in Germany and France than in
the United States over this period because of
much larger average increases between 1956 and
1979. But in the more recent 1979-93 period
the United States had the highest average an
nual labor productivity growth rate. German and
French growth rates were higher before 1973,
due mostly to a more rapid substitution of capi
tal for labor. Following 1973, the rates of substi
I
tution became more similar; differences in
manufacturing multifactor productivity changes
decided the leadership in labor productivity
growth, often on a cyclical basis.
M ultifactor productivity differs from the
traditional measure of labor productivity by ex
plicitly including capital as a factor of produc
tion. Including capital as an additional input not
only recognizes its importance as a factor of pro
duction, but also makes it possible to analyze
and explain how other factors influence labor
productivity.
For many years, the Bureau of Labor Statis
tics has compared manufacturing labor produc
tivity among the United States and many of its
industrialized economic competitors. Likewise,
for more than a decade, b l s has published multi
factor productivity measures for U.S. manufac
turing industries and other broad sectors of the
U.S. economy. Now, b l s is applying similar tech
niques to productivity trends in various coun
tries, providing a new tool to understand what
shapes international competitiveness and why
labor productivity trends differ among countries.
Comparisons in this article between the United
States and two other G-7 countries, Germany
and France, are the beginning of a wider project
that will eventually include other industrial
economies.
The basic approach of this study follows the
methodology developed by b l s to measure mul
tifactor productivity for broad sectors of the U.S.
economy.1 The study considers the aggregate
manufacturing sector, without an analysis of de
velopments in individual manufacturing indusM onthly Labor Review
July 1995
39
Productivity in Manufacturing
tries. This follows the approach of b l s international labor
productivity comparisons in which the aggregate manufac
turing sector is, with some exceptions, the unit of analysis.
Methodology
The multifactor productivity measures in this study are based
on a generalized production function for a country’s manu
facturing sector, and are estimated from the following rela
tionship: 2
where
mfp
GPO
L
K
w;
wk
- multifactor productivity
= the real gross product originating (or value
added) in manufacturing
= input of labor services
= input of capital services
= labor’s share of current price value added
= capital’s share of current price value added
An assumption underlying the weights (w; and wk) used
in this model is that the two primary factors of production,
labor and capital, divide all the value added between them
selves, each being paid the value of its marginal contribu
tion to output (its marginal product). This implies competi
tive markets for the factors of production. Multifactor pro
ductivity is a residual that registers those changes in the
sector’s real output ( g p o ) , which are not due to variations in
labor and capital inputs. This would include technological
changes, gains in organizational efficiency, changes in the
skill composition of labor input, and the benefits from re
search and development. The multifactor productivity mea
sures and comparisons presented in this article are in the
form of indexes or percent changes, and no level compari
sons are made. An alternative, the dual formulation of equa
tion 1, is shown in the appendix.
Defining manufacturing. The definition of manufacturing
is not identical among the United States, Germany, and
France. The German definition differs from the United States
in that it includes some quarrying and also the repair of elec
trical equipment for households, and the repair of motor
vehicles, railroad equipment, and tires, which are classified
in the industries that produce these products. Data for Ger
many apply to the former West Germany.3 The French data
apply to mining and manufacturing less energy-related prod
40
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
ucts. As a result, the French definition excludes petroleum
refining and includes the quarrying and m ining of
nonenergy-related products. The processing of agricultural
products and foodstuffs is added to the manufacturing sector
as defined in the French national statistics, which excludes
these industries.
Manufacturing output. Real (deflated) gross product origi
nating in manufacturing (value added) is the output mea
sure for each of the three countries. Another possible output
measure is discussed in the appendix. However, price-base
years used to measure real output and the frequency and
methods of changing price weights, which can lead to differ
ences in real output growth rates, are different among the
three countries.
Until the 1990’s the U.S. national accounts were only de
flated using fixed weights, that is the prices in a particular
year. In this method the base year is changed every 5 years,
but the new base prices are then applied to the entire time
series, so that data for all previous years are deflated using
the price structure of the most recent benchmark year. The
result is that the growth in real output for years before the
benchmark year is generally underestimated. This is still the
featured m easure o f U.S. output, but the Com merce
Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis also computes
and publishes alternate output measures, including a benchmark-years-weighted measure of manufacturing real output.4
This deflation method uses the Fisher Ideal Index for
mula and weights from two benchmark years, customarily 5
years apart. For each pair of adjacent benchmark years, the
weights are computed as the geometric mean of fixedweighted quantity indexes based on each of the two bench
mark years.5 These measures share one important character
istic with the output measures computed for German and
French manufacturing: the two Nations use different weights
for different periods, rather than using the same fixedweighted structure for all years.
However, the benchmark-years-weighted measures also
have some limits. The benchmark years correspond to the
years for which Census of Manufactures data are available,
and relative prices in these years may be affected by cyclical
factors that are less relevant to other years. In addition, the
current b e a benchmark-years-weighted measures of manu
facturing output have not been applied before 1977 and end
with the latest benchmark in 1987; the data for subsequent
years use constant 1987 weights.
Therefore, a chain-type annual-weighted index developed
by b l s is being used. This index is compiled by means of a
Tomqvist aggregation of deflated output values for detailed
manufacturing industries, using moving weights. The index
is based on the assumption that changes in gross output are
equal to the sum of weighted changes in intermediate inputs
and changes in value added. The latter can be obtained as a
residual. The change in the gross output of an industry is
year. The base year is normally changed every 10 years, and
series on the different base years are linked. The measures
used for this article are the base-year linked measures.6
(2) d\n{ Y.) = wx . x d l n i x . ) + wGP0,. x d\n ( gpo )
where Y. is real gross output of industry i, X. are real interme
diate inputs to industry i, and w and w„Dr, are the share
weights of intermediate inputs and of value added in the
value of production. Then the change in real gpo (net out
put) is
/
(3)
>.
[ d \ n { Y i ) - w x, i X d \ n { X i ) \
d\n\GPO ¡) = ------------- -------------------wGPO,i
and the change in total manufacturing
an aggregate:
(4)
gpo
is obtained as
d\n(GP0) = ^ W i X d \ n { G P O i )
In all cases, weights are taken from the two years over
which growth is being measured. Lastly, the annual g p o
growth rates are chained into the index shown.
This index is currently available for years up to 1992.
The 1993 value was estimated based on the trend shown
by the industrial production index published by the U.S. Fed
eral Reserve Board. The manufacturing output series calcu
lated by the annual-weighted method results in faster an
nual growth rates before the benchmark year than would have
been obtained if fixed weights had been used. The follow
ing tabulation shows the average annual rates of increase
in manufacturing output over 1979-87 based on the three
methods:
1987 fixed-price weights........................
Benchmark-years-weighted....................
Annual-chain-weighted index................
1.5 percent
2.3 percent
3.1 percent
German manufacturing output is real product originating
in manufacturing, as reported in the national accounts regu
larly published by the German national statistical office,
Statistisches Bundesamt. Germany normally introduces new
price weights every 5 years. This price structure is used for
the preceding 5 to 10 years. For earlier years, this price struc
ture is used at the level of detail published, but the old price
structure is maintained at a finer level of detail.
For France, output is real gpo for the sectors here defined
as manufacturing, as reported in the national accounts by
the national statistical institute, the Institut National de la
Statistique et des Etudes Economiques ( i n s e e ) . In the French
national accounts, alternative series are published, one us
ing transactions valued at the prices of the previous year and
the other using transactions valued at the prices of a base
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Labor input. Labor input is defined in this article as total
hours worked by all persons active in the manufacturing sec
tor. This includes the self-employed and unpaid family work
ers as well as employees (wage and salary workers). Labor
input is not distinguished by categories such as experience,
age, or gender, and no quality differentiation is assumed.
The labor input data are the same as those used in the inter
national comparisons of labor productivity computed by b l s .
Labor compensation is used to calculate labor’s share in
total value added (w>; in equation 1). This includes direct pay
ments (wages and salaries, paid vacations, bonuses, pay
ments in kind) and indirect payments (employer contribu
tions to social insurance, health, and pension benefits). The
data on employee compensation are from national accounts
sources.7 The compensation of self-employed persons is es
timated by assuming that the hourly compensation costs of
the self-employed are the same as for employees.
Capital inputs. Capital inputs to the production process are
defined as the value of services per year from stocks of pro
ductive capital assets, both stocks and services valued in real
terms. Capital service flows are assumed to be proportional
to the capital stock. Consequently, the measurement of capi
tal inputs depends on the proper calculation of the capital
stock level, at constant prices. Capital used in manufactur
ing comes in many forms and categories, although these can
be summarized in the four broad classes of fixed business
equipment (including vehicles), structures, inventories, and
land. The various types of capital stock are combined into an
aggregate capital stock index by applying appropriate
weights in a Tômqvist formula
Kt = the real, weighted aggregate value of all asset
categories in year t.
K.f = the real value of capital asset category i in year t,
s.t = the weights used in combining the capital
categories.
Taking an approach similar to that used in equation 1 and
making related assumptions, the weight j of each asset cat
egory i is set equal to the asset’s estimated share of total
capital income in year t. Assuming competitive markets for
the different categories of capital, each category receives a
rent equal to its contribution. And if Y( denotes the total
income to capital, and c.( the rent earned by a unit of capital
in category i, then
M onthly Labor Review
July 1995
41
Productivity in Manufacturing
(6)
Si, , = —
K
and
i
Generally, published data series are not available for K.t
and cit, the stocks of the different types of capital and of the
income that they earn. Therefore, both variables must be
estimated.
The capital stock levels of depreciable fixed assets are
estimated by applying the perpetual inventory method ( p i m ) ,
which consists of cumulating past investments in each type
of asset, while making due allowances for the decline in effi
ciency that accompanied the aging of assets, which ultimately
are scrapped. The b l s method assumes that efficiency de
clines gradually early in an asset’s life and more quickly later.
Space limits permit only a very compressed description of
the p i m method used at b l s . This is presented in the appen
dix, where the effect of assumed asset service lives on capital
service inputs also is examined. Other sources and methods
are used to estimate the stock levels of the nondepreciating
assets, inventories and land, as is indicated below.
Rental prices c.t are estimated by an imputed rent for
mula, which calculates what each asset would earn if it could
be rented in a competitive market for capital assets. The
imputed rent formula requires data series on asset prices,
income and property tax rates, and asset depreciation.8
(See the appendix for more details about the rental price
formula.)
Theoretical considerations suggest that when applying
formula 5, the different types of asset categories should be
combined at as disaggregated a level as possible. The more
categories, the more homogeneous will be the assets that
comprise each category; as a result, the more accurate will
be the overall index (Kt). For the United States, b l s aggre
gates up to 25 types of capital assets for each of 20 manufac
turing industries (that is, formula 5 is applied industry by
industry). Investment data by asset type and by industry are
obtained from b e a . The capital input series for U.S. manu
facturing, used in the present study, is a summation of the
real aggregate capital input values across all manufacturing
industries.
For Germany and France, capital estimates are available
for only four asset categories: equipment, structures, inven
tories, and land. Investment series for equipment and struc
tures in German manufacturing, and for inventory levels,
are provided by national account statistics. For France, the
published national accounts provide only total fixed invest
ments in manufacturing. The breakdown into equipment
and structures was provided by the French statistical insti
tute, i n s e e . French manufacturing inventories are estimated
from annual changes in inventories. None of the three coun
tries being compared publishes data for land used in manu
facturing. In all three cases, the value of land is estimated
42
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
by applying a land/structures ratio to the estimated stock of
structures.
The time periods
When comparing differences in manufacturing output and
productivity trends among different countries, care should be
taken that these trends not be unduly affected by cyclical fluc
tuations. Productivity measures tend to reflect these cyclical
movements, because output (the numerator) is very sensitive
to changed demand conditions, while factor inputs (the de
nominator) are more sluggish. A common way to remove such
effects is to measure changes only between years that corre
spond to similar cyclical phases, preferably cycle peaks.
For the United States, during the years covered by this
study (1956-93), seven reference cycle peaks, certified by
the National Bureau of Economic Research ( n b e r ) business
cycle dating committee, have occurred. Without imitating
the elaborate timing methods used by the n b e r , we will de
fine a local cycle peak in manufacturing output as a year
with positive or zero growth in real manufacturing g p o that
precedes a year with negative growth in real g p o . According
to this definition, U.S. manufacturing peaks generally coin
cided with or slightly led all U.S. reference cycle peaks, with
the exception of the mild recession of 1960-61, when manu
facturing output continued to grow.
The terminal years used for analysis in this study are 1956,
1973, 1979, 1990, and the most current year, 1993. Besides
being local maxima output years in the United States, 1973
and 1979 also stand out because they were the beginning
years of the first and second energy crises and because of the
severity of the following recessions. German manufacturing
output hit peaks during the same two years. In France, manu
facturing output peaks occurred in 1974 and 1979, but
growth slowed substantially in 1973. For these reasons, 1973
and 1979 were selected as two of the years that would an
chor periods of comparison in the present study. Manufac
turing productivity measures are available for all three coun
tries beginning in 1956. Manufacturing output in the United
States peaked in 1957, while the German and French manu
facturing sectors were growing strongly at that time and did
not hit cyclical peaks until 1966 and 1974. Therefore, it does
not appear that 1956 output was influenced by cyclical move
ments in any of the three countries.
On an annual average basis, U.S. manufacturing output
peaked again in 1989, German output in 1991, and French
output in 1990. Since U.S. manufacturing output peaked in
the third quarter of 1990 and German output was rising
strongly in 1990 and 1991, 1990 was selected as another
terminal year for analysis.
The fifth pivot year, 1993, is more of a problem. It is the
most current year for which the comparisons are available,
C h art 1.
Manufacturing output, labor and capital inputs, and multifactor productivity, 1956-93
Index, 1956=100
Index, 1956:=100
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
1956
1962
1968
1974
1980
1986
0
1992
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
Q I I
1956
.
I
.
I
.
I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ !___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ !___ i___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ I___ l_l
1962
1968
1974
1980
1986
1992
0
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
1956
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1962
1968
1974
1980
1986
1992
M onthly Labor Review
0
July 1995
43
Productivity in Manufacturing
1979. It could be argued that the 1973-79 period, character
but it hit the United States and the two European countries
at very different cyclical stages. For the United States the
ized by the first energy crisis and the measures taken by in
dustry to adapt to it, was atypical. By treating the 1973-79
problem is less severe, because manufacturing output hit
its last low in 1991; by the end of 1993 a large proportion
data as outliers-observations that vary abnormally from sta
tistical averages—U.S. multifactor productivity may be back
of the cyclical recovery should have taken place. However,
German and French manufacturing output were still falling
on a growth trend similar to—though somewhat less rapid
from their peaks in 1991 and 1990; as of 1993 they were
than-the trend of the pre-1973 years.
Multifactor productivity trends can be explained by rela
moving in the opposite cyclical direction from the United
States.
tive changes in manufacturing output and factor input growth
Productivity measures for periods ending in 1993 reflect
rates. U.S. manufacturing output (real gross product origi
nating) grew at a 3.3-percent annual average during the 1956the facts as we know them from the latest available informa
90 period, with slowdowns and declines during cyclical retion, and are therefore important. As data arrive for 1994
and later, the results will be recorded. Given these facts, one
should not accept as definitive interna
tional productivity comparisons that have Table 1. Growth rates of manufacturing output, factor inputs, and productivity,
U.S., Germany, and France, selected periods, 1956-93
1993 as the ending year. In the summary
com parative tables, average rates of [Average annual percent changes]
change are shown for 1956-90 and 1956Labor input
Output
93.
United
States
United
States
Germany
France
-1.0
-1.2
-.6
-1.4
-2.5
-.9
-3.3
-0.8
-1.0
.5
-2.1
-1.8
-2.2
-3.0
Germany
France
3.6
3.1
5.9
1.4
1.7
1.2
-2.2
4.1
3.6
6.8
1.5
2.6
1.0
-1.8
0.3
.1
.8
-.3
.4
-.7
-1.3
Germany
1.0
.8
2.4
-.4
-.8
-.1
-1.8
Trends, by country
Because Germany and France had not, as
of 1993, recovered from their cyclical
downturns, much of the analysis concen
trates on the period ending in 1990.
United States. Manufacturing multifac
tor productivity registered an average
annual increase of 2.1 percent the entire
1956-93 period. (See table 1). Growth
declined from an average of 2.9 percent
annually before 1973 to 1.2 percent be
tween 1973 and 1990. However, this
slower multifactor productivity growth
was composed of an annual decline of 0.2
percent during 1973-79 (when labor and
capital inputs grew faster than output),
followed by a recovery to 2.0 percent an
nually in 1979-90 and 2.8 percent a year
during 1990-93.
While the average rate of increase
since 1973 is clearly below the pre-1973
average growth rate, one cannot conclude
on the basis of this evidence alone that
there has been a fundamental shift— a
decline— in productivity growth after
1973. While the fastest increase in manu
facturing m ultifactor productivity oc
curred during 1956-73 (2.9 percent an
nually), it increased nearly as fast during
1990-93 (2.8 percent annually) and has
averaged 2.2 percent annually since
44
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
1956-90 ..............
1956-93 ..............
1956-73 ..............
1973-90 ..............
1973-79 ..............
1979-90..............
1990-93..............
3.3
3.2
4.6
2.0
1.2
2.5
2.6
Capital services
1956-90 ..............
1956-93..............
1956-73 ..............
1973-90..............
1973-79 ..............
1979-90 ..............
1990-93 ..............
Labor and capital input
United
States
Germany
France
United
States
3.9
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.5
3.7
2.6
4.7
4.5
7.4
2.0
2.5
1.8
2.4
4.6
4.3
6.6
2.6
3.5
2.0
1.8
1.2
1.1
1.6
.8
1.4
.4
-.2
1956-90 ..............
1956-93..............
1956-73..............
1973-90 ..............
1973-79 ..............
1979-90..............
1990-93 ..............
3.7
3.7
3.0
4.3
4.2
4.3
3.9
Germany
France
United
States
5.8
5.8
8.1
3.5
5.1
2.7
5.9
5.4
5.4
6.1
4.7
5.5
4.3
5.0
3.0
3.1
3.8
2.3
0.8
3.1
4.0
Output per unit of capital services
1956-90
1956-93
1956-73
1973-90
1973-79
1979-90
1990-93
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
.7
.5
2.3
-.9
-.4
-1.1
-1.4
Output per hour
Capital services per hour
United
States
France
Germany
France
4.7
4.4
6.5
2.9
4.3
2.1
1.2
5.0
4.6
6.3
3.7
4.5
3.2
1.2
Multifactor productivity
United
States
Germany
France
United
States
Germany
-0.6
-.6
.7
-1.9
-3.2
-1.2
.1
-1.1
-1.3
-1.5
-.7
-.8
-.6
-4.5
-0.4
-.7
.2
-1.0
-.9
-1.1
-3.6
2.1
2.1
2.9
1.2
-.2
2.0
2.8
2.6
2.3
3.4
1.8
2.6
1.3
-.4
France
3.4
3.1
4.4
2.4
3.0
2.1
-.4
cessions. Growth was more than twice as fast during 195673 (4.6 percent annually) than in 1973-90 (2.0 percent). There
was a significant drop in output from the 1973 peak to the
1975 trough (-18.3 percent), marking the post-1973 energy
crisis and recession, and overall growth was very slow in the
1973-79 period. However, after 1979, real output growth
picked up again, to an average annual rate of 2.5 percent
during 1979-90 and 2.6 percent during 1990-93.
On the input side, total hours worked grew slowly for the
period—only 0.1 percent annually during 1956-93. Labor
input increased overall during 1956-79, with very rapid in
creases during the 1950’s and 1960’s, and a decline since
then. Labor hours rose slightly during 1973-79, then de
clined during the post-1979 period; the pace of the decline
accelerated after 1990. Hours worked in 1993 were 10.6 per
cent below their peak in 1979, but were 5 percent above their
1956 value.
Capital service inputs grew vigorously and fairly steadily
throughout the 1956-90 period, with no recorded annual de
clines. This is true even for recession years.9 For U.S. manu
facturing, the rate of capital input growth varied relatively
little among the different time periods between 1956 and
1990, from a high of 4.5 percent annually during 1973-79
to a low of 3.7 percent annually during 1979-90. However,
capital service inputs rose only 2.6 percent annually in 199093. What is unusual (compared with the other countries) is
that capital inputs increased as rapidly after 1973 as before
1973. It should be noted that the most rapid growth in capi
tal service inputs occurred during the 1973-79 period, which
was marked by the first energy crisis, as U.S. manufacturers
adjusted to increasing energy and labor costs.
The combined labor and capital inputs resulted in a gen
erally rising trend throughout the 1956-90 period. The in
crease was most rapid before 1973, at an annual average of
1.6 percent, and lowest between 1979 and 1990, at 0.4 per
cent per year, because of the decline in labor inputs. The
only negative average occurred during 1990-93, because of
a significant drop in labor hours and smaller increases in
capital services inputs.
There was an overall substitution of capital for labor as
capital service inputs increased faster than labor hours. This
is shown by the capital services/hours worked ratio, which
grew an average of 3.7 percent per year between 1956 and
1990. The ratio grew somewhat faster during the post-1973
period (4.3 percent annually), but in general, this rate of
substitution was quite stable throughout the entire 37 years.
In this aspect, the United States differs from Germany and
France, where the substitution of capital for labor in manu
facturing proceeded at a faster rate over the entire 1956-93
period. However, the increases were front-loaded on the ear
lier, pre-1973 period, with significantly slower substitution
in the more recent years.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Finally, the trends in capital productivity, defined as the
ratio of output per unit o f capital service inputs, also should
be noted. The steady growth in capital inputs, and the sub
stitution of capital for labor, resulted in an overall decline in
this ratio. The 1956-73 period was an exception, with a small
average increase of 0.7 percent annually. The decline in capi
tal productivity since 1973, particularly prominent in 1973—
79 (-3.2 percent annually), resulted from rapid increases in
capital service inputs during a period of relatively slow manu
facturing output growth. Relative stability, with some over
all increase, has been a characteristic of this ratio since 1982.
A relatively optimistic picture of recent U.S. manufactur
ing developments can be derived from the output and factor
input dynamics analyzed above. The negative manufactur
ing multifactor productivity growth recorded during 1973—
79 was due to stagnating output combined with a spurt in
capital service inputs, while labor hours also increased. Both
output and multifactor productivity growth have since
recovered.
Germany. Although the manufacturing multifactor pro
ductivity increase of 2.6 percent per year over the 1956-90
period (2.3 percent, 1956-93) represented substantial growth,
it slowed significantly after 1973 (1.8 percent per year, 197390), and especially after 1979 (1.3 percent per year, 1979—
90). German manufacturing multifactor productivity growth
slowed even though combined labor and capital inputs were,
on average, decreasing after 1973. In 1990-93, multifactor
productivity declined 0.4 percent annually due to an output
decline of 2.2 percent per year that was not matched by an
equal decline in inputs. For 1992 and 1993, multifactor pro
ductivity declined 2.5 percent and 1.2 percent.
German manufacturing output grew at an average rate of
3.6 percent annually during the 34-year period 1956-90,
slightly faster than U.S. manufacturing output. However, the
rate of growth has been dropping steadily. Similar to the
United States, very rapid growth occurred before 1973 (5.9
percent annually) and a slowdown took place after that (1.4
percent per year, 1973-90). But unlike the United States,
there was no recovery in the output growth rate during the
latter years of the 1973-90 period. On the contrary, the 197990 period registered slower growth (1.2 percent per year)
than the 1973-79 period (1.8 percent per year). Thus, al
though the 1973-79 period may be treated as an aberration
in the United States, with growth recovering after 1979, this
is not true for Germany, at least not yet.
Labor hours worked in German manufacturing show a
declining trend throughout the entire 1956-90 period, par
ticularly in the 1973-79 period (and since 1990). All the
labor input period averages are negative. (See table 1.) It
was only in the 1984-90 period that some stability seems to
have been restored. The result has been respectable gains in
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
45
Productivity in Manufacturing
labor productivity even during the 1970’s, despite the slow
down in production. The reductions in labor inputs were es
pecially sharp in 1990-93, with a decline of 9.1 percent re
corded in 1993. In 1990, hours worked were 22 percent be
low their 1973 level, and almost 30 percent below their 1956
level (29 and 36 percent below as of 1993).
As in the United States, the input of capital services in
German manufacturing is characterized by steady growth
over the entire period under study. This is due in large part
to the way that capital inputs are measured: as a weighted
summation of past investments in capital assets. However,
great disparities separate the average growth rates of capital
inputs for the different time periods. While there was strong
average growth over the period as a whole, the increases
were much greater before 1973 than after 1973, and espe
cially in the 1979-90 period. The average annual increases
declined from 7.4 percent during 1956-73 to 2.5 percent
during 1973-79, to a relatively anemic 1.8 percent per year
in the 1979—90 period; the slowest growth occurred in the
interval 1982-88. Capital service inputs increased at an av
erage annual rate of 2.4 percent in the 1990-93 period.
The combination of increasing capital service inputs and
generally declining labor inputs resulted in only small net
annual increases of 1 percent in combined labor and capital
inputs for the whole 1956-90 period. In the earlier, pre-1973
years, capital input increases dominated, resulting in a net
average increase of 2.4 percent for labor and capital. The
decline in this series in all periods since then is due to reduc
tions in labor hours, because capital inputs continued to in
crease, although at decreasing average rates. During the
1979-90 period, the declines in labor inputs were roughly
offset by the capital input increases, resulting in only a slight
net decline in labor and capital inputs of 0.1 percent per
year. Combined factor inputs declined sharply—6.5 percent
in 1993—because of the sharp drop in hours and only a small
increase in capital services.
Changes in the ratio of capital service inputs to labor
hours are an indicator of capital for labor substitution; these
increased in each of the 37 years betwen 1956 and 1993.
Capital-for-labor substitution proceeded very rapidly during
1956-73, at an average rate of 8.1 percent annually, slowing
to a still significant average of 5.1 percent annual rate dur
ing 1973—79, and slowing further to 2.7 percent annually in
1979-90.
Examining the changes in capital productivity, the aver
age output to capital input ratio declined during all the time
periods. As a result, net capital investment in manufactur
ing increased, on average, faster than manufacturing output
during every period.
Based on the developments in manufacturing output and
factor inputs described above, one can see that the declining
trend in German manufacturing multifactor productivity
46
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
growth in recent years can be traced to a steady reduction in
the output growth rate, in combination with relative stability
of factor inputs. Thus, manufacturing multifactor productiv
ity seems to be following and mirroring movements in manu
facturing production.
France. Manufacturing multifactor productivity grew at an
impressive average 3.4 percent annually over the entire
1956-90 period (3.1 percent, 1956-93), above the corre
sponding results for either the United States or Germany.
(See table 1.) This breaks down to an average annual in
crease of 4.4 percent during 1956-73, and a still respectable
annual 2.4 percent during 1973-90.
But the average rate of increase declined over the latter
period, so that increases in manufacturing multifactor pro
ductivity have been much smaller in more recent years, grow
ing at only 2.1 percent annually during 1979-90. The 197390 slowdown in manufacturing multifactor productivity
growth occurred despite declines in combined labor and capi
tal inputs, because the growth rates of manufacturing output
declined more rapidly. Results for the early 1990’s are worse,
with multifactor productivity declines of 1.4 percent in 1991
and 0.5 percent in 1993 due to declines in manufacturing
output that were not matched by equal declines in labor and
capital factor inputs.
French manufacturing output increased constantly until
1975, when the first downturn occurred, but growth rates
declined over time. Despite a brief growth spurt in the late
1980’s, French manufacturing output stagnated during the
1980’s and the beginning of the 1990’s. As in Germany, the
results since 1979 were worse than for 1973-79. Manufac
turing output rose at an average annual rate of only 1.0
percent during 1979-90, and declined each year during
1991-93.
Labor input in French manufacturing grew at a moderate
upward trend of 0.5 percent annually during 1956-73, after
which a steady and steep decline set in. Total labor hours
fell 2.1 percent annually during the 1973-90 period and 3.0
percent annually in 1990-93. Total hours worked in 1990
were 30 percent less than in 1973, and 23 percent below the
number of hours worked in 1956. As of 1993, total hours
worked were down 36 from 1973 and 30 percent lower than
in 1956,
As with the other countries covered by the present study,
the French manufacturing industry has been increasing its
productive capital asset base throughout the period covered,
so that capital service inputs have grown every year in real
terms, even during recessions. However, as in Germany, the
rate of growth has been declining over the years. Therefore,
growth rates vary greatly for the different time periods, rang
ing from a high average of 6.6 percent per year in 1956-73
to a low of 2.0 percent per year in 1979-90 (and even lower
in 1990-93). The slowest growth in capital service inputs
occurred during 1982-86 (and in 1992-93).
The combination of increases in capital service inputs and
the generally declining labor inputs results in an average
annual growth rate of 0.7 percent in labor and capital in
puts over the 34-year period of 1956-90. In the earlier, pre1973 years, the increases in capital service inputs dominated
this aggregate, so that combined labor and capital inputs
grew at an average annual rate of 2.3 percent. In the later,
post-1973 years of 1973-90, capital service inputs grew at a
slower rate and labor input declined. As a result, labor and
capital inputs also declined, at an annual rate of 0.9 percent.
The ratio of capital services input to hours worked, a
measure of the rate at which capital is being substituted for
labor, rose in each of the 37 years in the 1956-93 interval,
indicating that capital inputs were growing faster than labor
inputs during this entire period. The rate of capital-for-labor
substitution was relatively stable among the various time
periods, although it proceeded at a somewhat faster pace
before 1973. The ratio grew between a high average annual
rate of 6.1 percent during 1956-73 and a low 4.3 percent
annual rate in the more recent 1979-90 period.
Capital productivity rose slightly during 1956-73, but has
since declined because capital service inputs grew faster than
manufacturing output.
French manufacturing recorded respectable gains in mul
tifactor productivity throughout the 1956-90 period as a
whole. Before 1973, manufacturing output rose nearly 7 per
cent annually and multifactor productivity increased 4.4 per
cent annually. After 1973, a worsening multifactor produc
tivity trend can be observed as a steadily declining growth
rate of real manufacturing output is confronted with a rela
tively stable combination of factor inputs. However, the 2.1
percent annual multifactor productivity growth rate during
1979-90 is still respectable, essentially matching the U.S.
figure for the same period of 2.0 percent per year. Neverthe
less, these data show that a decline in French manufacturing
multifactor productivity occurred after 1973.
Sources of labor productivity growth
For notational convenience, equation 1 can be rewritten as10
(V d \n (M F P t )
= d \n (G P Q )-w i,t x d \n (L t)-w k ,tX d \n (K t )
The term d ln(X() also serves as an expression for (Xt/Xt l 1), to indicate the percent change in X at time t. Noting that
wi t + wr t = 1, and re-arranging terms in equation (7), we
get
(8)
d\n[~
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
) = d \ n ^ MF P + d\n{j^)'Xwict
This indicates that changes in labor productivity (output
per hour) can be analyzed as the sum of changes in multifac
tor productivity and changes in the ratio of capital service
inputs to labor hours, the latter multiplied by capital’s share
of the output value. The term representing the product of the
capital services per hour ratio and the capital income share
(d\n[Kt / Lt ] x w k t ) can be interpreted as a capital-for-labor
substitution effect. In this way growth in labor productivity
can be separated into a multifactor productivity effect and a
capital/labor substitution effect.
Labor productivity changes are examined in the three
countries, to determine the role of these two effects in those
changes. (See table 2.)
Labor productivity in U.S. manufacturing grew an an
nual average 3.1 percent over the 1956-93 period, some
what faster before 1973 (3.8 percent per year) than after
ward (2.3 percent per year). Labor productivity barely grew
in 1973-79, when output rose little more than 1 percent per
year. (See table 2.) Of all the periods, the highest labor pro
ductivity growth was registered in 1990-93 (4 percent per
year).
Vigorous capital-for-labor substitution contributed to this
growth in labor productivity, but it is only part of the expla
nation. In most periods, m f p was more important in explain
ing labor productivity gains. (See table 2.) Before 1973, most
Sources of manufacturing labor
productivity growth, U.S., Germany, and France,
selected periods, 1956-93 (in percent)
Output per
hour
Capitallabor
substitution
effect
Muiitfactor
Productivity
United States
1956-90 .................................
1956-93.................................
1956-73.................................
1973-90.................................
1973-79 .................................
1979-90 .................................
1990-93 .................................
3.0
3.1
3.8
2.3
.8
3.1
4.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.1
2.1
2.9
1.2
-.2
2.0
2.8
Germany
1956-90 .................................
1956-93.................................
1956-73.................................
1973-90.................................
1973-79.................................
1979-90.................................
1990-93 .................................
4.7
4.4
6.5
2.9
4.3
2.1
1.2
2.0
2.0
3.1
1.1
1.7
.8
1.7
2.6
2.3
3.4
1.8
2.6
1.3
-.4
France.....................................
1956-90.................................
1956-93.................................
1956-73.................................
1973-90.................................
1973-79.................................
1979-90 .................................
1990-93 .................................
5.0
4.6
6.3
3.7
4.5
3.2
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.3
1.5
1.2
1.7
3.4
3.1
4.5
2.4
3.0
2.1
-.4
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
47
Productivity in Manufacturing
of the increases in labor productivity were accounted for by
strong growth in multifactor productivity. Although capital
service inputs were growing faster than labor inputs through
out this period, the substitution of capital for labor was rela
tively moderate, particularly when compared with Germany
and France.
This changed somewhat after 1973, as growth in multi
factor productivity tended to weaken, while the substitution
of capital for labor became more intense. In the 1973-79
period, U.S. manufacturing multifactor productivity declined
slightly, but labor productivity still managed to grow an
annual average 0.8 percent because of very strong increases
in capital service inputs, and the resulting shift in the capital/labor input ratio. But while the increasing capital/labor
input ratio continued to be an important contributor to the
growth of labor productivity in U.S. manufacturing in the
1979-90 period, multifactor productivity growth also recov
ered, and was again a 'more important factor in explain
ing labor productivity growth. M ultifactor productivity
growth also was the more important factor in the 1990-93
period.
Thus, of the two factors, capital-for-labor substitution and
multifactor productivity, the latter turned out to be more im
portant in explaining changes in U.S. labor productivity. The
exception was 1973-79, when m f p showed a small decline.
In the German manufacturing sector, labor productivity
recorded impressive gains over the period as a whole, but
with declining annual increases. Over the 1956-90 time pe
riod, and for most of the sub-periods examined in this study,
growth in multifactor productivity also was the more impor
tant factor in explaining these increases. Capital-for-labor
substitution was particularly vigorous before 1973, but m f p
was still more important in explaining the improvement in
labor productivity. However, given the strong capital-for-la
bor substitution in German manufacturing over most of this
same period, this factor was, not surprisingly, almost as im
portant. Also, in the most recent 3 years, 1990-93, when m f p
declined, the capital/labor substitution effect was greater than
the m f p effect.
Average increases in all periods, but on a declining trend,
also characterize labor productivity in the French manufac
turing sector over the 1956-90 period. French manufactur
ing m ultifactor productivity growth, despite somewhat
slower growth in the more recent time periods, also recorded
steady increases in all the time periods examined, except for
1990-93. And despite the strong capital-for-labor substitu
tion in France, manufacturing multifactor productivity still
played the major explanatory role in determining the manu
facturing sector’s growth in labor productivity during most
periods. As in German manufacturing, the exception was in
1990-93, when manufacturing multifactor productivity de
clined. But the capital-for-labor substitution effect, while
48
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
playing a secondary role, did contribute significantly to the
improvement of labor productivity.
Within all three countries, manufacturing multifactor pro
ductivity is therefore a more important explanatory factor
than capital-for-labor substitution in explaining labor pro
ductivity growth (but not in explaining differences in labor
productivity growth between the countries, as will be seen in
the following section).
In sum, growth in each country’s capital/labor input
ratio is insufficient by itself to explain the strong growth in
labor productivity observed in the different countries and
time periods. Other factors—those that are encompassed
by the concept of multifactor productivity—must also be
considered.
Comparisons among countries
United States and Germany. Over the 1956-90 period,
German m anufacturing m ultifactor productivity grew
slightly faster, at 2.6 percent per year, than its United States
counterpart, which grew at an annual 2.1 percent average.
However, the German m ultifactor productivity annual
growth rate has been declining: 1956-73, 3.4 percent; 197379, 2.6 percent; and 1979-90, 1.3 percent. (Multifactor pro
ductivity was negative in the 1990’s.) On the other hand,
U.S. manufacturing multifactor productivity has recovered
from the 1973-79 decline, and increased faster than the Ger
man equivalent in the 1979-90 period (and in 1990-93).
Output growth can be broken down into the two compo
nents of growth in combined labor and capital inputs and in
multifactor productivity, although the relationship is only
approximate with annual data. (See table 3.) Before 1973,
manufacturing output grew strongly in both countries, al
though the German growth rate was somewhat greater (4.6
percent per year in the United States and 5.9 percent per
year in Germany). During these same years, capital service
inputs increased about twice as fast in Germany.
However, while hours worked were declining in German
manufacturing at the rate of 0.6 percent per year, U.S. hours
increased at the rate of 0.8 percent per year. The net result
was that, although the use of combined factor inputs in
creased more in Germany than in the United States (an an
nual rise of 2.4 percent versus 1.6 percent), German multi
factor productivity grew marginally faster over this 17-year
period; the average difference was 0.4 percentage points per
year.
After 1973, the dynamics in the two manufacturing sec
tors changed somewhat. U.S. manufacturers increased their
capital service inputs at a more rapid pace than in Germany,
and, while U.S. labor hours increased less than previously,
or even declined, labor input in German manufacturing
shrank much more. The net result was that total factor in-
lU â M fli
Contribution of labo r a n d c a p ita l a n d m ultifactorproductivity to m anufacturing output growth,
United States versus G e rm a n y a n d France,
se lec te d periods, 1956-93
[Average annual percent changes and
country differences in rates of change]
Period and country
Manufactur
Labor and Multifactor
ing
capital input productivity
output
growth
growth
growth
Germany-U.S.
1956-90:
Germany..................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
1956-93:
Germany..................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
1956-73:
Germany..................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
1973-90:
Germany..................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
1973-79:
Germany..................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
1979-90:
Germany..................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
1990-93
Germany..................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
3.6
3.3
.3
1.0
1.2
-.2
2.6
2.1
.5
3.1
3.2
-.1
.8
1.1
-.3
2.3
2.1
.2
5.9
4.6
1.3
2.4
1.6
.8
3.4
2.9
.4
1.4
2.0
-.6
-.4
.8
-1.1
1.8
1.2
.5
1.7
1.2
.6
-.8
1.4
-2.2
2.6
-.2
2.8
1.2
2.5
-1.3
-0.1
.4
-.5
1.3
2.0
-.7
-2.2
2.6
-4.8
-1.8
-.2
-1.6
-.4
2.8
-3.2
puts in German manufacturing fell, although they still grew
in the United States. In the 1973-79 period, growth in U.S.
manufacturing output slowed to a rate of 1.2 percent per year,
while combined factor inputs grew by 1.4 percent per year,
resulting in a small decline in multifactor productivity. Dur
ing this same period, the German manufacturing sector
posted annual increases of 1.7 percent in output and 2.6 per
cent in multifactor productivity. But in the later period,
1979-90, German manufacturing output growth averaged
only 1.2 percent annually and multifactor productivity 1.3
percent annually, while U.S. output increased by 2.5 percent
per year and U.S. multifactor productivity increased by 2.0
percent per year.
These results suggest that comparative growth rates of
manufacturing multifactor productivity should not be viewed
as fundamental, secular trends, where one country dominates
another over extended periods of time. Rather, multifactor
productivity growth depends on relationships among outputs
and inputs that vary cyclically, and can change in a rela
tively few years.
We can examine how changes in labor productivity (out
put per hour) differ in the manufacturing sectors of the United
States and Germany. One can again begin with relationship
^
d 1n (-n r^ ) = d \n (aiFPt ) + d \ n(j ~j x w* t
Because we want to examine differences in growth rates
between the United States and Germany, let us call D(~) the
difference between the respective growth rates of the mea
sures shown in the parentheses. Relationship 8 can then be
broken down into:11
France—U.S.
1956-90:
France.....................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
1956-93:
France.....................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
1956-73:
France .....................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
1973-90:
France.....................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
1973-79:
France.....................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
1979-90:
France.....................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
1990-93:
France.....................................
United States...........................
Difference................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
= D(-f-) x [ a v S- w/c ,t ] + D ( w ktt )
4.1
3.3
.8
.7
1.2
-.5
3.4
2.1
1.3
3.6
3.2
.4
.5
1.1
-.6
3.1
2.1
1.0
6.8
4.6
2.2
2.3
1.6
.6
4.4
2.9
1.5
1.5
2.0
-.5
-.8
.8
-1.6
2.4
1.2
1.2
2.6
1.2
1.4
-.4
1.4
-1.8
3.0
-.2
3.2
1.0
2.5
-1.5
-1.1
.4
-1.5
2.1
2.0
.0
-1.8
2.6
-4.5
-1.4
-.2
-1.2
-.4
2.8
-3.3
(9)
x r avg.rfln(-£-)j+
D (M F P t )
where[av* M
'* '] and [av^ dln^7!")]are the arithmetic averages of
these variables for the two countries being compared.
In this way the difference in labor productivity growth
between the two countries is expressed as a sum of three
additive factors: difference in changes in capital inputs per
hour, multiplied by the (two-country) average capital share
in the value of output; difference in capital shares, multi
plied by the (two-country) average change in capital inputs
per hour; and difference in multifactor productivity growth.
These three factors may be designated by the summary terms
of: the capital-for-labor substitution difference, the capital
share difference, and the multifactor productivity difference.
It should be remembered that the above relationship holds
only approximately for annual data.
This analysis was carried out for the various time periods,
and the results are summarized in table 4. For the 34-year
M onthly Labor Review
July 1995
49
Productivity in Manufacturing
■■m
m
U
Sources of differences in manufacturing labor
productivity growth, United States versus Germany
and United States versus France, selected periods,
1956-93
Period
CapitalCapital Multifactor
Output
labor
produc
share
per hour substitution
tivity
difference
difference
difference
Germany minus U.S.
averge growth rate:
1956-90 ........................
1956-93 ........................
1.6
1.3
0.7
.6
0.4
.3
0.5
.2
1956-73........................
1973-90........................
1973-79........................
1979-90........................
1990-93........................
2.8
.5
3.5
-1.1
-2.8
1.7
-.2
.3
-.5
.6
.7
.2
.3
.1
.0
.4
.5
2.8
-.7
-3.2
1956-90 ........................
1956-93........................
1.9
1.5
.5
.5
.1
.1
1.3
1.0
1956-73 ........................
1973-90........................
1973-79........................
1979-90........................
1990-93 ........................
2.5
1.3
3.6
.1
-2.8
.9
.1
.3
.0
.3
.1
.0
.0
.0
.2
1.5
1.2
3.2
.0
-3.2
France minus U.S.
average growth rate:
period of 1956-90, labor productivity grew faster in German
manufacturing, by an average 1.6 percentage points per year.
All three factors apparently played a role in this result. To
get a better understanding of the underlying forces at work,
it is better to examine the different periods separately.
In the 17 years before 1973, labor productivity in the Ger
man manufacturing sector increased by an annual average
6.5 percent against 3.8 percent per year in the United States.
Most of the difference (2.8 percentage points) can be traced
to the capital-for-labor substitution difference. The capital
share difference, though much less important, was the next
biggest contributor to the above outcome. It should be men
tioned at this point that for most of the time period studied,
the capital share in German manufacturing was larger than
the corresponding variable in the United States, helping to
maintain faster growth in German manufacturing labor pro
ductivity. The capital share in the United States fluctuated
between 0.23 and 0.30, while in Germany it began above
0.40 in 1956 and subsequently declined. In 1980 it reached
the U.S. range, and even fell below the U.S. value in the last
2 years, at 0.24 vs. 0.28 for the United States in 1993. Thus,
this factor played a somewhat more important role in the
earlier years of the period under study and has become less
important in more recent years.
During the period 1973-90, the increases in labor pro
ductivity were very similar in the manufacturing sectors of
both countries, with Germany holding an advantage of an
50
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
average 0.5 percentage point per year. But the rate at which
capital was substituted for labor in U.S. manufacturing ap
proached or surpassed the corresponding German rate (these
rates became more alike), so that the difference in multifac
tor productivity became relatively more important. However,
this period must be broken down into the first stage, 1973—
79, during which German labor productivity grew much
faster, 4.3 percent vs. 0.8 percent per year, and the second
stage, 1979-90, when U.S. labor productivity pulled ahead,
3.1 percent vs. 2.1 percent per year.
During 1973-79, almost all of the faster increase in Ger
man manufacturing labor productivity was accounted for by
more rapid increases in German manufacturing multifactor
productivity, which rose by an annual average 2.6 percent
while U.S. manufacturing multifactor productivity declined
by 0.2 percent per year. The two sectors’ capital/labor input
ratios grew by about the same amount, separated by less than
1 percentage point per year.
In the period 1979-90, U.S. labor productivity increased
faster, and the difference in manufacturing multifactor pro
ductivity growth rates was again the primary reason, al
though faster capital-for-labor substitution in the United
States also played a significant role. The capital share differ
ence still favored German labor productivity, but its influ
ence had become minimal (the two capital shares had be
come very similar).
One may conclude that over the 1956-90 period, the capi
tal-for-labor substitution difference was the major factor in
explaining the differences in labor productivity growth rates
in the U.S. and German manufacturing sectors.
The multifactor productivity difference was next in im
portance. Note that the factors that explain labor productiv
ity growth within a country’s manufacturing sector are not
necessarily the same factors that explain differences in labor
productivity growth between countries. In the previous sec
tion about sources of labor productivity growth, multifactor
productivity was found to be more important than capitalfor-labor substitution in explaining each country’s increase
in labor productivity. Now, in comparing U.S. and German
labor productivities, the reverse is true. This overall outcome
was determined by the pre-1973 developments, where capital/hours growth rates in the two countries differed much
more, while multifactor productivity growth rates were more
similar. But multifactor productivity played a much more
important role in later years, when capital-for-labor substi
tution slowed in Germany and accelerated in the United
States, bringing the two rates closer.
Before 1973, the capital share difference (the higher Ger
man level) was a relatively important factor in keeping Ger
man labor productivity growing faster. Over the years, as the
German capital share became more similar to the U.S. capi
tal share, this difference became less important.
United States and France. Over the 1956-90 period,
manufacturing multifactor productivity in France grew at a
faster pace than multifactor productivity in U.S. manufac
turing, at an annual average rate of 3.4 percent vs. 2.1 per
cent. (See table 3). However, the French multifactor produc
tivity annual growth rate slowed over the period: 1956-73,
4.4 percent; 1973-79, 3.0 percent; and 1979-90, 2.1 per
cent. The vigorous turn-around in multifactor productivity
growth shown by U.S. manufacturing in the 1980’s and
1990’s was not matched by French manufacturing.
The reason for the better overall French performance was
that, while manufacturing output in France grew somewhat
faster during the 1956-90 period, U.S. combined factor
(labor and capital) inputs increased at nearly twice the rate
of the French (1.2 percent vs. 0.7 percent per year). This
greater improvement in the use of factor inputs by French
manufacturing was accomplished in part by saving labor.
Although capital service inputs rose strongly in both manu
facturing sectors (France somewhat more, 4.6 percent per
year vs. 3.9 percent per year in the United States), French
labor hours declined by about 1 percent annually, while
manufacturing labor hours kept growing in the United States
until the 1980’s.
After 1973, U.S. capital service inputs grew faster than
those in French manufacturing, especially after 1979. With
labor hours in French manufacturing continuing to decline
faster than in the United States, this further widened the gap
between U.S. and French labor and capital inputs. French
factor inputs declined throughout the 1973-90 period, even
as manufacturing output grew at an average 1.5 percent per
year. During this same period, combined U.S. factor inputs
kept increasing. This contributed to better French multifac
tor productivity performance. U.S. multifactor productivity
grew faster than French manufacturing multifactor produc
tivity only in the most recent 1990-93 period, when French
output fell and French manufacturing multifactor productiv
ity turned negative.
To examine differences in labor productivity growth rates
in the manufacturing sectors of the United States and France,
we will use the same analytic tool that was used in the Ger
man comparisons breaking down differences in labor pro
ductivity growth into three additive factors: the capital-forlabor substitution difference, the capital share difference,
and the multifactor productivity difference (equation 9).
For the entire 1956-90 period, French labor productivity
increased at a faster annual rate, 5 percent vs. 3 percent in
the United States, for a difference of 2 percentage points (see
table 4). French labor productivity grew faster in all periods
(except 1990-93), although the difference was negligible in
the 1979-90 period. Most of this difference in growth rates
was accounted for by more rapid multifactor productivity in
creases in the French manufacturing sector (3.4 percent vs.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2.1 percent per year). The substitution of capital for labor
(i.e. changes in the ratio capital/labor inputs) proceeded at a
faster pace in French manufacturing in most of the periods
studied, but the margin above the corresponding U.S. rate
diminished over time.
This difference in substitution rates (growth in capital ser
vices per hour) equaled 3.1 percentage points per year in
1956-73, 1.3 percentage points per year in 1973-79, and
essentially no difference in 1979-90. While the capital-forlabor substitution difference had a relatively greater weight
before 1973 than after 1973, multifactor productivity was
always the most important factor in explaining differences
in U.S.-French labor productivity growth. This is unlike the
German-U.S. comparison, in which the capital-for-labor sub
stitution difference before 1973 was more important. In
1979-90, all three factors were approximately nil; labor pro
ductivity grew at approximately the same average rate in
both countries.
Although multifactor productivity was the most impor
tant factor, the rapid substitution of capital for labor in
French manufacturing also contributed significantly to the
labor productivity growth differential. The capital share dif
ference played a negligible role in explaining differences in
labor productivity.
While multifactor productivity is important in explaining
labor productivity differences, there is no clear indication
that one country's long-term trend in manufacturing sector
multifactor productivity is inherently stronger. As in the
U.S.-German comparisons, cyclical considerations play a
part in determining comparative advantage, as the post-1990
switch in U.S.-French leadership in multifactor productivity
demonstrates.12
General observations
In all three countries, multifactor productivity increased
in most years, with the fastest growth rates recorded before
1973. But multifactor productivity declines occurred in all
three countries during periods in which output was cut
severely, as in 1973-79 in the United States and 1990-93
in Germany and France. Although Germany and France
had better multifactor productivity growth results for the
period as a whole, their rates of multifactor productivity
growth declined steadily over the years, showing negative
rates in 1990-93. By contrast, multifactor productivity
growth resumed in the United States after 1979, and although
U.S. manufacturing multifactor productivity increased most
rapidly in 1956-73 (2.9 percent per year), it grew nearly
as fast after 1979. Such a resumption in multifactor pro
ductivity growth has not yet been observed in Germany
and France. However, unlike the United States, Germany
and France have not yet recovered from the economic down-
M onthly Labor Review
July 1995
51
Productivity in Manufacturing
turns that affected the three countries at the beginning of the
1990’s.
Manufacturing output slowed in the three countries after
1973, particularly in the United States. But while U.S. out
put recovered significantly after 1979, such a recovery is not
yet evident in German or French manufacturing.
In Germany and France, labor hours declined over the
1956-93 period. In France, labor hours increased a modest
0.5 percent per year before 1973, but experienced strong de
clines since then. In Germany, labor hours fell in all the pe
riods. The average yearly declines in labor hours in both
countries frequently reached 2 percent to 3 percent. In the
United States, labor hours increased slightly in manufactur
ing for the period as a whole, but U.S. labor input declined
after 1979. However, the U.S. rate of decrease since 1979 has
been much slower than in Germany or France.
In all three countries, capital inputs increased strongly
during the period as a whole, with growth occurring in all
sub-periods. In Germany and France, however, these in
creases were much greater before 1973; their rates of increase
have declined steadily since then. In the United States, capi
tal inputs grew quite vigorously and fairly steadily during
the period, with relatively little variation in growth rates
among the different time periods. In contrast to what occurred
in Germany and France, capital inputs grew faster after 1973
than before.
Combined labor and capital inputs increased in the three
countries before 1973. After 1973, combined factor in
puts declined in Germany and France, as cuts in labor hours
m ore than offset increased capital service inputs. In
the United States, average annual increases of combined fac
tor inputs occurred in each time period, except for a slight
decline in 1990-93, although the rate of increase slowed
somewhat.
The ratio of capital service inputs to labor hours increased
in the three countries, indicating that capital was being sub
stituted for labor. In Germany and France, this process was
especially noticeable before 1973. In the United States, on
the other hand, the more vigorous capital-for-labor substitu
tion occurred after 1973.
Labor productivity increased in the United States in all
periods, although just barely in 1973-79, when output stag
nated. The pre-1973 rate of increase was slightly faster than
the post-1973 rate. In Germany and France, labor productiv
ity also increased in all periods, but the pre-1973 rates were
much stronger.
□
Footnotes
‘For a summary of the state of the art, see Dale W. Jorgenson, “Productivity
and Economic Growth,” in E.R. Bemdt and J.E. Triplett, eds., F ifty Years o f
E c o n o m ic M ea s u r em en t: The J u b ile e o f th e C o n fe ren ce on R e s e a r c h in In
c o m e a n d W ealth (University of Chicago, 1990), pp. 19-118.
2 The principal reference to the method used in this study to measure multi
factor productivity is T ren ds in M u ltifa c to r P ro d u c tiv ity , 1 9 4 8 - 8 1 , Bulletin
2178 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1983).
3Before 1960, the source data series did not include West Berlin or the Saar
region. Results with and without these two areas were published for 1960; they
were used to link the data series.
4The Bureau of Economic Analysis has annouced that, later this year, it will
feature the index of real gdp based on its "chain type" annual weights measure
instead of the "fixed weight" measure. However, bea does not publish a chaintype annual-weighted measure for manufacturing.
5For a description of alternate ways to compute real output, and for a discus
sion of changes in the U.S. statistical program, see Allan Young, “Alternative
Measures of Changes in Real Output and Prices,” S u rv e y o f C u r re n t B u sin e ss,
April 1992, pp. 32-52.
6For comparison, an index of French manufacturing real value added also
was computed using annual chain-weighted estimates. The results showed only
a slight difference in the growth rates of the two series, with the benchmarkyears-weighted series growing somewhat faster.
7The French employee compensation figures for 1956-58 and 1991-93 are
bls estimates.
T o r a more complete discussion about the perpetual inventory method of
estimating capital stock, and of imputed rent calculations, see Tren ds in M u lti
52
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
September 1983.
9This also is true for capital input growth in the manufacturing industries of
Germany and France. This result is at least partly due to the method used to
estimate capital stock (the perpetual inventory method).
10 In general, for any number X, if the change in X (or AX) is sufficiently
small, then
f a c t o r P r o d u c tiv ity , 1 9 4 8 - 8 1 ,
ln(l+AX/X)
~AX/X=
(2 f± ^ 2k_i) and
+^ ) =
11Breaking down the difference between the two products
d
d\n(X )
In(-^r-) x wk,t
is according to the following scheme, using axbi - aybyas illustrative variables:
abx- a b y =^axbx + 2axbx ~ 2ayby ~2 ayby + i ( axby ~axby + aybx ~aybx)
= 2 ax i bx + b y ) ~ 2 ayi bx +b y ) + 2 bx ( ax + a y) ~ 2 by(ax + a y)
~ (ax
(^ J t + b y ) + { bX ~ by) ’2 i ax + a y )
12To examine the reasons for the European manufacturing slowdown rela
tive to the United States, and what trend or cyclical forces are at work, factors
such as exchange rate movements and unit labor cost comparisons also must be
considered. Two recent studies of these issues are available in Bart van Ark,
“Manufacturing prices, productivity, and labor costs in five economies”, M o n th ly
L a b o r R e v ie w , July 1995, pp. 56-72; and Mary Greiner, Christopher Kask,
and Christopher Sparks, “Comparative manufacturing productivity and unit
labor costs," M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , February 1995, pp. 26-38.
Appendix
Factor input prices
Let us define an aggregate price for manufacturing output, Po, by
dividing output at current prices by real output; an hourly price of
labor, PI, by dividing total labor compensation by total hours
worked; and a price of capital services, Pk, by dividing total in
come to capital by capital service inputs. With these newly defined
variables, equation 1 can be restated as
(A-1) 4
^ k K ,_ 1+*Jx,„f-Pk,_£ 4 4 -£L
M F P ,_ X
P I
P ° i-
,-1
Equation A-l is referred to as the d u a l formulation of equation
1, (see p. 40) which is then called the p r im a l formulation.1Whereas
in equation 1 multifactor productivity increases when output grows
more than the combined factor inputs, in equation A-l multifactor
productivity increases when the output price grows less than the
combined factor prices. It should be noted that the variables m f p ,
w;, and w k are the same in both formulations. Table A-l presents the
growth rates of these three price series, for the three countries and
the periods being compared. In all cases, the hourly price of labor is
seen to be growing more rapidly than the price of capital service
inputs. The capital service price increases appear particularly low
in German manufacturing.
The perpetual inventory method
To avoid additional subscripts, the following description is in terms
of a single asset category. A similar approach, but with different
parameters, would be applied to each category in turn. The per
petual inventory method is applied to depreciable assets only.
Although we are dealing with only one asset category, this cat
egory consists of a large number of individual units, and these units
have differing useful lives (L). The actual lives for this asset cat
egory are assumed to be distributed in the form of a symmetric
pattern, which can be approximated by a truncated normal prob
ability distribution, P (L ), which is assumed to be ±2 standard de
viations around the mean asset life.
The contribution that any unit of capital makes to the production
process declines with the asset’s age. Here we assume a hyperbolic
age-efficiency function
L -i
e(i)-~— -—
L -p i
(A-2)
fo r 0 ^ i'< L
where i is age, L is useful life, and e(i) is the unit’s relative effi
ciency at age i. Relative efficiency is equal to 1.0 when the asset is
new, and then declines to 0 when its useful life ends at age i= L .
The curvature parameter (3 determines the pattern of efficiency loss,
and lies between 0 and 1. This is a parameter of the particular asset
category. For the three countries, (3 is assumed to be 0.50 for equip
ment and 0.75 for structures. The form of the hyperbolic age-effi
ciency function implies that efficiency declines more rapidly as as
sets age.
Next we define the relative efficiency of the entire asset cat
egory at age t, or a (i), as the weighted average of the individual unit
efficiencies, each one weighted by its relative frequency P (L )
Lmax
(A-3)
a (0 = £ p (£ n r ir L=i
L
P 1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
for
a
L
L m ax is the maximum useful life of an asset belonging to this
particular category. The quantity of real productive capital stock on
hand at the end of year t, for this particular asset category, or K (t),
is then computed as a summation of all past investments (/) that
could still be in operation at time t, with the investments of every
age (or vintage) being discounted by a (i)
Lmax
(A-4)
K(t)
=
£a(i)Xl(t-i)
i=0
The a (i) are a decreasing function of
sets the less their contribution to K (t).
i,
so that the older the as
Capital stock estimates and service lives
Formulas A-2, A-3, and A-4 indicate that the computed capital stock
level K(t) for a given depreciable asset category is affected by the
service lives of the units that comprise this category. For the manu
facturing industry in Germany, the estimated average service lives
of the two asset categories used are based on a study by Wolfgang
Kimer,2 and are 22 years for equipment and 43 years for structures.
For the manufacturing industry in France, the service lives are
based on data published by the French national statistical insti
tute,3 and the estimated averages are: 10 years for transportation
equipment, 18.47 years for equipment other than transportation,
and 36.84 years for structures. Transportation and other equipment
were combined into a single equipment category for the analysis
performed for this article. The United States capital input series is
based on 29 categories of equipment and 29 categories of struc
tures. The median service life of the former is 12 years, and the
median service life of structures is 38 years.
We will now examine the sensitivity of the estimated trends in
capital service inputs to the length of service life assumed for a
given asset category. Using equation A-4, subtract K(t)-K(t-1), then
on the right-hand-side multiply and divide each term by I(t-l-i),
and finally divide each side by K(t-l). The result is
Lm ax
(A-5) %AAT(t) =
5>A l ( t - i )
1=0
/ft-1-0 Xa(i)
K('-l)
The expressions %AK(t) and %AI(t-i) are year-over-year per
cent changes in the capital stock and in the level of investment, in
years t and (t-i) respectively. The terms in the square brackets are
weights that sum to one over the span of summation. Therefore, the
year-to-year changes in the estimated capital stock are trailing mov
ing averages of past investment changes. From A-5 it is evident
that the less variation in the %AI series, the less important are the
parameters included in the weights. In the limiting case, if we were
to assume that investments were growing at a constant rate through
out the period, then the capital stock would grow at exactly the
same rate, regardless of the average service life or the [3 that was
used. Although such an assumption is unrealistic, formula A-5
shows that %AK does not tend to vary systematically with length of
service life.4 A change in the length of service life will only shift
the period over which the %AI are averaged, and also modify the
weights somewhat. However, the result will still be an average of
past investment growth.
M onthly Labor Review
July 1995
53
Productivity in Manufacturing
The form of the equation suggests that estimates of average capi inputs of labor and capital are added other inputs purchased from
tal service growth should be fairly robust for moderate changes in outside the sector (energy, materials, and business services). For
the estimated service lives. To examine this assumption, average
consistency, gross output is defined as output sold outside the sec
tor, or “sectoral output.”6 This approach is particularly appropriate
annual changes in the capital stock of equipment and structures
were estimated for Germany and France, using different service
when dealing with detailed industries. The finer the industry break
down, the smaller the value added as a proportion of sectoral out
lives. The results are shown in table A-2. The base service lives
put, and the greater the value of inter-sectoral purchases as a pro
refer to the averages given in the first paragraphs of this section.
portion of total factor inputs. Conversely, as sectors become more
These were increased and decreased by given fixed percentages
(±10 percent, 25 percent, and 50 percent), and the resulting aver aggregated, the proportion of value added in sectoral output in
creases and the proportion of intermediate inputs coming from other
age annual capital stock changes tabulated. The dash refers to cases
where the investment series do not go back far enough to permit the
sectors declines.
calculations indicated.
At the total economy level, excluding imports and exports,
In general, the more the service life departs from the base as sectoral output is identical to value added (everything is sold to
sumption, the more does the computed capital growth differ from Final users), and the only input factors are labor and capital (noth
ing purchased from other sectors). If we designate by mfp^ and mfpv3
the base solution, although this is not always true (e.g., compare
the 1956-73 results for German structures, base vs. base-50 per the multifactor productivity indexes calculated for a given sector by
the sectoral output and the value added methods respectively, then
cent). In most cases the differences are less than 0.5 percentage
point, although there are two cases where the difference is over 1 it can be shown that in general
percentage point (both for base-50 percent: French structures 1956—
^
%AMFPso _ value added, at current prices
73, and German structures 1973-90). In particular, it should be
noted that the average growth rates computed for the different time
%AMFPva
sectoral output, at current prices
periods vary more among each other than do the growth rates in
The advantages of using the sectoral output definition of multi
each time span, computed using different service life assumptions.
factor productivity are evident. It allows an analysis of the effects
on multifactor productivity trends of all intermediate factor inputs,
Imputed rental price of capital
not only of the two primary factors of labor and capital.
The main disadvantages of the sectoral output approach—these
An imputed rental price is calculated for each asset category, using
become especially formidable in the case of international comparithe following equation
(l
(A-6)
utz t
- e,
pt_xrt + pt_x
c, =
where:
c
u
z
e
p
r
B
K__
x
-
1—ut
- Apt
j
Table A-l.
+ P t-\xt
[Average annual percent changes]
Capital rental price
Corporate income tax rate
Present value of tax deductions for depreciation
Investment tax credit
Asset price
Rate of return on investment
Real value of depreciation
Real capital stock
Capital gains (smoothed asset price change)5
Property tax rate (taxes on capital)
Although the rate of return (r) appears as an independent vari
able on the right-hand side of equation A-6, it is actually deter
mined simultaneously with c as a function of these same indepen
dent variables and of the total property income. For Germany and
France, it is assumed that, for every year, all assets have the same
rate of return. This rate of return is determined for each country and
in each year using the total property income for that year and using
the value of the other variables in equation A-6 that pertain to that
year. For the U.S., the rates of return are permitted to differ by
industry; within industries all assets have the same rate of return
for a particular year.
Sectoral output or value added
Sectoral multifactor productivity also can be measured by replac
ing the output term (real gross product-GPO- or value added) in
equation lwith a sector’s real gross output. To the primary factor
54
Growth rates of prices of manufacturing output
and factor inputs, U.S., Germany, and France,
selected periods, 1956-93
M onthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
Output
price
Labor
price
Capital
price
United States
1956-90.................................
1956-93.................................
2.9
2.7
5.9
5.8
2.6
2.3
1956-73 .................................
1973-90.................................
1973-79.................................
1979-90 .................................
1990-93.................................
1.1
4.8
8.6
2.9
.0
5.0
6.9
9.6
5.5
4.8
1.5
3.7
4.8
3.2
-1.8
Germany
1956-90.................................
1956-93 .................................
3.1
3.1
8.5
8.3
1.1
.3
1956-73.................................
1973-90 .................................
1973-79.................................
1979-90.................................
1990-93 .................................
2.9
3.4
4.0
3.1
2.6
10.3
6.8
9.3
5.5
6.4
.4
1.8
1.6
1.9
-8.5
France
1956-90.................................
1956-93 .................................
5.7
5.4
10.5
9.9
6.3
5.5
1956-73.................................
1973-90.................................
1973-79.................................
1979-90 .................................
1990-93 .................................
3.7
7.7
9.8
6.6
1.6
9.6
11.3
15.9
8.9
3.7
5.3
7.3
6.3
7.8
-3.5
sons—lie in the data requirements. All ship
ments among firms in the same sector must be
identified, deflated, and subtracted from the
sector’s real gross output and from its pur
chases of inputs of energy, materials, and ser
vices. This is difficult and time-consuming.
Problems of international data availability
and timeliness were one factor in the decision
to use the value-added method in the multifac
tor productivity comparisons reported in this
article. Another is that it is compatible with
the regular international comparisons of manu
facturing labor productivity reported by bls ,
which also uses real value added as the mea
sure of output. In addition, until recently, bls
regularly reported on U.S. manufacturing mul
tifactor productivity developments based on the
value added approach.7It is believed that, based
on equation A-7, the difference in the results
from the two methods should not be large given
that the measures reported here deal with the
aggregated manufacturing sector.
lU illS fl!
Growth in c a p ita l stock, results of sensitivity test, s e lec te d periods
France
Germany
Average service life
1956-90
1956-73
Equipment:
Base..................
+10 percent...........
+25 percent...........
+50 percent...........
-10 percent...........
-25 percent...........
-50 percent...........
5.37
5.42
5.46
5.49
5.32
5.21
5.02
8.18
8.11
8.00
7.79
8.22
8.25
8.22
2.64
2.78
2.97
3.23
2.49
2.26
1.92
Structures:
Base..................
+10 percent...........
+25 percent...........
+50 percent...........
-10 percent...........
-25 percent...........
-50 percent...........
2.23
2.12
1.99
1.84
2.35
2.53
2.72
2.76
2.55
2.32
2.09
3.02
3.52
4.58
1.70
1.70
1.66
1.59
1.68
1.55
.90
1973-90
1956-90
5.22
1956-73
1973-90
8.20
2.33
2.48
2.69
-
_
-
_
-
_
_
5.13
4.96
4.59
8.18
8.11
7.75
2.16
1.89
1.52
3.45
3.48
3.50
5.81
5.73
5.63
1.14
1.28
1.43
-
3.40
3.24
2.64
_
5.89
5.96
5.81
_
.96
.59
-.44
Footnotes to the appendix
1For a recent discussion of primal and dual measures of multifactor produc
tivity, see Edwin R. Dean and Mark K. Sherwood, “Manufacturing costs, pro
ductivity, and competitiveness, 1979-93,” Monthly Labor Review, October
1994, pp. 3-16.
2 W olfgang K irner, Z e itr e ih e n f u r das A n la g ev erm ö g en d er
W irtschaftsbereiche in der Bundersrepublik Deutschland. Beitrage zur
Strukturforschung, Heft 5. Berlin, Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung,
1968.
3 Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Comptes de
patrimoine en base 1980, August 1991, Table 2.1.
4This conclusion does not hold for the computed capital stock level, which
varies directly with the assumed average service life.
5 Because the imputed rents are a factor in estimating the Tömqvist weights
used for combining the different categories of capital services (si t in equation 5),
they should normally be non-negative. Negative imputed prices of capital ser-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
vices may arise in years when the price of a capital asset increases rapidly. The
explanation for this is that, with sufficiently high capital gains, a capital asset
can be owned (and operated) even if the value of its productive services is nega
tive. This is most likely to happen with nondepreciable assets (land and inven
tories). While productive capital services with a negative price may occur, one
would not wish to come up with such an estimate merely as a result of excessive
noise in the underlying price series. Smoothing the price changes reduces the
risk of this happening. For a discussion of this issue see Michael J. Harper,
Ernst R. Bemdt, and David O. Wood, “Rates of Return and Capital Aggrega
tion Using Alternative Rental Prices,” in Dale W. Jorgenson and Ralph Landau,
eds., Technology and Capital Formation, MIT Press, 1987.
6William Gullickson, “Measurement of productivity growth in U.S. manu
facturing,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1995, pp. 13-28.
7 Gullickson, “Measurement of productivity growth,” Monthly Labor
Review, July 1995, pp. 13-28.
M onthly Labor Review
July 1995
55
■
'••
;;
Productivity in Five Economies
Manufacturing prices, productivity,
and labor costs in five economies
The United States continues to surge ahead
of other major industrial economies in terms
of lower prices higher levels of labor productivity
and better unit labor cost performance; while
the depreciation of the dollar plays an important role
real productivity gains are important as well
,
Bart van Ark
Bart van Ark is an
economist with the
University of Groningen,
Groningen, The Nether
lands. The views
presented here are the
author's own, and do
not represent those of
the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
56
ver the past decade, there have been sig
nificant changes in the competitive per
formance of the world’s main industrial
nations. Following a massive restructuring in
many industries, U.S. manufacturing has shown
a strong recovery from the slowdown in output
and productivity growth that occurred during the
1970’s. For m anufacturing as a whole, the
United States has clearly maintained its position
as a leader in terms of the level of productivity
during the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Since the
mid 1980’s, the U.S. export volume of manufac
tured products also has increased rapidly and the
Nation’s current account position has improved.
During the 1970’s and 1980’s, the Japanese
share of world output increased sharply in sev
eral industries, and productivity levels in Japan
rose rapidly, especially in investment goods in
dustries. However, the Japanese economy cur
rently faces a need for major restructuring, fol
lowing a slowdown in domestic demand and a
continuous appreciation of the yen. At the same
time, the Japanese domestic market continues to
be strongly protected against the potential ex
ports of other nations.
The competitive performance of European
countries has been diverse. During the 1980’s,
Germany1lost some of its edge in several manu-
O
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
,
,
facturing industries. Compared to Germany,
France and the United Kingdom experienced a
faster rise in productivity and a slower increase
in labor cost. German manufactured exports
have also grown more slowly than those of
France and the United Kingdom since the mid1980’s.
In addition to the changes in competitiveness
among themselves, all advanced industrial na
tions have experienced increasing competitive
pressure from traditionally low income coun
tries, in particular from countries in East and
South East Asia and Latin America, which have
made substantial progress in raising productiv
ity levels over the past two decades.
This article discusses the 1970-93 perfor
mance of the major industrial nations in terms
of four measures of competitiveness. (See table
1.) All four measures are directly related to each
other. The estimates of relative price levels rep
resent the average ratio of producer prices of
each country to those of the United States, di
vided by the currency exchange rate. Value
added per hour worked is compared by express
ing the output of each country in U.S. dollars
using producer price (or “unit value”) ratios
(UVR’s). Labor compensation is compared on the
basis of the exchange rate. Unit labor cost repre-
sents the ratio of relative labor cost to the
comparative productivity levels.
Indexes of manufacturing orice levels, labor productivity, and unit
labor costs, selected years, 1970-93
[U.S.=100]
An overview
Country pair and measure
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1993p
France-United States
Table 1 shows that although the United
Relative producer price
States had substantially higher productiv
level.......................................
68.8
102.3
117.8
72.8
129.5
’ 133.9
ity levels than did Germany, Japan,
Value added per hour
worked...................................
73.3
78.5
89.8
89.8
91.3
87.8
France and Great Britain , the latter coun
Labor cost per hour...................
48.4
86.9
110.5
69.9
117.8
111.3
tries were more competitive in terms of
Unit labor costs..........................
66.0
110.6
123.1
77.8
129.1
126.9
prices and unit labor costs in 1970. Be
Germany-United States
tween 1970 and 1980, the relative pro
Relative producer price
ductivity performance of 3 of these 4 “fol
level........................................
65.7
96.8
113.2
70.1
132.8
’ 140.0
lower” countries (the United Kingdom is
Value added per hour
worked...................................
78.7
excluded) improved significantly. By
87.3
95.2
90.5
85.9
82.5
Labor cost per hour...................
47.0
83.2
106.8
63.4
121.6
125.9
1980, France and Germany strongly chal
Unit labor costs..........................
59.7
95.2
112.3
70.1
141.6
152.6
lenged the U.S. productivity leadership
Japan-United States
position, and in some major branches
such as machinery and equipment manu
Relative producer price
level.......................................
66.1
83.2
91.9
75.7
110.3
’ 121.6
facturing (in both countries) and chemi
Value added per hour
cals (in Germany), productivity levels
worked...................................
44.5
54.1
66.2
69.9
77.9
76.2
Labor cost per hour...................
21.4
43.0
52.1
45.8
77.5
101.3
were even higher than in the United
Unit labor costs..........................
48.1
79.5
78.6
65.5
99.5
132.9
States by that time.
On the other hand, relative prices and
United Kingdom-United States
labor compensation rose rapidly in the
Relative producer price
three European countries and Japan vislevel........................................
70.3
91.6
140.5
86.2
132.9
’ 132.9
Value added per hour
à-vis the United States during the 1970’s.
worked...................................
51.3
53.0
52.3
58.3
66.0
69.8
This was partly due to a more rapid rise
Labor cost per hour...................
238.0
52.9
76.4
51.1
90.4
87.7
Unit labor costs..........................
275.3
99.8
146.1
87.6
137.1
125.7
in labor compensation in nominal terms,
and partly to the depreciation of the U.S.
1 Data relate to 1992.
dollar. As a result, the three European
2 Data relate to 1971.
countries were less competitive than the
p = preliminary.
Note: Relative price levels are defined as the average ratio of producer prices between each counUnited States in 1980.
try and the United States, divided by the currency exchange rate.
Despite a slowdown in the productiv
Source: See tables 4 to 7. Updated from 1990 to 1993 on the basis of information from the U.S.
ity catch-up process, the appreciation of I Bureau of Labor Statistics.
the U.S. dollar led to a shortlived return
to lower prices and unit labor costs—relative to those of the
By 1993, the United Kingdom had reversed the pattern
United States— in the “follower” countries during the first
that had prevailed in 1970. At that time, its unit labor cost
half of the 1980’s. However, between 1985 and 1990, the
level was the highest of all “follower” countries, but by 1993
competitive position of these countries deteriorated again.
it was the lowest. However, the shift in the U.S. position was
This was particularly the case for Germany, where a very
most extreme: in 1970, it had had higher relative price lev
large rise in labor compensation per hour occurred. More
els and unit labor costs than all of the “follower” countries,
over, the comparative productivity level in German manu
whereas its position was completely reversed by 1993.
facturing declined by 10 percentage points between 1980 and
Clearly, these shifts were dominated by the volatility of
1990.
exchange rate movements since the breakdown of the Bretton
Between 1990 and 1993, relative prices and unit labor
Woods system of fixed exchange rates in 1971. However,
costs in German manufacturing worsened further, but Japan
the strong position of the United States in terms of costs
experienced the most dramatic deterioration in competitive
can also be explained, in part, by the Nation’s relatively slow
ness. Although the latter case may be largely ascribed to the
increase in labor compensation and its continuously high
appreciation of the yen, it is striking to note that in recent
level of labor productivity. Even though the manufactur
years the productivity gap between Japan and the United
ing productivity gap between each country and the United
States widened as well.
States has narrowed when one looks at the period as a whole,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
57
Productivity in Five Economies
over the past decade, only the U.S.-Japan productivity gap
narrowed substantially, while the U.K.-U.S. gap narrowed
slightly.
The following sections discuss the estimates summarized
above in more detail, and also present the evidence for six
major branches of manufacturing. Comparisons of relative
levels of prices, productivity, and unit labor costs are sparse
in the literature, even though such measures add substan
tially to our knowledge on the comparative performance of
nations in terms of production potential and competitive po
sition. In particular, the estimation of productivity levels is
complicated by theoretical problems concerning the concepts
of output to be compared, methodological problems in valu
ing output in a common currency, and the lack of interna
tionally comparable data at the industry level.
The estimates presented here are derived from the com
parative analytical framework provided by the International
Comparisons of Output and Productivity (ICOP) project at the
University of Groningen. Although the primary purpose of
ICOP is to throw light on the output and productivity perfor
mance by industry of origin,2 it also produces unit value ra
tios (or “purchasing power parities” by industry) that can be
compared to the exchange rates to obtain measures of rela
tive price levels. Finally, its productivity measures are com
bined here with comparisons of relative labor cost per hour
worked to obtain unit labor cost estimates.
Relative price levels for manufactures
Unit value ratios (UVR’s), as defined here, are estimates of
price relatives for manufactured goods. Specifically, they
are ratios of the producers’ sales value per unit of output
for matched products between each country and the United
States. (In other studies, such measures have been called
“purchasing power parities.”) Although these measures
were compiled primarily to convert the value of output by
industry in each nation’s own currency to U.S. dollars, when
compared to the official exchange rate they are them
selves one of the most straightforward measures of cost
competitiveness.
Developing UVR’s . Unit values are obtained from each
country’s production census or survey for a recent benchmark
year (in this study, 1987) by dividing producers’ sales values
by the corresponding quantities of sales. Matches are then
made for as many products as possible. However, in practice,
only a proportion of manufacturing products could be matched
to calculate the unit value ratios. For many products, values
are reported, but not quantities. In addition, for some prod
ucts, there is no counterpart in the other country, for other
products the information is not disclosed for confidentiality
reasons, and some products could not be compared because
58
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
they represent a different mix of product varieties for each
country or because there are large quality differences.
For the benchmark comparison between Germany and the
United States, 271 unit value ratios were derived, which rep
resented 24.4 percent of German manufacturing shipments
and 24.8 percent of U.S. manufacturing shipments. (See table
2.) Coverage was lowest for the France-U.S. comparison,
which comprised 109 product matches covering 12.5 and
15.1 percent of shipments in France and the United States,
respectively.
As it appeared impossible to match all products between
nations, a method was required to fill the holes for the 75 to
85 percent of output that could not be covered by unit value
ratios. This method, which is explained in more detail in
appendix B, basically involves a stage-wise aggregation of
the UVR’s, using quantities (in the first stage, from product to
industry level) and value added (in the subsequent stages up
to branch level and total manufacturing) as weights. The
original product UVR’s are therefore successively reweighted
according to their relative importance in the aggregate,
which makes the aggregate unit value ratios less sensitive to
outlier UVR’s.3
The variation in UVR’s was greatest for Japan, with food,
beverages, and tobacco having the highest u v r at 320.2 Yen/
U.S.$, and machinery and equipment the lowest u v r at 131.2
Yen/U.S.$. (See table 2.) This result indicates the dual na
ture of Japanese manufacturing. Some branches (in particu
lar electronics and cars) are very competitive on the export
market, and other branches (in particular, food) are almost
entirely protected from the world market.
Table 3 shows the resulting manufacturing unit value ra
tios for 1987, along with market exchange rates and with
expenditure purchasing power parities (PPP’s) for gross do
mestic product (GDP) from the United Nations’ International
Comparisons Project. In the case of all four country pair
ings, the manufacturing UVR’s were substantially above the
exchange rates in 1987, which implies that the price level of
manufactured products was higher in each of the competitor
countries than in the United States. Because of the low ex
change value of the U.S. dollar in 1987, none of the other
countries was able to compete on favorable terms with the
United States on the basis of relative prices in 1987, although
in this respect the United Kingdom was in a slightly better
position than Germany.
The last two columns of table 3 show expenditure pur
chasing power parities for total gross domestic product from
the U.N. International Comparisons Project. The latter are
based on relative prices of consumer goods and investment
goods, as derived from estimates of gross domestic product.
Expenditure PPP’s are nowadays provided on a regular basis
by international organizations such as EUROSTAT (the statis
tical office of the European Union), the Organization for Eco-
Table 2.
Number of unit value ratios ( uvr ’s ) , coverage percentages, and unit
value ratios at own-country and U.S. weights, by major manufacturing
branch, 1987
Country pair
France-United States
Food, beverages
and tobacco...................
Textiles, apparel,
and leather.....................
Chemicals and
allied products................
Basic and fabricated
metal products...............
Machinery and
equipment......................
Other manufacturing..........
Total manufacturing........
Germany-United States
Food, beverages
and tobacco...................
Textiles, apparel,
and leather.....................
Chemicals and
allied products................
Basic and fabricated
metal products...............
Machinery and
equipment......................
Other manufacuring...........
Total manufacturing........
Japan-United States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco...................
With double
deflation1.....................
Textiles, apparel,
and leather.....................
Chemicals and
allied products................
Basic and fabricated
metal products...............
Machinery and
equipment......................
Other manufacturing..........
Total manufacturing........
With double deflation
for food1 ....................
Number
of
UVR’S
Matched sales as
a percentage of
total sales
Own
country
United
States
Unit value ratios
(national currency/U.S.$)
Owncountry
quantity
weights
Francs/U.S. $
13
3 0 .9
34.1
7 .3 0
8 .0 2
7 .6 5
25
2 1 .4
17.4
7 .7 6
8 .7 2
8 .2 3
13
6 .3
7 .3
6 .9 3
8.51
7 .6 8
6
11.4
6 .5
7 .4 4
7.61
7 .5 2
35
17
13.1
13.4
13.6
5 .4
6 .4 7
6 .8 2
7.11
7.81
6 .7 8
7 .0 0
109
15.1
12.5
6 .8 7
7 .5 9
7 .2 2
Marks/U.S. $
55
4 7 .9
3 9 .0
1.94
2 .0 0
1 .9 7
59
4 8 .5
4 9 .8
2 .6 6
2 .8 2
2 .7 4
26
13.6
3 0 .5
2 .4 0
2.51
2 .4 5
31
4 6 .5
2 3 .9
2 .1 6
2 .2 5
2 .2 0
61
39
2 4 .9
19.8
18.7
17.0
2 .0 8
2 .1 6
2 .0 4
2 .3 5
2 .0 6
2 .2 5
271
2 4 .4
2 4 .8
2 .1 6
2 .2 5
2.21
3 0 8 .3
3 2 0 .2
Yen/U.S. $
20
—
19.0
17.9
3 3 2 .6
—
—
2 5 1 .0
27
25.1
3 4 .2
1 8 1 .9
43
2 0 .7
3 1 .9
1 7 3 .8
34
• 2 4 .9
2 2 .9
1 6 4 .4
45
21
17.1
15.9
16.1
11.3
1 0 8 .7
1 9 6 .4
190
19.1
19.9 1
1 5 0 .7
—
—
—
1 4 8 .5
nomic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the United
Nations.
Some analysts have used these PPP’s for comparisons of
relative prices at the industry level.4 This obviously creates
biases if relative prices at the industry level differ from those
at the level of total GDP. Table 3 shows two variants of the
PPP’s, from the 1985 and 1990 benchmark studies by the In
ternational Comparisons Project; both estimates have been
extrapolated to 1987 using national GDP deflators.
The two variants show surprisingly large differences.5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S.
quantity Geometric
weights average
With respect to the base 1985 variant, the
relative price levels in manufacturing
(UVR’s) are lower than the expenditure
price levels (PPP’s), vis-à-vis the United
States for France, Germany, and Japan,
but not for the United Kingdom. How
ever, a comparison of the manufacturing
UVR’s with the base-1990 variant of the
PPP’s suggests that France and Germany
also have lower expenditure price levels
than manufacturing price levels com
pared to the United States, though not by
as much as the United Kingdom. This
last observation could imply that, in the
European countries, price levels in manu
facturing are relatively high compared to
those in services, whereas in Japan they
are relatively low. Alternatively, it could
also be that distribution or transport mar
gins (which are included in the p p p esti
mates and not in the m anufacturing
UVR’s) are lower in the European coun
tries than in the United States and Japan
or that the European prices of intermedi
ate goods (which are included in the
manufacturing u v r and not in the p p p )
are relatively high.
Other authors have constructed “proxy
PPP’s” by selecting PPP’s for certain expen
diture items which were then allocated
to industries.6 Here the problem remains
that cross-country differences in transport
and distribution margins and net indirect
1 8 4 .7
1 8 3 .3
taxes may affect the estimates, and that
the prices of imported products are re
2 1 7 .6
1 9 4 .4
flected in the expenditure PPP’s, whereas
1 9 3 .7
1 7 8 .4
the prices of exported products are ex
1 5 8 .4
1 3 1 .2
cluded.
D.W. Jorgenson and M. Kuroda
2 3 7 .4
2 1 5 .9
came
a
step
closer to measuring relative
2 1 2 .2
1 7 8 .8
prices on an industry basis by “peeling
2 0 2 .9
1 7 3 .6
o ff’ indirect taxes and trade and trans
portation margins from the expenditure
PPP’s.7 All these adjustments seem an improvement over the
use of unadjusted expenditure PPP’s, but they also make the
PPP’s increasingly sensitive to the procedures used and the
quality of the data. However, the most fundamental problem
of using PPP’s from the International Comparisons Project
for the purpose of industry comparisons is that those PPP’s
exclude price measures for intermediate products (iron and
steel, cement, pulp and paper and most kinds of semiman
ufactured goods), which account for a substantial part of
manufacturing output.
2 3 4 .9
2 4 2 .8
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
59
Productivity in Five Economies
Therefore, neither expenditure p p p ’s
for total gross domestic product nor
proxy p p p ’s are a good alternative to the
u v r ’s in international comparisons of
productivity. What is most needed are
more detailed and comparable data on
quantities and prices of products to re
fine the u v r ’s, which take account of
cross-country differences in product mix
and product quality. However, at the rela
tively aggregate level of the six major
manufacturing branches, the results pre
sented here are not so much affected by
such factors.8
Table 2.
Continued—Number of unit value ratios ( uv r ’s ) , coverage
percentages, and unit value ratios at own-country and
U.S. weights, by major manufacturing branch, 1987
Country pair
Number
of
uvr's
Matched sales as
a percentage of
total sales
Own
country
United KingdomUnited States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather.................
Chemicals and
allied products..........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing....
United
States
Unit value ratios
(national currency/U.S.$)
Owncountry
quantity
weights
U.S.
quantity
weights
Geometric
average
0.723 .
Pounds sterling/U.S. $
31
24.4
21.3
0.679
0.771
54
40.2
50.3
.670
.677
.673
41
22.5
29.2
.587
.641
.613
Covering the entire period. As a next
8
21.4
12.4
.661
.677
.669
step, the u v r ’s for 1987 have been ex
trapolated to other years, through the use
20
9.3
13.6
.642
.649
.646
22
11.5
7.5
.809
.956
.880
of price deflators derived from each
Total manufacturing ..
176
17.6
18.1
.670
.748
.708
country’s national accounts. Chart 1
shows the relation between the manufac
turing UVR and the exchange rate for the
1 Double deflation for food products was calculated by applying a uvr for agricultural inputs for 1985
derived from Prasada Rao, “International Comparisons of Agricultural Output and Productivity,” fao
period 1970 to 1990. If a country’s manu
Economic and Social Development Paper no. 112 (Rome, fao, 1993), extrapolated to 1987.
facturing UVR is below the prevailing ex
Note: See original sources for details at level of 14 to 16 branches.
change rate, its relative price level in
Sources: See appendix a; B. van Ark and R.D.J. Kouwenhoven, “Productivity in French Manufac
turing: An International Comparative Perspective,” Research Memorandum gd-10 (Groningen, The
manufacturing is lower than that of the
Netherlands, Groningen Growth and Development Center, 1994) for France and the United States; B.
United States, implying that it can com
van Ark and D. Pilat, “Productivity Levels in Germany, Japan, and the United States: Differences and
Causes,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics 2, December 1993, for Germanypete on favorable terms with the United
United States (table A.1) and Japan-United States (table A.2); and B. van Ark, “Comparative Produc
States in the world market.
tivity in British and American Manufacturing,” National Institute Economic Review, November 1992, for
the United Kingdom-United States.
The chart shows that, following the
collapse of the Bretton Woods system of
fixed exchange rates in 1971, the French franc, the German
for textiles, wearing apparel, and leather goods, but was
mark, and the Japanese yen all appreciated against the dol
slower for basic metals and metal products.
lar, with the result that the relatively low price levels of
By 1980, France and the United Kingdom had lost their
all countries compared to the United States were largely
price advantage over the United States in all major branches,
eroded by 1975. By 1980, only Japan still enjoyed lower
and Germany still enjoyed a small advantage in only one
price levels than the United States. Between 1975 and 1980,
branch, machinery and equipment.10 In the United Kingdom,
the United Kingdom showed a strong rise in relative price
relative price levels were very high for food, beverages, and
levels. The “high dollar” period, from 1980 to 1985, meant
tobacco and for “other manufacturing.”
a short-lived return to low price levels for all of the com
In 1980, only Japan still had lower price levels than the
petitor countries, but since 1985, their price levels have
United States, especially for machinery and equipment. That
again risen rapidly and the competitiveness of the United
branch even showed a slight decline in price level between
States, so far as relative prices are concerned, has increased
1975 and 1980 despite the appreciation of the yen. In con
substantially.
trast, relative prices of food, beverages, and tobacco prod
Developments by industry branch. Table 4 shows relative
price levels for six major manufacturing branches.9 The ap
preciation of the franc, the mark, and the yen during the
early 1970’s led to a rise in manufacturing price levels in all
major branches in France, Germany, and Japan compared to
the United States. In France and Germany, the increase was
rather rapid for food, beverages, and tobacco products, and
60
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
ucts increased rapidly between 1970 and 1980. After 1980,
there was even more diversity in Japanese price levels by
branch. By 1990, the Japanese price level for food products,
beverages, and tobacco was about 85 percent above the U.S.
level, whereas that for machinery and equipment was 15
percentage points below the U.S. level.
The diversity in relative price levels in France and Ger
many was much less than in Japan. In 1990, all manufactur-
Table 3.
Unit value ratios ( u v r ’s ) for manufacturing,
exchange rates, and gross domestic productbased purchasing power parities ( p p p ’s ) , 1987
Unit
value
ratio
Country
France.............
Germany..........
Japan ...............
United
Kingdom.......
1Ratio of
uvr to
Relative
price
Exchange
level
rate
(United
States
= 100)
GDP purchasing
power parities
1985base
1990base
7.22
2.21
178.8
6.01
1.80
144.64
120
123
124
7.68
2.57
235.71
6.78
2.15
213.83
.708
.612
116
.604
.567
exchange rate.
Note: uvr s and gross domestic product-based ppp’s are geometric aver
uvr’s and ppp’s weighted at national and U.S. weights.
ages of
Source: For uvr’s, see table 2. ppp’s for 1985 and 1990 were provided by
Eurostat and extrapolated to 1987 using gross domestic product deflators
from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, National
Accounts 1960-1991, Main Aggregates, Volume I (Paris, oecd, 1992).
ing branches in these two countries had relatively high price
levels (15 to 35 percent above the U.S. level), with the ex
ception of the textiles, wearing apparel, and leather products
branch, which showed even higher relative price levels. In
the United Kingdom, relative price levels in 1990 were high
in other manufacturing (which includes wood and paper
products and nonmetallic mineral products), but rather low
in basic and fabricated metal products and even slightly be
low the United States’ level in chemicals.
It may be concluded that, in terms of price competitive
ness, the United States has improved its performance over
the past two decades, especially in light industries such as
food, beverages, and tobacco products and textiles, wearing
apparel, and leather products. However, this U.S. price ad
vantage is to a large extent due to the depreciation of the
U.S. dollar during the 1970’s and second half of the 1980’s,
and not simply to a more moderate rise in costs in terms of
national prices. Against the tide of an appreciating currency,
only Japan has been able to keep its price levels, in particu
lar for machinery and equipment, relatively low into the late
1980’s.
Comparing productivity levels
Productivity is one of the most important determinants of
competitiveness. Productivity (especially labor productivity)
improvements are a necessary prerequisite for producing high
quality products at a reasonable cost. Productivity growth
indicates how a company, an industry, or a country manages
to raise output with a minimum increase in inputs. Com
parisons of productivity levels show how much the average
practice within an industry, within a sector, or for the economy
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
as a whole differs between countries. If the “numéraire” coun
try is the world productivity leader, such comparisons indi
cate how much each country differs from best practice.
The methodology in brief. The adequate comparison of
productivity levels between countries depends on two com
ponents, namely reliable and comparable indicators of out
put and labor input for each country, and a suitable conver
sion factor to translate output values to a common currency
unit. The exchange rate is not suitable for the latter purpose,
because it is heavily influenced by capital flows and specula
tion and, in general, does not indicate real price differences
between countries. Therefore, the unit value ratios discussed
in the previous section have been used here.
The basic data for the comparisons of manufacturing pro
ductivity in this article are derived from the manufacturing
census of each of the countries. Accordingly, estimates of
output and labor input are derived from one and the same
survey of manufacturing establishments, which implies a
relatively consistent data framework. Although production
censuses and surveys are not as well harmonized across coun
tries as, for example, national accounts, the detail in these
sources is such that one can obtain data according to the
same concepts of employment and value added and the same
classification scheme of industries across the countries.
The industry u v r ’s discussed in the previous section may
be used to convert either gross output or value added to a
common currency, after which labor productivity compari
sons can be made. It has been suggested that the use of value
added as the productivity concept in combination with unit
value ratios based on gross output complicates the connec
tion between productivity and competitiveness.11 Indeed, at
the industry level there are important theoretical advantages
to measuring productivity using gross output and treating
intermediate inputs symmetrically with capital and labor
inputs.
However, at the relatively aggregate level of this analysis,
value added is a more useful measure because it avoids double
counting of the value of intermediate inputs. If estimates were
derived from gross output measures by industry, aggregation
would then require separate deflation of gross output and
intermediate inputs. In practice, this procedure easily leads
to volatile results because of important measurement prob
lems.12 In particular, when intermediate inputs make up a
large part of gross output, small measurement errors tend to
become magnified in the double-deflated value added mea
sures. The measures used here are therefore based on the
“adjusted single deflation method,” through which value
added at national prices is converted to a common currency
on the basis of gross output unit value ratios. This approach
provides more robust results than the double-deflation
method.13
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
61
Productivity in Five Economies
C hart 1.
Manufacturing unit value ratios
( u v r 's )
and currency exchange rates, 1970-92
France-United States
Francs
per U.S. $
G erm any-United States
Marks
per U.S. $
Japan-United States
Yen
per U.S. $
United Kingdom -United States
Pounds sterling
per U.S. $
S o u r c e s : Manufacturing u v r 's for 1987 are from table 2, extrapolated using national accounts deflators for manufacturing. (See
appendix A.) Exchange rates are from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, National Accounts, Vol. 1 ( Paris,
o e c d , 1992).
62
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
The relative productivity estimates were benchmarked on
1987, and extrapolated using national time series of output
and labor input that are derived primarily from national
accounts for the period 1970 to 1990. Table 5 shows the pro
ductivity estimates for the six major branches in selected
years relative to the United States. For an adequate analysis,
one also needs to take account of the relative growth per
formance of each country. Chart 2 presents the same esti
mates in terms of value added per hour worked in 1987 U.S.
dollars.
International developments. Between 1970 and 1980,
France, Germany, and Japan strongly converged towards
U.S. productivity levels, which in fact was a continuation of
a process that had begun during the 1950’s.14 By 1980,
France and Germany had higher productivity levels than
the United States in the manufacture of machinery and
equipment, and Germany was also ahead in chemicals and
allied products. During the 1970’s, almost no convergence
took place in the United Kingdom, and in some major
branches (particularly textiles, basic metals and metal prod
ucts, and machinery and equipment) quite some divergence
occurred.
During the first half of the 1980’s, the trend by which
France was “catching-up” with the United States stagnated,
and the manufacturing productivity of Germany and the
United States even began to diverge. These developments
were related in part to the acceleration of productivity growth
in the United States during this period; in addition, Germany
suffered a substantial slowdown in productivity growth dur
ing the 1980’s.15 Germany’s deterioration in comparative
terms was seen especially in chemicals and allied products
and in machinery and equipment. By 1990, German produc
tivity levels, relative to those of the United States, in these
two major branches were below those of 1970. In comparison
to France, Germany had substantially lower productivity lev
els in 1990 in the chemicals, machinery and equipment, and
“other manufacturing” branches, whereas it was more or less
at par with France in food, beverages, and tobacco products
and in textiles, wearing apparel, and leather products.
Japan continued to “catch up” to U.S. productivity levels
during the 1980’s, although at a rate slower than during the
1970’s. As a result, Japan was much closer to German and
French productivity levels in 1990 than in 1980. However,
there is a wide spread in productivity levels by manufactur
ing branch in Japan. In machinery and equipment, Japan
surpassed U.S. productivity performance during the late
1980’s, and in basic metals and metal products, Japan stood
roughly at par with the United States. The performance in
food, beverages, and tobacco, and in textiles, apparel, and
leather has been especially poor compared to that in ma
chinery and equipment. The performance of the food sector
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 4.
Relative producer price levels by major
manufacturing branch, selected years,
1970-90
[United States = 100]
Country pair
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
France-United States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
Total manufacturing....
70.4
106.7
159.2
86.8
127.2
60.0
107.6
140.1
82.0
148.2
70.6
97.1
114.1
73.4
114.5
94.7
112.1
119.0
76.2
128.7
59.0
73.3
92.6
119.1
101.8
126.8
67.6
70.2
136.4
128.7
68.8
102.3
117.8
72.8
129.5
60.4
86.9
118.0
63.2
116.7
77.1
122.2
150.9
86.8
168.3
70.4
104.8
120.5
77.8
131.3
83.0
98.0
110.3
68.9
125.1
50.2
78.2
81.9
115.1
95.3
130.4
64.1
74.0
132.7
137.9
65.7
96.8
113.2
70.1
132.8
62.6
81.0
135.5
124.3
184.6
51.5
73.5
89.8
76.1
128.7
67.5
70.7
90.9
72.3
110.4
86.7
89.0
96.4
74.7
114.5
65.8
73.5
84.9
113.5
72.3
118.3
60.6
90.5
84.8
138.2
66.1
83.2
91.9
75.7
110.3
168.5
91.1
132.5
139.7
80.2
137.0
112.1
72.7
97.0
139.2
79.2
118.6
Germany-United States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
Total manufacturing....
Japan-United States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
Total manufacturing....
United KingdomUnited States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
Total manufacturing....
_
_
_
_
—
—
119.2
185.2
77.9
111.8
130.8
163.7
70.3
91.6
140.5
86.2
132.9
Note: Relative price levels are defined as the average ratio of producer
prices between each country and the United States, divided by the exchange
rate.
Source: Based on 1987 benchmark uvrs from table 2, extrapolated using
national accounts deflators for manufacturing (appendix A). Exchange rates
are from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, National
Accounts.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
63
Productivity in Five Economies
seems related in part to the small scale of its firms, but prob
ably also reflects a lack of competition.16
In contrast to its performance during the 1970’s, the
United Kingdom showed remarkable improvement in pro
ductivity during the 1980’s. In comparison to the United
States, U.K. productivity levels rose especially rapidly in
food, beverages, and tobacco products and in chemicals and
allied products (particularly during the second half of the
1980’s) and in textiles, wearing apparel, and leather prod
ucts and in basic metals and metal products (particularly
during the first half of the decade). By 1990, the U.K. pro
ductivity performance in chemicals and allied products was
even better than that of France, Germany, and Japan, al
though for the manufacturing sector as a whole, it still lagged
substantially behind that of the other three countries.
In summary, in terms of productivity performance, the
United States has been the best performer throughout the
period, although it faced increasing challenges from France
and Germany before 1980 and from Japan thereafter. Pres
ently, leadership in manufacturing productivity is shared
between Japan and the United States, a situation that is likely
to last for some time given the large differences in the com
parative productivity performance among the major manu
facturing branches and the slight widening of the U.S.-Japanese productivity gap in recent years. Although France and
Germany are closer to the U.S. productivity level than is Ja
pan, there are no industry branches in which they clearly
lead, although the French performance in machinery and
equipment and the German performance in basic and fabri
cated metal products was relatively good in 1990.
Labor compensation and unit labor costs
The estimates of manufacturing u v r ’s and productivity lev
els presented earlier provide an opportunity to look at two
other indicators of competitiveness, namely hourly labor
costs and unit labor costs. Because labor costs are the largest
part of value added in advanced countries, unit labor costs
serve as an important indicator of economic health. The U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics regularly publishes trend estimates
of manufacturing unit labor costs.17
For the calculations of comparative levels of unit labor
costs, labor costs per hour derived from each country’s na
tional accounts were combined with the estimates of value
added per hour presented above. The labor costs refer to to
tal compensation, that is, wages and salaries before tax,
employer’s social security contributions, contributions to
pension, insurance, and health plans, and other expenses re
lated to employment. These figures are more comprehensive
than the labor cost estimates shown in the manufacturing
censuses, which often exclude at least part of employers’ con
tributions to compensation of labor.
64
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
Value added per hour worked in manufacturing,
by major manufacturing branch, selected years,
1970-90
[United States = 100]
Country pair
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
72.3
72.2
66.7
66.9
78.8
78.2
85.2
83.2
93.7
89.0
81.1
81.6
92.4
83.3
84.4
France-United States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
53.7
58.1
73.2
80.9
93.2
81.8
67.9
91.6
72.0
108.8
86.6
101.0
93.3
98.0
90.1
Total manufacturing....
73.3
78.5
89.8
89.8
91.3
76.5
74.4
73.3
71.6
75.8
82.9
88.0
84.5
89.0
88.2
86.7
92.8
105.6
84.9
76.7
67.7
82.9
86.9
92.0
98.8
89.9
66.0
99.6
71.5
110.8
80.3
99.7
79.9
87.6
79.3
78.7
87.3
95.2
90.5
85.9
37.4
44.2
38.5
33.5
37.0
52.6
65.1
61.9
58.1
48.0
58.0
71.9
83.1
84.4
83.8
Germany-United States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
Total manufacturing....
Japan-United States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
47.2
62.5
81.1
85.6
95.6
46.8
31.3
59.2
33.0
90.0
41.3
96.2
50.6
114.4
54.9
Total manufacturing....
44.5
54.1
66.2
69.9
77.9
40.0
40.1
39.2
44.2
53.8
61.7
62.7
56.0
66.7
64.8
63.8
67.5
71.3
73.7
86.1
44.5
44.9
40.9
64.0
79.9
55.3
47.4
61.4
43.8
58.6
46.6
60.8
50.5
65.8
60.4
51.3
53.0
52.3
58.3
66.0
United KingdomUnited States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
Total manufacturing....
I Source: See appendix A; and sources cited in table 2.
Chart 2.
Value added per hour worked in manufacturing by major manufacturing branch, in 1987
dollars, 1970-90
Textiles, wearing apparel, and leather
Food, beverages and tobacco products
1987 U.S. $
1987 U.S. $
Chemicals and allied products
1987 U.S. $
Basic metals and metal products
1987 U .S.$
Other manufacturing branches
Machinery and transport equipment
1987 U.S. $
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1987 U.S. $
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
65
Productivity in Five Economies
Table 6 shows labor costs per hour worked of all employ
ees by major branch of manufacturing. The figures are con
verted from national currency values to a common currency
using the average exchange rate for each year. The trends in
comparative labor costs are therefore determined not only by
changes in labor costs in national currency values, but also
by exchange rate fluctuations.18
Between 1970 and 1980, labor costs per hour worked more
than doubled relative to those of the United States for all four
competitor countries. In 1980, relative labor costs in French
and German manufacturing were approximately 10 percent
above the U.S. level; in the United Kingdom, they were about
three-quarters of the U.S. level; and in Japan, about half.
Following the appreciation of the dollar during the early
1980’s, relative labor costs in all four countries were signifi
cantly reduced, although much more so in the European coun
tries than in Japan. During the second half of the 1980’s, the
relative labor cost level rose most rapidly in Germany, driven
by the rapid appreciation of the mark. As a result, Germany
had the highest relative labor costs of all countries by 1990,
followed by France, the United States, the United Kingdom,
and Japan.
There is some variation in hourly labor costs across the
manufacturing branches, but it is significantly less than the
spread in the productivity ratios presented in table 5. In all of
the European countries, labor cost levels in textiles, wearing
apparel, and leather products were relatively high compared
to the those of the United States. France and the United King
dom had relatively low labor cost levels in basic and fabri
cated metal products and in machinery and equipment,
whereas Germany had lower labor cost levels than France
and the United Kingdom in food, beverages, and tobacco
products. In Japan, labor cost levels were relatively high in
chemicals, but otherwise were lower than in any of the other
countries.
The trends in hourly labor cost are basically the same
across the major branches. This is, of course, to be expected
in countries where wage settlements are relatively central
ized. Only in the United Kingdom were there fairly substan
tial differences in the trends in relative labor cost levels across
the branches during the 1980’s.
The relationship to productivity Unit labor costs are based
on the ratio of labor costs per hour worked to productivity per
hour worked. In U.S. dollars, the unit labor cost of each coun
try X can therefore be expressed as:
m
u l c x
=
(LCHX)
' ERXU
(OHx ) / UVRxu
where ERXUis the exchange rate between countries X and U\
UVRxu is the uvr between countries X and U\ LCHXare the
labor costs per hour in country X; and OHx is output (value
added) per hour in country X.
66
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
The labor cost comparison thus is based on exchange rates,
whereas that of productivity is based on unit value ratios.
Unit labor costs can therefore be directly derived by dividing
the estimates in table 6 by those in table 5. For each of the
four competitor countries, chart 3 shows relative labor costs
per hour worked, relative value added per hour worked, and
unit labor costs for total manufacturing.
Although relative productivity levels in France and Ger
many improved significantly during the 1970’s, that trend
was slower than the relative increases in labor costs so that
the unit labor cost position of these countries relative to that
of the United States deteriorated. Because of France’s lower
productivity level in comparison to Germany, it was the first
country to post unit labor costs in manufacturing that were
higher than those of the United States. France did so in 1975,
followed by Germany and the United Kingdom, in 1978. The
“high dollar” period from 1980 to 1985 led to a short-lived
return to low unit labor cost levels in France and Germany,
but the slowdown in comparative productivity performance
and the rise in labor compensation levels after 1985 caused
another increase in relative unit labor costs. By 1990, the
unit labor cost level in Germany was more than 40 percent
above the U.S. level; by 1993, it was more than 50 percent
higher. (See table 1.)
Because of the substantially lower levels of productivity
in U.K. manufacturing, the relative level of unit labor cost
around 1980 was higher than in any of the other countries.
Similarly, despite the somewhat slower rise in labor com
pensation in the United Kingdom during the second half of
the 1980’s, unit labor cost levels were much higher than in
the United States during this period. However, table 1 and
chart 3 show that the unit labor cost position of the United
Kingdom had slightly improved by 1993.
Except in 1978, relative labor costs in Japan stayed below
relative productivity up to 1985. Although Japan’s labor cost
position deteriorated during the second half of the 1980’s, its
unit labor cost level for total manufacturing more or less
equalled that of the United States in 1990. However, unit
labor costs in Japan rose dramatically between 1990 and 1993
(table 1 and chart 3), which may be partly ascribed to the
appreciation of the yen, but also to the decline in compara
tive productivity performance.
Table 7 shows the differences in unit labor cost levels for
the major manufacturing branches. It is clear that France
experienced relatively high unit labor cost levels during the
1970’s in all branches except machinery and equipment. Unit
labor costs in the latter branch were also relatively low in
Germany during the 1970’s. Following the decline in unit
labor cost levels during the early 1980’s, another rise oc
curred during the second half of the past decade. In 1990,
unit labor cost levels in textiles, wearing apparel, and leather
products proved very high in France and Germany. Further-
Table 6.
Labor costs per hour worked by major
manufacturing branch, selected years,
1970-90
[United States = 100]
Country pair
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
56.6
105.3
126.0
76.0
'121.1
53.3
105.1
134.8
85.7
'125.9
55.8
94.1
113.0
71.1
'100.9
France-United States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
44.1
73.8
89.8
60.1
'87.7
44.2
47.8
79.8
89.0
104.5
120.2
65.2
76.8
’ 97.2
'106.9
Total manufacturing....
48.4
86.9
110.5
69.9
117.8
43.9
70.1
83.9
47.7
91.9
55.0
99.0
127.7
75.6
143.2
51.7
89.5
112.9
68.1
122.8
46.3
77.9
98.3
61.3
119.8
42.8
46.0
79.2
80.0
104.2
104.5
60.6 1
60.8
18.8
110.7
47.0
83.2
106.8
63.4
121.6
20.4
38.6
46.5
41.1
79.1
23.3
45.8
62.0
46.5
66.5
30.2
55.7
72.3
68.9
119.4
22.2
43.4
50.5
47.4
78.0
19.6
20.6
41.5
42.1
48.9
52.7
42.8
46.1
72.8
75.6
21.4
43.0
52.1
45.8
77.5
80.5
55.7
100.5
135.0
61.3
102.4
82.1
53.4
95.9
66.7
48.1
91.5
Germany-United States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
Total manufacturing....
Japan-United States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
Total manufacturing....
United KingdomUnited States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
Total manufacturing....
_
_
_
_
—
—
70.9
81.2
46.7
55.0
82.8
93.3
238.0
52.9
76.4
51.1
90.4
‘ 1 Data relate to 1989.
2 Data relate to 1971.
Note: Estimate for total manufacturing for France in 1990 based on ex
trapolation from 1989 on the basis of information from the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
Source: For labor costs and employment, see appendix A.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
more, by 1990, France had high unit labor costs in food prod
ucts, and Germany, in chemicals and allied products.
In the United Kingdom, unit labor cost levels in 1980 were
exceptionally high in food products, beverages, and tobacco
and in textiles, wearing apparel, and leather products, and
this was still the case in 1990. However, unit labor cost lev
els in the United Kingdom were substantially below those of
Germany in chemicals, basic metals and metal products, and
machinery and equipment.
The Japanese experience shows a larger diversity among
manufacturing branches, as well as in changes over time,
than the other countries. In 1970, Japan had lower unit labor
cost levels than Germany in all major branches, but the dif
ferences were substantial only for textiles, wearing apparel,
and leather products and for basic metals and metal prod
ucts. After 1970, the diversity among the branches further
increased. Food products, as well as chemicals and textiles,
showed increasingly high unit labor cost levels over time,
whereas in basic metals and metal products and machinery
and equipment, relatively low unit labor costs were main
tained despite the rising exchange rate. In 1990, Japan en
joyed a very substantial unit labor cost advantage in machin
ery and equipment.
In summary, in terms of unit labor costs, France and Ger
many had already lost most of their competitive edge in manu
facturing to the United States by the early 1980’s, and since
then have competed only on the basis of the appreciation of
the U.S. dollar during the first half of the 1980’s. During the
second half of the decade, a sharp deterioration of French
and German competitiveness took place (which, for Germany,
continued into the 1990’s) due to slow productivity growth,
rapid wage increases, and currency appreciation.
During the 1970’s, Japan greatly benefitted from relatively
low wage levels. However, during the 1980’s, Japan’s per
formance varied widely by major branch. Several manufac
turing branches were not able to respond to the appreciation
of the yen by way of increasing productivity and cutting costs,
and therefore posted very high levels of unit labor costs. How
ever, particularly in metals and machinery and equipment,
Japanese companies appeared able to achieve high produc
tivity levels and remained competitive against U.S. produc
ers. Between 1990 and 1993, however, Japan’s unit labor
cost position deteriorated strongly.
The broader aspect of competition
Of course, the countries discussed here do not compete only
among themselves, but also with other countries. Therefore,
certain aspects of the ever-widening world of international
trade merit some discussion.
First, there has been great concern about competitive pres
sures generated by the low wage economies, such as South
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
67
Chart 3.
Indexes of relative hourly labor costs, labor productivity, and unit labor costs, 1970-93
France-United States
(United States = 100)
Japan-United States
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
United Kingdom-United States
(United States = 100)
(United States = 100)
68
Germany-United States
(United States = 100)
July 1995
■ ■ ■ *■
Unit labor cost levels by major manufacturing
branch, selected years, 1970-90
[United States = 100]
Country pair
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
78.2
145.9
189.0
113.6
’ 151.3
France-United States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
68.1
123.4
162.0
91.5
’ 145.8
68.8 1
15.3
122.2
85.3
’ 129.3
82.1
127.0
122.7
74.3
’ 91.8
54.0
70.3
87.2
123.6
96.0
138.8
64.5
82.3
’ 97.7
’ 115.8
Total manufacturing....
66.0
110.6
123.1
77.8
129.1
57.4
94.2
114.5
66.6
121.2
67.0
112.4
151.1
84.9
162.4
59.6
96.4
106.9
80.2
160.0
Germany-United States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products.........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
68.4
94.0
113.1
66.6
121.3
47.9
69.8
79.6
112.0
94.1
130.2
60.8
76.1
135.6
139.7
Total manufacturing....
59.7
95.2
112.3
70.1
141.6
54.5
87.3
121.0
122.8
213.5
44.2
70.4
100.2
80.1
138.5
52.1
77.4
87.1
81.6
142.5
Japan-United States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
47.0
69.5
62.2
55.4
81.5
41.8
65.8
70.1
127.7
54.3
127.6
44.4
91.1
63.7
137.8
Total manufacturing....
48.1
79.5
78.6
65.5
99.5
205.5
126.1
186.8
241.2
92.0
157.9
115.3
72.4
111.4
163.2
75.2
114.6
United KingdomUnited States
Food, beverages,
and tobacco..............
Textiles, apparel,
and leather................
Chemicals and
allied products...........
Basic and fabricated
metal products..........
Machinery and
equipment.................
Other manufacturing.....
—
—
121.0
174.3
76.8
108.8
125.9
154.6
Total manufacturing....
275.3
99.8
146.1
87.6
137.1
’ Data relate to 1989.
2 Data relate to 1971.
Note: Total manufacturing for France in 1990 based on extrapolation from
1989 on the basis of Information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Sources: Labor costs are from table 6. Relative value added per hour
worked is from table 5.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Korea. A recent study by Dirk Pilat shows that relative levels
of unit labor costs in Korea were much lower than those in
the United States during the 1970’s and 1980’s. However, as
in Japan, the variation in unit labor cost levels was quite
large among Korea’s major manufacturing branches. In 1989,
Korean unit labor cost levels were higher than those of the
United States in food products, beverages, and tobacco, and
in chemicals and allied products, although they were only
half the U.S. level in basic metals and metal products and in
machinery and equipment. Pilat emphasises that in making
comparisons with low income countries such as Korea, one
needs also to take account of other costs, such as those of
capital, which account for a larger share of value added than
in high income countries. Given the low value of the U.S.
dollar, average price levels in Korean manufacturing were in
fact 11 per cent above the U.S. level in 1990.19
Second, the countries discussed in this article are all rela
tively large in terms of their share of world manufacturing
output. There are a substantial number of smaller industrial
ized nations that have much larger export-output ratios than
do the countries considered here, a typical example being the
Netherlands. A recent International Comparisons of Output
and Productivity study has shown that Dutch manufacturing
labor productivity was approximately 5 percent higher than
the U.S. level in 1993. This high productivity was partly as
sociated with a relatively large share of capital intensive in
dustries, especially basic chemicals and textile industries, in
Dutch manufacturing. Furthermore, because of fairly strong
wage moderation during the 1980’s, labor compensation in
Dutch manufacturing was even slightly lower than U.S.
wages in 1993, so that the country’s unit labor cost was only
94 percent of the U.S. level.20
Finally, in recent years and under the influence of authors
such as Michael Porter, the literature has made an increas
ingly strict distinction between competitiveness related to
efficiency and competitiveness related to differentiation. In
Porter’s view, efficiency refers to lowering of costs per unit
of output, whereas differentiation refers to the creation of
additional value added per unit of output through the im
provement of product quality, customization, or improved
after-sales services. In both cases productivity is increased,
but the mechanism through which it is achieved is different.
Although Porter acknowledges that both types of competi
tive advantage are important, he points out that any success
ful competitiveness strategy needs to focus on only one of the
two factors. For the advanced industrial nations, this usually
implies a strategy based on differentiation.21
This article posits that, not only in the short term but also
in the long term, the most competitive nations are those that
have simultaneously operated at relatively low cost levels and
that have improved their productivity through an increase in
product volume and, in particular, product quality. There are
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
69
Productivity in Five Economies
at least two reasons why high income countries should not
concentrate only on differentiation. First, as the productivity
gaps among the high income countries themselves narrow, a
reduction of costs and prices may be more effective in main
taining a competitive edge than differentiation, because all
countries at the productivity frontier may be able to pursue
the latter strategy. Second, improving cost and price com
petitiveness through cutting costs denominated in national
currency not only improves the cost and price position rela
tive to other countries, but also increases the room for ma
neuver to introduce and strengthen aspects of competitive
ness based on differentiation strategies.
□
Footnotes
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t : This article is an extension of an earlier article by Dirk
Pilat and the author, “Competitiveness in Manufacturing: A Comparison of Ger
many, Japan and the United States,” B a n c a N a z io n a le d e l L a v o r o Q u a r te r ly
R eview , June 1994. The author thanks Dirk Pilat for sharing the ideas on the
earlier article and for his comments on an earlier draft. The author also thanks
Angus Maddison, Arthur Neef, and Karin Wagner for helpful comments.
1Throughout this article, “Germany” refers to the former Federal Republic of
Germany.
2 For an up-to-date description and presentation of the International Com
parisons of Output and Productivity project, see A. Maddison and B. van Ark,
“Comparisons of Real Output and Productivity,” Research Memorandum g d -6
(Groningen, The Netherlands, Groningen Growth and Development Centre,
1 9 9 4 ). Most of the project’s studies so far have dealt with the manufacturing
sector. Research has been conducted for 20 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil,
China, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, France, Germany (Federal Republic of Ger
many and German Democratic Republic), India, Indonesia, Korea, Japan,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, the former Soviet Union, Spain, the United
Kingdom, and the United States. See B. van Ark and D. Pilat, “Productivity
Levels in Germany, Japan, and the United States: Differences and Causes,”
B ro o k in g s P a p e r s on E c o n o m ic A c tiv ity : M ic r o e c o n o m ic s 2, December 1 9 9 3 ,
pp. 1 - 4 8 , on Germany, Japan, and the United States; and B. van Ark, The E c o
n o m ic s o f C o n v e r g e n c e , A C o m p a r a tiv e A n a ly s is o f I n d u s tr ia l P r o d u c tiv ity
S in c e 1 9 5 0 (Aldershot, Edward Elgar publishers, forthcoming) on most coun
tries mentioned above. Substantial progress has also been made on studies for
other sectors of the economy, including agriculture (A. Maddison and H. van
Ooststroom, “The International Comparison of Value Added, Productivity and
Purchasing Power Parities in Agriculture,” Research Memorandum g d -1
(Groningen, The Netherlands, Groningen Growth and Development Centre,
1 9 9 3 )) and distribution (N. Mulder and A. Maddison, “The International Com
parison of Performance in Distribution: Value Added, Labor Productivity and
ppps in Mexican and U.S. Wholesale and Retail Trade 1 9 7 5 /7 ,” Research Memo
randum g d -2 (Groningen, The Netherlands, Groningen Growth and Develop
ment Centre, 1 9 9 3 )). See D. Pilat, The E c o n o m ic s o f R a p id G ro w th : Th e E x
p e r ie n c e o f J a p a n a n d K o re a (Aldershot, Edward Elgar Publishers, 1 9 9 4 ) for
a total economy comparison based on sectoral estimates.
3The first industry of origin studies often made comparisons on the basis of
comparing physical output quantities (tons, liters, units). See for example L.
Rostas, C o m p a r a tiv e P r o d u c tiv ity in B ritish a n d A m e ric a n In d u s try (London,
Cambridge University Press, National Institute of Economic and Social Research,
1948); A. Maddison, “Productivity in Canada, the United Kingdom and the
United States,” O x fo rd E c o n o m ic P a p e r s , October 1952; and, at least partly,
D. Paige and G. Bombach, A C o m p a r is o n o f N a tio n a l O u tp u t a n d P r o d u c tiv
ity (Paris, o e e c , 1959). However, as over the course of time the number of prod
uct items to be compared increased and the number of product varieties rose
exponentially, it became increasingly difficult to arrive at satisfactory coverage
of output with physical quantity indicators. In the literature on national accounts
and real output series, a consensus emerged that the representativity of mea
sured quantities for nonmeasured quantities is not as good as that of measured
prices for unmeasured prices. See for example S. Fabricant, The O u tp u t o f M a n u
f a c tu r in g I n d u s trie s 1 8 9 9 - 1 9 3 7 , n b e r no. 19 (New York, National Bureau of
Economic Research, 1940); and R. Stone, Q u a n tity a n d P r ic e I n d e x es in N a
tio n a l A c c o u n ts (Paris, o e e c , 1956). The use of unit value ratios in industry of
origin studies was first adopted in A. Maizels, “Comparative Productivity in
Manufacturing Industry: A Case Study of Australia and Canada,” Th e E c o
70
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
n o m ic R e c o r d ,
April 1958; and in Paige and Bombach, A
C o m p a riso n .
4 See, for example, D. Dollar and E.N. Wolff, C o m p e titiv e n e s s , C o n v e r
g e n c e a n d In te rn a tio n a l S p e c ia liz a tio n (Cambridge, m a , mit Press, 1993).
5 See A. Maddison, M o n ito r in g th e W o rld E co n o m y, 1 8 2 0 - 1 9 9 2 (Paris,
Development Center, 1995), appendix C, for a more detailed account of
differences in ppp ’s and per capita income estimates from various International
Comparisons Project rounds. For the countries in this study, Maddison’s esti
mates suggest that the ppp estimates from icp iv (for 1980) and icp vi (for 1990)
are more consistent with each other than the icp v estimates (for 1985). As the
u vr ’s presented here are of a binary nature, they are compared with the unpub
lished Fisher variant of the gross domestic product-based ppp ’s instead of the
published multilateral variants. (See also appendix B).
oecd
6 See P. Hooper and K.A. Larin, “International Comparisons of Labor Costs
in Manufacturing,” Th e R e v ie w o f I n c o m e a n d W ealth , December 1989, pp.
335-56.
7D.W. Jorgenson and M. Kuroda, “Productivity and International Competi
tiveness in Japan and the United States, 1960-1985,” The E c o n o m ic S tu d ie s
Q u a r te r ly , December 1992, pp. 313-25.
8 A study of the McKinsey Global Institute (M a n u fa c tu rin g P r o d u c tiv ity
(Washington, 1993)) looked in more detail at several of the International Com
parisons of Output and Productivity project u v r ’s for the Germany-U.S. and
Japan-U.S. comparisons. In some cases (in particular in the machinery and
equipment sector), substantial adjustments were made at the product level to
correct for different product mixes or qualities among the countries. However,
no systematic bias in the original International Comparisons of Output and Pro
ductivity estimates was found, so that at the aggregate level at which the esti
mates are presented here, these adjustments led to changes of the results on the
order of only 3 to 5 percent. See H. Gersbach and B. van Ark, “Micro Founda
tions for International Productivity Comparisons,” Research Memorandum gd11 (Groningen, The Netherlands, Groningen Growth and Development Center,
1994); and H. Gersbach and M.N. Baily, “Explanations of International Pro
ductivity Differences: Lessons from Manufacturing,” in K. Wagner and B. van
Ark, eds., In te rn a tio n a l P r o d u c tiv ity D iffere n c es, M e a s u r e m e n t a n d E x p la
n a tio n s (Amsterdam, North Holland, forthcoming).
9Unfortunately, appropriate deflators to extrapolate the relative price levels
by major branch to the period before 1978 could not be constructed for the
United Kingdom.
10 Clearly there may have been industries with lower relative price levels
within other major branches. The fairly aggregate analysis in this article locates
only those areas of manufacturing in which countries enjoy an overall competi
tive advantage.
11See, for example, ‘Comment by Dale Jorgenson,’ in van Ark and Pilat,
“Productivity Levels,” pp. 45-56.
12Firstly, double-deflated estimates are very sensitive to the weights used in
the index. This may be overcome by the use of translogarithmic indexes, which
are based on the average value shares of the two countries in each binary com
parison. (See, for example, the comparison of Japan and the United States by
Jorgenson and Kuroda, “Productivity and International Competitiveness.”).
However, the latter method still requires meticulous measurement of the value
and prices of output and material inputs. In particular, in the case of material
inputs, the coverage of measured prices needs to be quite substantial. Further-
more, it is necessary to have an integrated framework of intersectoral accounts,
the production census, and the national product accounts. These conditions are
difficult to meet in practice. Comparable price measures for intermediate inputs
are rarely available, and, as mentioned above, by definition, cannot be obtained
from International Comparisons Project expenditure ppp’s.
13See B. van Ark, “International Comparisons of Output and Productivity,”
Monograph Series no. 1 (Groningen, The Netherlands, Groningen Growth and
Development Center, 1993); van Ark, The Economics o f Convergence; and
Pilat, The Economics , for a description of estimates using double-deflation tech
niques. An exception to “adjusted single deflation” was made in the case of the
food products branch in Japan, for which the “double-deflated” uvr from table
2 was used. As intermediate inputs were excessively high priced in Japan, it was
felt necessary to derive a specific “value added” uvr for this extreme case.
14 For example, in 1950, value added per hour worked in manufacturing in
France and the United Kingdom was only 38 percent of that in the United States;
in Germany, it was 39 percent, whereas in Japan, it was only 12 percent. See
van Ark, The Economics o f Convergence.
15 The annual compound growth rates of value added per hour worked in
manufacturing between 1979 and 1990 were 3.1 percent for France, 1.8 per-
Appendix A:
16 See McKinsey Global Institute, Manufacturing Productivity.
17 See Arthur Neef, Christopher Kask, and Christopher Sparks, “Interna
tional comparisons of manufacturing unit labor costs,” Monthly Labor Re
view, December 1994, pp. 47-58; and M. Greiner, Christopher Kask, and Chris
topher Sparks, “Comparative manufacturing productivity and unit labor costs,”
Monthly Labor Review, February 1995.
18 Compare, for example, the estimates of changes in unit labor costs on a
national currency basis and on a U.S. dollar basis as presented regularly at the
back of the Monthly Labor Review.
19 See Pilat, The Economics, pp. 193-204.
20 See B. van Ark, “Arbeidsproduktiviteit, arbeidskosten en intemationale
concurrentie,” Economische en Statistische Berichten, November 23, 1994,
updated; and van Ark, The Economics o f Convergence.
21 See, for example, M. Porter, The Competitive Advantage o f Nations (New
York, The Free Press, 1990), pp. 37-38.
Statistical sources
Unit value ratios (table 1) for 1987 are derived from the following
sources: For France, from Service d’Etude et des Statistiques
Industrielles/Organisation professionnels/Service Central des
Enquêtes et Etudes Statistique, E n q u êtes d e B ra n ch es 19 8 7 , Paris.
For Germany, from Statistisches Bundesamt, P r o d u k tio n im
P ro d u zieren d en G e w e rb e 198 7 , Wiesbaden. For Japan, from Min
istry of International Trade and Industry (miti), C en su s o f M a n u fac
tu res 1987, R e p o r t b y C o m m o d itie s, Tokyo. For the United King
dom, from Business Statistics Office, B u sin ess M onitor, Q u a rterly
S a le s In q u iries, various issues. For the United States, from Bureau
of the Census, 1 9 8 7 C e n su s o f M a n u fa c tu re s, I n d u s tr y S e r ie s ,
Washington.
Value added and employment for productivity calculations for
1987 are derived from the following sources: For France, from
Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (insee)
L a s i t u a t io n d e l ’in d u s tr ie e n 1 9 8 7 . R é s u l t a ts d é f in it i e f s d e
l ’e n q u ê te a n n u e lle d ’e n tre p rise 1 9 8 7 , Paris. For Germany, from
Statistisches Bundesamt, K o ste n str u k tu r d e r U n tern eh m en 1 9 8 7 ,
Wiesbaden. For Japan, from miti, C en su s o f M a n u fa ctu res 1987,
R e p o rt b y In d u stries, Tokyo. For the United Kingdom, from Busi
ness Statistics Office, B u sin ess M onitor, R e p o r t on the C en su s o f
P ro d u ctio n , various issues. For the United States, from Bureau of
the Census, 1 9 8 7 C en su s o f M an u factu res, In du stry S e rie s, Wash
ington.
The series on value added, employment, and deflators are de
rived from the following national accounts sources:. For France,
from insee, 2 0 a n s d e c o m p te s d e la n a tion , Paris, 1992; and insee,
R a p p o rt su r les c o m p te s d e la n a tion , Paris, 1993. For Germany,
from Statistisches Bundesamt, V o lk s w ir ts c h a f tlic h e G e s a m
trechnungen, R e v id ie r te E rg e b n isse 1 9 5 0 -1 9 9 0 , Wiesbaden, 1991;
and Statistisches Bundesamt, V o l k s w i r t s c h a f t l ic h e G e s a m
trechnungen, K o n ten u n d S ta n d a rd ta b elle n 1991, Wiesbaden, 1992.
For Japan, from Economic Planning Agency, R e p o rt on N a tio n a l
A cco u n ts fro m 1 9 5 5 to 19 8 9 , Tokyo, 1991, and Economic Planning
Agency, A n n u a l R e p o rt on N a tio n a l A c co u n ts 1 9 9 3 , Tokyo, 1993.
For the United Kingdom, from Central Statistical Office, U n ited
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cent for Germany, 4.9 percent for Japan, 4.8 percent for the United Kingdom,
and 2.8 percent for the United States.
K in g d o m N a tio n a l A c c o u n ts , various issues. U.K. employment
from Department of Employment, E m p lo ym en t G a zette, and addi
tional series supplied by the Department of Employment. For the
United States, from Bureau of Economic Analysis, The N a tio n a l
In com e a n d P ro d u c t A c c o u n ts o f th e U n ite d S ta tes, 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 8 2 ,
Washington, 1986, wad S u rv ey o f C u rren t B usiness, April 1991 and
May 1993.
For the calculations of hours, see the detailed explanations in
B. van Ark and R.D.J. Kouwenhoven, “Productivity in French
Manufacturing: An International Comparative Perspective,” Re
search Memorandum gd-10 (Groningen Growth and Development
Center, 1994) for France; van Ark and D. Pilat “Productivity Levels
in Germany, Japan, and the United States: Differences and Causes,”
B ro o k in g s P a p e r s on E c o n o m ic A c tiv ity : M ic ro e co n o m ic s 2 , De
cember 1993, for Germany, Japan, and the United States; and van
Ark, “Comparative Productivity in British and American Manu
facturing,” N a tio n a l In stitu te E co n o m ic R e view , November 1992,
for the United Kingdom, though the time series of the last has been
revised on the basis of more up-to-date information kindly pro
vided by Mary O’Mahony of the National Institute of Economic
and Social Research, London.
Labor compensation and employment estimates for labor cost
calculations are derived from the following sources: For France
(1977-89), from Organization for Economic Cooperation and De
velopment (oecd), N a tio n a l A c c o u n ts Volum e II, Paris, 1993; and
for France (1970—77), from insee, L es C o m p te s d e I ’in d u strie en
19 8 7 , Les collections de i insee no. C l50, 1988. For Germany, Ja
pan, and the United States, from the national accounts sources cited
above. See also D. Pilat and B. van Ark, “Competitiveness in Manu
facturing: A Comparison of Germany, Japan and the United States,”
B an ca N a zio n a le d e l L a vo ro Q u a rterly R e view , June 1994. For the
United Kingdom (1983-90), from national accounts sources as de
scribed above; for the United Kingdom (1975-83), from oecd, N a
tio n a l A cco u n ts Volume II, 1 9 7 5 -8 7 , Paris; and for the United King
dom (1971-75), from oecd, N a tio n a l A c co u n ts Volum e II, 1 9 7 1 8 3 , Paris.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
71
Productivity in Five Economies
Appendix B:
The aggregation of unit value ratios
For purposes of this study, the manufacturing sector was divided
into 16 branches, which roughly correspond to the International
Standard Industrial Classification (isic) of the United Nations. For
each binary comparison, a maximum number of industries within
each branch was distinguished as producing the same products in
each country. Matches were then made for as many products as
possible within each industry. The average unit value ratio for the
industry was obtained by weighting the unit values by the corre
sponding quantity weights for one of the two countries:
¿ P f * Qjf
(B.la)
(uvRg0) as derived above from the value added of each industry in
country X or country U, that is:
(B.2a)
va
(B.2b)
¿ p? * Qg
(B.lb)
UVR?u<ul ’ i=l________
i p
i=l
; *
q
;,
at quantity weights of country U (here, the United States), where
i = l .. .s is the sample of matched items in matched industry j .
In the International Comparisons of Output and Productivity
studies of manufacturing, the first-stage aggregation was applied
only for so-called “matched” industries, for which at least 25 per
cent of output in both countries could be matched. For industries
within each branch with lower coverage percentages, equations
(B.la) and (B.lb) customarily were used for all items within a
branch to obtain the u v r for each “non-matched” industry UVR,
which therefore resulted in the same UVR across all nonmatched
industries in the branch.
The second stage of aggregation from industry to branch level
was constructed by weighting the unit value ratios for gross output
72
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
U,
and:
U V R ™ «"-;------------- *■----------X VAf / UVR™««
j=l
for the UVR of branch k at country X’s quantity weights, where
= l...r are the industries j in branch k).
In the final stages, branch u v r ’s were weighted at branch value
added to obtain unit value ratios for major groups of branches (such
as in table 2) and for total manufacturing.
Industry of origin u v r ’s are usually based on binary compari
sons between pairs of countries, in contrast to expenditure p p p ’s
which are usually based on index numbers of a multilateral nature.
This makes the results sensitive to the choice of the numéraire
country, which in this case is the United States. This implies that
comparisons of three countries based on binary UVR’s are not tran
sitive. For example, a direct comparison between Germany and the
United Kingdom does not yield a result identical to that from an
implicit comparison between these countries based on u v r ’s for
Germany-United States and United Kingdom-United States.See D.
Pilat and D.S. Prasada Rao, “A Multilateral Approach to Interna
tional Comparisons of Real Output, Productivity and Purchasing
Power Parities in Manufacturing,” Research Memorandum no. 440
(Groningen, The Netherlands, Institute of Economic Research,
1991) for experimentation with multilateral weights in industry
studies. In general, the differences between pp p ’s using binary and
multilateral weights are not very large for a small sample of coun
tries with comparable price structures.
j
at quantity weights of country X, and:
P
for the u v r of branch k at quantity weights of country
UVRfu<x>=M ------------
IP? * Qy
i=l
¿ [ U V R g T * VAJ>]
UVR™««. w_
In d u s tria l R e la tio n s
Five-year accord
at McDonnell Douglas
McDonnell Douglas Corp. and three lo
cals of the United Automobile Workers
signed a 5-year contract covering some
8,600 production, maintenance, techni
cal, and office workers in Long Beach,
CA; Melbourne, AK; and Tulsa, OK. As
part o f the settlem ent, the aircraft
manufacturer agreed to build its new
m d -95 commercial jet in southern Cali
fornia, provided that it receives finan
cial commitments from State and local
governments, breaks in utility costs,
and sufficient aircraft orders from cus
tomers.
According to the parties, the agree
ment guarantees that workers will re
ceive adjustments of around 4 percent
annually in some combination of wage
increases, lump-sum payments, and
cost-of-living adjustments ( c o l a ’s ).
Wage increases in the first and second
years of the contract are targeted at 2
percent, while lump-sum payments in
the last 3 years are targeted at 2 percent
of the previous year’s earnings. The
cost-of-living adjustment provision will
generate quarterly payments equal to 1
cent an hour for each 0.3-point increase
in the Consumer Price Index for Urban
Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.
Effective with the first wage adjust
ment, the top base rate will be $23.79
an hour for technical and office work
ers and $23.53 for factory workers.
The pact includes several changes in
the wage structure. New hires will start
at rates $1 an hour less than the exist
ing minimum rate for their job classifi
cation. The wage progression is elon
gated, with automatic step increases of
17 cents an hour becoming effective ev
ery 18 weeks, up from every 15 weeks.
Workers in lead positions will receive
"Industrial Relations" is p repared by
Michael H. Cimini and Charles J. Muhl of
the Division of Developments in LaborManagement Relations, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, and is largely based on informa
tion from secondary sources.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the maximum rate of the highest clas
sification led, plus an additional $1 per
hour.
The settlement introduces a number
of changes in health care coverage. It
replaces the preferred provider health
care plan with a point-of-service (POS)
plan, effective in 1996. The pact also
establishes a network of preferred phar
macies under the drug plan and adds a
preferred provider organization for
dental care.
The agreement institutes health care
contribution requirements for all active
and retired employees, effective in
1996. Weekly contributions for active
employees covered under a health
maintenance organization (h m o ) will
be $3 for single coverage, $5 for twoparty coverage, and $8 for family cov
erage, while contributions for plans
other than HMO’s will be $5, $9, and
$13, respectively. Monthly contribu
tions for retirees (or survivors) covered
under an hm o will be $13 for single
coverage, $21.67 for two-party cover
age, and $34.67 for family coverage,
while contributions for other types of
plans will be $21.67, $39, and $56.33,
respectively.
Other changes in benefits increase
the monthly pension rate by $8 over the
term of the agreement, to $40 for each
year of credited service; boost life in
surance, accidental death and dismem
berment, weekly disability, and ex
tended disability benefits; and provide
employees with the opportunity to pur
chase optional long-term disability and
life insurance coverage.
M en’s clothing agreem ent
The Clothing Manufacturers Associa
tion, a national multiemployer bargain
ing group, and the Amalgamated Cloth
ing and Textile Workers ( a c tw ) signed
a 3-year agreement covering some
35,000 workers involved in the manu
facture of men’s tailored clothing. Cit
ing the difficulties facing the industry
and the union members, ac tw president
Jack Sheinkman said, “We worked hard to
achieve for our workers the best contract
under tough industrial conditions. We be
lieve that this contract will help keep jobs
here in America and assist in stabilizing
unionized plants.”
Like the 1993-95 agreement, this pact
addresses the globalization of the men’s
tailored clothing industry. The contract
permits increases in outsourcing (imported
production as a percent of total production)
from 10 percent to 15 percent effective Oc
tober 1,1995, to 20 percent effective Octo
ber 1,1996, and to 22 percent effective Oc
tober 1, 1997. The agreement restricts
member companies from using partners,
contractors, or other sources that do not
observe international labor standards, in
cluding those dealing with “living” wages
and benefits, reasonable working hours,
freedom of association, and the rights to
organize or join a union, to bargain collec
tively, and to strike. Member companies
also are barred from contracting with com
panies that employ child labor or forced or
compulsory labor, engage in discrimina
tory practices, or fail to provide a safe
and healthy work environment.
Other terms call for annual wage in
creases of 20 cents an hour, and continue
the employer option to pay into a jointly
controlled 401(k) plan for workers’ re
tirement or to pay bonuses to workers.
Grocery settlements
A 9-day strike and lockout at 405 stores of
three northern California area grocery
chains—Safeway, Lucky Stores, and Save
Mart—ended when 32,000 clerks and
meat department employees represented by
11 locals of the United Food and Commer
cial Workers ( u fc w ) agreed basically to
“rollover” their current contract for 3
years, thereby maintaining workers’ health
benefits but freezing wages. Some 18,000
Safeway employees initially struck over
maintaining company-paid health care,
and another 14,000 employees were sub
sequently locked out at Lucky Stores and
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
73
Industrial Relations
Save Mart because the three chains had
previously agreed to consider a strike
against one company as a strike against
all three. The Joint Labor-Management
Committee for the Retail Food Industry
and the Federal Mediation and Concili
ation Service assisted in ending the work
stoppage.
Citing increased competition with
warehouse-style and club stores, many
of which employ nonunion workers or
union employees with lower average
salaries, the companies proposed a num
ber of cost-cutting measures. They
sought to eliminate health benefits for
courtesy clerks, increase em ployee
copayments for prescription drugs and
office visits, and require certain work
ers to contribute up to $100 per month
for dependent coverage. The companies
also wished to eliminate lunch hours for
employees working shifts of 6 or fewer
hours and time and one-half pay for
work on Sundays, and to allow certain
outside vendors to stock shelves with
their own products.
The u f c w ’s primary bargaining goal
was to retain the terms of the health in
surance package, fully paid by employ
ers. The union also sought to increase
wages by an undisclosed amount and to
convert certain part-time employees to
full-time status. After a month of nego
tiations yielded little progress, 98 per
cent of union members authorized a
strike. After the walkout began, employ
ers used 10,000 temporary replacement
workers and 1,500 management em
ployees to keep stores open, although re
ports indicated that business generally
declined as a result of the stoppage.
The contract “rollover” effectively
maintains all wage and benefit terms from
the previous agreement, ensuring that any
additional costs associated with providing
current benefit levels, including health
care, will be covered by the employers.
Trust fund reserves, from surplus em
ployer contributions in the past, will be
used to pay for cost increases, satisfying
the chains’ need to hold labor costs at
1994 levels. Wages will be frozen at their
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
current levels, which range between
$6.75 and $16.33 per hour.
The pact also introduces uniform age
and service requirements under which
employees may retire without penalty if
they are aged 55 or older and have 30 or
more years of service; meatcutters previ
ously had to be at least 60 years old.
Meat department employees will also re
ceive company-paid health insurance
upon retirement, for which they previ
ously would have contributed about $300
per month.
Elsewhere, some 12,800 UFCW-represented clerks and meatcutters at 79
Kroger food stores in the Houston, TX,
area are working under two separate but
parallel 5-year agreements that increase
wages and improve health care benefits.
The settlements raise wages by a
minimum of $1 per hour over the con
tract term for all employees at the top of
the wage scale. In the final year of the
contract, the hourly rate will be $13.64
for joumey-level meatcutters, $12.55 for
senior clerks or department heads, and
$11.51 for the remaining clerks.
The contract requires the company
to increase its contribution to the
health and welfare fund by 10 percent
in each of the first 3 contract years, and
to provide any additional funding to
maintain benefits in the fourth and
fifth years. Employees will not pay any
premiums for health care coverage.
Meatcutters will receive a pension ben
efit of $77 per month for each year of
credited service, up from $62.25 per
month. The monthly pension rate for
clerks is unchanged, but a reopener is
scheduled for 1998 to address poten
tial pension improvements.
Other terms preserve the “tools of
the trade” language in the meatcutters’
contract that reserves certain duties of
meat preparation for joumey-level em
ployees; require newly hired meatcutters
to work for 1 year before making the
premium rate on holidays; and specify
that new clerks will receive holiday
pay after 1 year of service and vaca
tion benefits after 2 years.
Transit settlements
Negotiators for the Southeastern Pennsyl
vania Transportation Authority ( se pta )
and Local 234 of the Transport Workers
Union ( t w u ) ended a 2-week strike—the
first since 1986—when they agreed on a
3-year contract covering some 5,500 bus,
trolley, subway, and elevated operators,
maintenance employees, mechanics, and
clerical workers. About 5,200 workers
in the city transit division initially struck
se pta , and were soon joined by an addi
tional 310 TWU-represented workers in
the carrier’s suburban transit division.
The stoppage halted subway, trolley, com
muter train, and bus service for about
400,000 daily commuters in a five-county
area around Philadelphia, PA.
Contract talks broke down after nego
tiators were unable to resolve their dif
ferences over a wage package. The union
sought annual 3-percent wage increases,
similar to the deal negotiated by transit
workers in Pittsburgh in 1992. septa of
fered increases of slightly more than 7
percent over 3 years.
The new settlement calls for 3-percent
annual wage increases and a 5-cent in
crease (to 10 cents per hour) in the night
shift differential. At the expiration of the
prior contract, average annual pay (includ
ing overtime) in the city division report
edly was $41,178 for mechanics and
$35,827 for vehicle operators.
The accord introduces several im
provements in benefits. The average an
nual salary cap used to calculate pension
benefits increases from $35,000 to
$40,000. Life insurance benefits rise
from $9,000 to $33,000 over the term of
the agreement. Paid sick leave increases
from 39 to 45 percent of an employee’s
straight time pay. The tool and clothing
allowance is raised $50 over the term of
the agreement, to $285 a year.
The pact includes language requir
ing both parties to cooperate in contain
ing health care and workers’ compensa
tion costs. The parties will review the
current hospitalization, prescription, and
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
74
vision programs to find savings of $3.85
million over the next 3 years. They also
will make reforms in the workers’ com
pensation area, including ensuring that
new supplemental compensation pay
ments will no longer allow employees
to earn more by staying home than by
working, assigning employees to any
budgeted vacancy for which they are
physically qualified, and establishing
goals to reduce the incidence and time
lost because of work-related accidents
and illnesses.
Modifications in work rules expand
eligibility for the safety awards banquet
and the incentive reward program; revise
drug and alcohol testing criteria to con
form with Federal regulations, including
chain-of-custody rules; establish a panel
of arbitrators to resolve a backlog of griev
ances; and improve certain employees’
transfer rights. Other work rule changes
improve language dealing with temporary
transfers, trading of runs, waiting time,
holiday allowances, and new mainte
nance job classifications and upgrades.
In Boston, the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority and Local 589
o f the Am algam ated Transit Union
signed a 3-year agreement covering
some 3,800 transit workers. The pact
was the first settlement reached without
arbitration in 10 years.
The agreement provides wage in
creases of 1 percent retroactive to July
1, 1994, and January 1, 1995, followed
by semiannual adjustments of 1.4 per
cent and 1.45 percent in the second year
of the contract, and 1.65 percent and
1.45 percent in the third year. The pact
also increases the number of steps (from
three to four) and service time (from 36
to 48 months for full-time workers and
from 48 to 64 months for part-tim e
workers) required to advance to the top
of the wage progression. At the expira
tion of the prior agreement, the top rate
was $18.46 an hour for operators.
The pact introduces several changes in
benefit provisions. It provides a $300 in
crease (to $750) in the annual payment to
employees who are covered under their
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
spouses’ health insurance, and thus do nications, Inc. (SNET) ratified a 40not participate in the Transportation month agreement that includes pension
Authority’s health insurance program. enhancements designed to encourage
In addition, the accord empowers the workers to leave the company voluntar
parties’ joint committee on health care ily, rather than risk layoffs. The pact also
to develop a managed care network for included wage increases, improvements
medical services and case management in health and welfare benefits, and a new
of w orkers’ com pensation-related attendance incentive program.
medical claims, equivalent health care
In order to remain competitive in an
coverage for retirees who live outside industry where technological changes
Massachusetts, a network of preferred create labor surpluses, s n e t began a
providers for drug and alcohol abuse downsizing program last year, under
treatment, and a prescription drug pro which it hoped to cut 25 percent of its
gram.
work force by 1996 without resorting to
Because of a surplus, the parties significant layoffs. The company elimi
agreed to a 50-50 split of excess mon nated about 1,000 positions in the
ies in the pension fund and to a decrease program’s first year, but was still short of
in the carrier’s contributions to the its goal by 1,500 jobs. Facing a greater
fund, from 12.98 percent to 12.03 per prospect of involuntary layoffs, the union
cent of payroll. They also agreed that requested negotiations to develop a vol
the union would use its share of the ex untary “early-out” option. The scope of
cess to enhance the pension formula for the negotiations was later expanded to
active employees, increase current re include the entire contract so that em
tirees’ benefits, and reduce the number ployees could make an informed decision
of years needed to qualify for about whether to retire.
nonoccupational disability retirement.
The early-out provision credits an em
The settlement waives the 1-day ployee with 6 years of age and 6 years of
waiting period for paid sick leave, up service when calculating pensions and de
to two times in a 5-year period, for em termining eligibility for retiree health and
ployees with 5 or more years of service; life insurance benefits. Monthly pension
adds stepparents and stepchildren un payments will be 35 percent higher than
der the coverage of bereavement leave; they would have been without the addi
increases the premium for workers in tional age and length of service credit for
structing learners from 50 cents to $1 employees under age 45,40 percent higher
an hour; and provides reimbursement for employees between 45 and 54, and 45
of up to $50 every 2 years for employ percent higher for employees over age 54
ees who have to buy safety boots and or with 30 years of service. Early outs ini
shoes. Other terms increase the proba tially will be offered to all employees on
tionary period from 90 to 120 days, July 1, 1995, and then during the remain
clarify employees’ agency fee alterna der of the contract only if a “worker sur
tives to paying union dues (“fair share” plus” occurs.
provision), and streamline grievance
Employees who remain with the com
procedures.
pany will receive a $750 “sign-on” bo
nus, plus wage increases of 4 percent in
January 1996 and 3 percent each in Janu
“Early out” offer at SNET
ary of 1997 and 1998. Depending on the
employee's salary level, the wage in
Four months prior to their scheduled creases will be provided as a combi
contract expiration, some 6,400 em nation of raises in the base wage rate,
ployees represented by the Connecti payments to the cash balance account
cut Union of Telephone Workers at that determines monthly pension, and
Southern New England Telecommu cash bonuses. The contract also stipu-
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
75
Industrial Relations
lates that no pay reductions will result
from this wage schedule transition.
The pact introduces several changes in
the health care area. It creates a point-ofservice medical plan with an expanded
network of primary care physicians and
hospitals. The agreement requires the
company to contribute $300,000 to create
a Wellness Program Fund, administered
by a new Joint Health Care Committee, to
promote health and wellness programs for
all employees. The agreement increases
maximum annual employer contributions
for health and welfare, to $3,300 per em
ployee for individual coverage and $6,800
per employee for joint coverage including
a spouse. The maximum annual contri
bution drops to $775 and $3,300, respec
tively, after employees reach age 65.
The parties also agreed to implement
an attendance incentive program that an
nually will reward certain employees with
time off or bonus pay. Workers with per
fect attendance will receive 3 paid days off
or the equivalent in pay; those who have
missed only 1 day will receive 2 paid days
off; and those who have improved their
attendance by 2 days in a year and missed
between 2 and 8 days will receive 1 day
off.
Other terms convert the pension pro
gram to a cash balance account; increase
current pension benefits by 10 percent;
and provide employees with the option to
receive pensions as a lump sum, monthly
payments, or a combination of both. The
pact also continues the survivor option for
monthly pension payments, provides re
tiree health benefits under an improved
“rule of 75” (combination of age and years
of service equals 75), and calls for en
hancements in the dental care and pre
scription drug programs.
Auto strikes end
Two separate work stoppages conducted by
locals o f the United Auto Workers (UAW) at
General Motors Corporation (GM) and
Chrysler Corporation ended when agree
ments were reached addressing employees’
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
concerns over job security and health
and safety issues. Some 5,500 workers
represented by ua w Local 594 walked
off their jobs at GM’s Pontiac East truck
assembly plant in Pontiac, mi, for 6 days,
while 5,700 employees represented by
UAW Local 685 spent 1 day on picket
lines at Chrysler’s Kokomo, in , trans
mission plant.
The genesis of the GM strike— the
seventh stoppage at the automaker in
15 months—was the closing of GM’s
Pontiac West plant in December 1994.
Of the 1,800 UAW-represented employ
ees at the plant, about 300 transferred
to the paint and body shop at GM’s
Pontiac East facility, while the remain
ing 1,500 were laid off, but received
full pay and benefits (inclusive of un
employment compensation) under pro
visions of GM’s master contract.
As part of its overall corporate strat
egy to relocate idled workers to facili
ties with labor shortages, GM sought to
transfer the 1,500 laid-off workers to
other plants no more than 50 miles
from Pontiac, including a truck assem
bly plant in Flint, mi. Local 584 re
fused to allow its members to be trans
ferred to plants outside Pontiac, and in
stead proposed a recall of idled em
ployees to the Pontiac East facility. Ac
cording to the union, the recall would
allow current employees to be relieved
of extensive overtime and also afford
GM the opportunity to schedule new
work at the plant. Furthermore, ac
cording to the union, transferring em
ployees could reduce their seniority at
new locations, making them vulner
able to future layoffs and transfers. Ac
cording to press reports, Local 594 also
feared losing its members to other ua w
locals if they were transferred out to
other plants.
When the parties failed to resolve
the issue of how to deal with former
Pontiac West employees, workers at
Pontiac East struck, wiping out onethird of GM’s capacity to build C/K fullsized pickups and Sierra trucks sold by
the Chevrolet and GMC truck lines.
The union cited unresolved health and
safety concerns as the reason for the
w alkout— an action consistent with
binding m aster and local contracts,
which permit only strikes that address
health or safety issues.
Under terms of the settlement, GM
agreed to abandon plans to transfer laidoff employees from Pontiac West to other
locations and will add up to 900 work
ers at the Pontiac East plant, including
200 to address concerns about assembly
line speedups and another 700 to replace
Pontiac East workers who return to
school. GM will consider adding a third
production shift at Pontiac East, as well
as returning to the bargaining unit some
parts manufacturing that has been con
tracted out. The parties also resolved a
number of grievances that included pay
ment of about $3 million in back wages.
Similar concerns about job security,
subcontracting, and health and safety is
sues resulted in the strike of 5,700 em
ployees at Chrysler’s Kokomo, IN, plant.
The walkout began after the automaker
considered assigning production of a
newly designed transmission for trucks,
scheduled to begin in 1999, to another
plant, fearing that the Kokomo facility
was too small. The plant currently pro
duces about 90 percent of automatic
transmissions used in Chrysler vehicles.
Under terms of the pact, Chrysler
agreed to assemble its new generation
of truck transmissions at the Kokomo
plant after enlarging and modernizing
the plant. The automaker must provide
details o f the plant im provem ents
within 60 days of the ratification of the
contract. The pact also resolved a num
ber of individual health and safety griev
ances.
Emergency board reports
Emergency Board No. 226, established
by President Clinton to investigate and
report its findings and recommendations
for an unresolved dispute between
M etro-North Commuter Railroad in
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
76
New York and 12 unions, recently released
its report.
Metro-North, the Nation’s second largest
commuter railroad, was formed in 1982 by
the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to
operate commuter passenger lines in the
New York City area previously run by the
Consolidated Rail Corporation. MetroNorth operates about 737 miles of track and
carries some 107,000 passengers each day.
The carrier employs approximately 5,900
workers, of which some 4,000 (in 17 crafts
or classes) are involved in this dispute.
The origin of the dispute was the 199294 bargaining round. The parties made little
progress in reaching a settlement either in
direct negotiations or in mediation until Oc
tober 1994. At that time, with assistance
from National Mediation Board (n m b ) me
diators, the carrier and its unions agreed to
use expedited negotiations and mediation to
conclude both the 1992-94 bargaining round
and the subsequent 1995-97 round. The
parties also agreed to request an NMB proffer
of arbitration if they failed to conclude agree
ments by a self-imposed deadline of January
12, 1995.
By January 12, all but three unions
reached agreement with the carrier on
1992-94 contracts; however, no agree
ments were signed for the 1995-97 bar
gaining round. The major stumbling block
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
to settlement in both cases was a disagree
ment over reducing or eliminating the dis
parity between Metro North’s workers’
wages and benefits and those of the Long
Island Rail Road, one of the other trans
portation companies in the New York City
area operated under the umbrella of the
MTA. The union insisted that such equity
was needed to ensure “equal pay for equal
work.” The carrier claimed that actual
and anticipated cuts and delays in Federal
and state funding made increased em
ployee compensation impossible.
On January 12, the NMB proffered ar
bitration, which was rejected by both the
carrier and the unions. On January 23,
the n m b released the parties, thus trigger
ing a 30-day “cooling-off’ period. The
n m b notified the President on February 16
that an emergency dispute existed. The
President created an Emergency Board on
February 22.
The Board convened hearings in New
York City beginning on March 20. The
panel heard testimony and arguments and
received briefs and exhibits from the par
ties. Based upon the record, the Board
made the following recommendations:
1. Wages. For the three unions that had
not settled during the 1992-94 bargain
ing round, wage increases of 2.5 per
cent retroactive to both January 1
of 1992 and 1993 and 3.5 percent
retroactive to January 1, 1994.
For all unions, wage increases of
3 percent on both July 1, 1995,
and January 1, 1996, and 4 per
cent on January 1, 1997;
2. Benefits. For employees lo
cated outside New York State,
“the same (health care) coverage
on the same financial basis” as
other employees; and
3. Work rules. Rules changes that
would provide greater flexibility
in scheduling; allow for part-time
assistant conductors, car clean
ers, and service attendants;
change service attendants’ se
niority rosters to rule out dupli
cative assignments; streamline
grievance procedures for carmen
and yardmasters; establish break
periods for rail traffic controllers;
allow for additional road days for
rail traffic controllers; synchro
nize the scheduling of swing time
and meal periods for conductors
and locomotive engineers; and
implement biweekly pay periods
for all employees.
□
M onthly Labor Review
July
1995
77
The L aw a t W ork
Americans with Disabilities
Act
Does the inability to perform repetitive
factory work meet the criteria for im
pairment under the Americans with
Disabilities Act?1 Not necessarily, ac
cording to a recent decision by a Fed
eral district court judge in dismissing
an autom obile w orker’s com plaint
against Toyota (.McKay v. Toyota Mo
tor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc.).2
Within a few weeks of beginning
work with Toyota in a body weld divi
sion, Pamela McKay was diagnosed
with carpal tunnel syndrome caused by
her work. McKay continued working for
the auto manufacturer for more than a
year, and her employer granted several
accommodations to her special needs,
including giving her an extended medi
cal leave of absence, modifying her job,
and approving her transfer to a job of
her choice. In the end, though, the com
pany fired her because of excessive ab
senteeism. McKay filed a complaint in
Federal court alleging that her firing
violated the Americans with Disabili
ties Act.
Federal District Court Judge Karl S.
Forester dismissed McKay’s claim, say
ing that she did not qualify as a dis
abled individual within the meaning of
that term under the Act. Under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the
definition of disability is “a physical or
mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more of the major life ac
tivities [which] include caring for
oneself...and working.”3
In support of her claim that she was
a disabled person protected by the Act,
McKay relied on the testimony of two
orthopedic physicians. They had diag
nosed her with carpal tunnel syndrome
resulting in a 10-percent disability and
restrictions on the type of work she
"The Law a t Work" is p re pa re d by
Constance B. DiCesare of the Office of
Publications and Special Studies, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on
information from secondary sources.
78
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
could perform. But Judge Forester did
not find this evidence of disability per
suasive. McKay, said the judge, was a
college graduate in the process of earn
ing teacher certification. She was quali
fied for numerous positions not utiliz
ing the skills she learned as an automo
bile assembler. Just because she could
no longer perform repetitive factory
work did not mean that she was signifi
cantly limited under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The ruling in McKay comes at a time
when the reported number of ailments
from performing repetitive tasks at work
has increased significantly. Although
repeated-trauma disorders still represent
a small fraction of all injuries and ill
nesses reported by private employers,
they are growing far more rapidly than
other w ork-related problem s and
spreading from the factory floor to set
tings such as offices and stores.4
Retirement health benefits
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court has
ruled that the standard provision in many
employer-provided benefit plans allow
ing a company to amend its plan at any
time does comply with the Employee Re
tirement Income Security Act.5 The rul
ing nullified a lower court order requir
ing Curtiss-Wright Corporation to pay
$2.68 million in back benefits to retirees
whose health benefits had ended when
the company amended its plan (CurtissWright Corp. v. Schoonejongen).6
For many years, Curtiss-Wright had a
postretirement health plan for its work
ers. In 1983, presumably because of the
rising cost of health care, the company
amended its overall plan to terminate
the benefits of retirees if the company fa
cility where they had worked was closed.
A group of retired employees from the
Wood-Ridge, New Jersey plant, sued in
Federal court over the termination of their
benefits. Ruling in favor of the retirees,
the district court found the change in
terms to be an “amendment,” as defined
by the income security act. But because
the company plan lacked a valid amend
ment procedure—one of the require
ments under the Act—the new provision
was void.7 The Third Circuit Court of
Appeals agreed and affirmed the lower
court order that Curtiss-Wright pay the
affected retirees a substantial sum in back
benefits.8 The Third Circuit Court’s de
cision noted that the Employee Retire
ment Income Security Act was designed
to ensure that all interested parties, in
cluding beneficiaries, would know how
a plan may be changed and who may
make the alterations. The ruling held that
a clause which says that the plan may be
amended by “the Company” is too vague.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor deliv
ered the opinion of the High Court that
the Employee Retirement Income Secu
rity Act requires both a procedure for
amending a benefit plan and a procedure
for identifying the persons having the
authority to make such amendments. Dis
agreeing with the lower courts, Justice
O’Connor declared that the Act’s defini
tions make it clear that the term person
includes companies. Furthermore, to say
that a plan may be amended by the com
pany does indicate a procedure. The Act
requires only that there be a procedure in
the sense of a particular way of doing
things, said O’Connor; it does not de
mand a specific level of detail.
Free speech
An at-will employment relationship is
a relationship that may be ended at any
time by either the employer or the em
ployee—for any reason or for no reason
at all. A Cheyenne, Wyoming, newspa
per publisher exercised its right under this
relationship when it fired two managers
for refusing to wear antiunion buttons
during a labor organizing campaign. The
irony of a newspaper that advocates free
speech terminating two employees for
their exercise of that right did not go un
noticed by the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, the court upheld the firings
and ruled that the publisher did not vio
late the law in terminating the manag
ers.
The case, Drake v. Cheyenne News
papers, Inc.,9 arose in 1993 when the
publisher launched a campaign to resist
the efforts of the Communications Work
ers of America to organize the company’s
editorial employees. As part of its anti
union drive, the newspaper required each
member of its managerial staff to wear a
button bearing the word union with a
slash through it. Kerry Drake and Kelly
Flores told the newspaper company that
they could not, in good conscience, wear
the buttons. The paper first suspended
and then fired Drake and Flores, who
sued, alleging violation of their right to
free speech.
The managers argued that free speech,
protected under the Wyoming Constitu
tion, represents an important public
policy. Drake and Flores claimed a pub
lic policy exception to the general, at-will
employment rule under which the news
paper could dismiss them for any reason.
The Wyoming Supreme Court previously
had recognized in a wrongful discharge
case that an action based on violation of
a public policy was not protected by the
employment-at-will doctrine.10
In upholding the firing, the court noted
that the right to free speech is not abso
lute, and one of the restrictions upon it is
that it usually does not extend to private
property. “Terminating an at-will em
ployee for exercising his right to free
speech by refusing to follow a legal di
rective of an employer on the employer’s
premises during working hours does not
violate public policy,” the court de
clared.
Update and stay tuned
The Supreme Court issued a major la
bor decision last year when it ruled, in
NLRB v. Health Care and Retirement
Corp. o f America,1' that nurses who
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
direct less skilled employees are supervi
sors not protected by Federal labor law.
The decision could affect a variety of
employees outside the nursing profes
sion or the health care industry who
oversee the work of others.
The National Labor Relations Board
has yet to hand down its decisions on
two additional cases dealing with the
supervisory status of nurses.12 These
cases, argued before the Board last
October, involve the status of charge
nurses at a hospital in Anchorage,
Alaska, and licensed practical nurses at
a nursing home in Lake Katrine, New
York. The cases present the Board with
its first opportunity to consider the impact
of the earlier Supreme Court ruling in
Health Care and Retirement Corp.,
which rejected the “patient care” test for
determining whether nurses are super
visors. Under the National Labor
Relations Act, employees meet one
criterion for being designated supervisors
when they exercise authority “in the
interest of the employer.” In the Health
Care and Retirement Corp. case, the
Board argued that a nurse’s supervisory
activities were not performed in the
employer’s interest if they were incidental
to treating patients. Disagreeing, the High
Court said that treating patients is in the
interest of a nursing home employer. The
very purpose of a nursing home’s business
is attending to the needs of its customers,
the resident patients.
The employment law question at
issue in the nurse supervision cases—
what the criterion is for being a
supervisor—is emerging as an impor
tant question in labor relations and
labor law. The traditional workplace,
organized along lines of hierarchical
authority, left little ambiguity about who
were the bosses and who the workers.
This is less true today; formal or
ganizational structures are flatter, more
work is done by self-directed teams, and
many responsibilities have been shifted
from supervisors to those lower in the
organization. These trends tend to blur
the distinction between workers and
supervisors. Practitioners of employment
law and representatives on both sides of
the bargaining table are following this
line of cases for clarification in a
developing area of law and workplace
practices.
Erratum
The May issue reported incorrectly that
the U.S. Supreme Court had decided not
to review the decision of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in Rambo v.
Director, O W C P . The High Court re
viewed the case and issued its ruling on
June 12, 1995. By an 8-1 majority, the
Court held that a disability award may
be modified when there is a change in
an employee's wage-earning capacity,
even without any change in the em
ployee's physical condition (Supreme
Court of the United States No. 94-820).
Footnotes
'42U.S.C. § 12101 etseq.
2DC EKy, No. 93-192.
329 C.F.R. § 1630. 2(i).
4Issues
in Labor Statistics, Summary 94-9 (Bu
reau of Labor Statistics, August 1994).
5The Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (erisa), 88 stat. 875, 29 U.S.C. § 1102
(b)(3).
3115 S.Ct. 1223 (1995).
7Section 402 (b) (3) of the Employee Retire
ment Income Security Act requires that every em
ployee benefits plan provide “a procedure for
amending such plan, and or identifying the per
sons who have the authority to amend the plan.”
818 F. 3d 1034 (3rd Cir. 1994).
’891 P. 2d 80.
10Allen v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 699 P. 2d 277,
284 (Wyo. 1985).
” 114 S.Ct. 1778.
,2Providence Hospital and Alaska N urses’ A s
sociation, nlrb , No. 19-RC-12866; and Ten
Broeck Commons Nursing Home and United In
dustry W orkers L o c a l 4 2 4 , nlrb , N o . 3 -R C -
10166. Oral arguments were heard on Oct. 28,
1994.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
79
B o o k R e v ie w s
A dissenting view
Workplace Industrial Relations and the
Global Challenge. Jacques Belanger,
P.K. Edwards, and Larry Haiven,
eds. Ithaca, n y , i l r Press, 1994, 352
pp. $58, cloth, $26.95, paper.
In the early 1970’s, psychoanalyst Tho
mas Kuhn popularized “paradigms,”
the theory that in every field of study
the established order sets structural
guidelines to influence the thinking and
actions of its practitioners. In this con
text, existing paradigms restrict the
growth and expansion of new and com
peting models.
Workplace Industrial Relations and
t h e G l o b a l C h a l l e n g e contests the
model of industrial relations theory that
promotes labor-management partner
ships in the work process instead of con
flict-ridden and legalistic practices that
led to the economic decline in the
United States when the marketplace
became global.
The book is a compilation of papers
delivered in 1991 at a conference in
Quebec City on international workplace
comparisons in current and historical
settings. The main focus of the book,
which scholarly authors call “ethnog
raphies,” is on national industrial rela
tions systems at the macro level of
analysis with specific attention to the
micro issues of job control.
The book’s editors claim that general
ethnographic studies are rare and even
fewer empirical case studies are avail
able. They claim that most studies of
change in the workplace focus on the
evolution from rigid rule-dominated
procedures in the past to those of flex
ible work processes in the future. This
ignores the relationship between work
ers and managers on the shop floor, the
real crucible of comparative industrial
relations development.
The philosophy expressed in this
work is a legacy of dissident paradigms
from the 1960’s and 1970’s. Historians
Herbert Guttman in Work, Culture, and
80
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
Industrializing America, and Eugene
Genovese, in Time on the Cross repre
sented one aspect of this philosophy.
Political economists Harry Braverman,
in Labor and Monopoly Capitalism, and
Michael Burawoy, Manufacturing Con
sent: Changes in the Labor Process
Under Monopoly Capitalism also are
cited often. The concepts noted in these
works argue that labor legislation based
on rigidity in laws and work rules—not
permitting flexibility in interpreting
bargaining agreements—has, ironically,
provided more flexibility and worker
control at the points of production and
service. Worker resistance to manage
ment attempts at total job control forced
management to compromise in regu
lated systems.
For example, Jacques Belanger of
Laval University, in his chapter on “Job
Control under Labor Relations Re
gimes,” finds more similarities than dif
ferences between the regulatory systems
of collective bargaining in Sweden and
the United States. Both systems origi
nated around 1930 and placed strict leg
islative guidelines on collective bargain
ing. Government regulation, he claims,
forced management and labor to adapt
to a new system.
In contrast, Great Britain’s traditions
of informality and less regulatory rigid
ity resolving labor-management differ
ences were marked by confusion and the
absence of a strategy. When drastic mar
ketplace changes (global trade, multi
nationalism, technological change, oil
embargoes) induced an economic na
tional crisis, neither management nor
labor could address it. British-Leyland
M otors, once a power in B ritain’s
economy, ceased production, distinguish
ing itself as a casualty of internal work
place politics that ignored market forces.
This counters comparative interna
tional studies that argue for cooperative
partnerships at the industry and enter
prise levels. These studies were deve
loped from necessity as rigid systems
adapted or collapsed. But the para
digm discussed in this book disagrees.
For example, the differences in State
industrial relations models, such as Swed
ish co-determination and Canadian and
U.S. collective bargaining, developed
because of differences at the shop-floor
level. Although both systems are simi
lar, Sweden, with a social democratic tra
dition in national politics and at the
worksite, adopted flexible work rules ear
lier. In North America, however, antago
nistic employer-worker relations under
the Fordist system slowed but did not im
pede the movement toward the same
ends.
The point-counterpoint discussion of
philosophical opposites forms the en
tire work. Another contributor, Larry
Haiven, professor of industrial relations
at the University of Saskatchewan, con
trasts the arbitration grievance facets
of Canada with the industrial court tri
bunals of Great Britain. Again, the es
tablishment approach to this topic has
been that legalistic and rigid rules in
the arbitration process led to shop floor
conflict and delayed the rapid changes
demanded by a global marketplace.
Haiven argues that the flexibility of the
industrial tribunals offered less em
ployee protection and security and re
sulted in more dismissals than in the
North American system. He attributes
this to rules that allow arbitrators to de
vise lesser penalties, a choice that Brit
ish tribunals do not have under com
mon law.
Likewise, an analysis by Stephen
Herzberg of the U.S. Office of Tech
nology Assessment, of the differences
between the similar U.S. and Canadian
models in the auto industry illustrates
greater m ilitancy among Canadian
workers. An internal labor market of
ethnically hom ogeneous first-line
supervisors and employees opposed to
“Americanized” upper management led
to greater job control. In the United States,
Taylorist practices—the philosophy of
Frederick W. Taylor who devised a
standardized system that monitored and
measured all aspects of a worker’s regi
men— often engendered shop floor
compromise by establishing new pro
cedures. It provided immediate eco-
nomic gain for workers in the 1950’s,
but this cooperation contributed to the
decline of organized labor in the 1980’s.
The idea that analytical workers—
those who make decisions on the shop
floor— will retain skilled jobs with
higher pay than what workers in eco
nomically poorer nations receive also
was debunked in the book. Canadian
and U.S. auto workers should be wary
of emerging trends in the organization
of work, according to Harley Shaiken,
professor of industrial relations at the
University of California at Berkeley.
Another, more established view, has
promoted the idea of high-performance
work organizations, firms with em
ployee empowerment practices, and
team production concepts. So-called
“knowledge workers,” according to this
school of thought, will be the backbone
of the U.S. and Canadian work forces.
But Shaiken, an ex-autoworker, con
tends that Mexican autoworkers now
producing high-quality compact cars will
soon begin producing higher-quality
vehicles. Despite worker demands for an
increasing standard of living, labor costs
still will be considerably less than those
north of the border. Mobile capital,
accompanied by jobs, will accelerate its
movement to Mexico. Shaiken notes that
this already has happened to unionized
electrical workers at Zenith Corp. in
Springfield, mo.
One of the most interesting chapters
concerns women workers in a computer
factory in Singapore. Sociologist Chung
Yuen Kay illustrates that despite gen
der discrimination, including sexual
harassment, women workers on the shop
floor have some control over their jobs.
Their abstract resistance to tight man
agement control, such as flirting and
other appeals to male supervisors, was
rem iniscent of the picture Eugene
Genovese painted in Time on the Cross
to describe the consciousness of resis
tance slaves practiced in the United
States before the Civil War.
A weakness of this book is not its
philosophical content, but its format.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Based on conference reports, it reads
like one. Too much inform ation is
squeezed into one chapter; many of
these segments should be separate
monographs. For example, in Larry
Haiven’s analysis comparing the quali
ties of arbitration and tribunals, the
reader has to wonder if the British sys
tem is more rigid if it cannot accept
penalties less harsh than dismissals. In
the chapter on women workers in
Singapore, a more detailed study is ne
cessary to convince readers that real job
control can be discussed in the context
of a system of severe male domination.
Such analysis raises more questions
than it answers. Also, the editors could
have provided smoother chapter tran
sitions. Such is the case of many con
ference reports turned monograph.
Obviously, the ideology expressed is
a minority view. Most discussions of
changing comparative industrial rela
tions systems focus on the so-called es
tablished paradigm. For example, at the
recent hearings of the Commission on
the Future of Labor-Management Re
lations, headed by former Secretary of
Labor John Dunlop, testimony almost
exclusively focused on w orkplace
change from the macro view. In fact, a
member of the commission, Thomas
Kochan, a professor of management at
MIT, came under particular scrutiny in
Workplace Industrial Relations as a
leading figure of the established para
digm. The theories of Kochan, Harry
Katz, and Robert McKersie in The
Transformation o f American Industrial
Relations carry more weight in the in
dustrial relations community than the
views expressed in this book.
Also, because of the authors’ contra
dictory material—even to their own
theories—their hypotheses are vague
and inconclusive. The chapter on
women w orkers in Singapore and
Haiven’s look at tribunals and arbitra
tion are good examples. Each author
admits the need for further analyses. In
fairness, the editors also frankly admit
to this, stating that the book’s purpose
is to prompt additional study.
Nonetheless, this is a fascinating and
thought-provoking work. Even those
who oppose the findings will find it in
triguing. Because the global challenges
affecting all nations will affect the evo
lution of industrial relations practices,
such publications should fuel intense
debate among industrial relations
scholars. Will this type of theory be
come the new paradigm? Only time will
tell.
—Henry R Guzda
Office of the American Workplace
U.S. Department of Labor
Labor-intense history
The State and Labor in M odern
America. By M elvyn Dubofsky.
Chapel Hill, The University of North
C arolina Press, 1994, 303 pp.,
$34.95.
The role of government in promoting,
protecting, and regulating the relation
ship between employer and employee
represents a classic American debate,
reaching as far back as State court rul
ings enforcing labor contracts for inden
tured servants in 18th century colonial
America and reappearing most recently
in the discussion about raising the Fed
eral minimum wage.
In The State and Labor in Modern
America, Melvyn Dubofsky has summa
rized the historic record on how the
State has worked with employers and
employees to help shape labor policy.
He approaches the subject chronologi
cally, beginning with the Federal gov
ernment entering into labor conflicts in
the late 19th century. This is not an ar
bitrary start: before this period, little
national policy was directed at labor.
While one can argue that the Civil War
was as much a conflict over differing
views of labor as it was an issue over
whether States could secede from the
Union, labor as a public policy issue
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
81
Book Reviews
truly appears with the advent of that
genuine national corporation—the rail
road.
In the early part of the 19th century,
labor and capital were local institutions.
Labor conflicts were directed primarily
at local companies, confining their im
pact to local issues. The building of great
national rail lines also saw the building
of a national labor force under the man
agement of capitalists whose empires
stretched across the Nation and whose
prosperity depended on uninterrupted
commerce.
It is the threat to interstate commerce
that repeatedly appears in this book as
the drive (and, at times, the excuse) for
Federal intervention. Sometimes, inter
vention took the form of presidential
persuasion, other times it resulted in
government commissions that were not
always effective. Sometimes, it appeared
in the massing of Federal troops. Occa
sionally, legislation mitigated these con
flicts, although the amount of congres
sional debate far outweighed legislation.
Dubofsky paints a picture of a gov
ernment trying to find a middle way:
action in which the highest priority was
to avoid conflict between workers and
employers.
Politics has always played a part in
U.S. labor policy. Politicians understood
the influence of businessmen and work
ers’ votes, and many of their actions
seem to acknowledge both influences.
Labor also affected other issues: South
erners, for example, pushed hard for
82
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
States’ rights, and responded favorably
when Federal intervention was kept to
a minimum, even when it supported
employers. (Instances in the past cen
tury where Federal troops were sent to
support workers’ rights are hard to find.)
Dubofsky traces labor developments
to the 1970’s, including changes in la
bor policies in response to two world
wars and the Depression. By avoiding
more current events, Dubofsky wisely
m aintains an historical perspective
throughout the book.
Looking at history by using the pub
lic record has its strengths and weak
nesses. The public record tells what hap
pened and what was said. But it can’t
describe motivation or record private
thoughts. While Dubofsky does a cred
ible job of capturing the intent of vari
ous public persons—Presidents, leaders
of Congress and unions, and other policy
makers—the book says precious little to
explain why workers and employers at
the center of conflicts acted as they did.
Furtherm ore, by concentrating on
policymakers, he leaves the impression
that workers and management were rela
tively passive players, as if they waited
for government to move instead of act
ing on their own.
Another shortcoming is that labor’s
public record is really the public record
of trade unions. Union archives can be
more easily researched than the unwrit
ten history of unorganized workers. Al
though Dubofsky points out that most
workers in the United States have not
been union members, his work implies
that all significant labor events are
due to the efforts of organized labor,
and that unorganized workers had no
effect on legislation or politics. Al
though the union movem ent in the
United States has had a great impact
on labor legislation, it is unlikely that
elected officials would have been per
suaded by organized labor if they did
not also believe these arguments were
generally supported by their constitu
ents— the majority of whom were non
union workers.
Writing a history of labor by casting
an eye only on organized labor is a nar
row focus on a broad subject. Although
this book highlights one aspect of U.S.
labor, it neglects the larger questions of
the American work force and fails to
capture the efforts of men and women
in their workplace struggles outside the
halls of power.
With unions at a low point in mem
bership, this sort of scholarship will be
come less useful. Future labor histori
ans will be less able to depend on unions
as the primary representative of Ameri
can workers. Used with other sources,
this book presents a good overview of
labor policy of the past. For readers seek
ing a fuller understanding of labor, it
represents one aspect of a complex sub
ject.
—Michael Wald
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Atlanta region
C u rre n t L a b o r Statistics
N otes on Labor Statistics........................84
C o m p a ra tiv e indicators
1. Labor market indicators.................................................. 94
2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in
compensation, prices, and productivity....................... 95
3. Alternative measures of wages and
compensation changes................................................. 95
Labor fo rc e d a ta
4. Employment status of the population,
seasonally adjusted......................................................
5. Selected employment indicators,
seasonally adjusted......................................................
6. Selected unemployment indicators,
seasonally adjusted......................................................
7. Unemployment rates by sex and age,
seasonally adjusted......................................................
97
98
99
Labor c o m p e n s a tio n a n d c o lle c tiv e
b a rg a in in g d a ta
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27. Average specified compensation and wage rate
changes, bargaining agreements covering
1,000 workers or more.................................................
28. Specified changes in cost of compensation in
private industry settlements covering 5,000
workers or more...........................................................
29. Specified compensation and wage adjustments,
State and local government bargaining situations
covering 1,000 workers or more..................................
30. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more..........
115
116
117
117
96
8. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment,
seasonally adjusted...................................................... 99
9. Duration of unemployment,
seasonally adjusted...................................................... 99
10. Unemployment rates by States,
seasonally adjusted...................................................... 100
11. Employment of workers by States,
seasonally adjusted...................................................... 100
12. Employment of workers by industry,
seasonally adjusted...................................................... 101
13. Average weekly hours by industry,
seasonally adjusted........................................................103
14. Average hourly earnings by industry,
seasonally adjusted........................................................103
15. Average hourly earnings by industry.............................. 104
16. Average weekly earnings by industry............................. 105
17. Diffusion indexes of employment change,
seasonally adjusted...................................................... 106
18. Annual data: Employment status of the population....... 106
19. Annual data: Employment levels by industry.................. 107
20. Annual data: Average hours
and earnings levels by industry................................... 107
21. Employment Cost Index, compensation,
by occupation and industry group...............................
22. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries,
by occupation and industry group...............................
23. Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry
workers, by occupation and industry group................
24. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers,
by bargaining status, region, and area size.................
25. Participants in employer-provided benefit plans...........
26. Specified compensation and wage rate changes
from contract settlements, and effective wage
rate changes, agreements covering 1,000
workers or more........ ..................................................
Labor c o m p e n s a tio n a n d c o lle c tiv e
b a rg a in in g d a ta — C o n tin u e d
108
110
Ill
112
113
Price d a ta
31. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average, by expenditure
category and commodity and service groups.............. 118
32. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and
local data, all items.....................................................121
33. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items
and major groups........................................................ 122
34. Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing................ 123
35. Producer Price Indexes for the net output of major
industry groups........................................................... 124
36. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes
by stage of processing..................................................124
37. U.S. export price indexes by Standard International
Trade Classification................................................... 125
38. U.S. import price indexes by Standard International
Trade Classification.....................................................126
39. U.S. export price indexes by end-use category.............. 127
40. U.S. import price indexes by end-use category............. 127
41. U.S.international price indexes for selected
categories o f se rv ic e s.............................................................. 128
Productivity d a ta
42. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation,
and unit costs, data seasonally adjusted.......................128
43. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity.................... 129
44. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation,
unit costs, and prices.....................................................129
45. Annual indexes of output per hour for selected
industries.......................................................................130
International co m p ariso ns d a ta
46. Unemployment rates in nine countries,
data seasonally adjusted................................................132
47. Annual data: Employment status of the civilian
working-age population, 10 countries........................ 133
48. Annual indexes of productivity and related measures,
12 countries...................................................................134
Injury a n d Illness d a ta
114
49. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness
incidence rates............................................................. 135
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
83
Notes on Current Labor Statistics
This section of the R e view presents the prin
cipal statistical series collected and calcu
lated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
series on labor force; employment; unem
ployment; labor compensation; collective
bargaining settlements; consumer, producer,
and international prices; productivity; inter
national comparisons; and injury and illness
statistics. In the notes that follow, the data
in each group of tables are briefly described;
key definitions are given; notes on the data
are set forth; and sources of additional in
formation are cited.
G eneral notes
The following notes apply to several tables
in this section:
Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly
and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect on the data of such factors as cli
matic conditions, industry production sched
ules, opening and closing of schools, holi
day buying periods, and vacation practices,
which might prevent short-term evaluation
of the statistical series. Tables containing
data that have been adjusted are identified
as “seasonally adjusted.” (All other data are
not seasonally adjusted.) Seasonal effects
are estimated on the basis of past experi
ence. When new seasonal factors are com
puted each year, revisions may affect sea
sonally adjusted data for several preceding
years.
Seasonally adjusted data appear in tables
1-14, 16-17, 42, and 46. Seasonally ad
justed labor force data for 1994 in tables 1
and 4-9 were revised in the February 1995
issue of the R eview . Seasonally adjusted es
tablishment survey data shown in tables 1214 and 16-17 were revised in the July 1995
R e v ie w and reflect the experience through
March 1995. A brief explanation of the sea
sonal adjustment methodology appears in
“Notes on the data.”
Revisions in the productivity data in
table 42 are usually introduced in the Sep
tember issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes
and percent changes from month-to-month
and quarter-to-quarter are published for nu
merous Consumer and Producer Price Index
series. However, seasonally adjusted in
dexes are not published for the U.S. aver
age All-Items CPI. Only seasonally adjusted
percent changes are available for this series.
Adjustments for price changes. Some
data—such as the “real” earnings shown in
table 14— are adjusted to eliminate the ef
fect of changes in price. These adjustments
are made by dividing current-dollar values
by the Consumer Price Index or the appro
84
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
priate component of the index, then multi
plying by 100. For example, given a current
hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price
index number of 150, where 1982 = 100,
the hourly rate expressed in 1982 dollars is
$2 ($3/150 x 100 = $2). The $2 (or any other
resulting values) are described as “real,”
“constant,” or “1982” dollars.
Sources of information
Data that supplement the tables in this sec
tion are published by the Bureau in a vari
ety of sources. Definitions of each series and
notes on the data are contained in later sec
tions of these Notes describing each set of
data. For detailed descriptions of each data
series, see b l s H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s, Bul
letin 2414. Users also may wish to consult
M a jo r P ro g ra m s o f th e B u reau o f L a b o r S ta
tis tic s, Report 871. News releases provide
the latest statistical information published
by the Bureau; the major recurring releases
are published according to the schedule ap
pearing on the back cover of this issue.
More information about labor force, em
ployment, and unemployment data and the
household and establishment surveys under
lying the data are available in the Bureau’s
monthly publication, E m p lo y m e n t a n d
E arn in gs. Historical unadjusted data from
the household survey are published in L a
b o r F o rce S ta tistic s D e r iv e d F rom the C u r
ren t P o p u la tio n S u rvey, BLS Bulletin 2307.
Historical seasonally adjusted data are
available from the Bureau upon request.
Historically comparable unadjusted and sea
sonally adjusted data from the establishment
survey are published in E m ploym en t, H ours,
a n d E arn in gs, U n ited S ta tes, a BLS annual
bulletin. Additional information on labor
force data for sub-States are provided in the
BLS annual report, G e o g r a p h ic P r o file o f
More detailed data on consumer and pro
ducer prices are published in the monthly
periodicals, The CPI D e ta ile d R e p o r t and
P ro d u c e r P r ic e In dexes. For an overview of
the cpi reflecting 1982-84 expenditure pat
terns, see The C o n su m er P ric e Index: 1 9 8 7
R e visio n , bls Report 736. Additional data
on international prices appear in monthly
news releases.
For a listing of available industry pro
ductivity indexes and their components, see
P r o d u c tiv ity M e a su re s f o r S e le c te d In d u s
trie s a n d G o v ern m e n t S ervices, BLS Bulle
tin 2440.
For additional information on interna
tional comparisons data, see In te rn a tio n a l
C o m p a riso n s o f U n em ploym en t, BLS Bulle
tin 1979.
Detailed data on the occupational injury
and illness series are published in O c cu p a
tio n a l In ju rie s a n d I lln e sse s in th e U n ite d
S tates, b y Industry, a bls annual bulletin.
Finally, the M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w car
ries analytical articles on annual and longer
term developments in labor force, employ
ment, and unemployment; employee com
pensation and collective bargaining; prices;
productivity; international comparisons; and
injury and illness data.
Symbols
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified,
n.e.s. = not elsewhere specified.
p = preliminary. To increase the time
liness of some series, preliminary
figures are issued based on repre
sentative but incomplete returns.
r = revised. Generally, this revision
reflects the availability of later
data, but may also reflect other ad
justments.
E m p lo y m en t a n d U n em ploym en t.
More detailed information on employee
compensation and collective bargaining
settlements is published in the monthly pe
riodical, C o m p en sa tio n a n d W orkin g C o n
ditio n s. For a comprehensive discussion of
the Employment Cost Index, see E m p lo y
m en t C o st In dexes a n d L evels, 1 9 7 5 -9 3 , BLS
Bulletin 2447. The most recent data from
the Employee Benefits Survey appear in the
following Bureau of Labor Statistics bulle
tins: E m p lo y e e B en efits in M ediu m a n d L arge
F irm s; E m p lo y e e B en efits in S m a ll P riv a te
E sta b lish m en ts; a n d E m p lo y e e B e n e fits in
S ta te a n d L o c a l G o v e r n m e n ts. Historical
data on the collective bargaining settlements
series appear in the March issue of C o m
p e n sa tio n a n d W orking C on dition s.
Com parative Indicators
(Tables 1-3)
Comparative indicators tables provide an
overview and comparison of major bls sta
tistical series. Consequently, although many
of the included series are available monthly,
all measures in these comparative tables are
presented quarterly and annually.
Labor market indicators include em
ployment measures from two major surveys
and information on rates of change in com
pensation provided by the Employment Cost
Index (ECl) program. The labor force partici
pation rate, the employment-to-population
ratio, and unemployment rates for major
demographic groups based on the Current
Population (“household”) Survey are pre
sented, while measures of employment and
average weekly hours by major industry sec
tor are given using nonfarm payroll data. The
Employment Cost Index (compensation), by
major sector and by bargaining status, is
chosen from a variety of bls compensation
and wage measures because it provides a
comprehensive measure of employer costs
for hiring labor, not just outlays for wages,
and it is not affected by employment shifts
among occupations and industries.
Data on changes in compensation,
prices, and productivity are presented in
table 2. Measures of rates of change of com
pensation and wages from the Employment
Cost Index program are provided for all
civilian nonfarm workers (excluding Federal
and household workers) and for all private
nonfarm workers. Measures of changes in
consumer prices for all urban consumers;
producer prices by stage of processing; over
all prices by stage of processing; and overall
export and import price indexes are given.
Measures of productivity (output per hour of
all persons) are provided for major sectors.
Alternative measures of wage and
compensation rates of change, which re
flect the overall trend in labor costs, are
summarized in table 3. Differences in con
cepts and scope, related to the specific
purposes of the series, contribute to the
variation in changes among the individual
measures.
Notes on the data
Definitions of each series and notes on the
data are contained in later sections of these
notes describing each set of data.
Employment and
Unemployment Data
(Tables 1; 4-20)
Household survey d a ta
Description of the series
Employment data in this section are ob
tained 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 con
sists of about 60,000 households selected to
represent the U.S. population 16 years of age
and older. Households are interviewed on a
rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the
sample is the same for any 2 consecutive
months.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Definitions
Employed persons include (1) all those
who worked for pay any time during the
week which includes the 12th day of the
month or who worked unpaid for 15 hours
or more in a family-operated enterprise and
(2) those who were temporarily absent from
their regular jobs because of illness, vaca
tion, industrial dispute, or similar reasons.
A person working at more than one job is
counted only in the job at which he or she
worked the greatest number of hours.
Unemployed persons are those who did
not work during the survey week, but were
available for work except for temporary ill
ness and had looked for jobs within the pre
ceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look
for work because they were on layoff are also
counted among the unemployed. The unem
ployment rate represents the number unem
ployed as a percent of the civilian labor force.
The civilian labor force consists of all
employed or unemployed persons in the ci
vilian noninstitutional population. Persons
not in the labor force are those not classi
fied as employed or unemployed. This group
includes discouraged workers, defined as
persons who want and are available for a
job and who have looked for work sometime
in the the past 12 months (or since the end
of their last job if they held one within the
past 12 months), but are not currently look
ing, because they believe there are no jobs
available or there are none for which they
would qualify. The civilian noninsti
tutional population comprises all persons
16 years of age and older who are not in
mates of penal or mental institutions, sani
tariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or
needy. The civilian labor force participa
tion rate is the proportion of the civilian
nonin-stitutional population that is in the la
bor force. The employment-population ra-
Revisions to household data
Data relating to 1994 and subsequent
years are not directly comparable with
data for 1993 and earlier years because
of the introduction of a major redesign of
the survey questionnaire and collection
methodology, and the introduction of
1990 census-based population controls,
adjusted for the estimated undercount. An
explanation of the changes and their ef
fect on labor force data appears in the
February 1994 issue of E m p lo ym en t a n d
E a rn in g s, a monthly publication of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Seasonally adjusted data for 1994
were revised at the end of 1994. Addi
tional information on the revisions ap
pears in the January 1995 issue of E m
p lo y m e n t a n d E arn ings.
tio is employment as a percent of the civil
ian noninstitutional population.
Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a de
cennial census, adjustments are made in the
Current Population Survey figures to correct
for estimating errors during the intercensal
years. These adjustments affect the compa
rability of historical data. A description of
these adjustments and their effect on the
various data series appears in the Explana
tory Notes of E m p lo ym en t a n d E arn ings.
Labor force data in tables 1 and 4-9 are
seasonally adjusted. Since January 1980,
national labor force data have been season
ally adjusted with a procedure called X -ll
arima which was developed at Statistics
Canada as an extension of the standard X11 method previously used by bls . A de
tailed description of the procedure appears
in the X -ll a r im a S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t
M eth od, by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics
Canada, Catalogue No. 12-564E, January
1983).
At the end of each calendar year, season
ally adjusted data for the previous 5 years
usually are revised, and projected seasonal
adjustment factors are calculated for use
during the January-June period. Because of
the changes introduced into the cps in Janu
ary 1994, only seasonally adjusted data for
1994 were revised at the end of 1994. In
July, new seasonal adjustment factors,
which incorporate the experience through
June, are produced for the July-December
period, but no revisions are made in the his
torical data.
For additional information on national
household survey data, contact the Division
of Labor Force Statistics: (202) 606-6378.
Establishment survey d ata
Description of the series
Employment, hours, and earnings data in
this section are compiled from payroll
records reported monthly on a voluntary ba
sis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its
cooperating State agencies by about 390,000
establishments representing all industries
except agriculture. Industries are classified
in accordance with the 1987 S ta n d a rd In
d u s tr ia l C la ssifica tio n (SIC) M an ual. In most
industries, the sampling probabilities are
based on the size of the establishment; most
large establishments are therefore in the
sample. (An establishment is not necessar
ily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for ex
ample, or warehouse.) Self-employed per
sons and others not on a regular civilian pay
roll are outside the scope of the survey
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
85
Current Labor Statistics
because they are excluded from establish
ment records. This largely accounts for the
difference in employment figures between
the household and establishment surveys.
Definitions
An establishment is an economic unit
which produces goods or services (such as a
factory or store) at a single location and is
engaged in one type of economic activity.
Employed persons are all persons who
received pay (including holiday and sick
pay) for any part of the payroll period in
cluding the 12th day 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 working supervisors and nonsupervisory workers closely associated with pro
duction operations. Those workers men
tioned in tables 11-16 include production
workers in manufacturing and mining; con
struction workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in the following indus
tries: transportation and public utilities;
wholesale and retail trade; finance, insur
ance, and real estate; and services. These
groups account for about four-fifths of the
total employment on private nonagricultural
payrolls.
Earnings are the payments production
or nonsupervisory workers receive during
the survey period, including premium pay
for overtime or late-shift work but exclud
ing irregular bonuses and other special
payments. Real earnings are earnings ad
justed 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 Work
ers (CPI-W).
Hours represent the average weekly
hours of production or nonsupervisory work
ers for which pay was received, and are dif
ferent from standard or scheduled hours.
Overtime hours represent the portion of
average weekly hours which was in excess
of regular hours and for which overtime pre
miums were paid.
The Diffusion Index represents the per
cent of industries in which employment was
rising over the indicated period, plus onehalf of the industries with unchanged em
ployment; 50 percent indicates an equal bal
ance between industries with increasing and
decreasing employment. In line with Bureau
practice, data for the 1-, 3-, and 6-month
spans are seasonally adjusted, while those
for the 12-month span are unadjusted. Data
are centered within the span. Table 17 pro
vides an index on private nonfarm employ
ment based on 356 industries, and a manu
facturing index based on 139 industries.
These indexes are useful for measuring the
86
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
dispersion of economic gains or losses and
are also economic indicators.
Notes on the data
Establishment survey data are annually ad
justed to comprehensive counts of employ
ment (called “benchmarks”). The latest ad
justment, which incorporated March 1994
benchmarks, was made with the release of
May 1995 data, published in the July 1995
issue of the R e view . Coincident with the
benchmark adjustment, seasonally adjusted
data were revised to reflect the experience
through March 1995. Comparable revisions
in State data (table 11) occurred with the
publication of January 1995 data. Unad
justed data from April 1994 forward and
seasonally adjusted data from January 1991
forward are subject to revision in future
benchmarks.
The bls also uses the X-l 1 arima meth
odology to seasonally adjust establishment
survey data. Beginning in June 1989, pro
jected seasonal adjustment factors are cal
culated and published twice a year. The
change makes the procedure used for the
establishment survey data more parallel
to that used in adjusting the household
survey data. Revisions of data, usually for
the most recent 5-year period, are made once
a year coincident with the benchmark
revisions.
In the establishment survey, estimates for
the most recent 2 months are based on in
complete returns and are published as pre
liminary in the tables (12—17 in the R eview ).
When all returns have been received, the es
timates are revised and published as “final”
(prior to any benchmark revisions) in the
third month of their appearance. Thus, De
cember data are published as preliminary in
January and February and as final in March.
For the same reasons, quarterly establish
ment data (table 1) are preliminary for the
first 2 months of publication and final in the
third month. Thus, fourth-quarter data are
published as preliminary in January and
February and as final in March.
A comprehensive discussion of the dif
ferences between household and establish
ment data on employment appears in Gloria
P. Green, “Comparing employment esti
mates from household and payroll surveys,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R e view , December 1969,
pp. 9-20.
For additional information on estab
lishment survey data, contact the Division
of Monthly Industry Employment Statistics:
(202) 606-6555.
lation Survey (CPS) and the Local Area Un
employment Statistics (LAUS) program,
which is conducted in cooperation with State
employment security agencies.
Monthly estimates of the labor force,
employment, and unemployment for States
and sub-State areas are a key indicator of
local economic conditions, and form the ba
sis for determining the eligibility of an area
for benefits under Federal economic assis
tance programs such as the Job Training
Partnership Act. Seasonally adjusted unem
ployment rates are presented in table 10.
Insofar as possible, the concepts and defini
tions underlying these data are those used
in the national estimates obtained from the
CPS.
Notes on the data
Data refer to State of residence. Monthly
data for 11 States—California, Florida, Illi
nois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York,
New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsyl
vania, and Texas—are obtained directly
from the CPS because the size of the sample
is large enough to meet bls standards of
reliability. Data for the remaining 39 States
and the District of Columbia are derived
using standardized procedures established
by bls . Once a year, estimates for the 11
States are revised to new population con
trols, usually with publication of January
estimates. For the remaining States and the
District of Columbia, data are benchmarked
to annual average cps levels. Data for 1994
are not directly comparable with those for
1993 as a result of the redesign of the CPS
and other methodological changes. See “Re
visions in State and Area Estimates Effec
tive January 1994,” E m p lo y m en t a n d E a rn
ings, March 1994.
For additional information on data in
this series, call (202) 606-6392 (table 10)
or (202) 606-6589 (table 11).
Compensation and
W age Data
(Tables 1-3; 21-30)
Compensation and wage data are gathered
by the Bureau from business establishments,
State and local governments, labor unions,
collective bargaining agreements on file
with the Bureau, and secondary sources.
Employment Cost Index
Unem ploym ent d ata by State
Description of the series
Description of the series
The Employment Cost Index (ECi) is a
quarterly measure of the rate of change in
compensation per hour worked and includes
wages, salaries, and employer costs of em-
Data presented in this section are obtained
from two major sources—the Current Popu-
ployee benefits. It uses a fixed market
basket of labor—similar in concept to the
Consumer Price Index’s fixed market bas
ket of goods and services—to measure
change over time in employer costs of em
ploying labor.
Statistical series on total compensation
costs, on wages and salaries, and on benefit
costs are available for private nonfarm work
ers excluding proprietors, the self-employed,
and household workers. The total compen
sation costs and wages and salaries series
are also available for State and local gov
ernment workers and for the civilian non
farm economy, which consists of private
industry and State and local government
workers combined. Federal workers are
excluded.
The Employment Cost Index probability
sample consists of about 4,400 private non
farm establishments providing about 23,000
occupational observations and 1,000 State
and local government establishments pro
viding 6,000 occupational observations se
lected to represent total employment in each
sector. On average, each reporting unit pro
vides wage and compensation information
on five well-specified occupations. Data are
collected each quarter for the pay period in
cluding the 12th day of March, June, Sep
tember, and December.
Beginning with June 1986 data, fixed
employment weights from the 1980 Census
of Population are used each quarter to
calculate the civilian and private indexes
and the index for State and local govern
ments. (Prior to June 1986, the employment
weights are from the 1970 Census of Pop
ulation.) These fixed weights, also used to
derive all of the industry and occupation
series indexes, ensure that changes in these
indexes reflect only changes in compensa
tion, not employment shifts among indus
tries or occupations with different levels
of wages and compensation. For the bargain
ing status, region, and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan area series, however, employ
ment data by industry and occupation are
not available from the census. Instead, the
1980 employment weights are reallocated
within these series each quarter based on the
current sample. Therefore, these indexes
are not strictly comparable to those for
the aggregate, industry, and occupation
series.
Definitions
Total compensation costs include wages,
salaries, and the employer’s costs for em
ployee benefits.
Wages and salaries consist of earnings
before payroll deductions, including produc
tion bonuses, incentive earnings, commis
sions, and cost-of-living adjustments.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Benefits include the cost to employers
for paid leave, supplemental pay (includ
ing nonproduction bonuses), insurance, re
tirement and savings plans, and legally re
quired benefits (such as Social Security,
workers’ compensation, and unemployment
insurance).
Excluded from wages and salaries and
employee benefits are such items as pay
ment-in-kind, free room and board, and tips.
Notes on the data
The Employment Cost Index for changes in
wages and salaries in the private nonfarm
economy was published beginning in 1975.
Changes in total compensation cost—wages
and salaries and benefits combined—were
published beginning in 1980. The series of
changes in wages and salaries and for total
compensation in the State and local govern
ment sector and in the civilian nonfarm
economy (excluding Federal employees)
were published beginning in 1981. Histori
cal indexes (June 1981 = 100) of the quar
terly rates of change are presented in the
March issue of the bls periodical, C o m p en
sa tio n a n d W orking C on dition s.
F or additional information on the
Employment Cost Index, contact the Divi
sion of Employment Cost Trends: (202)
606-6199.
Employee Benefits Survey
Description of the series
Employee benefits data are obtained from
the Employee Benefits Survey, an annual
survey of the incidence and provisions of
selected benefits provided by employers.
The survey collects data from a sample of
approximately 6,000 private sector and State
and local government establishments. The
data are presented as a percentage of em
ployees who participate in a certain benefit,
or as an average benefit provision (for
example, the average number of paid holi
days provided to employees per year). Se
lected data from the survey are presented in
table 25.
The survey covers paid leave benefits
such as lunch and rest periods, holidays and
vacations, and personal, funeral, jury duty,
military, parental, and sick leave; sickness
and accident, long-term disability, and life
insurance; medical, dental, and vision care
plans; defined benefit and defined contribu
tion plans; flexible benefits plans; reimburse
ment accounts; and unpaid parental leave.
Also, data are tabulated on the inci
dence of several other benefits, such as
severance pay, child-care assistance, well
ness programs, and employee assistance
programs.
Definitions
Employer-provided benefits are benefits
that are financed either wholly or partly by
the employer. They may be sponsored by a
union or other third party, as long as there is
some employer financing. However, some
benefits that are fully paid for by the em
ployee also are included. For example, long
term care insurance and postretirement life
insurance paid entirely by the employee are
included because the guarantee of insurabil
ity and availability at group premium rates
are considered a benefit.
Participants are workers who are cov
ered by a benefit, whether or not they use
that benefit. If the benefit plan is financed
wholly by employers and requires employ
ees to complete a minimum length of ser
vice for eligibility, the workers are consid
ered participants whether or not they have
met the requirement. If workers are required
to contribute towards the cost of a plan, they
are considered participants only if they elect
the plan and agree to make the required
contributions.
Defined benefit pension plans use pre
determined formulas to calculate a retire
ment benefit, and obligate the employer to
provide those benefits. Benefits are gener
ally based on salary, years of service, or
both.
Defined contribution plans generally
specify the level of employer and employee
contributions to a plan, but not the formula
for determining eventual benefits. Instead,
individual accounts are set up for partici
pants, and benefits are based on amounts
credited to these accounts.
Tax-deferred savings plans are a type
of defined contribution plan that allow par
ticipants to contribute a portion of their sal
ary to an employer-sponsored plan and de
fer income taxes until withdrawal.
Flexible benefit plans allow employees
to choose among several benefits, such as
life insurance, medical care, and vacation
days, and among several levels of care
within a given benefit.
Notes on the data
Surveys of employees in medium and large
establishments conducted over the 1979-86
period included establishments that em
ployed at least 50, 100, or 250 workers, de
pending on the industry (most service
industries were excluded). The survey con
ducted in 1987 covered only State and local
governments with 50 or more employees. The
surveys conducted in 1988 and 1989 included
medium and large establishments with 100
workers or more in private industries. All
surveys conducted over the 1979-89 period
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
87
Current Labor Statistics
excluded establishments in Alaska and Ha
waii, as well as part-time employees.
Beginning in 1990, surveys of State and
local governments and small establishments
are conducted in even-numbered years and
surveys of medium and large establishments
are conducted in odd-numbered years. The
small establishment survey includes all pri
vate nonfarm establishments with fewer than
100 workers, while the State and local gov
ernment survey includes all governments,
regardless of the number of workers. All
three surveys include full- and part-time
workers, and workers in all 50 States and
the District of Columbia.
For additional information on the Em
ployee Benefits Survey, contact the Division
of Occupational Pay and Employee Benefit
Levels: (202) 606-6222.
Collective bargaining
settlements
Description of the series
Collective bargaining settlements data pro
vide statistical measures of negotiated
changes (increases, decreases, and zero
change) in wage rates alone and in compen
sation (wages and benefits), quarterly for
private nonagricultural industries and semi
annually for State and local governments.
Wage rate changes cover collective bargain
ing settlements negotiated in the reference
period involving 1,000 or more workers, and
compensation changes cover settlements
reached in the reference period involving
5,000 or more workers. These data are not
seasonally adjusted and are calculated using
information obtained from bargaining agree
ments on file with the Bureau, parties to the
agreements, and secondary sources, such as
newspaper accounts.
The wage and compensation rate changes
are the percent difference between the aver
age rate per work hour just prior to the start
of a new agreement and the average rate per
work hour that would exist at the end of the
first 365 days of the new agreement (firstyear measure) or at its expiration date (overthe-life measure). These data exclude lump
sum payments.
The compensation cost change is the per
cent difference between the average cost of
compensation per work hour, including the
hourly cost of lump-sum payments made dur
ing the term of the expiring agreement, just
prior to the start of a new agreement and the
average cost of compensation per work hour
under the settlement. The timing of the
changes in compensation rates is reflected
in the compensation cost series, but not in
compensation rate series.
88
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
Data on changes in settlements exclude
potential changes under cost-of-living adjust
ment clauses. Averages reflect the change
under each settlement weighted by the num
ber of workers covered. Estimates of changes
are based on the assumption that conditions
existing at the time of the settlement (for
example, composition of the labor force or
methods of funding pensions) will remain
constant over the term of the agreement.
Wage rate changes under all major
agreements (those covering 1,000 or more
workers) measure all wage increases, de
creases, and zero changes occurring in the
reference period, regardless of the settle
ment date. Included are changes from settle
ments reached in the calendar year, changes
deferred from settlements negotiated in ear
lier years, and changes under cost-of-living
adjustment (COLA) clauses. The change in
the wage rate for each agreement is the per
cent difference between the average wage
rate just prior to the start of the reference
period and the average wage rate at the end
of the reference period. The change for each
agreement is weighted by the number of
workers covered to determine the average
change under all agreements.
Definitions
Wage rate is the average straight-time
hourly wage rate plus shift premiums.
Compensation rates include the wage
rate, premium pay (for example, for over
time and holidays); paid leave; life, health,
and sickness and accident insurance; pen
sion and other retirement plans; severance
pay; and legally required benefits.
Compensation costs include the items
covered by compensation rates plus speci
fied lump-sum payments, the cost of
contractually required training programs that
are not a cost of doing business, and the ad
ditional costs of changes in legally required
insurance known at the time of settlement
to be mandated during the contract term.
Cash payments include wages and
lump-sum payments.
Contingent pay provisions are clauses
which could provide compensation changes
beyond those specified in the settlement.
COLA clauses and lum p-sum provisions
that call for a payment only if a com
pany’s profits exceed a specific amount are
examples.
Professional and white-collar employees,
for example, make up a much larger propor
tion of the workers covered by government
than by private industry settlements. Lump
sum payments and cola clauses, on the
other hand, are rare in government but com
mon in private industry settlements. Also,
State and local government bargaining fre
quently excludes items such as pension ben
efits and holidays, that are prescribed by
law, while these items are typical bargain
ing issues in private industry.
For additional information on collec
tive bargaining settlements, contact the Di
vision of Developments in Labor-Manage
ment Relations: (202) 606-6276 (private
industry data) or (202) 606-6280 (State and
local government data).
Work stoppages
Description of the series
Data on work stoppages measure the num
ber and duration of major strikes or lock
outs (involving 1,000 workers or more) oc
curring during the month (or year), the num
ber of workers involved, and the amount of
time lost because of stoppage.
Data are largely from newspaper ac
counts and cover only establishments di
rectly involved in a stoppage. They do not
measure the indirect or secondary effect of
stoppages on other establishments whose
employees are idle owing to material short
ages or lack of service.
Definitions
Number of stoppages: The number
of strikes and lockouts involving 1,000
workers or more and lasting a full shift or
longer.
Workers involved: The number of
workers directly involved in the stoppage.
Number of days idle: The aggregate
number of workdays lost by workers in
volved in the stoppages.
Days of idleness as a percent of esti
mated working time: Aggregate work
days lost as a percent of the aggregate num
ber of standard workdays in the period mul
tiplied by total employment in the period.
Notes on the data
Notes on the data
Comparisons of major collective bargaining
settlements for State and local government
with those for private industry should note
differences in occupational mix, bargaining
practices, and settlement characteristics.
This series is not comparable with the one
terminated in 1981 that covered strikes in
volving six workers or more.
For additional information on work
stoppages data, contact the Division of De-
velopments in Labor-Management Rela
tions: (202) 606-6288.
Price Data
(Tables 2; 31-41)
Price data are gathered by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics from retail and pri
mary markets in the United States. Price in
dexes are given in relation to a base pe
riod— 1982 = 100 for many Producer Price
Indexes, 1982-84 = 100 for many Consumer
Price Indexes (unless otherwise noted),
and 1990 = 100 for International Price
Indexes.
Consumer Price Indexes
Description of the series
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a mea
sure of the average change in the prices paid
by urban consumers for a fixed market bas
ket of goods and services. The CPI is calcu
lated monthly for two population groups, one
consisting only of urban households whose
primary source of income is derived from the
employment of wage earners and clerical
workers, and the other consisting of all ur
ban households. The wage earner index (CPiW) is a continuation of the historic index that
was introduced well over a half-century ago
for use in wage negotiations. As new uses
were developed for the cpi in recent years,
the need for a broader and more representa
tive index became apparent. The all-urban
consumer index (CPi-U), introduced in 1978,
is representative of the 1982-84 buying hab
its of about 80 percent of the noninstitutional
population of the United States at that time,
compared with 32 percent represented in the
cpi-w . In addition to wage earners and cleri
cal workers, the CPI-U covers professional,
managerial, and technical workers, the selfemployed, short-term workers, the unem
ployed, retirees, and others not in the labor
force.
The cpi is based on prices of food, cloth
ing, shelter, fuel, drugs, transportation fares,
doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods
and services that people buy for day-to-day
living. The quantity and quality of these
items are kept essentially unchanged be
tween major revisions so that only price
changes will be measured. All taxes directly
associated with the purchase and use of
items are included in the index.
Data collected from more than 19,000
retail establishments and 57,000 housing
units in 85 urban areas across the country
are used to develop the “U.S. city average.”
Separate estimates for 15 major urban cen
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ters are presented in table 32. The areas
listed are as indicated in footnote 1 to the
table. The area indexes measure only the
average change in prices for each area since
the base period, and do not indicate differ
ences in the level of prices among cities.
Notes on the data
In January 1983, the Bureau changed the
way in which homeownership costs are
measured for the CPI-U. A rental equivalence
method replaced the asset-price approach to
homeownership costs for that series. In
January 1985, the same change was made
in the cpi-W. The central purpose of the
change was to separate shelter costs from
the investment component of home-ownership so that the index would reflect only the
cost of shelter services provided by owneroccupied homes. An updated CPI-U and CPIw were introduced with release of the Janu
ary 1987 data.
For additional information on con
sumer prices, contact the Division of Con
sumer Prices and Price Indexes: (202)
606-7000.
Producer Price Indexes
Description of the series
Producer Price Indexes (PPI) measure av
erage changes in prices received by domes
tic producers of commodities in all stages of
processing. The sample used for calculating
these indexes currently contains about 3,200
commodities and about 80,000 quotations
per month, selected to represent the move
ment of prices of all commodities produced
in the manufacturing; agriculture, forestry,
and fishing; mining; and gas and electricity
and public utilities sectors. The stage-ofprocessing structure of ppi organizes prod
ucts by class of buyer and degree of fabrica
tion (that is, finished goods, intermediate
goods, and crude materials). The traditional
commodity structure of ppi organizes prod
ucts by similarity of end use or material
composition. The industry and product
structure of ppi organizes data in accordance
with the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) and the product code extension of the
SIC developed by the U.S. Bureau of the
Census.
To the extent possible, prices used in cal
culating Producer Price Indexes apply to the
first significant commercial transaction in
the United States from the production or
central marketing point. Price data are gen
erally collected monthly, primarily by mail
questionnaire. Most prices are obtained di
rectly from producing companies on a vol
untary and confidential basis. Prices gener
ally are reported for the Tuesday of the week
containing the 13th day of the month.
Since January 1992, price changes for
the various commodities have been averaged
together with implicit quantity weights rep
resenting their importance in the total net
selling value of all commodities as of 1987.
The detailed data are aggregated to obtain
indexes for stage-of-processing groupings,
commodity groupings, durability-of-product
groupings, and a number of special compos
ite groups. All Producer Price Index data are
subject to revision 4 months after original
publication.
F or additional information on pro
ducer prices, contact the Division of Indus
trial Prices and Price Indexes: (202)
606-7705.
International Price Indexes
Description of the series
The International Price Program produces
monthly and quarterly export and import
price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded
between the United States and the rest of
the world. The export price index provides
a measure of price change for all products
sold by U.S. residents to foreign buyers.
(“Residents” is defined as in the national
income accounts; it includes corporations,
businesses, and individuals, but does not re
quire the organizations to be U.S. owned nor
the individuals to have U.S. citizenship.)
The import price index provides a measure
of price change for goods purchased from
other countries by U.S. residents.
The product universe for both the import
and export indexes includes raw materials,
agricultural products, semifinished manu
factures, and finished manufactures, includ
ing both capital and consumer goods. Price
data for these items are collected primarily
by mail questionnaire. In nearly all cases,
the data are collected directly from the ex
porter or importer, although in a few cases,
prices are obtained from other sources.
To the extent possible, the data gathered
refer to prices at the U.S. border for exports
and at either the foreign border or the U.S.
border for imports. For nearly all products,
the prices refer to transactions completed
during the first week of the month. Survey
respondents are asked to indicate all dis
counts, allowances, and rebates applicable
to the reported prices, so that the price used
in the calculation of the indexes is the ac
tual price for which the product was bought
or sold.
In addition to general indexes of prices
for U.S. exports and imports, indexes are
also published for detailed product catego
ries of exports and imports. These catego-
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
89
Current Labor Statistics
ries are defined according to the five
digit level of detail for the Bureau of Eco
nomic Analysis End-use Classification
(SITC), and the four-digit level of detail for
the Harmonized System. Aggregate import
indexes by country or region of origin are
also available.
bls publishes indexes for selected cat
egories o f internationally traded services,
calculated on an international basis and on
a balance-of-payments basis.
Notes on the data
The export and import price indexes are
weighted indexes of the Laspeyres type.
Price relatives are assigned equal impor
tance within each harmonized group and are
then aggregated to the higher level. The val
ues assigned to each weight category are
based on trade value figures compiled by the
Bureau of the Census. The trade weights
currently used to compute both indexes re
late to 1990.
Because a price index depends on the
same items being priced from period to pe
riod, it is necessary to recognize when a
product’s specifications or terms of transac
tion have been modified. For this reason, the
Bureau’s questionnaire requests detailed de
scriptions of the physical and functional
characteristics of the products being priced,
as well as information on the number of
units bought or sold, discounts, credit terms,
packaging, class of buyer or seller, and so
forth. When there are changes in either the
specifications or terms of transaction of a
product, the dollar value of each change is
deleted from the total price change to ob
tain the “pure” change. Once this value is
determined, a linking procedure is employed
which allows for the continued repricing of
the item.
For the export price indexes, the pre
ferred pricing basis is f.a.s. (free alongside
ship) U.S. port of exportation. When firms
report export prices f.o.b. (free on board),
production point information is collected
which enables the Bureau to calculate a ship
ment cost to the port of exportation. An at
tempt is made to collect two prices for im
ports. The first is the import price f.o.b. at
the foreign port of exportation, which is con
sistent with the basis for valuation of imports
in the national accounts. The second is the
import price c.i.f.(costs, insurance, and
freight) at the U.S. port of importation,
which also includes the other costs associ
ated with bringing the product to the U.S.
border. It does not, however, include duty
charges. For a given product, only one price
basis series is used in the construction of an
index.
For additional information on inter
national prices, contact the Division of In
ternational Prices: (202) 606-7155.
90
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
Productivity Data
(Tables 2; 42^15)
Business sector and major
sectors
Description of the series
The productivity measures relate real physi
cal output to real input. As such, they en
compass a family of measures which include
single-factor input measures, such as output
per unit of labor input (output per hour) or
output per unit of capital input, as well as
measures of multifactor productivity (output
per unit of combined labor and capital in
puts). The Bureau indexes show the change
in output relative to changes in the various
inputs. The measures cover the business,
nonfarm business, manufacturing, and
nonfinancial corporate sectors.
Corresponding indexes of hourly com
pensation, unit labor costs, unit nonlabor
payments, and prices are also provided.
Definitions
Output per hour of all persons (labor pro
ductivity) is the value of goods and services
in constant prices produced per hour of la
bor input. Output per unit of capital ser
vices (capital productivity) is the value of
goods and services in constant dollars pro
duced per unit of capital services input.
Multifactor productivity is the value of
goods and services in constant prices pro
duced per combined unit of labor and capi
tal inputs. Changes in this measure reflect
changes in a number of factors which affect
the production process, such as changes in
technology, shifts in the composition of the
labor force, changes in capacity utilization,
research and development, skill and effort
of the work force, management, and so forth.
Changes in the output per hour measures re
flect the impact of these factors as well as
the substitution of capital for labor.
Compensation per hour is the wages
and salaries of employees plus employers’
contributions for social insurance and pri
vate benefit plans, and the wages, salaries,
and supplementary payments for the selfemployed (except for nonfinancial corpora
tions in which there are no self-employed)—
the sum divided by hours at work. Real
compensation per hour is compensation
per hour deflated by the change in Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
Unit labor costs are the labor compen
sation costs expended in the production of a
unit of output and are derived by dividing
compensation by output. Unit nonlabor
payments include profits, depreciation,
interest, and indirect taxes per unit of out
put. They are computed by subtracting com
pensation of all persons from current-dollar
value of output and dividing by output.
Unit nonlabor costs contain all the compo
nents of unit nonlabor payments except unit
profits.
Unit profits include corporate profits
with inventory valuation and capital con
sumption adjustments per unit of output.
Hours of all persons are the total hours
at work of payroll workers, self-employed
persons, and unpaid family workers.
Capital services are the flow of services
from the capital stock used in production. It
is developed from measures of the net stock
of physical assets—equipment, structures,
land, and inventories—weighted by rental
prices for each type of asset.
Combined units of labor and capital
inputs are derived by combining changes in
labor and capital input with weights which
represent each component’s share of total
output. The indexes for capital services and
combined units of labor and capital are
based on changing weights which are aver
ages of the shares in the current and preced
ing year (the Tornquist index-number
formula).
Notes on the data
The output measure for the business sector
is equal to constant-dollar gross national
product, but excludes the rental value of
owner-occupied dwellings, the rest-ofworld sector, the output of nonprofit insti
tutions, the output of paid employees of pri
vate households, general government, and
the statistical discrepancy. Output of the
nonfarm business sector is equal to busi
ness sector output less farming. The mea
sures are derived from data supplied by the
U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of
Economic Analysis and the Federal Re
serve Board. Quarterly manufacturing out
put indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics to annual estimates of man
ufacturing output (gross product originat
ing) from the Bureau of Economic Analy
sis. Compensation and hours data are de
veloped from data of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics and the Bureau of Economic
Analysis.
The productivity and associated cost
measures in tables 42-45 describe the rela
tionship 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 of input.
Although these measures relate output to
hours and capital services, they do not mea
sure 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; utiliza
tion of capacity, energy, and materials; the
organization of production; managerial skill;
and the characteristics and efforts of the
work force.
FORADDITIONALINFORMATION On this pro
ductivity series, contact the Division of Pro
ductivity Research: (202) 606-5606.
all persons (including self-employed) are
constructed.
FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION On this se
ries, contact the Division of Industry Pro
ductivity Studies: (202) 606-5618.
Industry productivity
measures
Labor force and
unemployment
Description of the series
Description of the series
The BLS industry productivity data supple
ment the measures for the business economy
and major sectors with annual measures of
labor productivity for selected industries at
the three- and four-digit levels of the Stan
dard Industrial Classification system. The
industry measures differ in methodology
and data sources from the productivity mea
sures for the major sectors because the in
dustry measures are developed indepen
dently of the National Income and Product
Accounts framework used for the major sec
tor measures.
Tables 46 and 47 present comparative mea
sures of the labor force, employment, and
unemployment—approximating U.S. con
cepts—for the United States, Canada, Aus
tralia, Japan, and several European coun
tries. The unemployment statistics (and, to
a lesser extent, employment statistics) pub
lished by other industrial countries are not,
in most cases, comparable to U.S. unem
ployment statistics. Therefore, the Bureau
adjusts the figures for selected countries,
where necessary, for all known major defi
nitional differences. Although precise com
parability may not be achieved, these ad
justed figures provide a better basis for in
ternational comparisons than the figures
regularly published by each country.
Definitions
Output per employee hour is derived by
dividing an index of industry output by an
index of aggregate hours of all employees.
Output indexes are based on quantifiable
units of products or services, or both, com
bined with value-shared weights. Whenever
possible, physical quantities are used as the
unit of measurement for output. If quantity
data are not available for a given industry,
data on the constant-dollar value of produc
tion are used.
The labor input series consist of the
hours of all employees (production and
nonproduction workers), the hours of all
persons (paid employees, partners, propri
etors, and unpaid family workers), or the
number of employees, depending upon the
industry.
Notes on the data
The industry measures are compiled from
data produced by the Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics, the Departments of Commerce, Inte
rior, and Agriculture, the Federal Reserve
Board, regulatory agencies, trade associa
tions, and other sources.
For most industries, the productivity
indexes refer to the output per hour of all
employees. For some transportation indus
tries, only indexes of output per employee
are prepared. For some trade and service
industries, indexes of output per hour of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
International Comparisons
(Tables 46-48)
Definitions
For the principal U.S. definitions of the la
bor force, employment, and unemploy
ment, see the Notes section on Employment
and Unemployment Data: Household survey
data.
Notes on the data
The adjusted statistics have been adapted to
the age at which compulsory schooling ends
in each country, rather than to the U.S. stan
dard of 16 years of age and older. There
fore, the adjusted statistics relate to the
population age 16 and older in France, Swe
den, and from 1973 onward in the United
Kingdom; 15 and older in Canada, Austra
lia, Japan, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,
and prior to 1973, the United Kingdom; and
14 and older in Italy prior to 1993. The in
stitutional population is included in the de
nominator of the labor force participation
rates and employment-population ratios for
Japan and Germany; it is excluded for the
United States and the other countries.
In the U.S. labor force survey, persons
on layoff who are awaiting recall to their
jobs are classified as unemployed. European
and Japanese layoff practices are quite dif
ferent in nature from those in the United
States; therefore, strict application of the
U.S. definition has not been made on this
point. For further information, see M on th ly
L a b o r R eview , December 1981, pp. 8-11.
The figures for one or more recent years
for France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,
and the United Kingdom are calculated us
ing adjustment factors based on labor force
surveys for earlier years and are considered
preliminary. The recent-year measures for
these countries, therefore, are subject to
revision whenever data from more current
labor force surveys become available.
There are breaks in the data series for
the United States (1994), Italy (1986, 1991,
1993), and Sweden (1987, 1993). For the
United States, the break in series reflects a
number of changes in the labor force survey
beginning with data for January 1994. Data
for 1994 are not directly comparable with
those for earlier years. See the Notes sec
tion on Employment and Unemployment
Data of this R eview .
For Italy, the 1986 break in series reflects
more accurate enumeration of the number
of people reported as seeking work in the
last 30 days. The impact was to increase the
Italian unemployment rates approximating
U.S. concepts by about 1 percentage point.
In 1991, the survey sample was modified to
obtain more reliable estimates by sex and
age. The impact was to raise the adjusted
Italian unemployment rate by approximately
0.3 percentage point. In 1993, the survey
methodology was revised and the definition
of unemployment was changed to include
only those who were actively looking for a
job within the 30 days preceding the survey
and who were available for work. In addi
tion, the lower age limit for the labor force
was raised from 14 to 15 years. (Prior to
these changes, b l s adjusted Italy’s pub
lished unemployment rate downward by ex
cluding from the unemployed persons who
had not actively sought work in the past 30
days.) The break in the series also reflects
the incorporation of the 1991 population
census results. The impact of these changes
was to raise Italy’s adjusted unemployment
rate by approximately 1.1 percentage points.
These changes did not affect employment
significantly, except in 1993. Estimates by
the Italian Statistical Office indicate that
employment declined by about 3 percent in
1993, rather than the 4.5 percent indicated
by the data shown in table 47. This differ
ence is attributable mainly to the incorpora
tion of the 1991 population census bench
marks in the 1993 data. Data for earlier
years have not yet been adjusted to incorpo
rate the 1991 census results.
Sweden introduced a new questionnaire
in 1987. Questions regarding current avail
ability were added and the period of active
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
91
Current Labor Statistics
workseeking was reduced from 60 days to 4
weeks. These changes result in lowering
Sweden’s unemployment rate by 0.5 percent
age point. In 1993, the measurement period
for the labor force survey was changed to
represent all 52 weeks of the year, rather
than one week each month, and a new ad
justment for population totals was intro
duced. The impact was to raise the unem
ployment rate by approximately 0.5 percent
age point. The data for 1993 onward are not
seasonally adjusted because the previous
seasonal adjustment pattern is not applicable
following the 1993 break in series.
Preliminary estimates by the Swedish
Statistics Bureau indicate that employment
linked for the 1993 break in series declined
by about 5-1/2 percent in 1993, rather than
the nearly 7 percent indicated by the data
shown in table 47.
For additional information on this se
ries, contact the Division of Foreign Labor
Statistics: (202) 606-5654.
Manufacturing productivity
and labor costs
Description of the series
Table 48 presents comparative measures of
manufacturing labor productivity, hourly
compensation costs, and unit labor costs for
the United States, Canada, Japan, and nine
European countries. These measures are
limited to trend comparisons—that is, in
tercountry series of changes over time—
rather than level comparisons because reli
able international comparisons of the levels
of manufacturing output are unavailable.
The hours and compensation measures re
fer to all employed persons, including selfempoyed persons and unpaid family work
ers, in the United States and Canada and to
all employees (wage and salary earners) in
the other countries.
Definitions
Output, in general, refers to value added in
manufacturing (gross product originating) in
constant prices from the national accounts
of each country. However, output for Japan
prior to 1970 and the Netherlands from 1969
to 1977 are indexes of industrial production.
The national accounts measures for the
United Kingdom are essentially identical to
its indexes of industrial production. While
methods of deriving national accounts mea
sures differ substantially from country to
country, the use of different procedures does
not, in itself, connote lack of comparabil
ity—rather, it reflects differences among
countries in the availability and reliability
of underlying data series.
92
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
Hours refer to hours worked in all coun
tries. The measures are developed from sta
tistics of manufacturing employment and
average hours. The series used for France
(from 1970 forward), Norway, and Swe
den are official series published with the
national accounts. Where official total hours
series are not available. The measures are
developed by the Bureau using employ
ment figures published with the national ac
counts, or other comprehensive employment
series, and estimates of annual hours
worked.
Compensation (labor cost) includes all
payments in cash or kind made directly to
employees plus employer expenditures for
legally required insurance programs and
contractual and private benefit plans. In ad
dition, for some countries, compensation is
increased to account for other significant
taxes on payrolls or employment (or reduced
to reflect subsidies), even if they are not for
the direct benefit of workers, because such
taxes are regarded as labor costs. However,
compensation does not include all items of
labor costs. The costs of recruitment, em
ployee training, and plant facilities and ser
vices—such as cafeterias and medical clin
ics—are not covered because data are not
available for most countries. The compen
sation measures are from the national ac
counts, except those for Belgium, which are
developed by the Bureau using statistics on
employment, average hours, and hourly
compensation. Self-employed workers are
included in the U.S. and Canadian compen
sation figures by assuming that their hourly
compensation is equal to the average for
wage and salary employees.
Notes on the data
In general, the measures relate to total
manufacturing as defined by the Interna
tional Standard Industrial Classification.
However, the measures for France. Italy (be
ginning 1970), and the United Kingdom (be
ginning 1971) refer to mining and manufac
turing less energy-related products; the mea
sures for Denmark include mining and
exclude manufacturing handicrafts from
1960 to 1966; and the measures for the
Netherlands exclude petroleum refining and
include coal mining from 1969 to 1976.
The figures for one or more recent years
are generally based on current indicators of
manufacturing output (such as industrial
production indexes), employment, average
hours, and hourly compensation and are con
sidered preliminary until the national ac
counts and other statistics used for the long
term measures becomes available.
For additional information on this se
ries, contact the Division of Foreign Labor
Statistics: (202) 606-5654.
O ccupational Injury
and Illness Data
(Table 49)
Description of the series
The Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries
and Illnesses is designed to collect data on
injuries and illnesses based on records
which employers in the following industries
maintain under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970: agriculture, forestry, and
fishing; oil and gas extraction; construction;
manufacturing; transportation and public
utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance,
insurance, and real estate; and services. Ex
cluded from the survey are self-employed in
dividuals, farmers with fewer than 11 em
ployees, employers regulated by other Fed
eral safety and health laws, and Federal,
State, and local government agencies.
Because the survey is a Federal-State co
operative program and the data must meet
the needs of participating State agencies, an
independent sample is selected for each
State. The sample is selected to represent
all private industries in the States and terri
tories. The sample size for the survey is de
pendent upon (1) the characteristics for
which estimates are needed; (2) the indus
tries for which estimates are desired; (3) the
characteristics of the population being
sampled; (4) the target reliability of the es
timates; and (5) the survey design employed.
While there are many characteristics upon
which the sample design could be based, the
total recorded case incidence rate is used
because it is one of the most important char
acteristics and the least variable; therefore,
it requires the smallest sample size.
The survey is based on stratified random
sampling with a Neyman allocation and a
ratio estimator. The characteristics used to
stratify the establishments are the Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) code and size
of employment.
Definitions
Recordable occupational injuries and ill
nesses are: (1) occupational deaths, regard
less of the time between injury and death,
or the length of the illness; or (2) nonfatal
occupational illnesses; or (3) nonfatal occu
pational injuries which involve one or more
of the following: loss of consciousness, re
striction of work or motion, transfer to an
other job, or medical treatment (other than
first aid).
Occupational injury is any injury, such
as a cut, fracture, sprain, amputation, and
so forth, which results from a work accident
or from exposure involving a single incident
in the work environment.
Occupational illness is an abnormal
condition or disorder, other than one result
ing from an occupational injury, caused by
exposure to environmental factors associ
ated with employment. It includes acute and
chronic illnesses or disease which may be
caused by inhalation, absorption, ingestion,
or direct contact.
Lost workday cases are cases which in
volve days away from work, or days of re
stricted work activity, or both.
Lost workday cases involving re
stricted work activity are those cases which
result in restricted work activity only.
Lost workdays away from work are the
number of workdays (consecutive or not) on
which the employee would have worked but
could not because of occupational injury or
illness.
Lost workdays—restricted work activ
ity are the number of workdays (consecutive
or not) on which, because of injury or illness:
(1) the employee was assigned to another job
on a temporary basis; (2) the employee
worked at a permanent job less than full time;
or (3) the employee worked at a permanently
assigned job but could not perform all du
ties normally connected with it.
The number of days away from work or
days of restricted work activity does not in
clude the day of injury or onset of illness or
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
any days on which the employee would not
have worked even though able to work.
Incidence rates represent the number of
injuries and/or illnesses or lost workdays per
100 full-time workers.
Notes on the data
Estimates are made for industries and em
ployment-size classes and for severity clas
sification: fatalities, lost workday cases, and
nonfatal cases without lost workdays. Lost
workday cases are separated into those in
which the employee would have worked but
could not and those in which work activity
was restricted. Estimates of the number of
cases and the number of days lost are made
for both categories.
Most of the estimates are in the form of
incidence rates, defined as the number of
injuries and illnesses or lost workdays per
100 full-time employees. For this purpose,
200,000 employee hours represent 100 em
ployee years (2,000 hours per employee).
Full detail of the available measures is pre
sented in the annual bulletin, O c cu p a tio n a l
In ju ries a n d Illn e sse s in •the U n ited S tates,
b y Industry.
Comparable data for individual States
are available from the bls Office of Safety,
Health, and Working Conditions.
Mining and railroad data are furnished
to BLS by the Mine Safety and Health Ad
ministration and the Federal Railroad Ad
ministration. Data from these organizations
are included in bls and State publications.
Federal employees experience is compiled
and published by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration. Data on State and
local government employees are collected by
about half of the States and territories; these
data are not compiled nationally.
The Supplementary Data System pro
vides detailed information describing vari
ous factors associated with work-related in
juries and illnesses. These data are obtained
from information reported by employers to
State workers’ compensation agencies. The
Work Injury Report program examines se
lected types of accidents through an em
ployee survey which focuses on the circum
stances surrounding the injury. These data
are available from the bls Office of Safety,
Health, and Working Conditions.
The definitions of occupational injuries
and illnesses and lost workdays are from
R e co rd k ee p in g R eq u irem en ts u n d er th e O c
c u p a tio n a l S a fety a n d H ea lth A c t o f 1970.
For additional information on occupa
tional injuries and illnesses, contact the Di
vision of Safety and Health Statistics: (202)
606-6166.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
93
Current Labor Statistics: Comparative Indicators
1. Labor market indicators
1993
Selected indicators
1993
1994
1995
1994
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
Employment data'
Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population
(household survey):2
Labor force participation r a t e ........................ ............................................
Employment-population r a tio ......................................................................
Unemployment rate .......................................................................................
M e n ..........................................................................
16 to 24 years ...........................................................................................
25 years and o v e r ....................................................................................
W om en .............................................................................
16 to 24 years ...........................................................................................
25 years and o v e r ....................................................................................
66.2
61.6
6.8
7.1
14.3
5.8
6.5
12.2
5.4
66.6
62.5
6.1
6.2
13.2
4.8
6.0
11.6
4.9
66.2
61.6
7.0
7.3
14.9
5.8
6.6
12.6
5.4
66.1
61.7
6.7
7.1
14.2
5.8
6.4
11.7
5.3
66.2
61.9
6.5
6.7
13.5
5.5
6.3
11.6
5.3
66.7
62.3
6.6
6.7
14.1
5.2
6.4
12.1
5.3
66.5
62.4
6.2
6.2
13.3
4.8
6.2
11.9
5.0
66.5
62.5
6.0
6.0
13.1
4.7
5.9
11.6
4.8
66.6
62.9
5.6
5.6
12.2
4.4
5.6
11.0
4.5
66.9
63.2
5.5
5.5
11.9
4.2
5.6
11.2
4.4
Total .......................................................................................................................
Private sector ..............................................................................................
G oods-producing.............................................................................................
M a nufa c turing...............................................................................................
Service-producing .......................................................................................
110,730
91,889
23,352
18,075
87,378
114,034
94,917
23,913
18,303
90,121
110,354
9 1,550
23,301
18,064
87,052
111,021
92,143
2 3,345
18,049
8 7,676
111,816
92,877
23,481
18,096
88,335
112,655
93,656
23,646
18,181
89,008
112,995
93,990
23,534
18,020
89,461
114,481
95,314
2 3,978
18,333
90,503
115,329
96,099
24,162
18,436
91,167
116,078
96,841
24,329
18,517
9 1,749
Average hours:
Private sector ...................................................................................................
Manufacturing ............................................................................................
O v e rtim e .......................................................................................
34.5
41.4
4.1
34.7
42.0
4.7
34.5
41.3
4.1
34.5
41.5
4.1
34.5
41.7
4.4
34.6
41.7
4.5
34.7
42.1
4.7
34.7
42.0
4.7
34.7
42.1
4.8
34.7
42.1
4.8
Percent change in the ECI, compensation:
All workers (excluding farm, household, and Federal workers) .......
Private industry workers .............................................................................
Goods-producing3 .....................................................................................
Service-producing3 ...................................................................................
S tate and local governm ent w o rk e rs .....................................................
3.5
3.6
3.9
3.6
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.1
2.9
3.0
.7
.8
.9
.8
.3
1.0
.9
.7
1.0
1.5
.6
.6
.6
.7
.4
.9
1.0
1.0
.9
.6
.7
.8
1.0
.7
.4
1.0
.8
.7
.9
1.5
.4
.4
.3
.4
.5
.8
.8
.8
.9
.6
Workers by bargaining status (private industry):
U n io n ........................................................................................................
Nonunion .......................................................................................................
4.3
3.5
2.7
3.1
1.1
.8
.8
.9
.8
.6
.8
1.0
.9
.8
.7
.8
.3
.4
.7
.9
Employment, nonfarm (payroll data), in thousands:2
Employment Cost Index
' Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and prior years. For additional information, see the box note under “ Employment and Unemployment D ata” in the notes
to this section.
2 Quarterly data seasonally adjusted.
3 Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Service-producing industries include all other private sector industries.
94
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
2.
Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity
1993
1995
1994
1993
Selected measures
1994
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
Compensationdata: 2
Employment Cost Index-com pensation (wages, salaries,
benefits):
Civilian nonfarm ..................................................................................
Private nonfarm .................................................................................
Employment Cost In dex-w ages and salaries
Civilian nonfarm ...................................................................................
Private nonfarm .................................................................................
3.5
3.6
3.0
3.1
0.7
.8
1.0
.9
0.6
.6
0.9
1.0
0.7
.8
1.0
.8
0.4
.4
0.8
.8
3.1
3.1
2.8
2.8
.6
.6
1.0
1.0
.6
.6
.6
.7
.7
.8
1.0
.8
.5
.5
.7
.8
Consumer Price Index (All urban consumers): All ite m s .......
2.7
2.7
.6
.5
.5
1.0
.5
.9
.2
1.1
Producer Price Index:
Finished g o o d s .....................................................................................
Finished consumer g o o d s ..............................................................
Capital equipment .............................................................................
Interm ediate materials, supplies, components ........................
Crude m a te ria ls ....................................................................................
.2
-.2
1.8
1.0
.1
1.7
1.6
2.0
4.4
-.5
.6
.8
-.2
.6
1.6
-1 .4
-1 .5
-.5
.1
-3.1
.2
-.2
1.7
-.7
.0
.6
.6
.8
.7
3.1
.6
.6
.4
1.2
-.9
.0
.2
-.5
1.6
-3 .4
.5
.3
1.2
.8
.8
.6
.5
.7
2.1
1.8
1.5
1.5
3.0
2.5
2.3
2.6
.6
.4
4.5
3.3
4.0
4.5
5.7
4.9
4.7
2.9
2.9
3.3
-2 .0
-2.1
-1 .4
3.7
3.2
2.0
4.1
4.0
3.0
.4
.7
Pricedata:1
Productivitydata:3
Output per hour of all persons:
Business s e c to r .................................................................................
Nonfarm business sector ............................................... ...............
Nonfinancial corporations 4 ............................................................
1 Annual changes are D ecem ber-to-Decem ber change. Quarterly changes
are calculated using the last month of each quarter. Compensation and price
data are not seasonally adjusted and the price data are not compounded.
2 Excludes Federal and private household workers.
3 Annual rates of change are computed by comparing annual averages.
Quarterly percent changes reflect annual rates of change in quarterly in
dexes. The data are seasonally adjusted.
4 Output per hour of all employees.
- Data not available.
3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes
Four quarters e n d e d -
Quarterly average
Components
1994
1993
IV
II
I
IV
III
1995
1993
I
IV
1995
1994
II
I
III
IV
I
Average hourly compensation:1
All persons, business s e c to r................................................................................
All persons, nonfarm business s e c to r ..............................................................
2.4
2.4
6.3
6.1
0.2
.7
3.6
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.9
4.1
2.8
2.4
3.7
3.4
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.3
2.7
2.9
Employment Cost Index-com pensation:
Civilian nonfarm 2 .....................................................................................................
Private nonfarm .....................................................................................................
U n io n ......................................................................................................................
N on u n io n ...............................................................................................................
S tate and local g o vernm ents............................................................................
.6
.6
.8
.6
.4
.9
1.0
.8
1.0
.6
.7
.8
.9
.8
.4
1.0
.8
.7
.8
1.5
.4
.4
.3
.4
.5
.8
.8
.7
.9
.6
3.5
3.6
4.3
3.5
2.8
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.3
2.8
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.4
2.9
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.0
3.0
3.1
2.7
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.6
3.0
3.1
Employment Cost In dex-w ages and salaries:
Civilian nonfarm2 ......................................................................................................
Private nonfarm .....................................................................................................
U n io n ......................................................................................................................
N onu n io n ...............................................................................................................
State and local g o v e rn m e n ts .............................................................................
.6
.6
.8
.6
.3
.6
.7
.7
.7
.6
.7
.8
.9
.8
.2
1.0
.8
.9
.8
1.7
.5
.5
.4
.5
.5
.7
.8
.6
.8
.7
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.7
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.9
2.7
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.3
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.7
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.9
3.2
.7
.5
.2
.4
.1
.3
.8
.2
.6
.1
.9
.1
.7
.1
.6
.2
.3
.1
.3
3.0
.9
1.9
.2
2.9
.9
1.8
.2
2.7
.9
1.7
.2
2.9
.8
1.9
.2
2.7
.6
1.9
.2
2.6
.5
1.9
.3
Total effective wage adjustments3 .............................................................................
From current s e ttlem e n ts ......................................................................................
From prior s e ttle m e n ts ...........................................................................................
From cost-of-living provision................................................................................
(4)
.
(4)
(4)
.2
<4)
Negotiated wage adjustments from settlements:3
First-year adjustments ............................................................................................
Annual rate over life of c o n tr a c t........................................................................
2.8
2.0
3.0
2.4
2.0
2.4
1.0
1.9
2.2
2.5
1.9
1.9
2.3
2.1
2.4
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.2
2.0
2.3
1.8
2.3
Negotiated w age and benefit adjustments from settlements:5
First-year adjustment ..............................................................................................
Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t........................................................................
3.8
2.5
3.0
2.6
3.4
2.9
(4)
1.4
1.5
2.1
1.4
1.6
3.0
2.4
3.0
2.3
3.1
2.4
3.1
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.1
2.3
1 Seasonally adjusted.
2 Excludes Federal and household workers.
3 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 1,000 workers or more. The
most recent data are preliminary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 Data round to zero.
5 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 5 ,000 workers or more. The
most recent data are preliminary.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
95
Current Labor Statistics: Labor Force Data
4.
Employment status of the population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Num bers in thousands)
1994
Annual average
1995
Employment status
1994
1993
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
TOTAL
Civilian nonlnstitutional
population1 ............................................
Civilian labor fo r c e .............................
Participation rate ......................
E m p lo y e d ...........................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ............................................
U nem p lo ye d ......................................
Unemployment r a t e .................
Not in labor force ..............................
193,550
128,040
66.2
119,306
196,814
131,056
66.6
123,060
196,510
130,699
66.5
122,703
196,693
130,538
66.4
122,635
196,859
130,774
66.4
122,781
197,043
131,086
66.5
123,197
197,248
131,291
66.6
123,644
197,430
131,646
66.7
124,141
197,607
131,718
66.7
124,403
197,765
131,725
66.6
124,570
197,753
132,136
66.8
124,639
197,886
132,308
66.9
125,125
198,007
132,511
66.9
125,274
198,148
132,737
67.0
125,072
198,286
131,811
66.5
124,319
61.6
8,734
6.8
65,509
62.5
7,996
6.1
6 5,758
62.4
7,996
6.1
65,811
62.3
7,903
6.1
66,155
62.4
7,993
6.1
66,085
62.5
7,889
6.0
6 5,957
62.7
7,647
5.8
65,957
62.9
7,505
5.7
65,784
63.0
7,315
5.6
65,889
63.0
7,155
5.4
6 6,040
63.0
7,498
5.7
65,617
63.2
7,183
5.4
65,578
63.3
7,237
5.5
65,496
63.1
7,665
5.8
65,412
62.7
7,492
5.7
6 6,476
8 5,907
66,0 69
76.9
6 1,865
87,151
66,921
76.8
63,2 94
8 7,000
66,652
76.6
63,080
87,095
66,602
76.5
63,043
87,123
6 6,747
76.6
6 3,076
8 7,248
6 6,817
76.6
63,271
87,321
66,909
76.6
63,5 17
87,439
67,177
76.8
63,820
87,529
67,345
76.9
64,051
8 7,617
6 7,450
77.0
64,281
8 7,528
6 7,539
77.2
64,133
87,572
67,552
77.1
64,478
87,622
67,643
77.2
64,465
87,664
67,563
77.1
64,224
87,691
6 7,250
76.7
63,841
72.0
2,263
59,602
4 ,204
6.4
72.6
2,351
60,943
3,627
5.4
72.5
2,384
60,696
3,572
5.4
72.4
2,334
60,709
3 ,559
5.3
72.4
2,314
6 0,762
3,671
5.5
72.5
2,377
6 0,894
3,546
5.3
72.7
2,293
61,224
3,392
5.1
73.0
2,329
61,491
3,357
5.0
73.2
2,377
61,674
3,294
4.9
73.4
2,410
61,871
3,169
4.7
73.3
2 ,390
61,743
3 ,406
5.0
73.6
2,512
61,965
3,074
4.6
73.6
2,519
61,946
3,178
4.7
73.3
2,384
61,840
3,339
4.9
72.8
2,242
6 1,599
3,410
5.1
94,388
5 5,146
58.4
51,912
95,467
56,655
59.3
53,606
95,329
56,545
59.3
53,481
95,407
56,384
59.1
53,328
9 5,469
56,536
59.2
53,541
95,544
56,747
59.4
53,722
95,658
57,031
59.6
54,044
95,729
56,951
59.5
54,090
95,821
56,984
59.5
54,129
9 5,873
56,725
59.2
54,037
95,961
56,951
59.3
5 4,134
96,020
57,096
59.5
54,334
96,037
57,042
59.4
54,242
96,099
57,360
59.7
54,403
96,141
5 6,819
59.1
5 4,097
55.0
599
51,313
3,234
5.9
56.2
809
52,796
3 ,049
5.4
56.1
789
5 2,692
3,064
5.4
55.9
739
52,589
3 ,056
5.4
56.1
790
52,751
2,995
5.3
56.2
815
52,907
3,025
5.3
56.5
847
5 3,197
2,987
5.2
56.5
863
5 3,227
2,861
5.0
56.5
850
53,279
2,855
5.0
56.4
8 82
53,155
2,688
4.7
56.4
877
53,257
2,817
4.9
56.6
898
53,436
2,763
4.8
56.5
913
53,329
2,800
4.9
56.6
925
53,477
2,957
5.2
56.3
828
53,268
2 ,722
4.8
13,255
6 ,826
51.5
5,530
14,196
7,481
52.7
6,161
14,181
7,502
52.9
6,142
14,191
7,552
53.2
6,264
14,267
7,491
52.5
6,164
14,251
7,522
52.8
6,204
14,269
7,351
51.5
6,083
14,261
7,518
52.7
6,231
14,257
7 ,389
51.8
6,223
14,274
7,550
52.9
6 ,252
14,263
7,646
53.6
6,372
14,294
7,660
53.6
6 ,313
14,348
7,826
54.5
6,567
14,385
7,814
54.3
6 ,446
14,454
7,742
53.6
6,381
41.7
212
5,317
1,296
19.0
43.4
249
5,912
1,320
17.6
43.3
240
5,902
1,360
18.1
44.1
221
6,043
1,288
17.1
43.2
229
5,935
1,327
17.7
43.5
244
5,960
1,318
17.5
42.6
271
5,812
1,268
17.2
43.7
302
5,929
1,287
17.1
43.6
273
5 ,950
1,166
15.8
43.8
2 40
6 ,012
1,298
17.2
44.7
308
6,064
1,274
16.7
44.2
245
6,068
1,347
17.6
45.8
266
6,300
1,260
16.1
44.8
285
6,160
1,369
17.5
44.1
287
6,094
1,360
17.6
163,921
109,359
66.7
102,812
165,555
111,082
67.1
105,190
165,351
110,829
67.0
104,978
165,472
110,523
66.8
104,687
165,576
110,911
67.0
105,006
165,696
111,186
67.1
105,401
165,832
111,381
67.2
105,740
165,954
111,555
67.2
106,010
166,072
111,637
67.2
106,242
166,175
111,715
67.2
106,352
166,361
111,876
67.2
106,366
166,444
111,830
67.2
106,604
166,521
111,999
67.3
106,698
166,613
112,153
67.3
106,500
166,708
111,568
66.9
105,935
62.7
6,547
6.0
63.5
5,892
5.3
63.5
5,851
5.3
63.3
5,836
5.3
63.4
5,905
5.3
63.6
5,785
5.2
63.8
5,641
5.1
63.9
5,545
5.0
64.0
5,395
4.8
64.0
5,363
4.8
63.9
5,510
4.9
64.0
5,226
4.7
64.1
5,301
4.7
63.9
5,653
5.0
63.5
5,633
5.0
22,329
13,943
62.4
12,146
2 2,879
14,502
63.4
12,835
2 2,824
14,510
63.6
12,810
22,855
14,481
63.4
12,838
22,883
14,380
62.8
12,767
22,917
14,429
63.0
12,795
2 2,955
14,477
63.1
12,927
2 2,990
14,649
63.7
13,022
23,023
14,578
63.3
13,054
23,052
14,541
63.1
13,119
23,089
14,697
63.7
13,192
2 3,117
14,868
64.3
13,362
23,142
14,818
64.0
13,370
23,169
14,938
64.5
13,337
23,192
14,803
63.8
13,336
54.4
1,796
12.9
56.1
1,666
11.5
56.1
1,700
11.7
56.2
1,643
11.3
55.8
1,613
11.2
55.8
1,634
11.3
56.3
1,550
10.7
56.6
1,627
11.1
56.7
1,524
10.5
56.9
1,422
9.8
57.1
1,505
10.2
57.8
1,505
10.1
57.8
1,448
9.8
57.6
1,601
10.7
57.5
1,467
9.9
Men, 20yearsandover
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ............................................
Civilian labor f o r c e .............................
Participation rate ......................
Employed ..........................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ............................................
Agriculture ......................................
Nonagricultural industries.........
U nem p lo ye d ......................................
Unemployment r a t e .................
Women, 20yearsondover
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ............................................
Civilian labor fo r c e .............................
Participation rate ......................
Employed ...........................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ............................................
Agriculture ......................................
Nonagricultural industries.........
U ne m p lo ye d ......................................
Unemployment r a t e .................
Bothsexes, 16to 19years
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ............................................
Civilian labor f o r c e .............................
Participation rate ......................
Employed ..........................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ............................................
A griculture......................................
Nonagricultural industries.........
U ne m ploye d......................................
Unem ploym ent r a t e .................
White
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ............................................
Civilian labor fo r c e .............................
Participation rate ......................
Employed ..........................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ...........................................
U nem p lo ye d ......................................
Unemployment r a t e .................
Black
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ............................................
Civilian labor fo r c e .............................
Participation rate ......................
Employed ...........................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ............................................
U nem p lo ye d ......................................
Unemployment r a t e .................
See footnotes at end of table.
96
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
4. Continued— Employment status of the population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
1995
1994
Annual average
Employment status
1993
1994
15,753
10,377
65.9
9,272
58.9
1,104
10.6
May
June
July
Aug.
18,117
11,975
66.1
10,788
18,041
11,916
66.0
10,735
18,092
11,896
65.8
10,682
18,143
11,956
65.9
10,760
18,193
12,002
66.0
10,786
59.5
1,187
9.9
59.5
1,181
9.9
59.0
1,214
10.2
59.3
1,196
10.0
59.3
1,216
10.1
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
18,244
11,997
65.8
10,806
18,291
12,222
66.8
11,074
18,339
12,324
67.2
11,236
18,385
12,224
66.5
11,105
18,368
12,036
65.5
10,811
18,413
12,017
65.3
10,943
18,458
12,001
65.0
10,903
18,509
12,131
65.5
11,058
18,554
12,111
65.3
10,895
59.2
1,191
9.9
60.5
1,148
9.4
61.3
1,088
8.8
60.4
1,119
9.2
58.9
1,224
10.2
59.4
1,073
8.9
59.1
1,098
9.1
59.7
1,073
8.8
58.7
1,216
10.0
Sept.
Hispanicorigin
Civilian noninstitutional
p o p u la tio n '............................................
Civilian labor fo r c e .............................
Participation rate ......................
Employed ..........................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ............................................
U ne m p lo ye d ......................................
Unemployment r a t e .................
Data” in the notes to this section.
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.
1 The population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
NOTE: Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years.
For additional information, see the box note under “ Employment and Unemployment
5.
Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
Annual average
1994
1995
S elected categories
1993
1994
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
CHARACTERISTIC
Employed, 16 years and o v e r ........
M e n ....................................................
W om en .............................................
Married men, spouse present ..
Married women, spouse
p r e s e n t............................................
W om en who maintain families .
119,306
64,700
54,606
40,869
123,060
66,450
56,610
41,414
122,703
66,197
56,506
41,330
122,635
66,255
56,380
41,313
122,781
66,226
56,555
41,281
123,197
66,458
56,739
41,487
123,644
66,682
56,962
41,557
124,141
67,059
57,082
41,511
124,403
67,244
57,159
41,530
124,570
67,483
57,087
41,608
124,639
67,386
57,252
41,601
125,125
67,709
57,416
42,190
125,274
67,811
57,462
42,132
125,072
6 7,588
57,484
4 2,086
124,319
67,110
57,208
41,874
30,512
6,764
31,536
7,053
31,372
7,061
31,193
7,008
31,462
7,016
31,593
6,974
31,905
7,029
31,764
7,098
31,775
7,141
31,723
7,074
31,705
7,199
31,893
7,067
32,135
7,071
32,108
7,152
32,022
7,175
1,637
1,332
105
1,715
1,645
49
1,736
1,637
43
1,675
1,584
46
1,669
1,619
50
1,728
1,654
50
1,712
1,630
63
1,764
1,652
43
1,767
1,677
48
1,738
1,714
49
1,866
1,663
35
1,970
1,684
27
1,987
1,674
57
1,884
1,649
70
1,747
1,560
55
107,011
18,504
88,507
1,105
87,402
9,003
218
110,517
18,293
92,224
966
91,258
9,003
131
110,164
18,378
91,786
978
90,808
9,049
129
110,215
18,294
91,921
966
90,955
8,964
148
110,345
18,281
92,064
940
91,124
8,962
140
110,576
18,225
92,351
881
91,470
9,021
131
111,100
18,306
92,794
903
91,891
8,989
134
111,686
18,201
93,485
935
92,550
8,878
131
111,770
18,357
93,413
999
92,414
8,915
120
111,960
18,340
93,620
1,023
92,597
8,959
121
111,987
18,295
93,692
1,075
92,617
9,039
95
112,461
18,504
93,957
1,075
92,882
8,904
118
112,649
18,685
93,964
1,039
92,925
8,865
129
112,578
18,646
9 3,932
988
92,945
8,848
110
112,111
18,493
93,619
913
92,705
8,763
125
CLASSOFWORKER
Agriculture:
W age and salary workers .........
Self-em ployed w o rk e rs ...............
Unpaid family w o rk e rs ................
Nonagricultural industries:
W age and salary workers .........
G overnm ent ................................
Private industries.......................
Private h o useh old s................
O t h e r ..........................................
Self-em ployed w o rk e rs ...............
Unpaid family workers ................
PERSONSATWORK
PARTTIME'
All industries:
Part time for economic reasons .
Slack work or business
conditions.......................................
Could only find part-time work
Part time for noneconomic
reasons .............................................
Nonagricultural industries:
Part time for economic reasons .
Slack work or business
conditions.......................................
Could only find part-time work
Part time for noneconomic
reasons .............................................
6,348
4,625
4,792
4,766
4,467
4,348
4,333
4,411
4,411
4,422
4,693
4,460
4,530
4,469
4 ,476
3,140
2,908
2,432
1,871
2,503
1,981
2,464
1,927
2,431
1,698
2,396
1,618
2,404
1,697
2,394
1,791
2,394
1,736
2,384
1,734
2,504
1,777
2,372
1,739
2,333
1,902
2,517
1,686
2,502
1,720
15,062
17,638
17,441
17,452
17,922
17,955
17,609
17,644
17,756
17,576
17,940
18,041
17,627
18,121
17,666
6,106
4,414
4,583
4,510
4,273
4,173
4,154
4,226
4,246
4,254
4,430
4,187
4,347
4,171
4,289
2,977
2,832
2,311
1,824
2,386
1,942
2,349
1,883
2,318
1,661
2,272
1,583
2,290
1,646
2,257
1,756
2,282
1,689
2,272
1,690
2,359
1,737
2,216
1,687
2,226
1,854
2,328
1,624
2,364
1,698
14,637
17,007
16,841
16,909
17,308
17,314
16,982
16,992
17,101
16,917
17,307
17,381
16,991
17,232
17,034
1 Excludes persons “with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.
NOTE: Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years. For additional information, see the box note under “ Employment and Unemployment D ata” in
the notes to this section.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
97
Current Labor Statistics:
6.
Labor Force Data
Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Unemployment rates)
Annual average
1994
1995
Selected categories
1993
1994
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Total, all w o rke rs ........................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a r s .......................................
Men, 20 years and over .............................................
W om en, 20 years and o v e r .......................................
6.8
19.0
6.4
5.9
6.1
17.6
5.4
5.4
6.1
18.1
5.4
5.4
6.1
17.1
5.3
5.4
6.1
17.7
5.5
5.3
6.0
17.5
5.3
5.3
5.8
17.2
5.1
5.2
5.7
17.1
5.0
5.0
5.6
15.8
4.9
5.0
5.4
17.2
4.7
4.7
5.7
16.7
5.0
4.9
5.4
17.6
4.6
4.8
5.5
16.1
4.7
4.9
5.8
17.5
4.9
5.2
5.7
17.6
5.1
4.8
White, t o t a l ......................................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a r s ....................................
Men, 16 to 19 years ...........................................
W om en, 16 to 19 y e a rs .....................................
Men, 20 years and over .........................................
W om en, 20 years and o v e r ....................................
6.0
16.2
17.6
14.6
5.6
5.1
5.3
15.1
16.3
13.8
4.8
4.6
5.3
15.5
17.0
13.7
4.7
4.6
5.3
14.3
15.1
13.6
4.7
4.7
5.3
14.7
16.1
13.1
4.8
4.7
5.2
14.6
15.4
13.7
4.6
4.6
5.1
14.8
16.2
13.3
4.4
4.6
5.0
14.4
15.2
13.5
4.4
4.4
4.8
13.5
14.3
12.6
4.3
4.3
4.8
14.7
16.0
13.2
4.2
4.1
4.9
14.1
15.0
13.1
4.4
4.3
4.7
14.7
16.1
13.1
4.0
4.1
4.7
13.6
14.7
12.4
4.2
4.2
5.0
14.6
15.3
13.8
4.4
4.5
5.0
14.8
15.2
14.3
4.6
4.3
Black, total ............................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a r s ....................................
Men, 16 to 19 years ......................................
Wom en, 16 to 19 y e a rs .....................................
Men, 20 years and over .........................................
W om en, 20 years and o v e r ....................................
12.9
38.9
40.1
37.5
12.1
10.6
11.5
35.2
37.6
32.6
10.3
9.8
11.7
38.2
40.9
35.0
10.3
10.0
11.3
36.1
39.3
32.6
10.0
9.5
11.2
37.3
41.4
32.7
10.4
8.8
11.3
36.1
39.9
31.9
10.2
9.4
10.7
32.1
30.8
33.4
9.8
9.0
11.1
37.5
35.9
39.1
9.5
9.2
10.5
33.0
32.0
34.1
9.2
8.9
9.8
34.6
34.3
35.0
8.3
8.3
10.2
35.5
34.0
37.1
9.2
8.5
10.1
35.7
38.7
32.4
7.9
9.0
9.8
31.2
31.7
30.7
7.8
9.1
10.7
35.6
35.4
35.8
8.9
9.3
9.9
35.1
40.0
30.5
8.8
7.8
Hispanic origin, to t a l.....................................................
10.6
9.9
9.9
10.2
10.0
10.1
9.9
9.4
8.8
9.2
10.2
8.9
9.1
8.8
10.0
Married men, spouse p re s e n t..................................
Married women, spouse p re s e n t.........................
W om en who maintain fa m ilie s .................................
Full-time workers .........................................................
Part-time workers ........................................................
4.4
4.6
9.5
7.4
7.4
3.7
4.1
8.9
6.8
7.1
3.7
4.1
8.9
6.1
6.2
3.6
4.2
8.8
6.1
5.9
3.6
4.0
7.9
6.1
6.0
3.5
4.1
8.8
6.0
6.2
3.4
4.0
8.9
5.8
5.8
3.3
4.0
8.9
5.8
5.6
3.2
3.9
8.7
5.6
5.4
3.2
3.7
8.8
5.3
5.9
3.4
3.7
8.9
5.5
6.2
3.0
3.6
8.1
5.3
6.0
3.2
3.9
7.6
5.4
5.8
3.4
4.2
9.0
5.6
6.3
3.4
3.9
8.0
5.6
6.1
7.0
7.3
14.3
7.2
7.1
7.3
5.1
7.8
6.3
5.4
11.8
5.6
5.2
6.0
4.8
7.4
6.4
6.0
11.7
5.6
5.3
5.9
4.9
7.4
6.3
6.1
11.7
5.5
5.2
5.9
4.9
7.2
6.3
6.0
11.1
5.6
5.5
5.8
5.1
7.5
6.1
5.0
10.7
5.3
5.3
5.3
4.8
7.4
6.0
5.1
10.7
5.3
5.3
5.4
4.5
7.0
5.9
4.7
10.7
5.1
4.8
5.6
4.4
7.2
5.9
4.5
10.7
5.1
4.3
6.0
4.6
7.0
5.6
3.9
10.9
4.9
4.6
5.4
4.2
6.7
5.7
5.1
11.7
4.7
4.2
5.4
4.7
6.6
5.5
5.2
10.5
4.4
3.9
5.0
4.5
6.4
5.5
6.1
10.8
4.5
4.2
4.9
4.5
6.2
5.9
4.3
11.8
4.8
4.4
5.4
4.6
6.8
6.0
4.9
12.6
5.5
5.3
6.0
4.0
6.7
4.1
6.5
3.3
11.6
3.6
6.1
3.4
11.3
3.6
6.0
3.5
8.8
3.7
5.9
3.7
8.6
3.7
5.9
3.4
12.1
3.7
5.7
3.6
11.1
4.3
5.5
3.2
11.1
3.4
5.3
3.2
10.3
3.6
5.4
2.7
10.4
2.9
5.2
3.1
11.1
2.9
5.2
3.2
10.7
3.5
5.2
2.8
9.1
3.3
5.3
2.7
10.5
3.4
5.6
3.1
11.3
3.7
5.5
2.8
12.5
CHARACTERISTIC
INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers ....
M in in g ...............................................................................
C onstruction....................................................................
Manufacturing ................................................................
Durable g o o d s .............................................................
Nondurable g o o d s .....................................................
Transportation and public utilities ..........................
W holesale and retail tr a d e ........................................
Finance,insurance, and
real e s t a t e ......................................................................
Services ......................................................
Governm ent workers .......................................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers .........................
NOTE: Data for 1994 are not directly com parable with data for 1993 and earlier years.
the notes to this section.
98
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
For additional information, see the box note under “ Employment and Unemployment D ata” in
7.
Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Civilian workers)
Annual
average
1995
1994
Sex and age
1994
1993
16 to 24 y e a r s ..................................................................................................
16 to 19 years ..............................................................................................
16 to 17 years ...........................................................................................
25 years and o v e r ....................................................................................
25 to 54 y e a r s .....................................................................................
16 to 19 years ......................................................................................
16 to 17 years ..................................................................................
18 to 19 years ...................................................................................
20 to 24 years ......................................................................................
25 years and o v e r ...................................................................................
8.
May
July
June
Aug.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Jan.
Dec.
Mar.
Feb.
Apr.
May
6.8
13.3
19.0
21.3
17.5
10.5
5.6
5.8
4.3
6.1
12.5
17.6
19.9
16.0
9.7
4.8
5.0
4.1
6.1
12.6
18.1
20.4
16.3
9.6
4.8
4.9
4.2
6.1
12.2
17.1
20.1
15.4
9.5
4.8
4.9
4.0
6.1
12.5
17.7
20.3
15.7
9.7
4.8
4.9
4.2
6.0
12.6
17.5
19.9
15.6
9.9
4.7
4.8
4.2
5.8
12.1
17.2
18.8
16.0
9.4
4.6
4.8
3.8
5.7
11.8
17.1
17.8
16.8
9.0
4.5
4.7
3.9
5.6
11.4
15.8
17.2
14.7
9.1
4.5
4.5
3.9
5.4
11.6
17.2
18.1
16.6
8.6
4.3
4.4
3.5
5.7
11.4
16.7
20.0
14.2
8.5
4.5
4.6
3.9
5.4
11.7
17.6
20.7
15.3
8.5
4.2
4.3
3.4
5.5
11.6
16.1
20.0
13.0
9.1
4.2
4.3
3.5
5.8
11.8
17.5
20.6
15.7
8.7
4.6
4.7
3.8
5.7
11.8
17.6
21.5
14.7
8.6
4.5
4.6
3.8
7.1
14.3
20.4
22.8
18.8
11.3
5.8
5.9
4.7
6.2
13.2
19.0
21.0
17.6
10.2
4.8
4.9
4.3
6.2
13.5
19.9
22.4
18.0
10.1
4.7
4.8
4.4
6.0
12.7
18.0
21.6
16.6
9.9
4.8
4.8
4.2
6.3
13.4
19.4
20.9
18.0
10.3
4.9
4.9
4.5
6.1
13.3
18.8
20.7
17.1
10.5
4.7
4.8
4.2
5.8
12.6
18.5
19.4
17.5
9.5
4.5
4.6
3.9
5.7
12.4
18.1
18.2
18.1
9.4
4.5
4.6
4.1
5.5
11.8
16.5
16.5
16.5
9.5
4.4
4.4
4.0
5.5
12.2
18.5
18.8
18.2
9.0
4.3
4.3
3.5
5.7
12.0
17.4
20.9
14.5
9.1
4.5
4.6
4.0
5.4
12.1
19.4
22.6
16.7
8.2
4.0
4.2
3.6
5.4
11.7
17.0
20.2
14.6
8.9
4.1
4.2
3.7
5.7
11.8
17.8
21.7
16.1
8.6
4.5
4.5
4.3
5.8
12.3
18.4
22.6
15.2
8.9
4.6
4.7
4.0
6.5
12.2
17.4
19.6
16.0
9.6
5.4
5.6
3.8
6.0
11.6
16.2
18.7
14.3
9.2
4.9
5.0
3.9
6.1
11.6
16.2
18.3
14.6
9.0
5.0
5.1
3.9
6.1
11.6
16.0
18.5
14.2
9.1
4.9
5.1
3.8
5.9
11.5
15.9
19.7
13.1
9.1
4.8
5.0
3.7
6.0
11.7
16.1
19.0
14.0
9.3
4.8
4.9
4.1
5.8
11.6
15.9
18.2
14.2
9.3
4.7
5.0
3.6
5.7
11.2
16.0
17.4
15.4
8.6
4.6
4.8
3.7
5.6
10.9
15.0
17.9
12.8
8.7
4.6
4.7
3.8
5.4
10.9
15.8
17.4
14.9
8.1
4.3
4.4
3.4
5.6
10.7
15.9
19.1
13.9
7.8
4.6
4.6
3.7
5.5
11.2
15.6
18.7
13.7
8.7
4.3
4.5
3.2
5.5
11.5
15.2
19.8
11.3
9.4
4.3
4.4
3.4
5.9
11.9
17.2
19.4
15.2
8.8
4.7
5.0
3.3
5.5
11.4
16.7
20.4
14.0
8.2
4.4
4.6
3.6
Unemployed persons by reason fo r unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
1995
1994
Annual average
Reason for unemployment
1994
1993
Job losers’ .............................................................................
On temporary la y o ff........................................................
Not on temporary layoff ................................................
Job leavers ............................................................................
Reentrants .............................................................................
N ew entrants ........................................................................
May
June
Sept.
Aug.
July
Nov.
Oct.
Jan.
Dec.
Mar.
Feb.
Apr.
May
4,769
1,104
3,664
946
2,145
874
3,815
977
2 ,838
791
2 ,786
604
3,640
811
2,829
796
2,863
611
3,734
931
2,803
788
2,785
498
3,863
1,031
2,832
770
2,766
594
3 ,706
1,012
2 ,694
786
2,758
621
3,574
824
2,750
874
2,620
600
3,513
848
2 ,665
755
2 ,626
6 14
3,495
881
2,614
710
2 ,575
578
3,442
930
2,512
704
2,525
555
3,658
1,061
2,598
694
2,488
597
3,339
1,025
2,314
773
2,474
582
3,352
1,032
2,320
811
2,430
604
54.6
12.6
42.0
10.8
24.6
10.0
47.7
12.2
35.5
9.9
34.8
7.6
46.0
10.3
35.8
10.1
36.2
7.7
47.8
11.9
35.9
10.1
35.7
6.4
48.3
12.9
35.4
9.6
34.6
7.4
47.1
12.9
34.2
10.0
35.0
7.9
46.6
10.7
35.9
11.4
34.2
7.8
46.8
11.3
35.5
10.1
35.0
8.2
47.5
12.0
35.5
9.6
35.0
7.9
47.6
12.9
34.8
9.7
34.9
7.7
49.2
14.3
34.9
9.3
33.4
8.0
46.6
14.3
32.3
10.8
34.5
8.1
46.6
14.3
32.2
11.3
33.8
8.4
45.5
14.7
30.7
10.5
35.8
8.2
48.4
12.8
35.6
11.7
32.9
7.0
3.7
.7
1.7
.7
2.9
.6
2.1
.5
2.8
.6
2.2
.5
2.9
.6
2.1
.4
3.0
.6
2.1
.5
2.8
.6
2.1
.5
2.7
.7
2.0
.5
2.7
.6
2.0
.5
2.7
.5
2.0
.4
2.6
.5
1.9
.4
2.8
.5
1.9
.5
2.5
.6
1.9
.4
2.5
.6
1.8
.5
2.7
.6
2.1
.5
2.7
.7
1.9
.4
3,532
1,145
2,387
817
2,779
637
3,614
958
2,657
870
2,458
522
PERCENTOFUNEMPLOYED
Job losers’ ..........................................................................
On temporary layoff .....................................................
Not on temporary la y o ff..............................................
Job le a v e rs .........................................................................
R e e n tra n ts ...........................................................................
New entrants .....................................................................
PERCENTOF
CIVILIANLABORFORCE
Job losers' .............................................................................
Job leavers ............................................................................
Reentrants .............................................................................
New entrants ........................................................................
'
9.
Includes persons who com pleted temporary jobs.
Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
1995
1994
Annual average
W eeks of unemployment
1993
1994
May
June
July
Aug.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Less than 5 w eeks .....................................................
5 to 14 weeks ..............................................................
15 w eeks and o v e r .....................................................
15 to 26 w eeks ........................................................
27 w eeks and o v e r .................................................
3,160
2,522
3,052
1,274
1,778
2,728
2,408
2,860
1,237
1,623
2,651
2,461
2,853
1,160
1,693
2,754
2,452
2,740
1,193
1,547
2,768
2,365
2,823
1,234
1,589
2,655
2,572
2,773
1,198
1,575
2,675
2,294
2,768
1,213
1,555
2,434
2,256
2,934
1,344
1,590
2 ,599
2,163
2,661
1,187
1,474
2,587
2,149
2 ,456
1,088
1,368
2,937
2,122
2,386
1,033
1,353
2,600
2 ,165
2,298
1,090
1,207
2,523
2,319
2 ,266
920
1,347
2,629
2 ,430
2,505
1,115
1,390
2,598
2,304
2,585
1,282
1,303
Mean duration, in w e e k s ..........................................
Median duration, in w e e k s .......................................
18.1
8.4
18.8
9.2
19.4
9.2
18.4
9.1
19.0
9.2
18.9
9.2
18.8
9.5
19.3
10.1
18.2
9.1
17.8
8.7
16.7
7.9
16.9
7.8
17.5
7.9
17.7
8.5
16.9
9.0
NO TE: In the three tables above, data for 1994 are not directly com parable with
data for 1993 and earlier years. For additional information, see the box note under
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Sept.
“ Employment and Unemployment Data" in the notes to this section,
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
99
Current Labor Statistics: Labor Force Data
10.
Unemployment rates by State, seasonally adjusted
State
A la b a m a ...............................................................
A la s k a ....................................................................
Arizona .................................................................
Arkansas ..............................................................
California ..............................................................
Apr.
1994
Mar.
1995
Apr.
1995p
6.2
8.1
6.2
5.5
9.3
5.5
7.2
5.0
5.0
7.6
5.7
6.7
5.5
50
7.9
C o lo ra d o ...............................................................
C o n n e c ticu t.........................................................
Delaw are ..............................................................
District of Columbia .........................................
F lo rid a ....................................................................
4.5
5.5
5.3
8.0
7.2
3.5
5.3
3.4
8.0
4.4
4.0
5.1
4.1
8.4
5.6
G e o rg ia .................................................................
H a w a ii....................................................................
Id a h o ......................................................................
Illinois.....................................................................
In d ia n a ...................................................................
5.2
5.8
5.2
5.7
5.0
4.4
5.1
5.2
4.4
4.4
4.7
5.2
5.0
5.7
4.8
Iowa .......................................................................
K a n s a s ...................................................................
K e ntucky...............................................................
L o u is ia n a ..............................................................
M a in e .....................................................................
3.6
5.3
5.5
8.1
7.6
3.3
4.4
4.7
7.3
5.5
3.4
4 6
4.7
7.6
5.8
M a ryla n d ...............................................................
M a ssachu setts....................................................
M ic h ig a n ...............................................................
M in n e so ta .............................................................
M ississippi............................................................
Missouri ................................................................
5.1
6.1
5.9
4.1
6.6
5.1
4.9
4.6
6.0
3.3
5.1
4.8
4.9
5.9
5.8
3.7
5.5
4.9
State
Apr.
1994
Mar.
1995
Apr.
1995p
5.0
6 2
fi fi
4.8
4.5
4.0
New J e rs e y ........................................................
New M e x ic o .......................................................
New Y o r k ............................................................
North C a ro lin a ...................................................
7.2
6.4
7.8
4.1
3.8
5.8
6.0
6.6
3.9
3.3
6.3
6.0
6.8
4.7
3.2
O h io ......................................................................
6.2
6 0
5 fi
6.5
3.8
fi 2
4.5
6.9
6.2
5.7
South Carolina .................................................
6.6
4.7
4.9
T e x a s ....................................................................
U t a h ......................................................................
6.5
3.6
5.7
3.1
5.9
3.6
Verm ont ..............................................................
Virginia ........................................
W ashin gton........................................................
W est Virginia ...............................................
W iscon sin............................................................
4.7
4.9
6.7
9.1
4.7
4.2
4.2
6.0
7.1
4.0
4.2
4.4
6.0
7.3
3.9
5.3
4.1
4.4
p = preliminary
11.
Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by State, seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
State
Apr. 1994
Mar. 1995
A la b a m a ....................................................................
Alaska .......................................................................
A riz o n a ......................................................................
Arkansas ...................................................................
C a lifo rn ia ...................................................................
1,745.9
257.2
1,668.5
1,023.8
12,116.9
1,774.1
262.6
1,747.3
1,066.4
12,228.1
1,774.7
260.8
1,749.9
1,069.7
12^237.8
Colorado ...................................................................
Connecticut .............................................................
D e la w a re ...................................................................
District of C o lu m b ia ..............................................
Florida .......................................................................
1,736.4
1,542.2
352.8
660.3
5,751.3
1,799.1
1,542.0
360.3
648.6
5,956.9
1,792.8
1 '546.7
361.2
648.1
5,967.3
Georgia .....................................................................
H a w a ii........................................................................
Idaho .........................................................................
Illinois ........................................................................
Indiana ......................................................................
3,234.9
536.4
457.8
5,438.4
2,701.7
3,377.3
535.1
479.2
5,544.9
2 ,770.3
3,383.9
534.8
478.8
5,539.5
2,769.5
Io w a ............................................................................
Kansas ......................................................................
K e n tu c k y ...................................................................
Louisiana...................................................................
M a in e .........................................................................
1,311.0
1,153.7
1,587.2
1,703.8
529.8
1,345.3
1,192.2
1,627.5
1,788.1
541.7
1,351.0
1,191.2
1,630.9
1,788.9
542.2
Maryland ...................................................................
M a s sa ch u se tts .......................................................
M ic h ig an ....................................................................
M in n e s o ta ................................................................
M ississippi................................................................
M is so u ri.....................................................................
2,140.5
2,887.9
4,117.4
2,298.1
1,045.1
2,451.8
2,160.8
2,947.5
4,245.7
2,357.7
1,055.8
2,542.0
Apr. 1995p
2,163.8
2^956.4
4 ,252.5
2,362.9
1,057.1
2 ,547.9
State
Apr. 1994
Mar. 1995
3 36 6
789.3
726.8
520.4
348 8
811.3
769.1
532.8
811.0
771.0
534.6
New Jersey ............................................................
3,540.9
fi4fi fi
3,599.6
3 ,604.4
New Y o r k ................................................................
North Carolina ......................................................
7,798.8
3,341.9
292.7
7,828.3
3 ,432.0
300.5
7,834.1
3,437.2
301.7
Ohio ..........................................................................
5,051.7
1 2 70 fi
5,174.2
5,174.9
O r e g o n .....................................................................
P en nsylvania.........................................................
l ’351.3
5,173.9
434.8
1,408.2
5,229.3
434.2
1,408.8
5,223.3
434.3
South C a ro lin a ......................................................
1,599.0
3 29 9
2 401 fi
7 690 3
1,624.1
341 9
1,628.3
Nebraska ................................................................
Nevada ....................................................................
849.1
892.0
897.5
V e r m o n t...................................................................
262.9
268.3
269.2
Washington ............................................................
W est V irg in ia ..........................................................
W is c o n s in ...............................................................
2 ,290.6
669.7
2,467.0
2 ,353.9
683.8
2,5 3 2.5
2,359.7
685.8
2 ,536.2
215.5
220.1
220.6
p = preliminary
NOTE:
100
Som e data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the database.
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
Apr. 1 995p
12.
Employment o f workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
Annual average
1994
1995
Industry
TOTAL .......................
PRIVATESECTOR.............
GOODS-PRODUCING............
Mining1.........................
Metal mining ......................................
Oil and gas extraction ....................
Nonmetallic minerals, except
fu e ls .....................................................
Construction ...................
General building c ontractors........
Heavy construction, except
build in g ...............................................
Special trades c o n tra cto rs ............
Manufacturing..................
Production workers ......................
Durablegoods.................
Production workers ......................
Lumber and wood pro d u c ts .........
Furniture and fix tu re s ......................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..
Primary metal industries................
Blast furnaces and basic steel
p ro d u c ts ............................................
Fabricated metal p ro d u c ts ............
Industrial machinery and
e q u ip m e n t.........................................
Computer and office equipment
Electronic and other
electrical equipment ......................
Electronic components
and a c c e s s o rie s .........................
Transportation e q u ip m e n t.............
Motor vehicles and e q u ip m en t...
Aircraft and p a r ts ............................
Instruments and related products
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries............................................
Nondurablegoods.............
Production w o rk e rs ........................
Food and kindred products..........
Tobacco products ............................
Textile mill pro d u c ts ........................
Apparel and other textile
products .............................................
Paper and allied p ro d u c ts .............
Printing and publishing ..................
Chemicals and allied products ....
Petroleum and coal products ......
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics p ro d u c ts .............................
Leather and leather p ro d u c ts ......
SERVICE-PRODUCING..........
Transportationandpublic
utilities.........................
T ra nsportation.....................................
Railroad transportation ..................
Local and interurban passenger
tra n s it...................................................
Trucking and w are hous ing............
W ater transportation .......................
Transportation by a i r .......................
Pipelines, except natural g a s .......
Transportation s e rv ic e s .................
Communications and public
utilities ..................................................
Com m unication s...............................
Electric, gas, and sanitary
s e rv ic e s ..............................................
1993
1994
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.p
Mayp
110,730
91,889
114,034
94,917
113,638
94,545
113,943
94,840
114,171
95,061
114,510
95,327
114,762
95,555
114,935
95,740
115,427
96,152
115,624
96,405
115,810
9 6,588
116,123
9 6,882
116,302
97,054
116,295
9 7,048
116,194
9 6,969
23,352
610
50
350
23,913
600
49
3 36
23,837
599
48
3 36
2 3,905
602
49
337
2 3,922
596
49
3 32
23,981
597
49
333
2 4,030
598
49
336
24,081
595
49
331
24,175
592
49
328
24,230
592
50
326
2 4,293
590
50
325
2 4,324
588
51
323
24,370
589
51
323
24,3 20
583
51
319
2 4,205
581
51
319
102
103
103
103
103
103
103
104
104
104
105
105
106
105
104
4,668
1,120
5,010
1,201
4,981
1,192
5,006
1,197
5,029
1,199
5,038
1,206
5,077
1,214
5,088
1,222
5,144
1,234
5 ,166
1,241
5,201
1,250
5,213
1,250
5,256
1,258
5,237
1,255
5 ,180
1,236
713
2,836
736
3,073
737
3,052
738
3,071
743
3,087
738
3,094
740
3,123
734
3,132
740
3,170
739
3 ,186
742
3 ,209
740
3,223
747
3,251
743
3,239
730
3,214
18,075
12,341
18,303
12,615
18,257
12,569
18,297
12,609
18,297
12,610
18,346
12,658
18,355
12,671
18,398
12,709
18,439
12,759
18,472
12,785
18,502
12,813
18,523
12,833
18,525
12,832
18,500
12,819
18,444
12,776
10,221
6,849
10,431
7,092
10,388
7,050
10,426
7,086
10,422
7,088
10,465
7,128
10,481
7,145
10,513
7,175
10,550
7,218
10,574
7,239
10,596
7,259
10,622
7,288
10,633
7,297
10,629
7,295
10,600
7,269
709
487
517
683
752
502
533
699
748
500
531
692
752
502
532
697
755
504
533
700
757
504
534
6 99
758
504
535
704
761
505
537
708
766
507
539
712
766
507
540
715
767
508
542
716
7 66
509
545
718
767
509
547
718
761
506
546
719
756
504
543
718
240
1,339
239
1,387
235
1,378
239
1,386
240
1,390
238
1,396
239
1,397
239
1,405
240
1,412
240
1,421
239
1,428
240
1,435
240
1,439
240
1,441
241
1,436
1,931
363
1,985
351
1,981
354
1,989
355
1,983
352
1,992
350
1,995
348
1,999
345
2,006
344
2,010
342
2,017
341
2 ,025
340
2 ,029
3 36
2 ,035
336
2,031
334
1,526
1,571
1,561
1,570
1,570
1,581
1,586
1,589
1,595
1,603
1,608
1,613
1,614
1,617
1,618
528
1,756
837
542
896
544
1,749
899
4 80
863
539
1,741
885
485
867
542
1,746
893
480
863
545
1,736
893
475
859
549
1,751
908
473
859
552
1,753
913
469
857
554
1,761
921
467
8 54
556
1,764
924
465
854
560
1,764
926
462
853
563
1,764
932
459
850
565
1,766
934
457
849
569
1,767
937
455
847
571
1,765
938
454
845
575
1,758
935
4 50
844
378
3 90
389
389
392
392
392
394
395
395
396
396
396
394
3 92
7 ,854
5,492
7,872
5,523
7,869
5,519
7,871
5,523
7,875
5,522
7,881
5,530
7,874
5 ,526
7,885
5,534
7,889
5,541
7,898
5,546
7,906
5,554
7,901
5,545
7,892
5,535
7,871
5,524
7 ,844
5,507
1,680
44
675
1,680
42
673
1,679
43
673
1,680
42
6 73
1,681
42
673
1,679
42
674
1,677
41
671
1,677
41
674
1,683
41
674
1,684
41
673
1,690
40
6 72
1,689
40
671
1,690
39
670
1,687
40
669
1,687
39
664
989
692
1,517
1,081
152
969
691
1,542
1,061
149
973
691
1,537
1,062
149
972
691
1,540
1,061
148
969
692
1,544
1,060
148
972
691
1,547
1,057
150
971
689
1,547
1,056
149
970
692
1,550
1,055
149
963
692
1,551
1,054
149
960
692
1,556
1,054
150
957
693
1,557
1,055
147
951
692
1,561
1,054
148
946
691
1,561
1,053
148
939
692
1,557
1,050
146
932
689
1,554
1,049
145
909
117
952
114
948
114
950
114
953
113
956
113
960
113
965
112
970
112
975
113
982
113
983
112
982
112
980
111
976
109
87,378
90,121
89,801
90,038
9 0,249
9 0,529
90,732
9 0,854
91,252
91,394
91,517
9 1,799
9 1,932
9 1,975
9 1,989
5,829
3,615
248
6,006
3,775
241
5,994
3,766
239
6,008
3,781
241
6,022
3,794
240
6,045
3,810
237
6,048
3,813
240
6,061
3,821
240
6,092
3,846
242
6,121
3,870
241
6,129
3 ,886
241
6 ,156
3,900
242
6,175
3,914
242
6 ,186
3,921
2 42
6 ,182
3 ,919
2 42
379
1,698
168
740
18
363
410
1,797
169
748
18
392
405
1,797
172
747
18
388
411
1,808
169
745
18
389
415
1,813
171
744
17
394
425
1,819
168
746
18
397
4 18
1,824
168
746
18
3 99
4 17
1,828
167
748
18
403
421
1,843
165
750
18
407
425
1,857
164
754
18
411
428
1,864
166
754
17
416
431
1,871
165
756
17
418
433
1,877
164
760
17
421
4 37
1,879
164
761
17
421
441
1,872
163
761
17
423
2 ,214
1,269
2,231
1,305
2,228
1,298
2,227
1,301
2,228
1,305
2,235
1,314
2,235
1,314
2,240
1,320
2,246
1,325
2,251
1,331
2,243
1,327
2,256
1,343
2,261
1,351
2,265
1,355
2,263
1,357
916
913
910
910
906
944
927
930
926
923
921
921
920
921
920
Wholesaletrade ................
Retail trade.....................
5,981
6,140
6,118
6,131
6,138
6,163
6,181
6 ,195
6 ,210
6 ,229
6,251
6,275
6,287
6,301
6 ,292
19,773
2 0,437
2 0,356
20,408
20,459
20,497
20,565
20,580
2 0,703
2 0,759
20,760
2 0,794
20,760
20,763
20,755
Building materials and garden
s u p p lie s ..............................................
General m erchandise s to re s .........
Departm ent s to re s ..........................
Food s to r e s .........................................
779
2,488
2 ,140
3,224
828
2,545
2,212
3,289
825
2,532
2,198
3,289
829
2,534
2,201
3,285
833
2,542
2,211
3,292
835
2,551
2,219
3,297
838
840
2,563
2 ,232
3 ,298
844
2,555
2,225
3,296
2 ,598
2 ,268
3 ,308
8 46
2,585
2 ,256
3,320
851
2,562
2,236
3,325
851
2,545
2,223
3 ,328
849
2,530
2,207
3,332
853
2,539
2,218
3,343
850
2 ,539
2,221
3 ,334
S ee footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
101
Current Labor Statistics:
12.
Labor Force Data
Continued—Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
Annual average
1994
1995
Industry
Automotive dealers and service
s ta tio n s ................................................
New and used car d e a le r s .........
Apparel and accessory s to r e s ......
Furniture and home furnishings
s to r e s ....................................................
Eating and drinking p la c e s .............
Miscellaneous retail
establishm ents..................................
Finance, insurance, andreal
estate..........................
Finance .................................................
Depositor/ institutions ...................
Commercial b a n k s .........................
Savings institutions........................
Nondepository institutions.............
Security and commodity
brokers ...............................................
Holding and other
investment o ffic e s ..........................
In s u ra n c e ..............................................
Insurance carriers .............................
Insurance agents, brokers
and service .......................................
Real e s t a t e ..........................................
Services1.......................
Agricultural s e rv ic e s .........................
Hotels and other
lodging p la c e s ....................................
Personal services ..............................
Business s e rv ic e s ..............................
Services to buildings.......................
Personnel supply services ............
Help supply services .....................
Computer and data
processing s e rv ic e s .......................
Auto repair services,
and parking ........................................
Miscellaneous repair s e rv ic e s .......
Motion pictures ..................................
Am usem ent and recreation
services ...............................................
Health s e rv ic e s ..................................
Offices and clinics of
medical d o c to rs ...............................
Nursing and personal
care facilities ....................................
H o s p ita ls ..............................................
Hom e health care s e rv ic e s ..........
Legal s e rv ic e s .....................................
Educational services ........................
Social s e rv ic e s ...................................
Child day care s e rv ic e s .................
Residential c a r e ................................
Museums and botanical and
zoological g a rd e n s ..........................
Membership organizations..............
Engineering and m anagem ent
s e rv ic e s ..............................................
Engineering and architectural
s e rv ic e s ..............................................
Managem ent and public
rela tio n s ..............................................
Government ...................
F e d e r a l..................................................
Federal, except Postal Service ...
State .......................................................
Education ...........................................
Other State
g o v ern m e n t.......................................
L o c a l.......................................................
Education ............................................
Other local
g o v ern m e n t.......................................
1993
1994
May
June
July
Aug.
2,014
908
1,144
2,123
964
1,134
2,112
959
1,133
2,119
964
1,133
2,122
967
1,134
2,135
971
1,132
828
6,821
890
7,069
877
7,045
883
7,067
893
7,076
2 ,476
2,560
2,543
2,558
6,757
3,238
2,089
1,497
324
455
6,933
3,323
2,075
1,492
308
499
6,935
3,328
2,075
1,488
313
507
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
2,145
975
1,135
2,154
979
1,136
2,165
984
1,130
2,173
989
1,126
2,182
993
1,122
2,191
996
1,118
2,202
998
1,110
2,206
1,000
1,104
2,207
1,001
1,094
899
7,084
906
7,103
915
7,086
926
7,134
927
7,182
933
7,188
936
7,221
943
7,191
945
7,171
944
7,181
2,567
2,564
2,587
2,588
2,598
2,600
2,597
2,604
2,603
2,602
2,606
6,946
3,332
2,075
1,489
310
506
6,947
3,332
2,076
1,492
308
502
6,948
3,329
2,074
1,492
305
499
6 ,942
3,324
2,072
1,492
303
494
6 ,935
3 ,320
2 ,072
1,496
300
490
6,937
3,319
2,071
1,498
296
485
6,931
3,317
2,070
1,498
295
481
6,927
3,312
2,067
1,497
293
478
6 ,929
3,312
2,066
1,497
291
475
6 ,938
3,313
2,066
1,499
289
475
6 ,919
3,303
2,062
1,493
288
472
6,916
3,307
2,061
1,491
289
476
102
Monthly Labor Review
Apr.p
Mayp
472
518
516
520
522
524
525
525
528
530
530
532
532
528
528
223
2,197
1,529
231
2,237
1,551
230
2,239
1,555
231
2,240
1,554
232
2,238
1,551
232
2,238
1,549
233
2,236
1,546
233
2,236
1,544
235
2,236
1,542
236
2,232
1,537
237
2,233
1,535
239
2,233
1,534
240
2,238
1,536
241
2,238
1,536
242
2,233
1,533
668
1,322
686
1,373
684
1,368
686
1,374
687
1,377
689
1,381
690
1,382
692
1,379
694
1,382
695
1,382
698
1,382
699
1,384
702
1,387
702
1,378
700
1,376
30,197
519
31,488
565
31,305
560
31,442
563
31,573
567
3 1,693
571
31,789
574
31,888
578
32,035
584
3 2,135
588
3 2,228
575
32,404
580
32,524
584
32,559
589
3 2,619
567
1,596
1,137
5,735
823
1,906
1,618
1,139
6,239
855
2,254
1,621
1,135
6,158
848
2,209
1,960
1,620
1,139
6,314
860
2 ,296
2,040
1,617
1,139
6,358
861
2,321
2,061
1,612
1,140
6,392
861
2,337
2,077
1,605
1,140
6,457
869
2,373
2,107
1,612
1,138
6,487
870
2,386
2,118
1,614
1,148
6,513
868
2,408
2,138
2,152
1,616
1,158
6,570
871
2,399
2,138
1,609
1,157
6,539
865
2,372
2,102
1,613
1,144
6,568
865
2,377
2,002
1,625
1,135
6,274
858
2,281
2,026
1,614
1,160
6,555
870
2 ,427
1,669
1,625
1,135
6 ,219
854
2 ,250
1,997
893
950
938
945
949
958
967
974
984
991
994
1,006
1,017
1,025
1,036
925
349
412
971
334
471
961
333
453
968
333
461
971
333
470
979
334
481
984
334
491
989
335
505
995
337
519
1,000
338
529
1,006
340
545
1,010
342
566
1,014
344
577
1,016
342
598
1,016
341
623
1,258
1,344
1,343
1,355
1,361
1,365
1,354
1,364
1,371
1,375
1,380
1,398
1,434
1,453
1,457
8 ,756
9,001
8,970
8,991
9,011
9,037
9,055
9,074
9,096
9,121
9,141
9,168
9,197
9,211
9,221
1,506
1,541
1,535
1,538
1,541
1,549
1,548
1,553
1,557
1,562
1,563
1,570
1,576
1,579
1,580
1,585
3,779
469
924
1,711
2,070
473
567
1,649
3,774
555
927
1,822
2,181
502
602
1,644
3,770
548
926
1,819
2,163
497
597
1,649
3,769
554
923
1,821
2,178
501
600
1,654
3,772
560
925
1,826
2,191
506
603
1,657
3 ,776
566
927
1,831
2,205
518
606
1,659
3,779
572
928
1,840
2,211
509
610
1,661
3,781
575
928
1,843
2,216
510
613
1,663
3,785
579
930
1,851
2,226
512
617
1,667
3,790
588
930
1,854
2,233
512
620
1,672
3,792
591
931
1,843
2,244
514
623
1,676
3,796
596
932
1,864
2,254
517
626
1,679
3,802
599
933
1,863
2 ,264
519
629
1,681
3 ,810
597
932
1,866
2,263
518
631
1,679
3,811
601
930
1,880
2,271
521
633
76
2 ,035
79
2,059
79
2,059
79
2,060
79
2,058
80
2,060
79
2,065
79
2,066
80
2,066
80
2,062
80
2,062
81
2,060
81
2,059
81
2,056
81
2,056
2,521
2,567
2,554
2,560
2,575
2,578
2,589
2,595
2 ,606
2,616
2,634
2,648
2,658
2,675
2,678
757
775
770
773
778
780
785
785
787
790
793
795
795
799
798
688
716
709
711
716
719
725
731
737
742
752
762
773
785
792
18,841
2,915
2,128
4,488
1,834
19,118
2,870
2,053
4,562
1,875
19,093
2,873
2,062
4,548
1,867
19,103
2,866
2,051
4,553
1,868
19,110
2,864
2 ,045
4 ,572
1,882
19,183
2,861
2,041
4,594
1,900
19,207
2,863
2,039
4,589
1,891
19,195
2,858
2,031
4,589
1,888
19,275
2,854
2,022
4,596
1,892
19,219
2,853
2,014
4,598
1,891
19,222
2,838
2 ,004
4 ,599
1,889
19,241
2,831
1,997
4,610
1,901
19,248
2,828
1,992
4,613
1,904
19,247
2,808
1,969
4,607
1,906
19,225
2,802
1,961
4,602
1,911
2,654
11,438
6,353
2,687
11,685
6,490
2,681
11,672
6,465
2,685
11,684
6 ,480
2 ,690
11,674
6,497
2,694
11,728
6,548
2,698
11,755
6,554
2,701
11,748
6,544
2,704
11,825
6,549
2,707
11,768
6,557
2,710
11,785
6,577
2,709
11,800
6,591
2,709
11,807
6,599
2,701
11,832
6,617
2,691
11,821
6,619
5,085
5,195
5,207
5,204
5,177
5,180
5,201
5,204
5,276
5,211
5,208
5,209
5,208
5,215
5,202
1 Includes other industries not shown separately.
p = preliminary
NOTE: S ee notes on the data for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Sept.
July 1995
2,103
13. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly
data seasonally adjusted
Industry
Annual
average
1993
PRIVATESECTOR.........................
GOODS-PRODUCING..........................
MINING.......................................
MANUFACTURING...........................
34.5
1995
1994
1994
34.7
May
34.7
June
34.7
Aug.
July
34.7
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Mar.
Feb.
Apr.P
Mayp
34.6
34.7
34.9
34.6
34.7
34.8
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.3
41.4
41.4
41.5
41.6
41.4
41.3
40.7
40.7
44.8
44.9
44.7
44.9
44.9
44.6
44.6
44.3
42.1
4.8
42.0
4.7
41.5
4.5
41.5
4.3
40.9
41.4
41.4
41.4
41.4
41.4
41.4
44.3
44.7
44.6
44.9
45.4
44.6
44.9
41.4
4.1
42.0
4.7
42.0
4.6
42.0
4.7
42.0
4.7
42.0
4.7
42.1
4.8
42.1
4.7
42.1
4.8
42.1
4.8
42.2
4.9
Overtime hours .....................................................
Lumber and wood p roducts....................................
Furniture and fixtures................................................
Stone, clay, and glass products............................
Primary metal industries..........................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products........
Fabricated metal p ro d u c ts ......................................
42.1
4.3
40.8
40.1
42.7
43.7
44.1
42.1
42.8
5.0
41.2
40.4
43.4
44.7
44.9
42.9
42.9
5.0
41.3
40.4
43.5
44.7
44.8
42.8
42.8
5.0
41.4
40.7
43.5
44.5
44.5
42.7
42.7
5.0
41.2
40.5
43.5
44.6
44.8
42.7
42.9
5.0
41.2
40.5
43.4
44.7
45.1
42.9
42.9
5.1
41.0
40.7
43.6
44.9
45.3
42.9
42.9
5.0
41.3
40.7
43.5
44.9
45.5
42.9
43.0
5.1
41.1
40.6
43.5
45.0
45.6
43.0
43.0
5.1
41.2
40.4
43.5
45.0
45.6
43.0
43.0
5.3
41.2
40.8
43.6
44.8
45.7
43.2
43.0
5.2
40.9
40.5
43.3
44.8
45.4
43.1
42.8
5.1
40.7
39.8
43.4
44.5
45.1
42.8
42.3
4.9
40.5
38.7
42.5
43.3
45.0
42.0
42.2
4.6
40.4
39.1
42.6
44.0
44.3
42.2
Industrial machinery and equ ip m en t....................
Electronic and other electrical e q u ip m e n t........
Transportation e q u ip m e n t.......................................
Motor vehicles and e q u ip m e n t..........................
Instruments and related pro d u c ts ........................
Miscellaneous m anufacturing................................
43.0
41.8
43.0
44.3
41.1
39.8
43.7
42.2
44.3
46.0
41.7
40.0
43.7
42.2
44.3
45.8
41.7
40.2
43.8
42.2
44.1
45.5
41.6
40.2
43.6
42.2
43.6
44.8
41.9
40.2
43.6
42.2
44.4
45.9
41.8
40.0
43.8
42.0
44.3
45.9
41.8
39.9
43.7
42.2
44.4
45.8
41.9
40.1
43.8
42.1
44.7
46.4
41.8
40.0
43.8
42.0
44.7
46.2
41.7
39.9
44.0
42.1
44.6
46.1
41.8
40.1
44.0
41.9
44.7
46.1
41.7
40.2
43.9
41.8
44.5
45.8
41.7
39.9
43.2
41.5
44.5
43.4
41.4
40.1
43.5
41.3
43.5
44.1
41.4
39.9
Overtime hours .....................................................
Food and kindred products ....................................
Textile mill products..................................................
Apparel and other textile p ro d u c ts ......................
Paper and allied p ro d u c ts .......................................
40.6
4.0
40.7
41.4
37.2
43.6
40.9
4.3
41.3
41.6
37.5
43.9
40.9
4.2
41.0
41.7
37.7
43.9
41.0
4.3
41.2
41.8
37.7
44.0
41.1
4.3
41.6
41.7
37.6
44.2
40.9
4.2
41.3
41.6
37.6
44.1
41.0
4.3
41.4
41.6
37.6
43.9
41.0
4.3
41.3
41.8
37.7
44.0
41.0
4.3
41.5
41.5
37.6
43.9
41.1
4.3
41.5
41.6
37.7
44.0
41.0
4.4
41.5
41.8
37.5
44.0
41.0
4.3
41.3
41.9
37.7
43.9
40.9
4.2
41.3
41.8
37.6
43.7
40.4
4.0
40.7
41.0
36.9
43.1
40.5
4.0
41.1
40.4
37.0
43.1
Printing and publishing .............................................
Chemicals and allied p ro d u c ts ..............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ...
Leather and leather p ro d u c ts ................................
38.3
43.1
41.8
38.6
38.6
43.2
42.2
38.6
38.8
43.3
42.2
38.5
38.7
43.2
42.2
38.4
38.6
43.3
42.3
38.0
38.6
43.2
42.2
C8.6
38.6
43.2
42.3
38.6
38.7
43.4
42.3
39,0
38.6
43.4
42.3
38.7
38.7
43.2
42.3
38.6
38.5
43.3
42.3
38.0
38.5
43.4
42.3
38.4
38.4
43.4
42.0
38.4
38.3
43.4
41.1
38.1
38.4
42.9
41.8
38.7
SERVICE-PRODUCING.....................-•••
TRANSPORTATIONANDPUBLICUTILITIES
WHOLESALETRADE .......................
RETAILTRADE.............................
32.7
32.8
32.9
32.8
32.8
32.7
32.8
33.0
32.7
32.8
32.9
32.7
32.7
32.9
32.5
39.6
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.7
40.0
40.0
39.8
39.6
39.8
39.7
39.5
39.7
39.4
38.6
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.2
38.3
37.9
29.2
28.9
28.9
29.0
28.8
28.8
29.1
28.7
O vertim e h o u r s .....................................................
Durablegoods.............................
Nondurablegoods .........................
38.2
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.3
38.2
38.4
28.8
28.9
28.9
29.0
29.0
28.9
28.9
= preliminary
NOTE: S ee “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark adjustment.
p
14. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry,
seasonally adjusted
Industry
Annual
average
1993
PRIVATESECTOR(incurrent dollars) .......
GOODS-PRODUCING.......................
1994
1994
May
June
July
Aug.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.»
Mayp
12.83
12.83
12.84
12.89
12.91
12.94
12.94
14.95
14.82
12.12
11.47
15.04
14.90
12.14
11.49
15.04
15.08
15.12
15.15
14.84
12.17
11.52
14.81
12.18
11.53
15.08
14.74
12.21
11.56
14.88
12.24
11.60
14.90
12.25
11.61
15.15
14.95
12.28
11.72
15.01
12.27
11.65
10.68
14.02
10.71
14.01
10.74
14.03
10.76
14.00
10.87
10.84
13.88
10.70
13.99
10.79
13.87
14.05
14.14
14.07
12.06
7.50
11.82
11.06
12.05
7.51
11.81
11.06
12.08
7.53
11.90
11.11
12.22
7.56
12.05
11.20
12.15
7.56
11.99
11.17
12.20
7.60
12.01
11.21
12.23
7.59
12.06
11.26
12.24
7.60
12.09
11.28
12.27
7.61
12.16
11.30
12.41
7.63
12.28
11.39
12.31
7.68
12.20
11.36
7.39
7.37
7.38
7.42
7.40
7.40
7.39
7.39
7.38
7.40
12.68
12.72
14.38
11.74
11.18
14.72
12.06
11.42
14.81
14.65
12.00
11.38
14.78
14.70
12.03
11.40
14.84
14.76
12.06
11.42
14.85
14.74
12.09
11.44
Transportation and public utilities .........................
10.30
13.62
10.57
13.86
10.53
13.79
10.54
13.79
10.57
13.84
W holesale trade ..........................................................
Retail t r a d e ...................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te .....................
S e rv ic e s ..........................................................................
11.74
7.29
11.35
10.78
12.05
7.49
11.83
11.05
12.01
7.47
11.80
11.01
12.03
7.48
11.77
11.02
PRIVATESECTOR(Inconstant (1982) dollars)
7.39
7.41
7.41
7.39
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Nov.
12.81
12.65
14.89
- Data not available.
p = preliminary
Oct.
12.78
12.71
14.60
SERVICE-PRODUCING......................
Sept.
$10.83 $11.13 $11.08 $11.09 $11.13 $11.14 $11.18 $11.25 $11.24 $11.27 $11.29 $11.32 $11.34 $11.40 $11.38
12.37
Mining ..............................................................................
Construction ..................................................................
M anufacturing...............................................................
Excluding o v e rtim e ................................................
1995
12.74
10.57
15.21
-
NOTE: S ee “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent
benchmark revision.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
103
Current Labor Statistics: Labor Force Data
15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by
industry
Annual
average
Industry
1993
PRIVATESECTOR............................
MINING........................................
CONSTRUCTION..............................
MANUFACTURING............................
Durablegoods................................
1994
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.P
$10.83 $11.13 $11.09 $11.03 $11.05 $11.05 $ 11.22 $11.28 $11.27 $ 11.28 $11.36 $ 11.36 $11.36 $11.41
14.60
14.89
14.83
14.74
14.73
14.69
Mayp
$ 11.39
14.92
14.91
14.97
15.09
15.25
15.26
15.24
15.29
15.24
14.87
14.83
14.67
14.82
14.84
14.88
14.98
12.17
12.26
12.23
12.24
12.25
12.29
12.27
12.81
9.95
9.67
12.19
14.54
17.30
12.04
12.83
9.94
9.66
12.23
14.43
17.09
12.03
12.83
9.95
9.67
12.25
14.41
17.03
12.05
12.80
9.98
9.76
12.43
14.78
17.67
12.02
12.80
10.03
9.72
12.31
14.48
17.23
12.05
14.38
14.72
14.62
14.59
14.75
14.79
14.97
15.05
11.74
12.06
12.01
12.03
12.04
12.01
12.14
12.10
Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts .......................................
Furniture and fix tu re s ....................................................
Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ...............................
Primary metal industries .......................... ...................
Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts ...........
Fabricated metal products .........................................
12.33
9.61
9.27
11.85
13.99
16.36
11.69
12.67
9.84
9.55
12.13
14.33
16.85
11.93
12.62
9.80
9.45
12.10
14.24
16.74
11.89
12.63
9.84
9.48
12.15
14.31
16.79
11.90
12.62
9.87
9.54
12.17
14.40
16.93
11.86
12.62
9.87
9.56
12.19
14.34
16.95
11.87
12.76
9.95
9.69
12.27
14.40
17.05
11.99
12.70
9.96
9.70
12.22
14.37
17.08
11.92
12.77
9.93
9.67
12.21
14.44
17.13
12.03
12.87
9.97
9.76
12.21
14.53
17.16
12.09
Industrial machinery and e q u ip m e n t.......................
Electronic and other electrical equipment ............
Transportation e quipm ent............................................
Motor vehicles and e quipm ent...............................
Instruments and related products ............................
Miscellaneous m anufacturing.....................................
12.73
11.24
15.80
16.10
12.23
9.39
12.99
11.50
16.48
16.98
12.47
9 .66
12.95
11.48
16.41
16.92
12.37
9.60
12.95
11.53
16.42
16.93
12.43
9.60
12.94
11.56
16.41
16.89
12.46
9.61
12.92
11.52
16.44
16.92
12.48
9.63
13.04
11.57
16.71
17.27
12.55
9.71
13.03
11.51
16.52
16.98
12.54
9.72
13.11
11.54
16.62
17.11
12.55
9.79
13.19
11.59
16.83
17.37
12.63
9.90
13.15
11.59
16.60
17.12
12.54
9.98
13.15
11.53
16.71
17.26
12.63
9.94
13.15
11.54
16.66
17.23
12.63
9.90
13.05
11.48
16.46
17.00
12.68
9.94
13.17
11.54
16.42
16.91
12.66
9.94
Food and kindred pro d u c ts ........................................
Tobacco products...........................................................
Textile mill p ro d u c ts ......................................................
Apparel and other textile products..........................
Paper and allied products ..........................................
10.98
10.45
16.89
8.88
7.09
13.42
11.25
10.66
19.10
9.13
7.34
13.77
11.19
10.64
20.27
9.06
7.28
13.71
11.21
10.65
20.78
9.11
7.33
13.68
11.28
10.68
20.60
9.12
7.31
13.83
11.20
10.59
18.91
9.12
7.36
13.80
11.31
10.64
18.89
9.20
7.44
13.96
11.30
10.65
18.71
9.19
7.43
13.89
11.35
10.81
19.46
9.26
7.45
13.92
11.42
10.85
18.64
9.31
7.47
13.98
11.44
10.85
18.71
9.35
7.53
14.01
11.43
10.83
19.67
9.31
7.48
14.02
11.45
10.87
20.44
9.30
7.51
14.03
11.59
10.95
20.03
9.38
7.62
14.27
11.53
10.94
21.66
9.38
7.56
14.18
Printing and publishing.................................................
Chemicals and allied products..................................
Petroleum and coal products.....................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics p ro d u c ts ......
Leather and leather products ....................................
11.93
14.82
18.53
10.57
7.63
12.13
15.14
19.07
10.70
7.98
12.05
15.05
18.76
10.69
7.97
12.08
15.08
18.87
10.72
7.96
12.12
15.16
18.94
10.75
7.98
12.12
15.08
18.76
10.65
7.97
12.26
15.27
19.32
10.65
7.99
12.23
15.30
19.29
10.66
8.03
12.20
15.29
19.25
10.69
8.05
12.26
15.42
19.32
10.79
8.06
12.24
15.40
19.19
10.82
8.13
12.24
15.42
19.55
10.76
8.14
12.26
15.43
19.38
10.80
8.13
12.21
15.72
19.55
10.78
8.33
12.21
15.53
18.83
10.90
8.31
13.62
13.86
13.74
13.70
13.81
13.84
13.91
14.01
14.07
14.04
14.08
14.04
14.06
14.13
14.01
11.74
12.05
12.03
11.98
12.04
12.00
12.09
12.20
12.15
12.21
12.30
12.28
12.25
12.45
12.32
7.63
7.65
7.68
Nondurablegoods............................
TRANSPORTATIONANDPUBLICUTILITIES..
WHOLESALETRADE..........................
RETAILTRADE...............................
FINANCE, INSURANCE, ANDREALESTATE
SERVICES ....................................
7.29
7.49
7.47
7.46
7.46
7.44
7.54
7.57
7.57
7.59
7.64
7.63
11.35
11.83
11.84
11.67
11.72
11.73
11.85
12.02
11.98
12.05
12.17
12.19
12.21
12.32
12.25
11.29
11.39 I 11.38
11.36
11.40
11.36
10.78
11.05
11.01
10.90
10.90
10.90
= preliminary
NOTE: S ee “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchm ark revision.
p
104
1995
1994
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
11.11
11.20
11.22
16.
Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry
1994
Annual average
1995
Industry
1993
1994
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.p
Mayp
PRIVATESECTOR
Current d o llars .............................................................. $373.64 $386.21 $385.93 $383.84 $386.75 $386.75 $39 0.4 6 $394.80 $389.94 $392.54 $390.78 $388.51 $389.65 $39 1.3 6 $ 390.68
385.44
390.33
384.48 384.82
386.21
387.95
392.63
388.90 391.07
392.89 3 91.67 3 92.36 394.44
Seasonally a d ju s te d ................................................
253.84 2 53.96
256.98 255.79
257.56 260.25
256.54 258.42
256 25 253.93
Constant (1982) dollars ............................................ 254.87 2 56.96 258.15 255.72
-
MINING........................................
CONSTRUCTION..............................
MANUFACTURING
646.78
6 65.58
659.94
661.83
661.38
661.05
677.37
673.93
679.64
680 .56
683.20
677.54
670 .56
6 75.82
675.13
553.63
572.61
580.41
579.22
587.05
588.64
598.80
595.98
572.50
573.92
553.06
5 46.86
565.40
5 60.98
576.73
486.04
331.54
506.52
337.01
504.42
337.40
507.67
338.22
500.86
332.80
504.42
333.61
514.74
339.54
511.83
337.40
517.23
340.28
525.95
346.25
513.66
336.83
510.41
333.60
510.83
332.79
496.52
322.21
509.21
Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts .......................................
Furniture and fix tu re s ....................................................
Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ...............................
Primary metal industries ..............................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts ............
Fabricated metal products .........................................
519.09
392.09
371.73
506.00
611.36
721.48
492.15
542.28
405.41
385.82
526.44
640.55
756.57
511.80
541.40
407.68
377.06
533.61
637.95
749.95
508.89
543.09
409.34
385.84
537.03
639.66
752.19
510.51
532.56
404.67
383.51
533.05
639.36
766.93
498.12
538.87
410.59
389.09
536.36
636.70
764.45
508.04
549.96
412.93
399.23
542.33
648.00
780.89
517.97
547.37
414.34
399.64
540.12
642.34
772.02
514.94
552.94
409.12
396.47
533.58
652.69
779.42
523.31
563.71
414.75
406.02
528.69
662.57
787.64
531.96
549.55
404.97
392.60
515.64
652.85
787.15
518.92
5 46.56
397.60
383.50
512.44
643.58
769.05
513.68
546.56
401.98
381.00
520.63
639.80
761.24
512.13
524.80
401.20
367.95
525.79
637.02
795.15
484.41
541.44
408.22
375.19
531.79
638.57
763.29
508.51
Industrial machinery and e q u ip m e n t.......................
Electronic and other electrical equipment ...........
Transportation e quipm ent............................................
Motor vehicles and equ ip m en t...............................
Instruments and related products ............................
Miscellaneous m anufacturing.....................................
547.39
469.83
679.40
713.23
502.65
373.72
567.66
485.30
730.06
781.08
520.00
386.40
565.92
483.31
731.89
786.78
514.59
384.00
567.21
487.72
729.05
780.47
518.33
384.96
557.71
479.74
697.43
729.65
515.84
379.60
556.85
483.84
725.00
771.55
517.92
384.24
569.85
488.25
748.61
801.33
524.59
389.37
569.41
4 86.87
735.14
779.38
524.17
3 94.63
575.53
491.60
747.90
797.33
528.36
398.45
590.91
4 99.53
767.45
818.13
538.04
399.96
581.23
489.10
735.38
780.67
525.43
397.20
578.60
4 78.50
741.92
792.23
524.15
395.61
577.29
478.91
741.37
790.86
526.67
395.01
544.19
4 61.50
696 .26
734.40
512.27
386.67
572.90
475.45
719.20
757.57
522.86
394.62
445.79
425.32
631.69
367.63
263.75
585.11
460.13
440.26
750.63
379.81
275.25
604.50
456.55
433.05
788.50
378.7*1
274.46
600.50
4 60.73
437.72
835.36
386.26
278.54
601.92
460.22
444.29
782.80
375.74
272.66
607.14
4 60.32
4 42.66
746.95
3 82.13
278.21
6 05.82
468.23
450.07
778.27
387.32
281.23
619.82
4 66.69
4 45.17
783.95
3 85.98
2 82.34
6 15.33
471.03
4 56.18
776.45
387.07
283.10
615.26
476.21
4 57.87
767.97
3 91.02
284.61
6 26.30
465.61
445.94
731.56
388.03
280.12
616.44
462.92
438.62
759.26
3 83.57
279.00
607.07
463.73
441.32
778.76
383.16
280.12
604.69
458.96
435.81
773.16
374.26
270.51
605.05
465.81
446.35
892.39
379.89
280.48
609.74
456.92
638.74
819.03
4 68.22
6 54.05
846.71
462.72
650.16
821.69
4 63.87
6 51.46
830.28
464.20
6 53.40
8 29.57
469.04
646.93
8 16.06
479.37
6 58.14
894.52
4 75.75
6 64.02
8 69.98
4 77.02
6 68.17
8 54.70
4 81.82
6 78.48
8 53.94
466.34
666.82
840.52
4 66.34
6 66.14
8 68.02
470.78
668.12
841.09
461.54
680.68
858.25
463.98
666.24
798.39
441.83
294.52
4 51.54
3 08.03
452.19
306.85
4 55.60
309.64
4 47.20
3 02.44
4 48.37
3 07.64
4 50.50
310.81
4 50.92
3 14.78
4 55.39
3 13.95
4 63.97
314.34
4 56.60
307.31
4 51.92
3 09.32
451.44
309.75
433 .36
309.04
455.62
321.60
Current d o lla rs ...............................................................
Constant (1982) d o lla rs ..............................................
Durablegoods ................................
Nondurablegoods ............................
Food and kindred pro d u c ts ........................................
Tobacco products...........................................................
Textile mill p ro d u c ts ......................................................
Apparel and other textile p roducts..........................
Paper and allied products ..........................................
Printing and publishing.................................................
Chemicals and allied products..................................
Petroleum and coal pro d u c ts .....................................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics p ro d u c ts .........................................................
Leather and leather products ....................................
TRANSPORTATIONANDPUBLIC
UTILITIES....................................
WHOLESALETRADE..........................
RETAILTRADE...............................
FINANCE, INSURANCE, ANDREAL
ESTATE ......................................
SERVICES ....................................
539.35
553.01
549.60
549.37
556.54
556.37
557.79
5 63.20
559.99
555.98
554.75
551.77
549.75
558.14
553.40
4 48.47
4 62.72
464.36
461.23
4 62.34
459.60
4 64.26
472.14
4 66.56
470.09
4 69.86
467.87
4 65.50
4 76.84
4 69.39
209.95
2 16.46
215.88
218.58
222.31
220.97
2 18.66
220.29
2 17.26
222.39
2 15.45
214.40
2 15.93
2 21.09
220.42
406.33
423.51
4 27.42
415.45
4 18.40
416.42
420.68
435.12
425 .29
430.19
4 41.77
435.18
4 33.46
4 47.22
4 32.43
3 50.35
359.13
358.93
354.25
356.43
356.43
359 .96
366.24
362.41
365.80
3 69.04
367.57
3 65.79
3 70.50
3 65.79
- Data not available.
p = preliminary
NOTE: S ee “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
105
Current Labor Statistics: Labor Force Data
17.
Diffusion indexes of employment change, seasonally adjusted
(In percent)
Jan.
Tim e span
and year
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Private nonfarm payrolls, 356 industries
O ver 1-month span:
1993 .....................................................................................
1994 .....................................................................................
1995 .....................................................................................
57.6
60.0
60.3
61.5
63.3
61.7
51.4
65.9
57.6
58.3
62.4
49.6
61.4
58.0
44.4
55.1
63.8
O ver 3-month span:
1993 .....................................................................................
1994 ................................................................ ....................
1995 .....................................................................................
64.0
68.8
66.4
61.2
70.9
64.9
61.8
69.8
56.6
58.8
67.1
47.5
61.4
66.0
61.8
66.0
O ver 6-m onth span:
1993 .....................................................................................
1994 .....................................................................................
1995 .....................................................................................
63.2
71.2
65.0
63.8
70.2
58.0
62.8
70.5
64.2
69.5
60.8
69.8
64.9
68.4
63.9
70.8
64.0
71.9
O ver 12-month span:
1993 .....................................................................................
1994 .....................................................................................
1995 .....................................................................................
“
56.3
61.5
61.4
60.7
59.7
61.1
61.1
65.3
60.7
61.1
"
“
-
-
-
-
59.3
68.4
61.8
68.3
62.6
67.8
66.7
67.3
65.7
68.1
63.6
67.4
-
-
-
-
-
64.5
70.5
64.7
70.9
66.2
69.0
67.3
69.0
70.8
67.4
70.8
67.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
67.6
70.4
67.0
70.8
70.2
70.4
69.4
70.2
68.8
65.9
69.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
56.1
53.2
54.7
59.4
56.5
59.0
54.3
57.6
“
63.9
69.1
“
65.4
70.2
57.7
60.5
67.0
69.5
67.6
69.7
“
-
Manufacturing payrolls, 139 industries
O ver 1-month span:
1993 .....................................................................................
1994 .....................................................................................
1995 .....................................................................................
52.2
59.4
56.8
57.9
61.2
54.7
52.9
59.4
49.6
44.2
56.5
42.4
51.4
55.0
37.4
46.0
59.0
O ver 3-month span:
1993 .....................................................................................
1994 .....................................................................................
1995 .....................................................................................
60.8
65.1
61.5
60.4
66.5
56.1
57.2
64.4
45.3
46.4
59.0
35.6
46.4
58.6
50.7
58.3
49.6
61.5
54.3
59.0
53.2
61.5
60.1
60.4
56.1
64.0
57.6
62.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Over 6-m onth span:
1993 .....................................................................................
1994 .....................................................................................
1995 .....................................................................................
5 7.6
61.9
55.4
56.5
62.9
46.8
56.1
64.4
55.0
61.5
49.3
60.8
52.2
59.0
55.4
62.2
57.9
62.6
56.8
61.5
57.6
64.0
65.1
61.5
62.9
61.5
-
-
-
-
-
O ver 12-month span:
1993 .....................................................................................
1994 .....................................................................................
1995 .....................................................................................
56.8
58.3
57.9
59.7
55.8
61.9
59.0
63.3
61.2
61.5
60.4
59.0
60.1
56.1
_
“
-
-
-
-
58.6
61.5
57.2
61.5
48.6
56.5
*
“
“
- Data not available.
NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with em ployment increasing plus
one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent
indicates an equal balance betw een industries with increasing and decreasing
18.
50.7
54.0
57.6
61.5
58.6
61.9
employment. Data for the 2 most recent months shown in each span are
preliminary. S ee the "Definitions” in this section. S ee “ Notes on the data” for a
description of the most recent benchmark revision,
Annual data: Employment status of the population
(Num bers in thousands)
106
Employment status
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Civilian noninstitutional pop u la tio n ..............................
Civilian labor fo r c e .........................................................
Labor force participation
r a t e ..................................................................................
180,587
117,834
182,753
119,865
184,613
121,669
186,393
123,869
188,049
124,787
189,765
125,303
191,576
126,982
193,550
128,040
196,814
131,056
65.3
65.6
65.9
66.5
66.4
66.0
66.3
66.2
66.6
Employed ....................................................................
Employment-population r a tio ............................
A griculture..........................................................
Nonagricultural industries..............................
109,597
60.7
3,163
106,434
112,440
61.5
3,208
109,232
114,968
62.3
3,169
111,800
117,342
63.0
3,199
114,142
117,914
62.7
3 ,186
114,728
116,877
61.6
3 ,233
113,644
117,598
61.4
3,207
114,391
119,306
61.6
3,074
116,232
123,060
62.5
3,409
119,651
Unemployed .............................................................
Unemployment r a t e ............................................
Not in labor force ...........................................................
8,237
7.0
62,752
7,425
6.2
62,888
6,701
5.5
62,944
6,528
5.3
62,523
6 ,874
5.5
63,2 62
8,426
6.7
64,462
9,384
7.4
64,593
8,734
6.8
65,509
7,996
6.1
65,7 58
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
59.4
19.
Annual data: Employment levels by industry
(In thousands)
Industry
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Total e m p lo y m e n t....................................................................................
Private s e c to r.........................................................................................
G oods-producing...............................................................................
M in in g ..............................................................................................
Construction .................................................................................
M a nufacturing...............................................................................
99,344
82,651
24,533
777
4,810
18,947
101,958
8 4,948
2 4,674
717
4,958
18,999
105,210
87,824
2 5,125
713
5,098
19,314
107,895
90,117
25,254
692
5,171
19,391
109,419
91,115
24,905
709
5,120
19,076
108,256
89,854
23,745
689
4,650
18,406
108,604
89,959
23,231
635
4,492
18,104
110,730
91,889
23,352
610
4 ,668
18,075
114,034
94,917
23,913
6 00
5,010
18,303
S ervice-producing..............................................................................
Transportation and public u tilitie s ..........................................
W holesale trade ...........................................................................
Retail trade .....................................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s t a t e ......................................
S e rv ic e s ...........................................................................................
74,811
5,247
5,761
17,880
6,273
22,957
77,284
5,362
5,848
18,422
6,533
24,110
8 0,086
5,514
6,030
19,023
6 ,630
25,504
82,642
5,625
6 ,187
19,475
6 ,668
2 6,907
8 4,514
5,793
6 ,173
19,601
6 ,709
27,934
84,511
5,762
6,081
19,284
6,646
28,336
85,373
5,721
5,997
19,356
6,602
29,052
87,378
5,829
5,981
19,773
6,757
30,197
90,121
6 ,006
6,140
20,437
6,933
31,488
G o v e rn m e n t..................................................................................
F e d e ra l......................................................................................
S ta te ..........................................................................................
Local .........................................................................................
16,693
2,899
3,893
9,901
17,010
2,943
3,967
10,100
17,386
2,971
4 ,076
10,339
17,779
2,988
4,182
10,609
18,304
3,085
4,305
10,914
18,402
2,966
4,355
11,081
18,645
2,969
4,408
11,267
18,841
2,915
4,488
11,438
19,118
2,870
4,562
11,685
NO TE:
S ee “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
20. Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonfarm
payrolls, by industry
Industry
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
34.8
8.76
304.85
34.8
8.98
312.50
34.7
9.28
322.02
34.6
9.66
334.24
34.5
10.01
345.35
34.3
10.32
3 53.98
34.4
10.57
363.61
34.5
10.83
373.64
34.7
11.13
386.21
42.2
12.46
525.81
42.4
12.54
531.70
42.3
12.80
541.44
43.0
13.26
570.18
44.1
13.68
603.29
44.4
14.19
630.04
43.9
14.54
638.31
44.3
14.60
646.78
44.7
14.89
665.58
37.4
12.48
466.75
37.8
12.71
480.44
37.9
13.08
495.73
37.9
13.54
513.17
38.2
13.77
526.01
38.1
14.00
5 33.40
38.0
14.15
537.70
38.5
14.38
553.63
38.9
14.72
572.61
40.7
9.73
396.01
41.0
9.91
406.31
41.1
10.19
418.81
41.0
10.48
429.68
40.8
10.83
441.86
40.7
11.18
455.03
41.0
11.46
469.86
41.4
11.74
4 86.04
42.0
12.06
5 06.52
39.2
11.70
4 58.64
39.2
12.03
4 71.58
38.8
12.26
475 .69
38.9
12.60
4 90.14
38.9
12.97
504.53
38.7
13.22
511.61
38.9
13.45
523.21
39.6
13.62
539.35
39.9
13.86
553.01
38.3
9.34
3 57.72
38.1
9.59
365.38
38.1
9.98
3 80.24
38.0
10.39
3 94.82
38.1
10.79
411.10
38.1
11.15
424 .82
38.2
11.39
435 .10
38.2
11.74
448.47
38.4
12.05
462.72
29.2
6.03
176.08
29.2
6.12
178.70
29.1
6.31
183.62
28.9
6.53
188.72
28.8
6.75
194.40
28.6
6.94
198.48
28.8
7.12
205.06
28.8
7.29
209.95
28.9
7.49
216.46
36.4
8.36
304.30
36.3
8.73
316.90
35.9
9.06
3 25.25
35.8
9.53
3 41.17
35.8
9.97
356.93
35.7
10.39
370.92
35.8
10.82
387.36
35.8
11.35
406.33
35.8
11.83
423.51
32.5
8.18
265.85
32.5
8.49
275.93
32.6
8.88
2 89.49
32.6
9.38
3 05.79
32.5
9.83
319.48
32.4
10.23
3 31.45
32.5
10.54
342.55
32.5
10.78
350.35
32.5
11.05
359.13
Privatesector:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Average weekly h o u rs ........................................................................
Average hourly earnings (in d o lla rs )..............................................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars) ............................................
Mining:
Average weekly hours .................................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .......................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )......................................
Construction:
Average weekly hours .................................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .......................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )......................................
Manufacturing:
Average weekly hours .................................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .......................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )......... ............................
Transportationandpublicutilities:
Average weekly hours .................................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .......................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )......................................
Wholesaletrade:
Average weekly hours .................................................................
Average hourly earnings (in d o lla rs ).......................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )......................................
Retail trade:
Average weekly hours .................................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .......................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )......................................
Finance, insurance, andreal estate:
Average weekly hours ......... ........................................................
Average hourly earnings (in d o lla rs ).......................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )......................................
Services:
Average weekly hours .................................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .......................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )......................................
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
107
Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations
21.
Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group
(June 1 9 8 9 = 1 0 0 )
1993
1994
1995
Series
Mar.
June
117.5
118.3
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers ......................................................
Professional specialty and te c h n ic a l.......................................
Executive, administrative, and m a n a g e ria l............................
Administrative support, including clerical ..............................
Blue-collar w o rke rs ......................................................
Service occupations.............................................................
117.9
120.1
116.9
118.3
116.7
117.9
Workers, by industry division:
G oods-producing..................................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................................
Service-producing ...............................................................................
S erv ice s .................................................................
Health s e rv ic e s ..............................................................................
H o s p ita ls ................................................................................
Educational s e rv ic e s ...................................................................
Public administration 3 ....................................................................
N onm anufacturing...........................................................
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
119.5
120.2
121.3
122.1
118.6
120.6
117.5
119.3
117.8
118.7
119.9
122.0
118.6
120.4
118.8
119.9
120.6
122.5
119.4
121.3
119.4
120.5
121.8
123.7
120.6
122.6
120.4
121.6
118.0
118.6
117.2
120.1
122.3
122.0
120.1
117.6
117.1
119.1
119.7
118.0
120.6
123.2
122.6
120.2
118.0
117.9
120.0
120.6
119.3
122.2
124.4
123.9
122.6
119.3
119.2
120.6
121.3
120.0
122.9
125.4
125.0
122.9
120.0
119.8
117.1
117.5
118.0
118.5
119.1
119.5
117.4
118.3
120.4
116.5
112.9
118.3
119.2
121.3
117.2
113.8
June
Sept.
Percent change
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
Dec.
Mar.
123.3
123.8
124.8
0.8
2.9
122.6
124.2
121.6
123.5
121.3
122.1
123.9
125.7
122.9
124.6
122.4
123.5
124.4
126.2
123.6
125.2
122.7
124.3
125.5
127.0
125.2
126.5
123.6
125.0
.9
.6
1.3
1.0
.7
.6
3.0
2.7
3.8
3.2
2.7
2.8
121.9
122.5
121.0
123.8
126.1
125.9
123.2
121.5
120.9
123.0
123.5
121.7
124.2
126.6
126.4
123.6
122.2
121.7
123.9
124.4
123.1
125.8
127.8
127.5
126.0
123.7
123.0
124.4
125.1
123.6
126.4
128.5
128.4
126.4
124.2
123.4
125.3
126.2
124.6
127.2
129.4
128.8
126.9
125.4
124.4
.7
.9
.8
.6
.7
.3
.4
1.0
.8
2.8
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.6
2.3
3.0
3.2
2.9
119.8
120.2
121.0
121.4
122.0
122.3
123.0
123.4
123.5
123.9
124.5
125.0
.8
.9
2.9
3.0
119.4
120.2
122.2
118.1
115.6
120.2
121.0
122.9
118.9
116.5
121.5
122.4
124.6
120.3
117.2
122.5
123.3
125.3
121.3
118.8
123.5
124.4
126.3
122.6
119.2
124.1
125.1
126.8
123.3
119.6
125.3
126.3
127.7
124.9
120.2
1.0
1.0
.7
1.3
.5
3.1
3.2
2.5
3.8
2.6
Mar. 1995
Civilianworkers2...............................
Privateindustryworkers...............................
Excluding sales occupations......................................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar w o rke rs .....................................................................
Excluding sales occupations.................................................
Professional specialty and technical o c c u p a tio n s ............
Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations
Sales occupations........................................................................
Administrative support occupations, including
c le ric a l............................................................................................
118.1
119.2
120.3
121.2
122.5
123.5
124.5
125.1
126.5
1.1
3.3
Blue-collar w o rk e rs ........................................................................
Precision production, craft, and repair o c c u p a tio n s ........
Machine operators, assemblers, and in sp ec to rs ..............
Transportation and material moving occupations.............
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers ....
116.6
116.6
117.8
113.9
116.8
117.7
117.6
119.0
115.2
117.6
118.7
118.7
120.0
115.9
118.4
119.3
118.9
120.8
117.0
119.1
120.3
120.2
121.3
118.5
120.2
121.2
121.2
122.2
119.1
121.4
122.3
122.5
122.9
120.3
122.7
122.6
122.5
123.4
120.6
122.9
123.5
123.4
124.2
121.8
124.1
.7
.7
.6
1.0
1.0
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.8
3.2
Service occup a tio n s ......................................................................
117.2
118.0
118.9
119.5
120.6
121.0
121.8
122.9
123.4
.4
2.3
Production and nonsupervisory occupations4 ......................
116.9
117.9
119.0
119.7
120.7
121.6
122.6
123.1
124.1
.8
2.8
Workers, by industry division:
G oods-producing..............................................................................
Excluding sales occup a tio n s ..............................................
White-collar o c c u p a tio n s ........................................................
Excluding sales o c cupations..............................................
Blue-collar occupations ...........................................................
Service o c cupations..................................................................
Construction .....................................................................
M anufacturing............................................................
White-collar o c cupations .......................................................
Excluding sales occupations.............................................
Blue-collar occu p a tio n s .........................................................
Service occupations ...............................................................
D u ra b le s .............................................................
N on d u ra b le s .....................................................................
118.0
117.8
118.6
118.1
117.6
120.0
114.9
118.6
118.7
118.0
118.5
120.3
119.0
117.9
119.1
118.8
119.6
119.0
118.7
120.6
116.0
119.7
119.7
118.8
119.6
120.7
119.9
119.6
120.5
119.7
119.6
121.5
116.8
120.6
120.5
119.5
120.5
121.7
124.3
124.0
125.9
125.0
123.4
126.3
120.8
125.1
126.0
124.9
124.5
127.0
125.8
123.8
127.0
124.7
.8
.7
1.0
1.0
.6
.8
.2
.9
1.1
1.0
.6
.8
1.0
.7
2.9
2.9
3.4
3.5
2.5
3.1
2.1
3.0
3.8
4.0
2.5
3.4
123.8
122.8
123.9
123.5
125.1
124.1
123.1
126.5
121.4
124.4
124.9
123.6
124.0
127.0
125.1
123.2
125.3
124.9
127.2
126.2
124.1
127.3
121.1
126.2
127.4
126.1
125.3
128.0
121.0
119.7
121.8
121.4
123.0
121.9
121.1
123.5
118.6
122.5
122.7
121.3
122.3
123.8
122.9
121.7
123.0
122.5
124.3
123.2
122.2
123.8
120.2
123.5
123.9
122.5
123.2
124.1
120.0
119.0
120.6
120.1
121.1
119.9
120.2
122.4
116.5
121.3
121.3
119.9
121.3
122.7
121.9
120.3
3.3
2.5
Service-producing ........................................................
Excluding sales occupations.............................................
White-collar occupations...........................................................
Excluding sales occupations ...............................................
Blue-collar occupations.............................................................
Service o c cu p a tio n s ...................................................
Transportation and public utilities.............................................
Transportation.....................................................................
Public utilities .........................................................
C om m unication s...............................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services ....................................
W holesale and retail t r a d e .........................................................
Excluding sales occupations ...............................................
W holesale tr a d e .........................................................
Excluding sales occupations.............................................
Retail t r a d e .....................................................
Food stores ......................................................
General merchandise s to re s ..............................
116.4
117.3
116.9
118.4
114.3
116.8
114.8
112.8
117.4
116.5
118.6
114.7
115.4
115.3
116.0
114.5
115.9
114.1
117.3
118.3
117.8
119.3
115.5
117.7
116.0
114.1
118.3
117.5
119.4
115.9
116.2
116.4
116.8
115.6
117.2
114.7
118.5
119.3
119.0
120.4
116.6
118.6
116.8
114.8
119.2
118.5
120.2
116.4
117.0
116.6
117.6
116.2
117.1
115.5
119.3
120.2
119.8
121.4
117.2
119.1
117.5
115.7
119.9
119.2
120.8
117.1
118.0
117.8
118.7
116.8
118.3
116.3
120.4
121.4
121.0
122.7
118.4
120.2
119.2
117.1
121.7
121.0
122.7
117.6
118.6
117.9
119.3
117.5
119.6
115.3
121.2
122.1
121.9
123.4
119.1
120.7
119.8
117.7
122.6
122.1
123.2
119.4
119.8
119.7
120.3
119.2
120.6
118.0
122.3
123.3
122.9
124.6
120.6
121.3
121.4
119.7
123.6
122.9
124.4
120.5
120.9
120.6
121.3
120.4
120.3
118.7
122.8
123.8
123.4
125.1
120.7
122.5
122.1
120.3
124.4
124.0
124.8
120.6
120.9
121.5
122.0
120.1
120.0
119.3
123.9
125.0
124.6
126.4
122.1
123.0
124.0
122.3
126.1
126.3
125.9
121.7
122.4
123.2
124.4
120.9
120.8
120.1
.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
.4
1.6
1.7
1.4
1.9
.9
.9
1.2
1.4
2.0
.7
.7
.7
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
2.3
4.0
4.4
3.6
4.4
2.6
3.5
3.2
4.5
4.3
2.9
1.0
4.2
S ee footnotes at end of table.
108
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
21. Continued—Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry grbup
(June 1 9 8 9 = 1 0 0 )
1995
1994
1993
Series
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Percent change
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
Dec.
Mar.
120.2
123.7
1.1
1.6
2.1
3.3
Mar. 1995
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te ........................................
Excluding sales occupations ...............................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other
credit a g e n c ie s ..........................................................................
Insurance .......................................................................................
Services .............................................................................................
Business s e rv ic e s .......................................................................
Health services ............................................................................
Hospitals .....................................................................................
Educational services ..................................................................
Colleges and universities......................................................
112.6
114.9
113.1
116.4
115.7
117.5
116.4
118.2
117.7
119.7
117.7
120.3
118.5
121.5
118.9
121.8
114.6
114.3
120.1
116.5
123.0
122.7
120.5
121.5
116.0
116.1
120.9
117.4
124.0
123.4
120.6
121.5
116.9
117.4
122.3
118.1
125.0
124.5
123.8
125.0
117.8
119.7
123.1
118.6
126.0
125.6
124.1
125.3
118.7
119.9
124.4
121.3
126.7
126.7
124.5
125.7
119.4
120.5
124.9
122.1
127.1
127.1
125.4
126.0
120.8
121.5
125.9
122.4
127.9
127.7
128.2
128.5
120.5
122.3
126.6
123.0
128.7
128.6
128.4
128.8
123.5
123.5
127.5
124.5
129.7
128.9
128.8
129.3
2.5
1.0
.7
1.2
.8
.2
.3
.4
4.0
3.0
2.5
2.6
2.4
1.7
3.5
2.9
Nonmanufacturing ..........................................................................
White-collar o c cupations .......................................................
Excluding sales occupations.............................................
Blue-collar occup a tio n s .........................................................
Service occupations ...............................................................
116.3
117.0
118.5
114.6
116.8
117.2
117.9
119.4
115.6
117.7
118.4
119.0
120.4
116.6
118.6
119.0
119.9
121.4
117.1
119.1
120.3
121.1
122.8
118.2
120.2
121.2
122.1
123.6
119.1
120.7
122.3
123.1
124.7
120.5
121.3
122.6
123.5
125.1
120.5
122.4
123.7
124.7
126.4
121.5
123.0
.9
1.0
1.0
.8
.5
2.8
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.3
119.3
119.6
121.4
121.9
122.6
123.1
125.0
125.6
126.4
.6
3.1
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar w o rke rs ......................................................................
Professional specialty and te c h n ic a l....................................
Executive, administrative, and managerial ........................
Administrative support, including c le ric a l............................
Blue-collar w o rk e rs ........................................................................
119.5
119.6
119.0
119.2
118.3
119.6
119.7
*119.2
119.6
118.7
121.5
121.7
121.0
121.0
120.5
121.9
122.0
121.6
121.6
121.4
122.6
122.5
122.8
122.7
122.3
122.9
122.7
123.4
123.3
122.7
124.9
125.0
124.7
124.9
124.2
125.5
125.5
125.3
125.6
124.7
126.2
126.0
126.9
126.3
125.4
.6
.4
1.3
.6
.6
2.9
2.9
3.3
2.9
2.5
Workers, by industry division:
S e rv ic e s .............................................................................................
Services excluding schools5 ....................................................
Health s e rv ice s .........................................................................
H o s p ita ls ...................................................................................
Educational s e rv ice s ...............................................................
S c h o o ls .....................................................................................
Elem entary and secondary ............................................
Colleges and universities................................................
Public administration3 ....................................................................
120.0
119.6
120.2
120.0
120.0
120.2
120.7
118.4
117.6
120.2
120.0
120.7
120.4
120.1
120.3
120.8
118.5
118.0
122.2
121.4
122.2
122.0
122.3
122.5
123.0
120.8
119.3
122.6
121.9
123.1
123.3
122.7
122.9
123.6
120.7
120.0
123.1
122.8
124.2
123.7
122.9
123.2
123.7
121.5
121.5
123.4
123.3
125.2
124.5
123.1
123.4
123.8
122.0
122.2
125.6
124.9
127.2
127.0
125.5
125.9
126.3
124.5
123.7
126.1
125.6
127.7
127.7
126.0
126.3
126.5
125.5
124.2
126.7
126.4
128.4
128.4
126.5
126.8
127.1
126.0
125.4
.5
.6
.5
.5
.4
.4
.5
.4
1.0
2.9
2.9
3.4
3.8
2.9
2.9
2.7
3.7
3.2
Stateandlocal government workers ..................
1 Cost (cents per hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index
consists of wages, salaries, and employer cost of employee benefits.
2 Consist of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers)
and State and local government (excluding Federal Governm ent) workers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3 Consist of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
4 This series has the sam e industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly
Earnings Index, which was discontinued in January 1989.
5 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
109
Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations
22.
Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
(June 1 9 8 9 = 1 0 0 )
1993
1994
1995
Series
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Percent change
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
Mar. 1995
Civilianworkers1........................................
114.5
115.2
116.4
117.1
117.8
118.6
119.8
120.4
121.3
0.7
3.0
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers ........................................................................
Professional specialty and te c h n ic a l.......................................
Executive, administrative, and m a n a g e ria l............................
Administrative support, including clerical ..............................
Blue-collar w o rke rs ............................................................................
Service occupations..........................................................................
115.4
117.5
115.0
115.3
112.7
114.5
116.0
118.0
115.5
116.1
113.4
115.2
117.4
119.5
116.5
117.1
114.4
116.1
118.1
120.0
117.3
118.0
115.0
116.6
118.8
120.7
118.1
118.9
115.8
117.5
119.7
121.3
119.0
119.8
116.7
118.1
120.8
122.8
120.2
120.9
117.8
119.4
121.5
123.5
120.8
121.6
118.2
120.4
122.4
124.2
122.2
122.8
119.2
121.2
.7
.6
1.2
1.0
.8
.7
3.0
2.9
3.5
3.3
2.9
3.1
Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing..................................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................................
S ervice-producing...............................................................................
Services .............................................................................................
Health services ............................................................................
Hospitals .....................................................................................
Educational services ..................................................................
Public administration 2 ..................................................................
Nonm anufacturing.............................................................................
113.8
114.7
114.8
117.4
119.5
118.9
117.9
114.4
114.4
114.6
115.5
115.5
117.8
120.3
119.5
118.0
114.9
115.1
115.4
116.3
116.8
119.5
121.4
120.7
120.4
115.9
116.4
116.2
117.3
117.5
120.0
122.2
121.7
120.7
116.6
117.0
117.0
118.0
118.2
120.9
122.8
122.4
121.0
117.9
117.7
118.0
119.0
118.9
121.3
123.4
123.0
121.3
118.5
118.5
119.0
120.0
120.2
122.8
124.4
124.0
123.8
119.9
119.7
119.6
120.8
120.7
123.5
125.4
124.9
124.3
120.6
120.2
120.5
121.9
121.7
124.4
126.1
125.5
125.0
121.9
121.1
.8
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.6
1.1
.7
3.0
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.5
3.3
3.4
2.9
113.9
114.2
114.6
115.0
115.7
115.9
116.4
116.6
117.2
117.5
118.1
118.3
119.1
119.4
119.7
120.0
120.6
121.0
.8
.8
2.9
3.0
114.7
115.7
117.1
115.5
116.4
117.9
116.7
117.4
118.9
117.5
118.2
119.5
118.3
119.0
120.4
119.3
119.9
121.3
120.2
121.0
122.2
120.8
121.7
123.0
121.7
122.8
123.7
.7
.9
.6
2.9
3.2
2.7
114.7
110.5
115.3
111.6
116.2
113.8
117.0
114.7
117.8
114.8
118.8
116.2
120.0
116.5
120.5
116.7
121.9
116.9
1.2
.2
3.5
1.8
Privateindustryworkers..............................
Excluding sales o c cu p a tio n s ...................................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar w o rk e rs ...................................................................
Excluding sales occupations.............................................
Professional specialty and technical oc cu p a tio n s .......
Executive, administrative, and managerial
o c c u p a tio n s ..............................................................................
Sales occupations....................................................................
Administrative support occupations, including
c le ric a l........................................................................................
116.1
117.1
118.0
119.0
119.9
120.9
121.6
122.9
1.1
3.3
113.2
114.1
114.8
115.6
116.5
117.5
118.0
119.0
.8
2.9
112.4
113.2
110.0
113.2
113.8
111.2
114.2
114.7
111.7
114.7
115.6
112.6
115.5
116.2
113.5
116.5
117.2
114.0
117.8
118.0
115.2
117.9
118.8
115.6
118.8
119.6
117.0
.8
.7
1.2
2.9
2.9
3.1
116.6
117.3
117.9
118.9
120.1
1.0
3.0
116.3
116.8
117.6
118.8
119.4
.5
2.7
116.6
117.5
118.5
119.1
119.9
.7
2.8
116.9
116.4
119.1
117.7
115.6
116.4
118.0
117.4
120.3
118.8
116.6
117.7
118.9
118.4
121.1
119.8
117.5
120.1
119.6
119.1
122.0
120.8
118.1
119.7
120.4
119.9
123.0
121.8
118.8
120.6
.7
.7
.8
.8
.6
.8
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.5
2.8
3.6
113.6
114.3
114.9
115.7
Service o c c u p a tio n s ...................................................................
113.5
114.1
114.9
115.3
Production and nonsupervisory occupations3 ..................
113.4
114.2
115,3
115.9
Workers, by industry division:
G oods-producing...........................................................................
Excluding sales o c cupations..............................................
White-collar o c c u p a tio n s ........................................................
Excluding sales o c cupations..............................................
Blue-collar occupations ...........................................................
Service o c cupations..................................................................
113.8
113.5
115.4
114.9
112.8
113.9
114.5
114.2
116.4
115.6
113.4
114.4
115.3
114.9
117.3
116.4
114.1
115.7
116.1
115.6
118.2
116.8
114.9
116.9
Construction ..................................................................................
109.5
110.4
111.3
111.1
112.2
113.6
114.6
114.7
114.8
.1
2.3
M anufacturing...............................................................................
White-collar occup a tio n s ....................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Blue-collar o c c u p a tio n s ......................................................
Service oc cupations.............................................................
D u ra b le s ......................................................................................
N ondu rables...............................................................................
114.7
116.0
115.3
113.9
114.3
114.4
115.5
115.5
116.9
115.9
114.5
114.5
115.1
116.3
116.3
•117.7
116.7
115.2
116.0
115.9
116.9
117.3
118.8
117.2
116.2
117.3
117.2
117.5
118.0
119.5
118.0
116.9
116.8
117.8
118.3
119.0
120.6
119.1
117.8
118.2
118.7
119.5
120.0
121.7
120.2
118.7
120.6
119.8
120.3
120.8
122.7
121.4
119.5
120.6
120.8
120.8
121.9
123.9
122.4
120.4
121.5
121.9
121.9
.9
1.0
.8
.8
.7
.9
.9
3.3
3.7
3.7
3.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
Service-producing.........................................................................
Excluding sales o c cupations..............................................
White-collar o c c u p a tio n s ........................................................
Excluding sales o c cu p a tio n s ...........................................
Blue-collar occupations ...........................................................
Service occupations..................................................................
113.9
114.8
114.5
116.0
111.9
113.5
114.7
115.6
115.2
116.8
112.9
114.1
115.9
116.6
116.5
117.8
114.1
114.9
116.6
117.4
117.3
118.7
114.6
115.2
117.3
118.3
118.0
119.6
115.5
116.3
118.2
119.0
118.9
120.4
116.2
116.7
119.2
120.2
119.9
121.5
117.5
117.3
119.7
120.7
120.4
122.1
117.6
118.7
120.7
121.8
121.3
123.2
119.2
119.3
.8
.9
.7
.9
1.4
.5
2.9
3.0
2.8
3.0
3.2
2.6
Transportation and public utilities ......................................
Transp o rtatio n ..........................................................................
Public utilities............................................................................
Communications -.................................................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary s e rv ic e s ..............................
112.9
110.8
115.4
114.7
116.3
114.0
112.0
116.4
115.6
117.4
114.7
112.6
117.2
116.5
118.2
115.4
113.4
117.9
117.1
118.8
116.4
114.2
119.1
118.4
119.9
117.2
114.8
120.1
119.5
120.9
118.9
116.7
121.4
121.0
121.9
119.6
117.5
122.3
122.1
122.4
121.2
119.0
123.9
124.3
123.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.8
.8
4.1
4.2
4.0
5.0
2.9
S ee footnotes at end of table.
no
115.2
112.5
Blue-collar w o rk e rs .....................................................................
Precision production, craft, and repair
o c cupations.............................................................................
Machine operators, assemblers, and insp ec to rs ..........
Transportation and material moving oc cupations........
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and
la b o re rs ......................................................................................
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
22. Continued— Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
(June 1989 = 100)
1994
1993
1995
Series
Mar.
Sept.
June
Dec.
Mar.
Sept.
June
Dec.
Mar.
Percent change
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
Mar. 1995
W holesale and retail tr a d e ....................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
W holesale trade ....................................................................
Excluding sales occupations .......................................
Retail tr a d e ..............................................................................
Food s to r e s .........................................................................
G eneral m erchandise s to re s .........................................
113.0
113.6
113.9
114.7
112.6
114.6
112.4
114.2
114.4
115.1
115.5
113.8
115.4
113.4
114.7
115.2
115.1
116.3
114.5
114.9
114.5
115.4
116.1
116.4
117.5
115.0
115.9
115.0
115.5
116.5
116.2
117.8
115.2
117.0
114.0
117.4
117.8
118.3
118.8
117.0
117.8
116.4
118.3
118.7
118.9
119.6
118.0
117.4
116.5
118.4
118.8
119.9
120.2
117.8
117.3
117.5
119.4
120.2
120.9
122.2
118.7
117.8
117.9
0.8
1.2
.8
1.7
.8
.4
.3
3.4
3.2
4.0
3.7
3.0
.7
3.4
Finance, insurance, and real e s t a te .................................
Excluding sales o c c u p a tio n s .......................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other
credit a g e n c ie s ....................................................................
In su ra n c e .................................................................................
109.3
112.0
109.3
113.1
112.3
114.0
112.9
114.6
113.7
115.5
113.2
116.0
113.8
117.2
114.2
117.4
115.0
119.3
.7
1.6
1.1
3.3
112.1
111.2
112.9
112.9
113.7
113.9
114.5
116.6
114.7
116.0
115.0
116.8
116.5
117.7
116.2
118.6
119.2
119.8
2.6
1.0
3.9
3.3
S e rv ic e s .......................................................................................
Business s e rv ic e s ...................................................................
Health s e rv ic e s .......................................................................
Hospitals ................................................................................
Educational s e rv ic e s .............................................................
Colleges and universities.................................................
117.0
114.2
119.8
119.3
117.5
118.0
117.6
114.6
120.7
119.9
117.4
117.7
118.9
115.3
121.7
121.0
120.7
121.3
119.6
115.7
122.6
122.0
120.9
121.6
120.8
118.8
123.1
122.8
121.2
122.0
121.3
119.4
123.5
123.3
122.2
122.2
122.2
119.9
124.3
123.9
124.9
124.5
123.0
120.4
125.4
124.8
125.1
124.9
123.9
122.1
126.2
125.4
125.6
125.5
.7
1.4
.6
.5
.4
.5
2.6
2.8
2.5
2.1
3.6
2.9
N onm anufacturing.......................................................................
White-collar o c cupations.......................................................
Excluding sales occupations.............................................
Blue-collar occup a tio n s .........................................................
Service occupations ...............................................................
113.4
114.4
115.8
111.1
113.4
114.2
115.2
116.6
111.9
114.1
115.4
116.4
117.6
113.0
114.8
116.0
117.2
118.5
113.4
115.1
116.8
117.9
119.4
114.2
116.3
117.7
118.9
120.2
115.1
116.7
118.7
119.7
121.3
116.4
117.3
119.1
120.2
121.8
116.4
118.6
120.0
121.1
122.9
117.5
119.2
.8
.7
.9
.9
.5
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.5
Stateandlocal government workers.................
117.2
117.4
119.3
119.7
120.4
120.7
122.8
123.4
124.3
.7
3.2
Workers, by occupational group:
W hite-collar w o rk e rs ..................................................................
Professional specialty and technical ................................
Executive, administrative, and m anagerial......................
Administrative support, including c le ric a l........................
Blue-collar w o rk e rs .....................................................................
117.5
118.1
116.5
115.4
116.2
117.6
118.2
116.6
115.9
116.5
119.6
120.4
118.2
117.2
118.4
119.9
120.7
118.8
117.8
119.0
120.6
121.1
119.8
118.9
119.7
120.9
121.3
120.3
119.4
120.1
122.9
123.6
121.6
120.9
121.8
123.6
124.2
122.4
121.7
122.5
124.4
124.8
124.1
122.5
123.1
.6
.5
1.4
.7
.5
3.2
3.1
3.6
3.0
2.8
Workers, by industry division:
Services .........................................................................................
Services excluding schools4 ................................................
Health s e rv ic e s ......................................................................
H o s p ita ls ...............................................................................
Educational s e rv ice s ...............................................................
S c h o o ls .....................................................................................
Elem entary and secondary ............................................
Colleges and universities................................................
Public administration 2 ...............................................................
118.1
118.4
118.1
117.6
118.0
117.9
118.7
115.5
114.4
118.2
118.7
118.8
118.2
118.1
118.0
118.8
115.6
114.9
120.3
120.1
120.4
119.9
120.3
120.3
121.1
117.8
115.9
120.6
120.4
121.0
120.7
120.6
120.7
121.6
117.7
116.6
121.1
121.3
121.9
121.2
120.9
121.0
121.7
118.6
117.9
121.3
121.9
122.9
122.0
121.1
121.2
121.8
119.2
118.5
123.6
123.2
124.7
124.2
123.6
123.8
124.5
121.5
119.9
124.2
124.0
125.3
125.1
124.2
124.3
124.9
122.5
120.6
124.9
125.0
126.0
125.8
124.8
125.0
125.5
123.2
121.9
.6
.8
.6
.6
.5
.6
.5
.6
1.1
3.1
3.1
3.4
3.8
3.2
3.3
3.1
3.9
3.4
1 Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers)
and S tate and local government (excluding Federal Governm ent) workers.
2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
23.
3 This series has the sam e industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly
Earnings Index, which was discontinued in January 1989.
4 Includes, for example, library, social and health services.
Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry workers by occupation and industry group
(June 1989 = 100)
1993
1994
1995
Series
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Percent change
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
Mar. 1995
Privateindustryworkers ................................
125.2
126.7
127.7
128.3
130.7
131.7
132.8
133.0
134.5
1.1
2.9
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers ........................................................................
Blue-collar w o rke rs ............................................................................
124.7
125.5
125.9
127.3
126.8
128.4
127.6
128.9
130.5
130.5
131.6
131.5
132.8
132.7
133.3
132.5
135.2
133.3
1.4
.6
3.6
2.1
Workers, by industry group:
G oods-producing...............................................................................
Service-producing ...:.........................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................................
Nonm anufacturing.............................................................................
127.3
123.4
126.8
124.2
129.0
124.6
128.6
125.5
130.0
125.7
129.7
126.5
130.3
126.7
130.0
127.4
132.7
128.9
132.0
129.9
133.9
129.7
133.0
130.8
134.8
131.2
133.9
132.2
134.8
131.5
134.3
132.3
135.9
133.2
135.4
133.9
.8
1.3
.8
1.2
2.4
3.3
2.6
3.1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
111
Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations
24.
Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size
(June 1 9 8 9 = 1 0 0 )
1993
1994
1995
Percent change
3
months
ended
Series
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
12
months
ended
Mar. 1995
COMPENSATION
Workers, bybargainingstatus1
Union ........................................................................................................
G oods-producing...............................................................................
S ervice-producing..............................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................................
Nonm anufacturing.............................................................................
117.8
118.7
116.7
119.8
116.3
119.1
120.0
117.7
121.1
117.4
120.0
121.0
118.6
121.9
118.5
120.9
121.9
119.6
123.0
119.3
121.9
122.5
121.0
123.6
120.5
123.0
123.8
121.8
124.8
121.5
123.8
124.4
122.9
125.3
122.6
124.2
124.7
123.6
125.8
123.0
125.1
125.2
124.8
126.3
124.0
0.7
.4
2.6
1.0
3.1
N o n u n io n .................................................................................................
Goods-producing ...............................................................................
Service-producing..............................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................................
Nonmanufacturing .............................................................................
116.8
117.7
116.3
118.1
116.3
117.7
118.6
117.2
119.0
117.2
118.8
119.4
118.4
120.0
118.3
119.5
119.9
119.2
120.6
119.0
120.7
121.5
120.3
122.0
120.2
121.7
122.6
121.1
122.9
121.1
122.7
123.6
122.2
124.0
122.2
123.2
124.1
122.7
124.8
122.5
124.3
125.2
123.8
126.1
123.6
.9
.9
.9
117.8
116.2
117.9
116.2
119.1
117.0
119.3
116.4
120.2
118.1
120.1
117.8
120.7
118.8
121.2
118.1
121.6
120.0
122.8
119.4
122.8
120.8
123.6
120.5
124.0
121.8
124.6
121.3
124.3
122.5
125.0
121.7
125.6
123.7
125.8
122.6
117.1
117.0
118.1
117.8
119.1
118.7
119.8
119.7
120.9
121.3
121.9
122.5
122.9
123.2
123.4
123.5
124.5
124.8
1.1
3.0
2.9
Union ........................................................................................................
Goods-producing ...............................................................................
Service-producing..............................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................................
Nonmanufacturing .............................................................................
113.1
112.2
114.2
113.2
113.0
113.9
113.0
115.1
113.9
113.9
114.8
113.8
116.0
114.6
114.9
115.7
114.8
116.8
115.9
115.5
116.5
115.4
118.0
116.6
116.4
117.6
116.7
118.7
117.8
117.3
118.6
117.5
120.1
118.5
118.6
119.1
117.9
120.6
119.2
119.0
119.8
118.4
121.6
119.8
119.8
.6
.4
.8
.5
.7
2.8
2.6
3.1
2.7
2.9
N o n u n io n ..................................................................................................
Goods-producing ...............................................................................
Service-producing..............................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................................
N onm anufacturing.............................................................................
114.1
114.4
113.8
115.4
113.5
114.8
115.2
114.6
116.1
114.3
115.9
116.0
115.9
117.0
115.5
116.6
116.7
116.6
117.9
116.1
117.4
117.6
117.2
118.6
116.9
118.3
118.6
118.1
119.5
117.8
119.2
119.5
119.0
120.5
118.7
119.8
120.3
119.5
121.5
119.1
120.8
121.3
120.5
122.7
120.0
.8
.8
.8
1.0
.8
2.9
3.1
2.8
3.5
2.7
' 114.6
113.6
113.5
113.6
115.7
114.3
114.6
113.7
116.8
115.3
115.2
115.3
117.3
116.0
116.5
115.7
117.8
116.6
117.5
116.6
118.8
117.4
118.3
117.9
120.0
118.5
119.5
118.1
120.2
119.1
120.1
119.0
121.3
120.0
120.9
119.9
.9
.8
.7
.8
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.8
113.9
113.5
114.7
114.4
115.8
115.0
116.5
115.8
117.2
117.0
118.1
118.1
119.1
118.6
119.7
119.0
120.6
120.5
.8
1.3
2.9
3.0
2.2
.4
.8
1.0
3.4
.9
2.8
1.0
1.0
.6
3.3
3.1
2.4
2.7
Workers, byregion 1
N o rth e a s t.................................................................................................
South ........................................................................................................
Midwest (formerly North C e n tra l)....................................................
W e s t ...........................................................................................................
.7
Workers, byarea size 1
Metropolitan a r e a s ...............................................................................
Other a r e a s .............................................................................................
.9
WAGESANDSALARIES
Workers, bybargainingstatus 1
Workers, byregion1
N o rth e a s t.................................................................................................
South ........................................................................................................
Midwest (formerly North C e n tra l)....................................................
W e s t ...........................................................................................................
Workers, byareasize'
Metropolitan a r e a s ...............................................................................
Other a r e a s .............................................................................................
' The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and
industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the
112
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
Monthly
Labor Review Technical
Employment Cost Index,” May 1982.
Note,
“Estimation
procedures
for
the
25.
Percent of full-time employees participating in employer-provided benefit plans, 1980-91
Small
private
establish
ments2
Medium and large private establishments’
Item
1980
1981
1982
10
10
-
75
75
99
10.2
23
99
65
9
25
76
25
99
10.0
24
3.8
99
67
1983
1984
1985
1986
1988
1989
1991
State and local
governments3
1987
1990
1990
Tlme-off plans
Participants with:
Paid lunch time ..........................................................
Average minutes per d a y ....................................
Paid rest t i m e .............................................................
Average minutes per d a y ....................................
Paid funeral le a v e .....................................................
Average days per o c cu rre n c e ...........................
Paid holidays ..............................................................
Average days per y e a r ........................................
Paid personal le a v e ..................................................
Average days per y e a r ........................................
Paid v a c a tio n s ............................................................
Paid sick le a v e ...........................................................
Unpaid maternity leave ...........................................
Unpaid paternity leave ............................................
99
10.1
20
100
62
11
25
74
25
99
9.8
25
3.7
100
67
9
26
73
26
99
9.8
23
3.6
99
67
10
27
72
26
88
3.2
98
10.1
26
3.7
99
67
-
10
27
72
26
88
3.2
99
10.0
25
3.7
100
70
11
29
72
26
85
3.2
96
9.4
24
3.3
98
69
10
26
71
26
84
3.3
97
9.2
22
3.1
97
68
8
30
67
26
80
3.3
92
10.2
21
3.3
96
67
8
37
48
27
47
2.9
84
9.5
11
2.8
88
47
4 17
34
4 58
29
56
3.7
81
10.9
38
2.7
72
97
11
36
56
29
63
3.7
74
13.6
39
2.9
67
95
-
33
16
37
18
37
26
17
8
57
30
51
33
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
97
97
96
97
96
95
90
92
83
69
93
93
-
-
60
99
-
62
99
50
37
37
58
99
53
43
46
62
99
61
52
56
67
99
68
61
66
70
99
70
66
76
79
98
80
74
75
80
97
97
96
81
80
98
97
96
79
83
98
97
94
76
78
98
87
86
82
79
99
99
98
33
$10.13
54
$32.51
36
$11.93
58
$35.93
36
$12.05
56
$38.33
43
$12.80
63
$41.40
44
$19.29
64
$60.07
47
$25.31
66
$72.10
51
$26.60
69
$96.97
42
$25.13
67
$109.34
35
$15.74
71
$71.89
Insuranceplans
Participants in medical care p la n s ..........................
Participants with coverage for:
Hom e health c a r e ..................................................
Extended care facilities .......................................
Mental health c a r e ................................................
Alcohol abuse tre a tm e n t.....................................
Drug abuse treatm ent ..........................................
Participants with employee contribution
required for:
Self coverage .........................................................
Average monthly contribution ........................
Family c o v e ra g e .....................................................
Average monthly contribution5 ......................
Participants in life insurance p la n s .........................
Participants with:
Accidental death and dismemberment
insu ra n c e ............................................................
Survivor income benefits ....................................
Retiree protection a v a ila b le ...............................
97
58
98
-
38
$25.53
65
$117.59
26
27
-
27
-
46
49
51
-
-
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
92
94
94
64
85
88
69
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
-
64
64
66
74
64
73
13
62
72
10
59
76
8
49
71
7
42
71
6
44
78
1
19
67
1
55
67
1
45
40
41
43
45
47
48
48
42
45
40
19
31
27
54
50
51
49
51
52
49
46
43
45
26
14
21
84
84
84
82
82
80
76
63
63
59
20
93
90
55
98
56
98
-
58
97
-
53
45
63
97
47
54
56
-
67
97
41
57
61
7 53
64
98
35
57
62
7 60
59
98
26
55
62
45
62
97
22
64
63
48
55
98
7
56
54
48
54
95
7
58
49
31
92
90
33
100
18
9
89
88
16
100
8
9
33
36
41
44
17
28
45
2
5
5
12
9
23
10
36
1
8
5
5
5
31
-
Participants in long-term disability insurance
p la n s ...........................................................................
Participants in sickness and accident insurance
p la n s ...........................................................................
Retirement plans
Participants in defined benefit pension p la n s '....
Participants with:
Normal retirement prior to age 6 5 ...................
Early retirement available ...................................
Ad hoc pension increase in last 5 y e a r s .......
Terminal earnings fo rm u la .................................
Benefit coordinated with Social S ecurity.......
Participants in defined contribution p la n s ............
Participants in plans with tax-deferred savings
arrangem ents .........................................................
50
43
52
45
-
-
-
64
97
51
54
55
-
-
-
-
-
-
26
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other benefits
Employees eligible for:
Flexible benefits plans ............................................
Reim bursem ent a c c o u n ts ......................................
1 From 1979 to 1986, data were collected in private sector establishments
with a minimum employment varying from 50 to 2 50 employees, depending
upon industry. In addition, coverage in service industries was limited. Begin
ning in 1988, data were collected in all private sector establishments
employing 100 workers or more in all industries.
2 Includes private sector establishments with fewer than 100 workers.
3 In 1987, coverage excluded local governments employing fewer than 50
workers. In 1990, coverage included all State and local governments.
4 Data exclude college teachers.
5 Data for 1983 refer to the average monthly employee contribution for
dependent coverage, excluding the employee. Beginning in 1984, data refer
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
to the average monthly employee contribution for family coverage, which
includes the employee.
8 Prior to 1985, data on participation in defined benefit pension plans
included a small percentage of workers participating in money purchase
pension plans.
Beginning in 1985, these workers were classified as
participating in defined contribution plans.
7 Includes employees who participated in Payroll-based Employee Stock
Ownership Plans. Beginning in 1987, these plans were no longer available.
NOTE:
Dash indicates data were not collected in this year.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
113
Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations
26. Specified compensation and wage rate changes from contract settlements, and wage rate changes under all
agreements, private industry collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent)
Annual average
Quarterly average
Measure
1993
1992
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
3.0
2.4
3.2
2.6
1.0
1.4
3.8
2.5
3.0
2.6
3.4
2.9
0.0
1.4
1.5
2.1
1.4
1.6
2.7
3.0
2.3
2.1
2.5
2.5
1.1
1.7
2.8
2.0
3.0
2.4
2.0
2.4
1.0
1.9
2.2
2.5
1.9
1.9
3.1
3.0
.9
.8
.7
.4
.8
.9
.6
.3
.8
1.9
.4
.9
1.9
.2
.2
.7
.1
.1
.6
.5
.2
.1
.3
.2
.6
.1
.1
.7
.1
.2
.3
.1
.0
.2
.0
R a te c ha nges und er settlem en ts:
Specified total compensation changes,
settlements covering 5 ,000 workers or more:
First year of c o n tr a c t...........................................
Annual average over life of c o n tra c t.......................
3.0
3.1
Specified wage changes, settlements covering
1,000 workers or more:
First year of c o n tra c t....................................................
Annual average over life of c o n tra c t.......................
W a g e ra te cha n g e s u n d e r all agree m e nts :
Average wage change ' ..................................................
Source:
Current s ettle m e n ts ..............................................
Prior s e ttlem e n ts ...............................................
COLA provisions....................................................
1 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
2 M ore than zero but less than 0 .05 percent.
114
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
1995
1994
1993
i2)
p
l2)
= preliminary.
i2)
P
27. Specified compensation and wage rate changes from contract settlements, and wage rate changes under all
agreements, private industry collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more during 4-quarter
periods (in percent)
______
Average for four quarters ending--
lp
IV
III
II
I
IV
III
II
1995
1994
1993
Measure
R a te cha n g e s u n d er s ettlem en ts:
Specified total compensation changes, settlements covering
5 ,000 workers or more, all industries:
First year of c o n tra c t...........................................................................................
Annual average over life of contract ............................................................
2.9
2.9
2.1
2.4
3.0
2.4
3.0
2.3
3.1
2.4
3.1
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.1
2.3
Specified wage changes, settlements covering 1,000 workers or
more:
All industries:
First year of c o n tra c t........................................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses ...................................................................
Contracts without COLA c la u s e s ..............................................................
Contracts with either lump sums, COLA, or b o th ...............................
Contracts with neither lump sums nor C O L A .......................................
Annual average over life of c o n tra c t..........................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses ...................................................................
Contracts without COLA c la u s e s ..............................................................
Contracts with either lump sums, COLA, or b o th ...............................
Contracts with neither lump sums nor C O L A .......................................
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.0
2.5
1.8
2.3
1.7
2.3
2.1
2.4
2.1
2.5
2.3
2.8
2.1
2.6
2.0
2.1
1.4
2.5
1.9
2.5
2.4
2.7
2.3
2.6
2.1
2.1
1.0
2.5
1.8
2.5
2.2
3.0
1.9
2.8
1.5
2.1
1.5
2.4
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.9
2.0
2.7
1.6
2.2
1.7
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.7
1.8
2.5
1.6
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.8
2.5
1.6
2.3
1.5
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.3
Manufacturing:
First year of c o n tra c t........................................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses ...................................................................
Contracts without COLA c la u s e s .............................................................
Contracts with either lump sums, COLA, or b o th ...............................
Contracts with neither lump sums nor C O L A .......................................
Annual average over life of c o n tra c t..........................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses ...................................................................
Contracts without COLA c la u s e s .............................................................
Contracts with either lump sums, COLA, or b o th ...............................
Contracts with neither lump sums nor C O L A .......................................
2.8
2.4
3.0
2.3
3.3
2.6
2.3
2.8
2.2
3.0
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.3
3.1
2.1
1.9
2.5
1.8
2.9
2.7
2.9
2.3
2.7
2.9
1.5
1.3
2.1
1.3
2.5
2.5
2.7
1.9
2.4
2.6
1.3
1.0
1.9
1.0
2.3
2.7
3.0
1.9
2.7
2.6
1.5
1.3
2.0
1.4
2.3
2.6
3.0
1.9
2.7
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.9
1.5
2.0
2.4
3.0
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.1
2.3
2.2
2.2
2 .6
1.8
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.3
1.9
2.1
2.2
Nonmanufacturing:
. First year of c o n tra c t........................................................................................
Contracts with CO LA clauses ...................................................................
Contracts without COLA c la u s e s ..............................................................
Contracts with either lump sums, COLA, or b o th ...............................
Contracts with neither lump sums nor C O L A .......................................
Annual average over life of c o n tra c t..........................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses ...................................................................
Contracts without CO LA c la u s e s ..............................................................
Contracts with either lump sums, COLA, or b o th ...............................
Contracts with neither lump sums nor C O L A .......................................
2.5
3.0
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.7
1.7
2.5
1.6
2.3
1.5
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.1
1.8
2.1
2.4
1.8
2.5
2.3
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
1.9
2.3
2.8
2.0
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.0
2.9
1.9
2.9
1.3
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.7
2.2
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.8
1.4
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.7
2.3
1.8
2.2
1.8
2.6
1.6
2.3
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.3
1.6
2.2
1.5
2.4
1.4
2.3
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.3
Construction:
First year of c o n tra c t........................................................................................
Annual average over life of c o n tra c t..........................................................
1.8
2.4
2.0
2.4
2.1
2.6
2.4
2.7
1.7
2.5
1.8
2.6
1.8
2.5
1.5
2.4
2.9
2.6
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.6
.8
1.9
.2
.6
1.9
.2
.5
1.9
.3
W a g e ra te cha n g e s und er all agree m e nts :
Average wage change' .........................................................................................
Source:
Current s ettle m e n ts .............................................................................................
Prior settlem e n ts ...................................................................................................
CO LA provisions...................................................................................................
.7
1.8
.4
.6
1.8
3
.9
1.9
.2
.9
1.8
.2
.9
1.7
.2
' Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
p = preliminary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
115
Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations
28. Specified changes in the cost of compensation and components annualized over the life of the contract in
private industry collective bargaining settlements covering 5,000 workers or more, by quarter, and during 4-quarter
periods (in percent)
II
III
1995
1994
1993
Measure
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
0.8
.9
.9
.5
1.2
1.5
1.5
.6
1.1
1.2
1.1
.9
Quarterly average
All industries:
C om p e n s atio n .......................................................................................................
Cash p a ym e n ts ....................................................................................................
W a g e s ...............................................................................
B e n e fits ..............................................................................................
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.8
0.9
.8
.7
1.1
1.8
1.4
1.4
2.4
2.0
1.9
1.7
2.1
1.9
1.4
1.4
2.7
Average for four quarters
116
All industries:
C om p e n s atio n .......................................................................................................
Cash p a ym e n ts ....................................................................................................
W a g e s ................................................................................................................
B e n e fits ................................................................................................................
With contingent pay provisions:
C om p e n s atio n .......................................................................................................
Cash p a y m e n ts ....................................................................................................
W a g e s ..................................................................................................................
B e n e fits ...................................................................................................................
Without contingent pay provisions:
C om pensation.......................................................................................................
Cash p a y m e n ts ....................................................................................................
W a g e s ..................................................................................................................
B e n e fits ...................................................................................................................
1.9
1.7
1.8
2.3
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.3
2.1
1.6
1.3
1.3
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.3
2.2
1.7
1.4
1.4
2.2
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.8
1.4
1.3
1,3
1.6
2.0
1.7
1.9
2.5
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.4
2.0
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.8
1.7
1.3
1.4
2.3
1.9
1.4
1.6
2.5
2.2
1.8
1.7
3.0
2.1
1.7
1.6
2.8
1.9
1.7
1.7
2.3
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.7
1.4
1.3
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.4
2.2
1.6
1.3
1.1
2.1
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.8
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Manufacturing:
C om pensation.......................................................................................................
Cash p a ym e n ts .....................................................................................................
W a g e s ..................................................................................................................
B e n e fits ...................................................................................................................
1.8
1.3
1.7
2.7
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.2
.8
1.1
1.6
1.1
.7
.9
1.5
1.3
.9
1.1
1.9
1.5
1.0
1.2
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.6
2.3
1.7
1.6
1.4
2.0
Nonmanufacturing:
C om p e n s atio n .......................................................................................................
Cash p a ym e n ts ....................................................................................................
W a g e s ..................................................................................................................
B e n e fits ...................................................................................................................
2.0
1.8
1.8
2.2
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.5
2.4
2.0
1.8
1.6
2.3
1.8
1.5
1.4
2.4
1.8
1.6
1.5
2.2
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.5
Goods-producing:
C om p e n s atio n .......................................................................................................
Cash p a ym e n ts .....................................................................................................
W a g e s ..................................................................................................................
B e n e fits ...................................................................................................................
1.9
1.6
1.8
2.7
1.6
1.4
1.5
2.1
1.4
1.1
1.2
1.9
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.5
Service-producing:
C om pensation.......................................................................................................
Cash pa ym e n ts .....................................................................................................
W a g e s ..................................................................................................................
B e n e fits ...................................................................................................................
2.0
1.8
1.8
2.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.8
1.5
1.5
2.3
1.8
1.6
1.5
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.5
2.7
2.0
1.6
1.6
2.6
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.8
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
29. Specified compensation and wage rate changes from contract settlements, and wage rate changes under all agreements,
State and local government collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent)
Annual average
Measure
1992
1993
1994
Total compensation 1 c h a n g e s ,2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more:
First year of c o n tr a c t............................................................................................................
Annual average over life of c o n tra c t...............................................................................
0.6
1.9
0.9
1.8
2.8
3.1
W age changes, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more:
First year of c o n tr a c t..........................................................................
Annual average over life of c o n tra c t.............................................
1.1
2.1
1.1
2.1
2.7
3.0
1.9
2.8
3.3
.8
1.1
1.6
1.1
1.4
1.9
<4)
<4)
(4)
Changes under settlements:
W age changes under all agreements:
Average wage change 3 ......................
Source:
Current s ettlem e n ts ........................
Prior settlem e n ts ..............................
CO LA provisions..............................
1 Compensation includes wages,
benefits when contract is negotiated.
2 Changes
30.
are the
salaries,
and
net result of increases,
employers’ cost of employee
decreases,
and zero change
in
compensation or wages.
3 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
4 Less than 0 .05 percent.
Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more
Annual totals
1995
1994
Measure
1993
Number of stoppages:
Beginning in p e rio d .........................
In effect during p e rio d ...................
Workers involved:
Beginning in period (in
th ou sands)........................................
In effect during period (in
thou sa n d s )........................................
Days idle:
Number (in thou sands)..................
Percent of estimated working
tim e' ...................................................
1994
May
June
Sept.
Nov.
Oct.
Jan.p
Dec.
Apr.p
M ar.p
Feb.p
35
36
45
45
4
6
9
11
4
9
5
11
7
14
4
9
1
6
0
4
1
4
1
4
4
7
2
5
18.2
322.2
13.5
38.7
14.3
58.6
32.0
8.0
2.6
.0
37:7
3.0
17.6
32.0
18.4
322.2
18.0
43.2
33.1
88.2
59.4
32.7
26.8
17.2
52.9
18.2
32.8
56.9
3,981.0
5,020.5
133.5
367.0
436.1
678.5
638.5
505.9
420.8
342.2
368.5
306.8
367.8
529.7
.01
.02
.02
.01
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.01
.01
.01
.01
1 Agricultural and government em ployees are included in the total employed and
total working time: private household, forestry, and fishery em ployees are excluded.
An explanation of the measurem ent of idleness as a percentage of the total time
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Aug.
July
worked is found in “ T o ta l econom y’ m easure of strike idleness,” Monthly Labor R e
view, O ctober 1968, pp. 54-56.
p = preliminary.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
117
Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
31. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
(1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Annual
average
Series
1994
1995
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
149.4
134.8
145.6
128.1
130.3
131.2
132.8
125.1
149.5
134.9
145.6
128.3
130.2
132.3
132.2
125.7
149.7
135.2
145.9
128.6
130.1
131.1
132.5
126.5
149.7
135.1
147.2
127.6
128.1
127.2
131.5
126.9
150.3
135.1
147.9
127.4
127.5
126.0
131.2
127.2
150.9
135.4
147.8
127.9
128.1
127.7
131.3
127.6
151.4
135.9
147.9
128.6
129.2
131.3
131.1
127.7
151.9
136.6
148.9
129.2
129.9
131.7
132.0
128.1
152.2
136.9
148.7
129.7
130.8
130.2
134.2
128.1
164.2
168.2
138.0
168.9
214.7
185.8
164.4
168.2
137.9
168.8
215.4
187.8
164.6
168.6
136.3
169.5
216.8
188.5
164.7
168.6
135.8
170.5
217.5
189.0
164.7
168.3
135.9
171.1
218.2
188.9
165.9
169.4
137.2
172.6
219.8
189.7
166.7
170.4
137.0
173.4
221.3
190.9
167.3
171.2
136.9
175.0
221.8
191.1
167.5
171.3
136.7
176.1
222.4
191.4
167.7
171.5
137.1
175.9
223.0
191.7
149.1
144.9
149.8
144.8
127.8
129.4
132.4
136.6
171.0
158.7
106.8
154.0
156.4
136.8
99.2
167.7
149.8
145.5
150.4
145.5
128.4
130.4
133.7
137.4
171.7
159.4
108.5
154.6
157.0
136.8
102.4
168.5
150.2
146.0
150.6
145.8
129.0
131.4
133.7
138.1
172.2
159.6
108.2
155.0
157.5
137.7
102.0
168.8
150.4
146.1
150.7
145.9
129.3
131.4
133.2
138.1
172.2
159.7
105.8
155.5
158.0
138.3
100.4
169.3
150.6
146.3
150.9
146.1
129.5
131.2
133.5
138.2
172.4
159.8
105.7
155.7
158.2
138.4
101.2
169.6
150.2
146.3
150.8
146.0
128.5
129.5
132.6
137.8
172.7
159.7
104.7
155.7
157.9
137.6
99.2
169.6
150.8
146.8
151.5
146.6
128.3
128.9
132.4
137.8
174.0
160.9
104.2
156.5
158.7
137.7
97.9
170.8
151.5
147.2
152.1
147.1
128.8
129.5
132.5
138.1
174.7
161.6
103.7
157.2
159.6
138.4
97.2
171.7
152.1
147.7
152.7
147.6
129.5
130.5
132.4
138.7
175.1
162.2
103.2
157.8
160.4
139.4
96.7
172.4
152.5
148.3
153.2
148.1
130.1
131.3
133.3
139.6
175.5
162.4
103.9
158.3
160.7
139.7
98.4
172.7
152.9
148.6
153.4
148.4
130.6
132.1
135.2
139.9
175.8
162.6
106.3
158.3
160.8
139.6
102.6
172.9
67.6
22.6
67.4
22.5
67.1
22.4
66.9
22.3
66.9
22.3
66.8
22.3
66.8
22.3
66.5
22.2
66.3
22.1
66.0
22.0
65.8
22.0
65.7
21.9
144.9
431.7
145.4
433.2
145.8
434.3
146.5
436.4
146.9
437.5
147.0
437.8
147.3
438.6
147.2
438.6
147.8
440.2
148.3
441.7
148.7
443.0
149.3
444.6
149.6
445 .6
144.4
143.9
143.4
162.7
137.0
131.5
164.2
135.3
135.2
133.5
122.9
147.2
145.5
151.0
143.7
143.1
142.4
162.0
137.0
131.7
162.3
132.7
135.4
133.4
116.1
146.7
145.2
150.9
143.8
143.2
142.4
163.1
137.0
132.1
161.1
132.7
134.7
133.4
116.2
146.9
145.4
151.3
144.4
143.8
143.4
163.6
136.4
131.6
163.8
135.4
135.1
135.1
122.4
147.4
145.5
151.1
144.9
144.4
144.1
164.4
136.9
131.6
162.3
138.3
135.1
134.0
130.2
148.1
145.8
150.7
145.1
144.6
144.4
164.6
137.2
131.0
162.6
138.8
135.4
134.2
130.9
148.5
146.1
150.9
145.1
144.6
144.1
164.3
136.6
131.2
162.0
139.0
135.7
135.0
131.5
148.2
146.3
151.1
145.3
144.8
144.3
163.5
136.7
131.4
164.5
138.5
134.5
134.1
131.1
147.8
146.7
151.3
146.6
146.2
146.3
163.9
136.0
131.4
178.8
138.3
134.4
134.1
130.6
148.0
147.0
151.4
147.2
146.9
147.2
164.3
137.1
132.4
178.8
139.7
135.5
136.3
132.2
149.1
147.3
151.6
147.3
146.9
147.1
165.6
137.4
131.8
175.8
140.2
135.8
136.7
132.9
149.5
147.5
152.0
147.3
146.8
146.8
165.1
138.1
131.9
172.7
140.3
136.4
136.7
132.2
150.2
147.9
152.7
148.3
147.9
148.2
166.7
137.3
131.8
182.1
140.4
136.6
137.1
132.1
150.3
148.2
153.2
148.1
147.7
147.8
166.3
136.9
132.5
179.8
140.4
137.3
136.9
131.0
151.0
148.5
153.4
142.0
156.2
148.5
153.7
196.6
150.9
151.1
139.7
130.8
138.1
121.1
122.5
111.1
88.7
118.7
150.8
119.7
109.6
132.5
140.6
141.3
155.3
147.7
153.0
194.9
150.0
150.2
138.1
130.9
138.8
120.6
121.9
110.0
88.6
117.4
151.0
119.7
109.9
132.2
140.2
142.1
155.8
148.4
153.1
199.1
150.3
150.5
139.1
131.5
139.1
121.4
124.0
113.5
87.6
121.5
151.1
120.0
110.1
132.7
140.3
142.5
156.4
149.5
153.6
204.2
150.7
150.9
140.5
131.4
139.1
121.1
124.0
113.6
87.0
121.7
150.9
120.1
110.3
132.5
140.6
143.0
157.2
150.3
154.2
206.7
151.5
151.7
141.4
131.3
139.1
120.9
124.0
113.5
86.6
121.6
151.1
120.0
110.1
132.5
140.9
143.0
157.4
148.9
154.7
194.1
152.3
152.6
141.7
131.8
139.4
121.6
123.9
113.3
86.7
121.5
150.9
120.0
109.8
132.9
141.5
142.8
157.7
149.2
154.9
194.4
152.8
153.0
141.9
131.0
139.5
120.0
122.0
110.2
86.9
117.8
150.9
120.1
109.5
133.9
141.7
142.7
157.9
148.8
155.4
189.6
153.1
153.3
142.4
131.4
140.0
120.2
121.5
109.3
87.6
116.7
150.9
119.8
109.5
133.0
141.4
142.7
157.7
148.5
155.4
187.2
153.1
153.3
142.9
132.4
140.3
121.9
121.6
109.5
88.3
116.8
151.1
119.7
109.1
133.3
141.5
143.5
158.6
149.9
155.7
195.3
153.6
153.8
143.2
132.8
140.5
122.5
122.5
110.1
89.3
117.4
152.4
120.5
109.2
134.1
145.6
144.0
159.3
151.3
156.1
202.9
154.0
154.2
143.4
133.2
140.8
123.0
122.2
109.7
89.5
116.9
152.2
121.2
109.9
134.8
146.0
144.3
159.9
152.3
156.4
208.5
154.3
154.5
144.2
133.7
141.7
123.1
121.9
109.1
88.9
116.3
152.3
121.4
109.9
135.9
146.1
144.4
160.1
152.1
156.7
205.8
154.7
154.9
144.5
133.7
141.9
122.9
121.6
108.4
88.3
115.6
152.7
121.4
109.9
136.2
145.9
144.6
160.3
152.0
156.9
203.8
155.1
155.3
144.6
134.1
142.3
123.2
122.0
109.1
88.2
116.3
152.8
121.5
109.8
136.6
146.2
May
June
July
Aug.
148.2
133.8
144.9
126.9
128.4
130.4
130.3
124.8
147.5
133.4
144.1
126.8
128.5
132.8
129.3
124.4
148.0
133.5
144.2
126.9
128.4
130.8
130.2
124.9
148.4
133.7
144.8
126.8
128.1
127.6
131.3
125.1
149.0
134.3
145.3
127.5
129.2
127.8
132.8
125.1
157.9
162.0
134.2
162.9
202.9
177.0
163.1
167.0
136.3
168.6
213.4
185.4
162.0
166.0
135.7
167.1
212.0
183.9
162.8
166.6
137.7
167.5
212.6
184.3
163.4
167.3
137.9
168.1
213.8
184.7
Special indexes:
All items less food ......................................................
All items less s h e lte r .......................................................
All items less hom eowners’ costs ( 1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) .............................
All items less medical c a r e ......................................................................
Commodities less f o o d ..............................................................................
Nondurables less food .........................................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel ........................................
N ondu rables..................................................................................
Services less rent of’ shelter ( 1 2 / 8 2 - 1 0 0 ) ......................................
Services less medical c a r e ......................................................................
E n e rg y .............................................................................................................
All items less e n e r g y .................................................................................
All items less food and energy ..............................................................
Commodities less food and e n e r g y ......................................................
Energy commodities ..................................................................................
Services less e n e rg y ..................................................................................
145.1
141.4
146.0
141.2
126.3
129.3
130.7
135.1
164.8
153.6
104.2
150.0
152.2
135.2
97.3
161.9
149.0
144.8
149.5
144.7
127.9
129.7
131.6
136.8
170.7
158.4
104.6
154.1
156.5
137.1
97.6
167.6
148.3
144.2
148.9
144.0
127.8
129.8
130.6
136.5
169.5
157.4
102.9
153.5
156.0
137.5
95.4
166.6
148.8
144.6
149.4
144.5
127.9
129.7
131.4
136.5
170.5
158.2
105.7
153.7
156.2
137.3
97.2
167.1
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar:
1982-84 = $ 1 . 0 0 ...........................................................................................
1967 = $ 1 .0 0 ..................................................................................................
69.2
23.1
67.5
22.5
67.8
22.6
All ite m s ................................................................................................................
All items (1 9 6 7 - 1 0 0 ) ......................................................................................
142.1
423.1
145.6
433.8
Food and b e v e ra g e s ....................................................................................
F o o d .................................................................................................................
Food at home ...........................................................................................
Cereals and bakery pro d u c ts ...........................................................
Meats, poultry, fish, and e g g s ..........................................................
Dairy p ro d u c ts ........................................................................................
Fruits and v eg e ta b les ..........................................................................
O ther foods at h o m e ............................................................................
Sugar and s w e e ts ..............................................................................
Fats and o ils ........................................................................................
Nonalcoholic b e v e ra g e s ..................................................................
Other prepared fo o d s .......................................................................
Food away from home ..........................................................................
Alcoholic b e ve rag es ....................................................................................
141.2
140.5
139.6
156.3
135.4
129.1
158.2
130.4
133.1
129.9
115.1
143.5
143.1
149.3
Housing ..............................................................................................................
Shelter ............................................................................................................
Renters’ costs ( 1 2 / 8 4 - 1 0 0 ) ..............................................................
Rent, resid e n tial.....................................................................................
O ther renters’ costs .............................................................................
Homeowners' costs ( 1 2 / 8 4 - 1 0 0 ) .....................................................
O w ners’ equivalent rent ( 1 2 / 8 4 = 1 0 0 ) .........................................
Household insurance ( 1 2 / 8 4 - 1 0 0 ) ...............................................
Maintenance and re p a irs .......................................................................
Maintenance and repair services ....................................................
M aintenance and repair com m odities............................................
Fuel and other utilities...............................................................................
Fuels .............................................................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s .........................................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ................................................................
Other utilities and public s e rv ic e s ......................................................
Household furnishings and o p e ratio n s ................................................
H ousefum ishings......................................................................................
Housekeeping supplie s ..........................................................................
Housekeeping s e rv ice s ..........................................................................
138.5
151.6
144.7
150.0
190.2
146.1
146.3
134.4
130.9
138.6
120.7
121.1
110.7
90.2
118.0
147.7
118.0
108.3
131.1
137.4
1993
1994
All ite m s ........................................................
C om m odities...............................................................
Food and b e v e ra g e s ................................................................................
Commodities less food and b e ve rag es ...............................................
Nondurables less food and beverages ..................
Apparel com m odities................................................
Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel ......................
D u ra b les ..................................................................
144.5
131.5
141.6
125.3
128.1
131.0
129.6
121.3
S e rv ic e s ................................................................
Rent of shelter ( 1 2 / 8 2 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................
Household services less rent of’ shelter ( 1 2 / 8 2 - 1 0 0 ) ................
Transportation s e rv ic e s ................................................................
Medical care s e rv ic e s ....................................................................
O ther services ..........................................................................
Sept.
C O N S U M E R PR IC E IN D E X FO R U R BA N W A G E EA R N ER S
A N D C L E R IC A L W O R KE RS:
S ee footnotes at end of table.
118
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
31. Consumer Price indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
(1 9 8 2 -8 4 = 1 0 0 , unless otherwise indicated)
Series
Annual
average
1994
1995
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
148.2
444.0
147.5
441.9
148.0
443.3
148.4
444.4
149.0
446.4
149.4
447.5
149.5
448.0
149.7
448.6
149.7
448.4
150.3
450.3
150.9
452.0
151.4
453.5
151.9
455.0
152.2
455.8
141.6
140.9
140.1
156.6
135.5
129.4
159.0
130.5
133.4
130.0
114.6
143.7
143.2
149.6
144.9
144.3
144.1
163.0
137.2
131.7
165.0
135.6
135.2
133.5
123.2
147.5
145.7
151.5
144.1
143.5
143.0
162.3
137.1
132.0
163.2
132.8
135.5
133.4
115.6
147.0
145.3
151.5
144.2
143.5
142.9
163.4
137.2
132.2
161.6
132.9
134.9
133.5
115.8
147.2
145.5
151.7
144.8
144.2
144.0
163.9
136.7
131.8
164.4
135.7
135.2
135.1
122.8
147.6
145.6
151.6
145.3
144.8
144.7
164.7
137.1
131.8
162.8
138.9
135.1
134.1
131.3
148.4
145.9
151.3
145.6
145.0
145.0
164.8
137.3
131.3
163.2
139.4
135.4
134.2
132.1
148.8
146.2
151.4
145.6
145.0
144.8
164.6
136.8
131.5
162.9
139.5
135.6
135.0
132.7
148.5
146.4
151.6
145.9
145.3
145.1
163.7
136.9
131.7
165.7
139.0
134.5
134.3
132.4
148.1
146.8
151.9
147.2
146.8
147.3
164.2
136.4
131.6
180.3
138.8
134.5
134.2
131.7
148.1
147.1
151.8
147.9
147.5
148.2
164.6
137.3
132.7
180.4
140.3
135.5
136.4
133.3
149.4
147.4
152.0
147.8
147.4
147.9
165.8
137.6
132.1
177.1
140.6
135.8
136.8
133.7
149.7
147.6
152.4
147.9
147.4
147.6
165.3
138.4
132.2
174.0
140.7
136.4
136.8
132.9
150.5
148.1
153.1
148.9
148.4
149.2
166.9
137.7
132.1
183.1
140.9
136.7
137.2
132.9
150.6
148.3
153.6
148.7
148.3
148.7
166.6
137.3
132.8
181.0
140.8
137.3
137.1
131.7
151.3
148.6
153.9
141.2
155.7
165.0
150.3
190.3
160.2
160.5
146.9
130.6
135.0
124.6
121.3
111.2
90.3
118.5
147.0
119.3
109.5
130.7
135.8
144.8
160.5
169.4
154.0
196.3
165.5
165.8
152.3
130.8
134.5
125.8
122.8
111.7
88.8
119.2
150.2
121.0
111.0
132.3
138.5
144.1
159.6
168.5
153.3
194.9
164.5
164.8
150.8
131.0
135.0
125.7
122.2
110.6
88.7
118.0
150.4
121.1
111.4
131.9
138.1
144.9
160.1
169.6
153.4
198.9
164.8
165.1
151.9
131.5
135.4
126.2
124.2
113.9
87.7
122.1
150.4
121.4
111.6
132.4
138.4
145.4
160.8
171.0
153.9
203.2
165.3
165.5
153.2
131.3
135.4
125.9
124.3
114.1
87.1
122.3
150.4
121.5
111.8
132.2
138.6
145.9
161.7
172.1
154.5
205.9
166.1
166.4
154.0
131.2
135.4
125.6
124.3
114.0
86.8
122.2
150.6
121.4
111.5
132.2
138.9
145.8
161.6
169.4
155.0
193.5
167.1
167.3
154.3
131.6
135.8
126.0
124.2
113.8
86.8
122.1
150.3
121.4
111.2
132.6
139.3
145.7
162.0
169.8
155.2
194.0
167.5
167.8
154.5
130.8
135.9
123.8
122.4
110.8
87.0
118.5
150.4
121.4
110.9
133.7
139.4
145.5
162.1
168.9
155.6
189.2
167.9
168.2
155.0
131.2
136.4
124.3
121.8
109.9
87.7
117.3
150.5
121.1
110.8
132.6
139.1
145.4
161.8
168.2
155.7
186.2
167.8
168.1
155.4
132.7
137.0
126.8
122.0
110.1
88.4
117.4
150.6
120.8
110.3
132.9
139.1
146.4
162.9
170.7
156.1
195.0
168.4
168.7
155.9
133.1
137.3
127.5
122.9
110.7
89.4
118.0
152.1
121.8
110.5
133.8
142.4
147.0
163.8
172.9
156.4
202.9
168.9
169.1
156.1
133.8
137.9
128.2
122.6
110.4
89.6
117.6
151.8
122.4
111.1
134.6
142.8
147.4
164.5
174.6
156.7
208.7
169.2
169.5
157.1
134.2
138.8
128.2
122.3
109.8
89.0
117.1
151.9
122.6
111.2
135.7
142.9
147.4
164.7
174.1
157.0
206.0
169.6
169.9
157.2
134.2
139.0
127.6
122.1
109.3
88.4
116.6
152.2
122.6
111.2
135.9
142.9
147.6
164.8
173.7
157.2
203.4
170.0
170.3
157.4
134.6
139.4
128.1
122.5
109.8
88.3
117.2
152.3
122.7
111.0
136.4
143.3
133.7
131.0
127.5
132.6
127.1
125.9
145.6
151.7
133.4
130.4
126.4
130.9
128.1
126.0
149.5
155.4
135.6
132.8
127.4
135.1
125.2
128.5
149.9
155.0
133.8
130.8
125.9
131.6
128.4
127.3
149.7
155.5
130.9
127.6
124.9
125.7
129.2
125.0
150.6
155.7
131.1
127.8
125.7
125.5
128.6
124.5
152.4
155.9
134.2
131.2
128.4
131.1
129.5
125.1
152.3
156.3
135.2
132.3
128.9
133.4
128.6
125.5
151.4
156.4
134.2
131.1
129.2
130.5
131.2
125.7
150.8
156.3
130.5
127.2
125.3
125.7
131.3
123.6
146.5
156.4
129.4
126.0
124.0
123.0
129.0
124.0
150.1
157.0
131.1
127.7
125.6
125.9
126.8
124.8
150.4
157.3
134.4
131.3
127.2
131.5
127.1
125.9
155.0
157.6
134.8
131.7
127.0
132.2
127.1
127.2
154.4
157.7
133.4
130.2
127.9
129.6
123.6
126.6
150.3
157.7
Transportation ......................................................
Private transportation...................................
New v e h ic le s .............................................
New c a r s .................................................
Used c a r s ..................................................
Motor fuel ...............................................
G a s o lin e ....................................................
Maintenance and re p a ir.........................................................................
O ther private transportation.................................................................
Other private transportation com m odities....................................
Other private transportation serv ice s ...........................
Public transportation.................................................
130.4
127.5
132.7
131.5
133.9
98.0
97.7
145.9
156.8
103.4
169.1
167.0
134.3
131.4
137.6
136.0
141.7
98.5
98.2
150.2
162.1
103.5
175.8
172.0
132.8
130.0
137.2
135.7
137.9
96.0
95.6
149.7
160.8
103.4
174.0
169.9
133.8
131.0
137.4
135.8
140.9
98.2
97.9
149.8
161.3
103.4
174.8
169.9
134.6
131.8
137.4
135.8
142.6
100.5
100.4
150.0
161.5
103.3
175.1
171.4
135.9
133.0
137.3
135.6
144.0
104.1
104.1
150.7
162.0
103.3
175.7
173.2
135.9
133.1
137.5
135.7
145.4
103.7
103.6
151.2
162.1
103.2
175.8
171.7
136.1
133.6
138.4
136.6
147.7
101.8
101.7
151.7
164.1
103.1
178.4
168.4
137.1
134.8
139.4
137.7
150.1
102.7
102.6
151.8
166.2
104.0
180.7
167.2
137.1
134.9
140.1
138.5
151.5
100.4
100.2
151.9
167.6
104.3
182.4
165.6
137.3
134.9
140.6
139.0
152.4
98.7
98.4
152.0
168.8
104.2
184.0
168.4
137.5
135.0
140.7
139.1
153.3
98.0
97.7
152.5
169.4
104.6
184.6
169.9
138.0
135.2
140.7
139.0
154.8
97.5
97.2
152.7
170.2
104.6
185.6
174.5
139.1
136.2
141.1
139.3
156.7
99.5
99.3
153.2
170.9
104.5
186.5
176.7
140.3
137.5
141.1
139.3
157.7
104.2
104.2
153.8
170.5
104.7
185.9
176.7
Medical c a r e ..........................................................................
Medical care c o m m o d ities ........................................
Medical care s e rv ic e s ..........................................
Professional s e rv ic e s ....................................................
Hospital and related s e rv ic e s .......................................................
201.4
195.0
202.9
184.7
231.9
211.0
200.7
213.4
192.5
245.6
209.7
200.1
212.0
191.7
243.5
210.4
200.5
212.6
192.3
244.1
211.5
201.3
213.8
193.0
246.1
212.2
201.7
214.7
193.5
247.3
212.8
201.7
215.4
194.0
248.1
214.0
202.2
216.8
195.1
249.8
214.7
202.7
217.5
195.5
250.6
215.3
202.9
218.2
196.0
251.3
216.6
203.1
219.8
197.2
253.2
217.9
203.5
221.3
198.5
254.7
218.4
203.7
221.8
199.1
254.7
218.9
203.6
222.4
199.5
255.3
219.3
203.4
223 .0
200.2
255.6
Entertainment ......................................................
Entertainment commodities ...................................
Entertainment s e rv ic e s ..............................................................
145.8
133.4
160.8
150.1
136.1
166.8
149.9
136.2
166.2
149.8
136.1
166.3
150.2
136.5
166.7
150.2
136.5
166.6
150.7
137.0
167.1
151.0
136.9
167.7
151.6
137.3
168.6
151.2
136.8
168.3
152.1
137.5
169.4
152.5
137.4
170.2
152.6
137.3
170.7
153.3
138.1
171.3
153.6
138.1
171.8
Other goods and services .......................................................
Tobacco products .................. ............................................
Personal c a r e .................................................................
Toilet goods and personal care appliances....................................
Personal care services .............................................................
Personal and educational e xp e n s es ....................................................
School books and supplies..................................................................
Personal and educational s e rv ic e s ...................................................
192.9
228.4
141.5
139.0
144.0
210.7
197.6
211.9
198.5
220.0
144.6
141.5
147.9
223.2
205.5
224.8
197.1
220.6
144.4
141.7
147.2
220.4
204.1
221.9
197.6
220.6
145.2
141.8
148.8
220.9
204.6
222.4
198.0
221.3
145.0
141.9
148.3
221.6
205.1
223.0
199.4
221.7
145.0
141.9
148.3
223.9
205.8
225.5
201.4
220.8
145.1
141.8
148.7
228.0
208.4
229.7
201.9
221.3
145.3
142.0
148.7
228.8
207.7
230.6
202.3
221.4
145.7
142.3
149.2
229.2
207.7
231.1
202.4
222.0
145.8
142.6
149.2
229.2
207.4
231.1
203.0
222.2
145.7
142.2
149.4
230.2
211.9
231.8
204.1
222.7
146.2
142.6
150.1
232.0
212.5
233.6
204.0
222.5
146.0
142.2
150.2
232.0
212.6
233.6
204.3
223.0
146.3
142.2
150.7
232.1
212.7
233.8
204.9
225.3
146.6
142.9
150.6
232.3
212.2
234.0
1993
1994
144.5
432.7
C O N S U M E R P R I C E IN D E X F O R A L L U R B A N C O N S U M E R S :
All ite m s ..................................
All items (1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 ) ..................
Food and b e v e ra g e s ....................................................................................
F o o d .................................................
Food at h o m e ...........................................................................................
Cereals and bakery pro d u c ts ...........................................................
Meats, poultry, fish, and e g g s ..........................................................
Dairy pro d u c ts ...................................................................................
Fruits and v eg e ta b le s ..........................................................................
Other foods at h o m e ...........................................................................
Sugar and s w e e ts ..............................................................................
Fats and o ils ...........................
Nonalcoholic b e ve rag es .............
Other prepared fo o d s .........................
Food away from home ................................
Alcoholic b e ve rag es .....................................
Housing .......................................
Shelter ............................
Renters’ costs ( 1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ..............................................................
Rent, resid e n tial..........................................
Other renters’ costs ...........................
Hom eow ners’ costs (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................
Owners' equivalent rent (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ...........
Household insurance ( 1 2 / 8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ...............................................
Maintenance and re p a irs ...............................
M aintenance and repair services ...................................................
M aintenance and repair c om m odities...........................................
Fuel and other utilities..................................
Fuels ........................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s ...............................
Gas (piped) and electricity ...................................
Other utilities and public s e rv ic e s ........................
Household furnishings and ope ratio n s .............
H ousefurnishings...........................
Housekeeping supplie s ................................
Housekeeping s e rv ice s ...........................
Apparel and u p k e e p ...................................
Apparel com m o d ities ..........................................
M e n’s and boys’ a p p a re l....................................
W om en’s and girls' apparel ..................................
I n f a n t s ’ a n d t o d d l e r s ’ a p p a r e l ......................
F o o tw e a r................................................
Other apparel c om m odities...............................
Apparel s e rv ic e s ..................................
S ee footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
119
Current Labor Statistics:
Price Data
31. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
(1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
120
1995
1994
Ann ual
aver age
Series
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
133.1
130.2
127.8
129.4
131.1
126.0
151.3
155.9
133.9
131.1
128.1
131.7
130.3
126.3
149.9
156.0
133.0
130.1
128.4
129.1
133.2
126.1
149.1
155.8
129.3
126.1
124.5
124.0
132.9
124.2
144.1
155.9
128.3
125.0
123.5
121.2
130.3
124.4
149.1
156.5
130.0
126.8
125.2
124.3
127.0
125.3
149.7
156.8
133.2
130.3
126.7
129.8
127.4
126.8
154.6
157.1
133.6
130.7
126.5
130.6
127.7
127.9
153.5
157.2
132.1
129.1
127.8
128.1
123.9
127.4
146.9
157.1
135.2
133.3
138.2
135.3
144.7
104.2
104.3
151.4
157.8
102.6
171.5
168.7
135.3
133.5
138.4
135.4
146.1
103.7
103.7
151.9
158.0
102.4
171.8
167.6
135.6
133.9
139.2
136.3
148.4
101.7
101.5
152.4
160.0
102.4
174.3
164.8
136.7
135.1
140.1
137.3
150.8
102.6
102.5
152.5
162.0
103.2
176.6
163.8
136.7
135.2
140.9
138.1
152.1
100.2
100.0
152.6
163.4
103.5
178.4
162.5
136.9
135.2
141.2
138.6
153.0
98.5
98.3
152.7
164.7
103.4
180.0
164.8
137.1
135.4
141.4
138.7
154.0
97.8
97.5
153.3
165.4
103.8
180.9
166.5
137.6
135.7
141.5
138.7
155.5
97.3
97.0
153.5
166.3
103.8
181.9
170.1
138.7
136.8
141.9
139.0
157.4
99.5
99.3
154.0
166.9
103.7
182.8
172.3
140.1
138.3
141.9
138.9
158.4
104.2
104.3
154.6
166.5
103.9
182.2
172.5
210.8
199.0
213.4
193.9
243.2
211.5
199.5
214.2
194.4
244.4
212.0
199.3
214.9
194.9
245.2
213.4
199.9
216.4
196.0
246.9
214.0
200.6
217.1
196.5
247.7
214.6
200.8
217.7
196.9
248.5
215.9
200.9
219.3
198.1
250.5
217.3
201.3
220.9
199.4
252.1
217.7
201.5
221.4
200.0
252.2
218.2
201.3
222.0
200.5
252.8
218.7
201.0
222.6
201.2
253.1
148.0
135.6
166.2
148.4
136.0
166.5
148.3
135.9
166.5
148.6
136.0
167.0
149.0
136.2
167.5
149.6
136.6
168.5
149.2
136.1
168.3
150.1
136.8
169.2
150.4
136.8
170.1
150.6
136.7
170.6
151.3
137.5
171.2
151.5
137.5
171.8
195.3
220.6
144.7
142.4
147.3
216.6
205!9
217.7
195.8
220.7
145.3
142.3
149.0
217.2
206.4
218.4
196.3
221.4
145.1
142.5
148.2
217.9
206.9
219.0
197.5
222.1
145.2
142.6
148.2
220.2
207.5
221.5
198.9
221.1
145.4
142.6
148.6
223.6
209.8
225.0
199.4
221.6
145.5
142.8
148.6
224.4
208.8
225.9
199.8
221.7
145.9
143.1
149.1
224.9
208.8
226.5
200.0
222.2
146.1
143.5
149.2
224.9
208.5
226.5
200.5
222.4
146.0
143.1
149.5
226.0
213.4
227.2
201.5
222.9
146.4
143.4
150.1
227.5
213.4
228.9
201.4
222.6
146.1
142.9
150.2
227.7
213.6
229.0
201.7
223.1
146.5
143.1
150.7
227.8
213.7
229.2
202.5
225.4
146.8
143.7
150.6
228.0
213.2
229.5
145.6
133.4
144.4
126.6
127.9
129.4
130.1
123.8
144.9
132.9
143.7
126.3
127.9
131.6
129.0
123.1
145.4
133.2
143.8
126.6
127.9
129.6
130.0
123.8
145.8
133.4
144.4
126.7
127.8
126.7
131.2
124.2
146.5
134.1
144.9
127.5
129.1
127.2
133.0
124.3
146.9
134.6
145.1
128.1
129.9
130.2
132.8
124.4
147.0
134.7
145.1
128.2
129.7
131.1
132.0
125.1
147.3
135.0
145.3
128.6
129.7
130.1
132.4
126.0
147.2
134.8
146.6
127.6
127.7
126.1
131.3
126.5
147.8
134.9
147.2
127.4
127.0
125.0
130.9
126.8
148.3
135.3
147.3
127.9
127.6
126.8
130.8
127.2
148.7
135.7
147.3
128.6
128.5
130.3
130.6
127.5
149.3
136.5
148.3
129.3
129.4
130.7
131.7
128.0
149.6
136.9
148.1
130.0
130.5
129.1
134.2
128.1
155.5
145.8
123.5
160.0
202.7
174.1
160.6
150.3
125.4
165.7
213.0
182.4
159.6
149.4
124.8
164.3
211.5
181.0
160.4
149.9
126.7
164.8
212.2
181.5
160.9
150.5
126.8
165.2
213.4
181.8
161.6
151.3
126.9
165.9
214.2
182.9
161.9
151.4
126.9
166.0
214.9
184.7
162.1
151.8
125.2
167.2
216.4
185.3
162.3
151.9
124.7
168.4
217.1
185.9
162.4
151.7
124.9
169.2
217.7
185.9
163.4
152.5
126.1
170.6
219.3
186.6
164.1
153.3
125.8
171.5
220.9
187.7
164.6
153.8
125.6
172.8
221.4
188.0
164.8
154.0
125.4
173.8
222.0
188.3
165.1
154.2
125.9
173.6
222.6
188.6
Special indexes:
All items less food ......................................................................................
All items less s h e lte r .................................................................................
All items less homeowners' costs (1 2 /8 4 — 1 0 0 ) .............................
All items less medical c a r e ......................................................................
Commodities less f o o d ..............................................................................
Nondurables less food ..............................................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel ....................................................
N ondu rables..................................................................................................
Services less rent of shelter (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................
Services less medical c a r e ......................................................................
E n e rg y ..............................................................................................................
All items less energy .................................................................................
All items less food and energy ..............................................................
Commodities less food and e n e rg y ......................................................
Energy commodities ..................................................................................
Services less e n e rg y ..................................................................................
142.3
139.7
133.9
139.2
125.9
128.9
130.7
134.7
147.0
151.4
103.6
147.5
149.3
134.3
97.5
159.7
145.9
143.0
137.0
142.6
127.6
129.2
131.2
136.4
152.1
156.1
104.1
151.5
153.5
136.2
97.8
165.3
145.2
142.3
136.4
141.9
127.3
129.2
130.3
136.1
151.0
155.1
102.3
150.9
152.9
136.4
95.6
164.3
145.8
142.8
136.9
142.4
127.6
129.2
131.2
136.1
152.1
155.9
105.1
151.1
153.2
136.3
97.5
164.7
146.1
143.1
137.3
142.7
127.7
129.1
132.2
136.4
152.5
156.4
106.3
151.4
153.4
135.9
99.6
165.3
146.8
143.8
137.9
143.4
128.4
130.3
133.7
137.3
153.0
157.1
108.2
151.9
153.9
136.1
102.9
166.0
147.2
144.2
138.1
143.8
128.9
131.1
133.6
137.8
153.5
157.3
107.8
152.4
154.4
136.9
102.4
166.4
147.4
144.3
138.2
143.8
129.1
130.9
133.0
137.7
153.4
157.4
105.3
152.9
155.0
137.5
100.6
167.0
147.7
144.6
138.4
144.1
129.4
130.8
133.3
137.8
153.7
157.6
105.3
153.2
155.3
137.7
101.5
167.4
147.4
144.6
138.4
144.0
128.5
129.0
132.4
137.4
154.0
157.6
104.2
153.3
155.1
137.1
99.4
167.5
147.9
145.0
139.0
144.6
128.3
128.4
132.0
137.4
155.2
158.6
103.6
154.0
155.8
137.1
98.0
168.5
148.5
145.5
139.4
145.0
128.8
129.0
132.0
137.7
155.8
159.3
103.1
154.6
156.6
137.9
97.3
169.3
149.0
145.9
139.9
145.5
129.5
129.9
131.9
138.2
156.1
159.7
102.5
155.2
157.3
138.8
96.8
169.9
149.5
146.5
140.4
146.0
130.2
130.7
132.9
139.1
156.4
160.0
103.3
155.7
157.7
139.3
98.7
170.3
149.9
146.9
140.7
146.3
130.9
131.8
135.1
139.6
156.7
160.2
106.0
155.7
157.8
139.1
103.1
170.5
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar:
1982-84 —$ 1 . 0 0 ...........................................................................................
1 9 6 7 - $ 1 . 0 0 ..................................................................................................
70.4
23.6
68.7
23.1
69.0
23.2
68.8
23.1
68.6
23.0
68.3
22.9
68.1
22.9
68.0
22.8
67.9
22.8
67.9
22.8
67.7
22.7
67.4
22.6
67.2
22.6
67.0
22.5
66.8
22.4
July
Aug.
132.4
129.6
125.3
129.5
129.6
128.2
148.3
155.0
129.8
126.7
124.6
124.2
130.8
125.8
148.3
155.1
130.2
127.2
125.3
124.5
129.9
125.3
151.5
155.4
131.8
129.8
138.0
135.4
138.6
96.0
95.6
150.5
156.6
102.8
169.8
166.4
132.9
131.0
138.2
135.6
141.5
98.2
97.9
150.5
157.3
102.8
170.7
165.9
133.9
132.0
138.3
135.6
143.3
100.5
100.4
150.8
157.5
102.6
171.0
167.1
210.4
198.6
213.0
193.4
242.7
209.1
198.2
211.5
192.5
240.5
209.7
198.7
212.2
193.1
241.3
144.1
132.9
160.5
148.2
135.5
166.7
148.1
135.7
166.1
Other goods and services ..........................................................................
Tobacco products ......................................................................................
Personal c a r e ................................................................................................
Toilet goods and personal care a ppliances....................................
Personal care services ..........................................................................
Personal and educational e xp e n s e s ....................................................
School books and s u p p lie s ..................................................................
Personal and educational s e rv ic e s ...................................................
192.2
228.3
141.6
139.6
143.9
206.9
199.2
207.8
196.4
220.1
144.8
142.2
147.9
219.2
207.1
220.4
All ite m s ................................................................................................................
C om m oditie s ....................................................................................................
Food and b e ve rag es ..................................................................................
Commodities less food and b e v e ra g e s ...............................................
Nondurables less food and beverages ...........................................
Apparel com m odities...........................................................................
Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel ......................
D u ra b les .......................................................................................................
142.1
131.2
141.2
125.0
127.7
129.8
129.7
120.1
S e rv ic e s .............................................................................................................
Rent of shelter ( 1 2 / 8 4 - 1 0 0 ) .................................................................
Household services less rent of shelter (1 2 /8 4 — 1 0 0 ) .................
Transportation s e rv ic e s ............................................................................
Medical care s e rv ic e s ................................................................................
Other services ..............................................................................................
May
1993
1994
Apparel and u p k e e p .....................................................................................
Apparel com m o d ities .................................................................................
M en’s and boys’ a p p a re l.......................................................................
W om en’s and girls’ apparel .................................................................
Infants’ and toddlers’ a p p a re l..............................................................
F o o tw e a r.....................................................................................................
Other apparel com m odities..................................................................
Apparel s e rv ice s ..........................................................................................
132.4
129.8
126.8
130.4
128.9
126.5
145.4
151.2
132.2
129.4
125.8
129.2
129.3
126.9
148.7
154.9
134.3
131.6
126.5
132.7
126.2
129.5
151.3
154.5
Transportation .................................................................................................
Private transportation.........................................
New v e h ic le s .............................................................................................
New c a r s ..................................................................................................
Used c a r s ...................................................................................................
Motor fuel ............................
G a s o lin e ...................................................................................................
Maintenance and re p a ir.........................................................................
Other private transportation.................................................................
Other private transportation com m odities...................................
Other private transportation s e rv ice s ............................................
Public transportation..................................................................................
129.4
127.4
133.3
131.2
134.6
97.9
97.6
146.5
152.9
102.8
165.0
163.0
133.4
131.4
138.3
135.7
142.4
98.4
98.2
150.9
157.9
102.8
171.5
167.7
Medical c a r e ....................................................................................................
Medical care commodities .......................................................................
Medical care s e rv ic e s ................................................................................
Professional s e rv ic e s ..............................................................................
Hospital and related s e rv ic e s ..............................................................
200.9
193.2
202.7
185.2
229.2
E n te rta in m e n t..................................................................................................
Entertainment commodities ....................................................................
Entertainment s e rv ic e s ..............................................................................
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
June
Sept.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
32.
Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items
(1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Urban W age Earners
All Urban Consumers
Pricing
sche
dule2
Area'
U.S. city a v e r a g e .......................
1994
1995
1994
1995
Apr.
May
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Apr.
May
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
M
147.4
147.5
150.3
150.9
151.4
151.9
152.2
144.7
144.9
147.8
148.3
148.7
149.3
149.6
M
154.4
154.2
157.1
157.6
158.0
158.3
158.5
151.8
151.7
154.8
155.2
155.5
155.8
156.1
M
155.0
154.7
157.7
158.3
158.7
159.0
159.2
151.4
151.1
154.3
154.8
155.1
155.4
155.7
M
153.3
152.8
155.4
155.7
155.9
156.3
156.4
151.1
150.8
153.3
153.7
153.9
154.2
154.3
M
M
152.6
142.9
152.7
143.3
155.7
146.1
156.0
146.7
156.6
147.3
157.0
148.1
157.1
148.3
153.9
139.8
154.2
140.2
157.4
143.0
157.6
143.6
158.1
144.2
158.6
145.0
158.8
145.2
M
144.1
144.5
147.3
148.0
148.5
149.0
149.0
140.3
140.7
143.5
144.2
144.7
145.3
145.2
3
R e gio n and a re a s ize
Northeast u rb a n ..........................
Size A - More than
1,200,000 ...................................
Size B - 500,000 to
1,200,000 ...................................
Size C - 50,000 to
500,000 .......................................
North Central urban ..................
Size A - More than
1,200,000 ...................................
Size B - 360 ,00 0 to
1,200,000 ...................................
Size C - 50,000 to
360 ,00 0 .......................................
Size D - Nonmetro
politan (less
than 50,0000 .............................
South u rb a n ..................................
Size A - More than
1,200,000 ...................................
Size B - 450 ,00 0 to
1,200,000 ...................................
Size C - 5 0,000 to
450 ,00 0 .......................................
Size D - Nonm etro
politan (less
than 50,000) ..............................
W est u rb a n ...................................
Size A - More than
1,250,000 ....................................
Size C - 50,0 00 to
330 ,00 0 .......................................
Size classes:
A (1 2 /8 6 = 1 0 0 ) ........................
B .....................................................
C ....................................................
D ....................................................
S e le c te d local areas
Chicago, IL-Northwestern IN ...
Los Angeles-Long
Beach, Anaheim, CA ..............
New York, NYNortheastern N J ........................
Philadelphia, P A -N J ...................
San FranciscoOakland, C A ................................
M
142.2
142.0
144.4
145.2
146.1
146.9
147.3
138.5
138.4
140.9
141.8
142.6
143.4
143.9
M
143.7
144.4
147.4
147.7
148.3
149.5
150.0
141.2
141.9
144.9
145.2
145.6
146.9
147.5
M
M
137.9
143.8
138.8
144.3
141.5
146.7
142.3
147.4
142.7
148.0
143.9
148.4
144.6
148.8
136.4
142.2
137.3
142.8
139.8
145.3
140.4
145.9
141.0
146.5
142.2
147.0
142.9
147.4
M
144.4
144.7
146.6
147.3
148.0
148.3
148.7
142.4
142.8
144.8
145.4
146.1
146.4
147.1
146.9
147.4
147.4
M
145.5
146.3
148.9
149.6
150.4
150.9
150.8
141.8
142.8
145.6
146.3
M
142.9
143.1
145.7
146.2
146.6
147.3
147.6
142.6
142.8
145.7
146.1
146.5
147.3
147.8
M
M
141.3
148.9
142.3
148.8
145.2
152.0
146.1
152.4
146.6
152.8
147.1
153.2
148.0
153.5
141.4
145.9
142.5
146.0
145.6
149.2
146.4
149.4
146.7
149.8
147.3
150.3
148.2
150.6
M
150.4
150.4
152.9
153.1
153.6
154.0
154.2
145.8
146.0
148.5
148.7
149.1
149.6
149.7
M
148.6
147.8
154.1
155.1
155.2
155.9
156.4
146.3
145.7
151.4
152.2
152.2
152.8
153.8
M
M
M
M
133.9
146.8
145.8
142.1
133.9
147.0
146.0
143.0
136.2
149.9
149.3
145.9
136.7
150.5
149.8
146.6
137.2
151.1
150.2
147.1
137.5
151.6
151.0
147.7
137.7
151.8
151.4
148.5
132.7
144.1
144.9
141.4
132.9
144.4
145.2
142.3
135.3
147.3
148.6
145.2
135.7
147.9
149.0
145.8
136.2
148.5
149.3
146.3
136.6
148.9
150.2
147.0
136.8
149.1
150.7
147.9
M
147.9
147.6
151.8
152.3
152.6
153.1
153.0
143.3
143.1
147.1
147.5
147.8
148.3
148.2
M
152.0
151.4
154.3
154.5
154.6
154.7
155.1
146.6
146.2
149.0
149.2
149.3
149.5
149.8
M
M
157.7
153.1
157.3
153.2
159.9
156.6
160.3
157.8
160.9
158.0
161.4
157.8
161.8
157.8
153.9
152.6
153.6
152.7
156.3
156.4
156.6
157.5
157.1
157.5
157.5
157.4
158.0
157.4
M
148.0
148.3
150.3
150.5
151.1
151.5
151.3
145.6
146.1
148.2
148.3
148.9
149.4
149.0
Baltimore, M D ..............................
Boston, MA ..................................
Cleveland, O H ..............................
Miami, F L .......................................
St. Louis, M O -IL ..........................
Washington, DC-M D-VA ..........
1
1
1
1
1
1
Dallas-Ft. Worth, T X ..................
Detroit, M l ......................................
Houston, TX .................................
Pittsburgh, PA ..............................
2
2
2
2
_
140.3
142.6
136.8
143.9
145.8
153.6
143.7
143.3
140.0
151.4
148.7
158.0
146.6
147.3
142.9
153.8
_
_
-
-
-
-
_
143.3
147.3
139.3
147.3
1 Area definitions are those established by the Office of M anage
ment and Budget in 1983, except for Boston-Lawrence-Salem, M A-NH,
Area (excludes Monroe County); and Milwaukee, W l, Area (includes
only the Milwaukee MSA). Definitions do not include revisions made
since 1983. Excludes farms and the military.
2 Foods, fuels, and several other items priced every month in all
areas; most other goods and services priced as indicated:.
M - Every month.
1 - January, March, May, July, Septem ber, and November.
2 - February, April, June, August, October, and December.
_
150.3
158.4
147.3
148.7
144.5
155.1
-
-
145.0
148.1
138.0
148.9
-
-
150.4
157.7
147.4
148.6
144.6
154.7
_
-
_
139.3
137.9
136.2
137.4
144.9
152.2
136.1
141.2
139.2
149.2
147.7
157.0
139.0
145.3
142.3
151.2
_
_
-
"
_
-
149.1
156.9
139.7
146.6
143.9
152.4
142.7
142.7
138.9
141.1
_
“
_
-
149.4
156.5
139.9
146.8
144.2
152.3
144.5
143.6
137.6
142.6
_
“
3 Regions are defined as the four Census regions.
- Data not available.
NO TE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts of the national CPI
program. Because each local index is a small subset of the national in
dex, it has a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substan
tially more sampling and other m easurem ent error than the national in
dex. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the na
tional index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. Therefore,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics strongly urges users to consider adopting
the national average CPI for use in escalator clauses.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
121
Current Labor Statistics:
Price Data
33. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, all items and major groups
(1 9 8 2 -8 4 = 1 0 0 )
Series
122
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
109.6
1.9
113.6
3.6
118.3
4.1
124.0
4.8
130.7
5.4
136.2
4.2
140.3
3.0
144.5
3.0
148.2
2.6
109.1
3.3
113.5
4.0
118.2
4.1
124.9
5.7
132.1
5.8
136.8
3.6
138.7
1.4
141.6
2.1
144.9
2.3
110.9
3.0
114.2
3.0
118.5
3.8
123.0
3.8
128.5
4.5
133.6
4.0
137.5
2 .9
141.2
2.7
144.8
2.5
105.9
.9
110.6
4.4
115.4
4.3
118.6
2.8
124.1
4.6
128.7
3.7
131.9
2.5
133.7
1.4
133.4
-.2
102.3
-3 .9
105.4
3.0
108.7
3.1
114.1
5.0
120.5
5.6
123.8
2.7
126.5
2.2
130.4
3.1
134.3
3 .0
122.0
7.5
130.1
6.6
138.6
6.5
149.3
7.7
162.8
9.0
177.0
8.7
190.1
7.4
201.4
5.9
211.0
4.8
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers:
All items:
In d e x ........................................................
Percent c h a n g e ...............................................
Food and beverages:
In d e x ....................................................
Percent c h a n g e ......................................................
Housing:
In d e x ...........................................
Percent c h a n g e ............................................................
Apparel and upkeep:
In d e x ...................................................
Percent c h a n g e ..........................................................
Transportation:
In d e x ......................................................................
Percent c h a n g e .......................................................
Medical care:
In d e x .........................................................................
Percent c h a n g e ...........................................
Entertainment:
In d e x .......................................................
Percent c h a n g e ........................................................
Other goods and services:
In d e x .......................................................................
Percent c h a n g e ......................................................
111.6
3.4
115.3
3.3
120.3
4.3
126.5
5.2
132.4
4.7
138.4
4.5
142.3
2.8
145.8
2.5
150.1
2.9
121.4
6.0
128.5 .
5.8
137.0
6.6
147.7
7.8
159.0
7.7
171.6
7.9
183.3
6.8
192.9
5.2
198.5
2.9
Consumer Price Index for Urban W age Earners and
Clerical Workers:
All items:
In d e x ...................................................................................
Percent c h a n g e .........................................................................
108 6
1.6
112.5
3.6
117.0
4.0
122.6
4.8
129.0
5.2
134.3
4.1
138.2
2.9
142.1
2.8
145.6
2.5
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
34.
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
(1982 = 100)
1995
1994
Annual average
G ro uping
1993
1994
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
124.7
125.7
125.7
125.5
126.8
126.8
125.6
125.9
125.9
126.0
126.2
126.2
126.5
126.6
126.6
125.6
126.3
126.3
125.8
126.1
126.1
126.1
126.9
126.9
126.2
128.6
128.6
126.6
127.9
127.9
126.9
128.3
128.3
126.9
128.5
128.5
127.6
128.5
128.5
128.0
127.9
127.9
121.7
117.6
128.0
78.0
121.6
116.2
130.9
77.0
122.0
116.9
130.8
78.3
122.5
117.5
130.9
79.6
123.4
118.7
131.0
81.4
122.2
117.8
129.2
79.6
122.0
116.3
132.1
77.1
122.3
116.7
132.1
77.7
121.8
115.9
132.2
75.9
122.4
116.7
132.6
76.6
122.6
116.9
132.6
76.6
122.7
117.1
132.4
76.4
123.8
118.7
132.4
78.8
124.7
120.0
132.4
80.4
116.2
118.5
118.2
118.7
119.5
120.1
120.0
120.9
121.1
122.5
123.3
123.7
124.7
125.3
118.9
115.6
115.5
119.1
123.0
122.1
118.5
119.2
125.2
124.3
121.2
118.0
117.1
124.2
124.2
121.7
116.2
118.1
125.1
124.4
122.5
117.8
119.7
126.0
124.3
123.7
118.5
122.3
127.4
124.5
124.5
116.8
124.3
128.5
124.6
125.5
118.0
125.4
130.6
124.8
126.2
117.5
126.7
131.8
124.9
128.1
117.8
129.7
134.6
125.7
129.1
118.5
131.5
136.1
125.9
129.5
119.0
132.4
136.5
125.9
130.6
117.1
135.7
136.8
126.2
130.8
116.5
136.5
136.5
126.3
Materials and components for
construction........................................................
Processed fuels and lubricants.....................
C ontaine rs .............................................................
S upplies.................................................................
84.6
123.8
135.8
125.0
83.0
127.1
137.1
127.0
84.2
126.3
137.1
126.9
85.8
126.7
137.1
126.9
87.3
127.3
137.2
126.9
86.5
128.3
136.4
127.2
83.0
129.2
137.8
127.5
83.4
130.2
137.8
127.9
82.2
130.9
138.1
128.4
82.2
132.6
138.7
129.5
82.4
133.6
139.0
129.8
82.3
134.1
139.1
130.4
83.9
135.2
139.4
131.2
85.6
135.5
139.7
131.3
C ru d e m a te ria ls fo r fu rth e r proce ssin g ...
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs .............................
Crude nonfood m a te ria ls ...............................
102.4
108.4
76.7
101.8
106.5
72.1
103.2
107.8
75.2
102.2
103.6
75.3
101.9
101.8
75.6
99.7
101.3
71.3
98.2
98.9
70.2
99.1
100.4
69.3
100.5
101.6
69.9
101.5
102.2
69.8
102.7
104.0
69.8
102.3
103.2
69.2
103.9
101.9
72.9
103.5
99.5
74.1
124.4
78.0
132.9
133.5
135.8
125.1
77.0
134.2
134.2
137.1
125.4
78.3
133.9
133.8
137.1
125.8
79.6
134.0
133.9
137.1
126.4
81.4
134.2
134.1
137.2
125.3
79.6
133.6
133.6
136.4
125.6
77.1
134.5
134.4
137.8
125.8
77.7
134.7
134.7
137.8
125.5
75.9
135.4
135.5
138.1
126.2
76.6
135.7
135.6
138.7
126.4
76.6
136.0
135.9
139.0
126.4
76.4
136.1
136.1
139.1
127.3
78.8
136.3
136.3
139.4
128.0
80.4
136.3
136.3
139.7
138.5
139.0
138.9
138.9
139.0
138.2
139.6
139.7
140.0
140.5
140.8
141.0
141.3
141.7
146.1
144.4
144.3
144.2
144.4
144.6
144.7
144.8
145.2
145.9
146.3
147.0
147.4
148.2
116.4
112.7
84.6
123.2
118.7
114.8
83.0
126.3
118.3
115.5
84.2
125.6
119.0
113.4
85.8
125.9
119.8
113.6
87.3
126.5
120.4
113.9
86.5
127.5
120.4
112.2
83.0
128.2
121.3
112.1
83.4
129.1
121.6
111.5
82.2
129.7
123.0
111.8
82.2
131.4
123.9
111.8
82.4
132.4
124.3
112.7
82.3
132.9
125.4
111.7
83.9
133.8
126.0
110.7
85.6
134.0
123.8
127.1
126.3
126.7
127.3
128.3
129.2
130.2
130.9
132.6
133.6
134.1
135.2
135.5
75.3
117.0
155.6
75.6
116.4
157.9
71.3
116.4
159.2
70.2
114.6
159.3
69.3
117.0
164.1
69.9
119.1
168.4
69.8
121.0
174.1
69.8
123.1
177.0
69.2
122.9
178.3
72.9
122.6
180.7
74.1
120.6
179.8
Finished g o o d s ...................................................
Finished consumer goods ..............................
Finished consumer fo o d s .............................
Finished consumer goods excluding
foods .................................................................
Nondurable goods less food ..................
Durable goods ..............................................
Capital e q u ip m e n t..............................................
In te rm e d ia te m a terials, supplies, and
c o m p o n e n ts .........................................................
Materials and components for
manufacturing ....................................................
Materials for food m anufacturing..............
Materials for nondurable manufacturing .
Materials for durable m anufacturing........
Components for m anufacturing.................
S p ecial groupings:
Finished goods, excluding fo o d s .................
Finished energy g o o d s ....................................
Finished goods less energy ..........................
Finished consumer goods less e n e r g y ......
Finished goods less food and e n e rg y ........
Finished consumer goods less food
and e n e r g y .........................................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food
and energy .........................................................
Intermediate materials less foods and
f e e d s ....................................................................
Intermediate foods and fe e d s .......................
Intermediate energy g o o d s .............................
Intermediate goods less energy ..................
Intermediate materials less foods and
e n e r g y ..................................................................
Crude energy m a te ria ls ...................................
Crude materials less e n e rg y .........................
Crude nonfood materials less e n e r g y .......
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
76.7
116.3
140.2
72.1
119.3
156.2
75.2
119.1
152.4
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
123
Current Labor Statistics:
35.
Price Data
Producer price indexes for the net output of major industry groups
(Decem ber 1984 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Industry
SIC
Annual
average
1993
T o ta l m ining in d u s tr ie s ......................................
Metal m in in g ....................................................
Coal mining (1 2 /8 5 = 1 0 0 ) ................................
Oil and gas extraction (1 2 /8 5 = 1 0 0 ) ...........
Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic
minerals, except fuels ....................................
T o ta l m anufa ctu rin g in d u s tr ie s ......................
Food and kindred p ro d u c ts ..............................
Tobacco m a n u fa ctu res ......................................
Textile mill p ro d u c ts ...........................................
Apparel and other finished products
m ade from fabrics and similar
m a teria ls ...............................................................
Lumber and wood products, except
fu rn itu re ................................................................
Furniture and fix tu re s .........................................
Paper and allied products ................................
Printing, publishing, and allied
industries..............................................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum refining and related p ro d u c ts .....
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products
Leather and leather products .........................
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products ..
Primary metal industries ...................................
Fabricated metal products, except
machinery and transportation
e q u ip m e n t...........................................................
Machinery, except ele c trica l.............................
Electrical and electronic machinery,
equipment, and su p p lie s ................................
Transportation equ ip m en t.................................
Measuring and controlling instalments;
photographic, medical, optical goods;
watches, c lo c k s .................................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
( 1 2 / 8 5 - 1 0 0 ) ......................................................
S erv ice industries:
Motor freight transportation
and warehousing ( 0 6 /9 3 = 1 0 0 ) ...............
U.S. Postal Service (0 6 /8 9 — 1 0 0 ) .................
W ater transportation ( 1 2 / 9 2 - 1 0 0 ) ...............
Transportation by air ( 1 2 /9 2 - 1 0 0 ) ..............
Pipelines, except natural gas (1 2 /8 6 = 1 0 0 )
-
1994
1995
1994
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
10
12
13
76.4
69.7
93.3
76.2
73.3
81.4
93.2
71.1
74.9
81.4
92.0
73.5
74.3
84.9
92.1
72.4
75.0
84.4
92.7
73.3
72.4
87.6
94.3
69.2
71.0
88.3
95.0
67.1
70.5
91.1
94.9
66.2
72.0
94.2
92.0
68.6
72.1
101.9
88.4
68.7
71.4
99.0
88.5
67.9
70.9
101.8
91.5
66.4
73.5
105.0
94.4
69.4
74.3
99.1
92.1
71.2
14
118.8
120.5
120.5
120.5
120.4
120.5
120.7
120.8
120.9
122.4
123.3
123.3
123.1
123.1
20
21
22
119.1
118.7
218.0
113.6
120.7
120.1
187.8
113.6
120.4
119.8
187.7
113.5
120.9
119.7
187.7
113.6
121.5
120.1
187.7
113.8
121.1
119.9
187.9
113.8
121.5
119.6
187.6
113.9
121.9
119.6
188.1
114.2
121.7
119.4
187.9
114.3
122.6
120.2
188.1
114.7
123.0
120.9
188.8
115.5
123.2
121.0
190.6
115.7
124.0
120.2
190.8
116.0
124.5
120.2
195.3
116.6
23
119.2
119.7
119.5
119.8
119.7
119.7
119.8
119.7
119.8
120.0
120.1
120.3
120.6
120.5
24
25
26
148.3
125.4
120.2
154.4
129.7
123.7
153.7
130.1
121.6
152.7
130.2
122.1
153.3
130.1
123.3
154.1
130.3
125.5
153.9
130.5
128.2
155.9
130.9
130.4
155.5
131.0
132.8
155.7
131.5
136.0
155.5
131.9
138.8
155.7
132.1
140.8
155.0
132.5
143.7
154.6
132.9
145.6
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
145.6
127.2
77.6
115.4
129.0
115.4
111.4
149.7
130.0
74.8
117.1
130.6
119.6
117.0
149.2
128.4
74.7
116.4
130.1
119.8
116.0
149.4
129.2
78.0
116.7
130.3
120.1
117.0
149.6
130.3
82.5
117.0
130.6
120.4
117.5
150.3
132.0
79.5
117.9
131.3
120.7
118.7
150.8
133.6
76.2
118.8
131.7
121.1
119.7
151.7
134.4
77.8
119.5
132.1
121.4
121.7
152.4
136.1
73.5
120.1
132.5
121.6
122.9
154.7
138.4
74.3
121.3
133.3
122.4
126.6
155.2
140.3
74.7
121.4
133.8
122.8
128.2
156.0
141.0
74.3
122.4
133.9
123.6
129.1
157.0
143.3
80.6
123.1
134.1
124.6
129.4
157.4
145.0
84.4
123.2
134.4
124.8
129.1
34
118.2
120.3
120.0
120.3
120.6
120.8
121.2
121.6
121.8
122.6
123.8
124.2
124.6
124.7
35
116.8
117.5
117.5
117.6
117.6
117.7
117.7
117.7
117.8
118.3
118.8
118.9
119.0
119.0
113.1
132.2
113.4
132.2
113.1
131.9
113.1
132.0
113.4
131.8
36
37
112.0
126.3
112.7
130.1
112.7
129.9
112.8
130.1
112.7
130.1
112.6
128.2
112.6
131.5
112.6
131.2
112.7
131.6
38
120.8
122.1
122.1
122.3
122.2
122.0
122.3
122.6
122.6
122.9
123.1
123.4
123.7
123.6
39
121.5
123.3
123.3
123.5
123.5
123.6
123.6
123.8
124.0
125.0
125.1
125.2
125.5
125.6
42
43
44
45
46
119.8
99.7
105.6
96.6
101.9
119.8
100.0
108.5
102.6
101.9
119.8
99.1
109.1
101.0
102.1
119.8
99.5
109.0
102.3
102.2
119.8
100.1
109.0
102.9
102.3
119.8
100.3
108.5
103.0
102.7
119.8
102.9
108.3
103.7
102.7
119.8
101.4
108.1
106.5
102.9
119.8
101.6
107.9
107.0
103.1
132.1
102.6
108.1
110.9
104.1
132.1
102.6
109.7
110.9
104.4
132.1
102.6
110.7
110.9
104.6
132.1
101.9
110.1
110.9
104.5
132.1
102.2
113.6
110.9
Data not available.
36.
Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
(1982 = 100)
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Finished goods:
Total ...................................................................................
Foods ............................................................................
E n e rg y ...........................................................................
O t h e r ..............................................................................
103.2
107.3
63.0
110.6
105.4
109.5
61.8
113.3
108.0
112.6
59.8
117.0
113.6
118.7
65.7
122.1
119.2
124.4
75.0
126.6
121.7
124.1
78.1
131.1
123.2
123.3
77.8
134.2
124.7
125.7
78.0
135.8
125.5
126.8
77.0
137.1
In te rm e d ia te m aterials, supplies, and
c om ponen ts:
Total ...................................................................................
Foods ............................................................................
E n e rg y ...........................................................................
O t h e r ..............................................................................
99.1
102.2
72.6
104.9
101.5
105.3
73.0
107.8
107.1
113.2
70.9
115.2
112.0
118.1
76.1
120.2
114.5
118.7
85.5
120.9
114.4
118.1
85.1
121.4
114.7
117.9
84.3
122.0
116.2
118.9
84.6
123.8
118.5
122.1
83.0
127.1
C ru d e m a teria ls fo r fu rth e r processing:
T o t a l ...................................................................................
Foods ............................................................................
E n e rg y ...........................................................................
O t h e r ..............................................................................
87.7
93.2
71.8
103.1
93.7
96.2
75.0
115.7
96.0
106.1
67.7
133.0
103.1
111.2
75.9
137.9
108.9
113.1
85.9
136.3
101.2
105.5
80.4
128.2
100.4
105.1
78.8
128.4
102.4
108.4
76.7
140.2
101.8
106.5
72.1
156.2
Index
124
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
May
37.
U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification
(1990 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
C a te g o ry
SITC
Rev. 3
1995
1994
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Foo d a nd live a n im a ls .................................................................................................
M eat and m eat preparations....................................................................................
Cereals and cereal pre para tions ............................................................................
Vegetables, fruit, and nuts, prepared fresh or d r y ...........................................
0
01
04
05
103.9
107.3
101.8
109.6
102.7
105.3
95.7
116.7
102.6
105.9
93.7
117.5
102.4
107.7
96.1
109.6
103.9
108.8
99.6
106.6
105.2
112.4
100.8
109.2
106.7
109.0
103.9
113.3
105.7
109.3
102.8
109.9
106.6
108.7
104.6
109.2
108.3
112.4
103.1
116.8
111.2
113.6
106.7
122.5
C ru d e m aterials, inedible, e x c e p t f u e l s ..............................................................
Hides, skins, and furskins, r a w ................................................................................
Oilseeds and oleaginous fr u its ................................................................................
Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed) ...........................................
Cork and wood .............................................................................................................
Pulp and w aste p a p e r .................................................................................................
Textile fibers and their w aste ..................................................................................
Crude fertilizers and crude m in era ls ......................................................................
Metalliferous ores and metal scrap .......................................................................
2
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
108.1
94.4
112.9
96.1
149.4
94.6
105.0
95.6
91.2
109.7
97.9
104.0
99.3
149.6
109.6
102.7
95.4
95.9
109.4
101.0
96.0
100.8
149.9
110.5
102.1
95.8
98.7
108.9
103.9
96.2
99.3
149.1
105.0
101.8
96.2
100.2
108.9
107.2
87.4
102.0
149.0
108.6
100.2
95.4
104.3
112.7
109.9
89.5
104.5
151.0
118.5
103.8
96.4
108.9
116.8
110.4
91.9
104.7
151.5
126.8
110.5
96.4
116.5
120.4
111.2
91.9
109.6
154.6
135.5
116.2
97.5
119.9
124.3
110.7
92.0
115.8
157.8
145.9
122.8
97.2
124.4
127.4
109.6
93.7
117.0
157.3
155.8
132.9
98.4
124.7
130.2
108.3
96.5
121.1
159.4
169.6
131.0
98.5
125.0
M ineral fuels, lubricants, and re la te d p r o d u c ts ..............................................
Coal, coke, and b riq u e tte s ........................................................................................
Petroleum, petroleum products, and related
m a te ria ls .....................................................................................................................
3
32
87.4
93.9
89.5
93.4
91.0
93.1
87.6
93.3
87.5
93.6
88.2
93.9
89.3
94.1
89.3
94.0
89.4
94.7
88.9
94.7
90.5
96.0
33
80.3
84.2
87.0
81.1
80.6
81.1
82.8
82.8
82.4
81.8
83.6
A nim al and v e g e ta b le oils, fats , an d w a x e s ....................................................
4
110.0
107.4
109.0
116.2
118.1
119.1
132.1
134.7
124.2
121.8
116.1
C hem ica ls and re la te d pro d u cts , n.e.s................................................................
Medicinal and pharmaceutical produc ts ...............................................................
Essential oils; polishing and cleaning pre para tions .........................................
Plastics in primary forms ( 1 2 /9 2 - 1 0 0 ) ...............................................................
Plastics in nonprimary forms (1 2 /9 2 — 1 0 0 ) ........................................................
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s.................................................................
5
54
55
57
58
59
99.0
108.4
109.2
106.5
99.5
108.7
100.0
107.7
109.5
109.8
99.8
108.5
101.5
107.9
109.4
113.8
100.2
108.9
103.8
107.9
109.7
121.5
101.4
109.0
106.6
107.6
109.5
129.5
104.6
109.2
108.1
107.5
109.7
132.5
104.2
109.7
109.2
107.5
109.4
134.0
104.8
110.9
112.4
107.5
109.7
137.0
105.7
113.1
113.8
107.7
110.1
138.6
106.0
114.3
115.1
108.0
110.4
141.5
106.5
113.1
116.3
108.1
110.4
143.3
108.1
114.3
6
62
104.4
109.2
105.3
109.0
106.1
109.3
106.6
110.2
108.0
110.7
109.3
110.3
110.9
110.5
112.1
111.6
113.1
112.6
113.8
114.6
115.1
114.0
64
66
68
96.2
107.3
92.5
98.5
107.3
95.6
100.3
107.4
97.6
101.8
107.6
98.7
105.9
107.6
102.5
108.2
107.4
107.1
111.0
108.6
111.4
115.6
108.6
113.8
117.1
108.5
116.1
118.5
109.3
115.2
123.7
109.3
116.2
7
71
72
104.1
112.8
109.8
104.1
113.1
109.4
103.8
113.5
109.3
103.7
113.7
109.9
103.7
113.6
109.9
103.8
114.5
109.9
103.7
114.6
109.9
104.0
115.1
110.6
104.2
115.3
111.1
104.2
114.4
111.6
104.3
114.5
112.1
74
75
110.1
81.0
110.1
80.8
110.3
78.8
110.5
78.8
110.5
78.5
110.5
78.4
110.5
78.1
111.2
77.6
111.8
77.2
111.8
76.9
111.9
77.0
76
77
78
107.3
103.2
106.3
107.5
103.0
106.5
107.3
103.1
106.5
106.8
101.8
106.6
106.7
101.9
107.2
106.7
101.7
107.2
106.4
101.5
107.3
107.1
101.8
107.4
107.1
101.5
107.7
106.4
102.3
107.8
105.9
102.5
107.8
87
111.6
111.9
111.9
112.5
112.2
113.1
112.6
113.5
113.4
113.2
113.0
July 1995
125
M a n u fa c tu re d g o o d s classified c h ie fly by
m a t e r ia ls .........................................................................................................................
Rubber manufactures, n.e.s.......................................................................................
Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper, pulp,
and p a p erb o a rd ...........................................................................................................
Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s..............................................................
Nonferrous m e ta ls ........................................................................................................
M ach in ery and tra n s p o rt e q u ip m e n t...................................................................
Power generating machinery and e q u ip m e n t....................................................
Machinery specialized for particular industries..................................................
General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s.,
and machine p a r ts ....................................................................................................
Computer equipment and office m a c h in e s .........................................................
Telecommunications and sound recording and
reproducing apparatus and e q u ip m e n t..............................................................
Electrical machinery and e q u ip m en t......................................................................
Road vehicles ................................................................................................................
P rofess iona l, scientific, and con trolling
In stru m e n ts an d a p p a r a tu s ................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
Current Labor Statistics:
38.
Price Data
U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification
(1 9 9 0 = 1 0 0 , unless otherwise indicated)
C a te g o ry
Fo o d an d live a n im a ls ..................................................................
M eat and m eat preparations.................................................................................
Fish and crustaceans, mollusks, and other
aquatic in ve rte b ra tes .......................................
Cereals and cereal p re p ara tio n s ..................................................
Vegetables and fruit, prepared fresh or dried ................................................
Sugars, sugar preparations, and h o n e y .............................................................
Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, and manufactures
thereof ........................................................................
126
SITC
Rev.3
1995
1994
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
0
01
114.7
89.9
118.0
90.7
118.8
91.9
120.6
91.0
118.4
90.9
118.7
91.7
120.1
90.3
116.9
89.7
120.5
88.6
115.8
86.7
03
04
05
06
122.0
101.6
98.3
98.9
123.6
101.7
99.9
98.8
123.5
100.5
100.1
96.8
126.1
102.5
99.4
97.1
126.5
101.9
100.6
96.7
127.9
101.9
112.6
97.2
125.7
101.6
120.3
98.3
125.7
101.5
110.0
98.8
127.7
102.0
114.0
98.1
126.9
93.3
103.8
99.3
07
181.7
195.9
202.2
212.0
194.5
172.3
172.2
168.6
183.7
176.5
B e v e ra g e s an d t o b a c c o .........................................................................................
B e v e ra g e s ...............................................................................
1
11
113.5
113.0
113.6
113.1
113.4
113.5
113.6
113.6
113.7
113.8
113.5
113.6
114.0
114.2
113.4
113.6
114.4
114.5
115.0
114.7
C ru d e m aterials, Inedible, e x c e p t f u e l s ..............................................................
Crude rubber (including synthetic and re cla im e d ).........................................
Cork and wood ..............................................................................
Pulp and w aste p a p e r .............................................................................................
Crude fe rtilize rs ..........................................................................................................
Metalliferous ores and metal s c ra p ....................................................................
Crude animal and vegetable materials, n.e.s....................................................
2
23
24
25
27
28
29
106.7
114.6
153.6
72.3
82.1
91.0
128.5
107.2
119.6
154.8
76.7
82.4
90.2
118.6
108.5
121.0
155.4
80.1
82.3
92.3
118.3
110.4
134.0
151.3
86.4
86.0
92.8
117.4
113.9
135.7
157.2
90.0
86.1
94.3
126.6
114.6
143.8
149.6
90.7
86.6
97.2
139.2
118.9
159.8
152.7
97.4
87.9
98.6
142.8
121.6
164.8
150.0
97.4
87.9
101.1
166.3
121.0
165.6
143.3
105.0
89.6
105.5
140.1
122.8
169.6
141.1
108.0
91.8
104.7
155.2
M ine ra l fuels, lubricants, an d re la te d p r o d u c ts ..............................................
Petroleum, petroleum products, and related
m a teria ls .....................................................................................................
Gas, natural and m anu fa ctu red ...........................................................................
Electrical e n e r g y ........................................................................................................
3
80.1
79.2
73.5
73.9
76.9
75.3
76.0
77.8
79.2
84.1
33
34
35
79.6
86.4
89.8
78.6
86.9
92.4
72.6
87.4
88.8
73.1
86.0
86.2
76.1
87.5
83.3
74.5
88.3
83.5
75.4
84.8
82.3
77.5
81.7
79.9
79.1
79.1
78.0
84.3
79.8
77.4
A n im al an d v e g e ta b le oils, fa ts , a nd w a x e s .....................................................
4
135.0
136.9
140.0
141.6
144.1
155.0
152.2
145.4
151.8
153.1
C h em ica ls an d re la te d produ cts , n.e.s.................................................................
Inorganic chem ic als ..................................................................................................
Dyeing, tanning, and coloring materials ...........................................................
Medicinal and pharmaceutical p ro d u c ts ...........................................................
Essential oils; polishing and cleaning p re p ara tio n s ......................................
Fertilizers .....................................................................................................................
Plastics in primary forms ( 1 2 / 9 2 = 1 0 0 ) .............................................................
Plastics in nonprimary forms ( 1 2 /9 2 — 1 0 0 ) .....................................................
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s..............................................................
5
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
103.4
100.0
102.0
118.7
109.5
102.3
102.8
99.1
101.9
103.9
100.7
102.7
120.3
110.7
101.0
103.1
99.4
103.1
105.7
102.7
102.5
119.7
110.5
102.1
101.6
102.8
105.2
106.6
105.6
102.9
120.2
111.8
105.0
101.4
102.1
103.1
107.8
106.8
103.2
121.4
112.7
107.0
102.1
105.8
103.4
108.8
107.6
102.9
120.5
113.4
107.2
102.9
107.1
103.7
109.1
108.5
102.4
120.2
114.5
108.2
107.3
110.0
102.6
110.1
109.4
103.3
120.7
115.3
109.7
107.3
112.8
103.4
111.1
113.1
104.4
121.4
116.8
112.0
106.8
115.5
104.2
112.1
112.2
105.5
124.5
120.1
112.4
109.0
116.5
103.9
M a n u fa c tu re d g o o d s classified c h ie fly b y m a te ria l .....................................
Rubber manufactures, n.e.s....................................................................................
Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper pulp,
paper, or paperboard ...........................................................................................
Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s...........................................................
Nonferrous m e ta ls ....................................................................................................
Manufactures of metals, n.e.s................................................................................
6
62
101.5
101.4
102.4
102.2
103.0
101.5
103.9
102.5
105.4
102.6
106.4
102.3
107.4
102.4
108.6
102.1
109.0
102.8
110.2
103.7
64
66
68
69
97.1
108.9
88.2
104.7
97.9
108.9
90.0
105.7
99.4
109.8
91.0
106.0
99.2
109.6
95.6
106.2
101.3
109.9
99.1
107.0
105.2
110.5
103.1
106.4
108.6
110.4
105.6
106.3
108.6
110.7
110.8
107.0
113.2
110.9
106.1
108.5
117.0
111.1
105.7
109.9
M achinery an d tra n s p o rt e q u ip m e n t .................................................................
Machinery specialized for particular industries...............................................
General industrial machinery and equipment, n.e.s.,
and machine p a r ts .................................................................................................
Computer equipment and office m a c h in e s ......................................................
Telecommunications and sound recording and
reproducing apparatus and equipment ..........................................................
Electrical machinery and e q u ip m e n t..................................................................
Road vehicles ............................................................................................................
7
72
106.9
110.3
107.4
111.5
107.4
111.5
108.1
112.0
108.2
112.8
108.0
112.5
107.9
112.3
108.2
113.2
108.3
114.0
109.3
115.9
74
75
110.1
86.1
110.5
86.0
110.3
86.0
110.9
85.7
111.6
84.5
111.6
84.8
112.1
84.7
112.8
84.5
112.9
83.7
115.7
83.9
76
77
78
97.4
106.0
112.8
97.8
106.8
113.4
97.5
106.6
113.5
97.6
106.9
115.0
97.7
106.7
115.3
97.7
106.5
115.1
97.4
106.4
115.0
97.6
106.6
115.4
97.7
106.8
115.4
98.8
107.7
115.9
F o o tw e a r..........................................................................................................................
Photographic apparatus, equipment, and supplies,
and optical goods, n.e.s........................................................................................
85
100.4
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.3
101.1
100.7
101.0
101.1
101.6
88
109.7
110.6
110.8
111.1
110.8
110.6
109.9
110.7
111.0
112.3
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
39.
U.S. export price indexes by end-use category
(1990 = 100 unless otherwise indicated)
1995
1994
C a te g o ry
July
Aug.
Sept.
Nov.
Oct.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Apr.
A L L C O M M O D IT IE S ........................................................................................
103.4
103.6
103.8
104.4
105.1
105.8
106.7
107.4
107.9
108.8
Foods, feeds, and beverages ...................................................................
Agricultural foods, feeds, and b e v e ra g e s ..........................................
Nonagricultural (fish, beverages) food
p ro d u c ts .......................................................................................................
102.0
101.8
101.1
100.1
101.3
100.3
101.5
100.1
102.9
101.5
104.7
103.4
103.8
102.5
104.5
102.8
106.2
104.1
108.7
106.8
101.3
108.2
107.9
112.1
112.8
113.0
113.5
117.1
122.1
123.1
115.3
117.0
Industrial supplies and m aterials...............................................................
102.2
103.5
104.3
106.0
107.9
109.9
112.5
114.1
Agricultural industrial supplies
and materials ............................................................................................
104.7
105.7
107.1
107.7
109.7
114.4
117.7
118.7
122.0
120.6
91.4
91.5
91.6
91.0
92.6
Fuels and lubricants ..................................................................................
Nonagricultural supplies and materials,
excluding fuel and building m aterials................................................
Selected building m a te ria ls ......................................................................
91.6
92.9
90.3
90.0
90.6
99.8
147.0
101.2
147.4
102.6
147.2
104.9
147.3
107.1
148.6
109.2
149.7
112.2
151.4
114.2
153.2
115.5
153.4
117.7
153.5
Capital g o o d s ...................................................................................................
Electric and electrical generating
e q u ip m en t...................................................................................................
Nonelectrical m a ch in e ry ...........................................................................
104.1
103.7
103.7
103.6
103.7
103.6
103.9
104.0
104.2
104.5
106.5
101.5
106.5
101.0
106.6
100.8
106.7
100.6
106.8
100.8
106.4
100.6
106.9
100.9
107.0
100.9
107.3
101.0
108.1
101.3
Automotive vehicles, parts, and e n g in e s ...............................................
106.6
106.6
106.7
107.2
107.2
107.3
107.4
107.7
107.3
107.3
108.8
110.8
106.9
109.3
111.5
107.3
.0
109.6
108.9
Consumer goods, excluding auto m o tiv e ................................................
Nondurables, m anufactured ....................................................................
Durables, m a n u fa ctu red ...........................................................................
Nonmanufactured consumer g o o d s .....................................................
107.7
109.7
105.8
99.4
107.9
109.9
106.0
99.3
108.1
110.1
106.3
98.4
108.2
110.1
106.5
99.3
108.3
110.2
106.6
98.9
108.2
110.0
106.3
100.7
108.3
110.3
106.3
-
“
109.0
111.2
106.9
99.9
Agricultural com m odities..............................................................................
Nonagricultural c o m m o d ities ......................................................................
102.4
103.7
101.2
104.0
101.7
104.2
101.6
104.9
103.2
105.5
105.7
106.0
105.6
107.0
106.1
107.7
107.8
108.1
-
40.
Data not available.
U.S. import price indexes by end-use category
(1990 = 100)
1995
1994
C a te g o ry
July
A L L C O M M O D IT IE S ........................................................................................
102.8
Aug.
103.3
Sept.
102.8
Nov.
Oct.
103.5
104.2
Dec.
Feb.
Jan.
Mar.
Apr.
104.1
104.4
105.1
105.6
106.9
118.8
116.2
121.8
119.8
118.6
115.5
126.8
126.2
Foods, feeds, and beverages ...................................................................
Agricultural foods, feeds, and b e v e ra g e s ..........................................
Nonagricultural (fish, beverages) food
pro d u c ts .......................................................................................................
116.3
113.9
119.0
117.2
120.0
118.5
121.8
120.2
120.1
117.7
120.2
117.6
121.1
119.4
122.2
123.2
123.5
125.3
125.7
126.7
125.1
125.0
Industrial supplies and m aterials...............................................................
92.3
92.5
90.6
91.5
93.8
93.7
94.8
96.5
97.7
100.6
78.7
77.1
80.4
78.7
85.3
83.6
77.0
75.1
Fuels and lub rica n ts ......................................................................................
Petroleum and petroleum p ro d u c ts ......................................................
80.9
79.0
80.0
78.1
74.5
72.2
74.8
72.8
77.7
75.8
76.1
74.2
Paper and paper base s to c k s .......................................... .........................
Materials assiciated with nondurable supplies
and materials ................................................................... .........................
Selected building m a teria ls .........................................................................
Unfinished metals associated with durable g o o d s .............................
Nonmetals associated with durable goods ..........................................
89.2
90.9
93.0
94.7
96.8
100.1
104.7
105.7
111.0
115.3
112.7
125.2
107.4
101.2
113.8
123.1
106.0
103.0
114.9
122.4
106.4
104.4
106.2
110.8
104.8
Capital g o o d s ...................................................................................................
Electric and electrical generating e q u ip m e n t....................................
Nonelectrical m a ch in e ry ...........................................................................
Transportation equipment, excluding motor
vehicles and spacecraft (1 2 /9 2 — 100) .........................................
Automotive vehicles, parts and e n g in e s ................................................
Consumer goods, excluding auto m o tiv es ..............................................
Nondurables, m a nufactured....................................................................
Durables, m a n u fa ctu red ...........................................................................
Nonmanufactured consumer g o o d s ......................................................
-
103.6
127.9
92.8
97.8
104.6
128.4
93.9
98.7
106.4
128.6
95.3
98.0
107.5
126.5
98.1
100.4
109.4
129.8
100.1
100.5
110.3
125.7
102.5
100.7
111.5
125.7
103.8
100.8
104.3
106.9
103.1
104.9
107.7
103.7
104.8
107.4
103.7
105.1
107.7
103.9
105.0
108.3
103.7
104.9
108.1
103.6
104.7
107.9
103.4
105.1
109.2
103.7
105.1
109.6
103.7
105.0
110.9
104.7
111.5
105.2
111.6
105.7
112.9
105.8
113.2
105.3
113.0
112.9
113.2
”
113.3
114.0
105.9
105.8
105.5
110.0
106.0
106.0
105.6
110.3
106.2
106.2
105.6
110.6
106.4
106.5
105.6
112.0
106.4
106.4
105.6
113.4
106.3
106.1
105.6
114.0
106.8
106.4
106.0
117.2
106.8
106.8
106.2
112.1
107.3
107.2
106.7
114.2
105.8
105.6
105.3
111.7
Data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
127
Current Labor Statistics:
41.
Price and Productivity Data
U.S. international price indexes for selected categories of services
(1 9 9 0 = 1 0 0 unless otherwise indicated))
1995
1994
1993
C a te g o ry
Mar.
June
Sept.
Mar.
Dec.
Mar.
Dec.
Sept.
June
Air freight (inbound) ...........................................................................
Air freight (outbound).........................................................................
100.1
97.3
106.4
96.6
106.6
95.6
106.1
96.4
105.9
96.5
108.1
96.2
108.6
96.2
110.4
97.3
115.4
98.1
Air passenger fares (U.S. carriers) ...............................................
Air passenger fares (foreign c arriers )..........................................
O cean liner freight (inboun d)..........................................................
109.8
108.0
104.0
117.2
115.7
103.5
119.0
117.0
103.3
111.4
107.2
102.1
113.1
108.1
103.4
119.7
114.6
106.3
121.4
118.1
106.2
113.8
110.0
106.6
116.1
113.8
106.6
42.
indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted
(1982 = 100)
Quarterly Indexes
Item
1992
III
128
1993
IV
I
II
1994
III
IV
I
II
1995
III
IV
I
Business:
Output per hour of all p e rs o n s .........................
Compensation per h o u r .....................
Real compensation per h o u r ..............................
Unit labor costs ...............................
Unit nonlabor payments .............................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
115.8
156.0
106.8
134.7
145.8
138.3
116.8
157.7
107.1
135.1
150.2
140.1
116.2
158.7
107.0
136.6
149.5
140.8
116.3
159.9
107.0
137.5
149.6
141.4
117.0
160.6
107.0
137.3
150.5
141.6
118.4
161.3
106.6
136.2
154.0
142.1
118.9
163.3
107.4
137.3
153.4
142.6
118.5
163.6
106.9
138.1
155.6
143.8
119.5
164.9
106.8
138.0
157.8
144.5
120.7
166.4
107.2
137.8
159.0
144.8
121.4
168.0
107.4
138.4
159.5
145.3
N o n fa rm business:
Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ..................................
Compensation per h o u r............................................
Real compensation per h o u r ..................................
Unit labor costs ..........................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................................
Implicit price deflator ........................................
113.9
154.7
105.9
135.8
147.1
139.5
115.0
156.4
106.2
136.1
152.1
141.2
114.3
157.2
105.9
137.4
151.5
142.0
114.5
158.1
105.8
138.1
151.8
142.5
115.3
158.7
105.7
137.7
153.6
142.8
116.5
159.3
105.3
136.8
156.3
143.1
117.0
161.2
106.0
137.8
155.5
143.5
116.6
161.8
105.7
138.8
158.3
145.1
117.3
162.9
105.5
138.8
160.9
145.9
118.6
164.4
105.9
138.7
161.8
146.1
119.4
166.2
106.2
139.2
162.3
146.7
N o nfinan clal c o rpo ra tions:
Output per hour of all e m p lo y e e s ..............................
Compensation per h o u r .................................................
Real compensation per h o u r .......................................
Total unit c o s ts .................................................................
Unit labor costs .............................................................
Unit nonlabor c o s ts ......................................................
Unit p ro fits ..........................................
Unit nonlabor payments ................................................
Implicit price deflator ........................................
119.1
151.5
103.7
124.9
127.2
119.0
171.0
128.8
127.7
120.6
153.1
104.0
123.8
127.0
115.7
191.2
129.9
127.9
119.9
153.9
103.7
125.0
128.3
116.8
183.7
129.4
128.7
121.2
154.4
103.3
124.1
127.3
115.8
199.4
131.5
128.7
122.2
154.8
103.1
123.6
126.7
115.8
202.5
132.1
128.5
123.4
155.0
102.5
122.6
125.7
114.8
220.9
134.8
128.7
124.0
156.5
102.9
123.5
126.2
116.6
218.2
135.7
129.4
123.8
156.8
102.4
123.4
126.7
115.2
228.7
136.6
129.9
124.3
157.9
102.3
124.0
127.1
116.2
228.8
137.4
130.5
125.3
159.1
102.5
123.8
127.0
115.9
230.3
137.4
130.4
125.9
160.6
102.7
124.3
127.6
116.1
224.9
136.6
130.5
M anufacturin g:
Output per hour of all p e rs o n s .............................
Compensation per h o u r ..............................
Real compensation per h o u r .......................................
Unit labor c o s t s ............................................
127.6
148.3
101.6
116.3
129.1
150.7
102.3
116.8
130.8
149.9
101.0
114.6
131.3
151.7
101.5
115.5
132.1
152.5
101.6
115.4
133.6
153.3
101.4
114.7
135.4
154.3
101.4
113.9
136.8
153.6
100.3
112.2
138.0
154.5
100.0
111.9
139.3
155.9
100.4
112.0
140.4
157.7
100.8
112.3
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
43.
Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years
(1987 = 100)
P riv a te business:
Productivity:
Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ................................
Output per unit of capital s e rv ic e s .........................
Multifactor productivity................................................
O u tp u t..................................................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all perso n s .....................................................
Capital services .............................................................
Combined units of labor and capital in p u t..........
Capital per hour of all perso n s ...................................
P rivate n o n farm business:
Productivity:
Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ................................
Output per unit of capital s e rv ic e s .........................
Multifactor productivity................................................
O u tp u t..................................................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all p ersons.....................................................
Capital services ............................................................
Combined units of labor and capital in p u t..........
Capital per hour of all p e rso n s ...................................
44.
106.6
53.5
116.0
70.5
37.8
74.8
115.1
87.2
57.4
83.0
120.1
95.3
67.9
89.1
105.8
96.0
79.9
99.6
99.7
99.8
96.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.9
101.4
100.5
104.3
101.0
101.3
100.3
107.0
101.9
99.8
100.0
107.9
102.9
96.8
99.0
106.5
105.9
97.9
100.5
109.3
66.7
32.6
53.4
46.3
74.2
49.8
65.7
64.9
78.7
56.6
71.1
69.2
86.8
75.5
83.1
84.2
96.8
97.0
96.8
99.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
104.2
102.9
103.7
99.6
107.2
105.6
106.7
99.7
107.8
108.2
107.8
102.1
106.5
110.0
107.5
106.1
107.5
111.6
108.6
107.9
110.1
113.8
57.7
122.6
74.9
37.4
77.3
120.5
89.9
57.4
85.6
125.3
98.1
68.3
90.6
108.2
97.7
80.2
99.8
100.0
100.0
96.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.9
101.3
100.5
104.5
100.7
100.9
99.9
107.1
101.3
99.1
99.4
107.8
102.5
96.0
98.5
106.4
105.1
96.8
99.6
108.9
105.9
61.4
30.5
49.7
47.1
72.0
47.7
63.8
64.0
76.9
54.5
69.4
68.3
85.7
74.2
82.0
83.8
96.6
96.7
96.6
99.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
104.4
103.2
103.9
99.6
107.6
106.1
107.1
99.9
108.3
108.8
108.4
102.3
106.8
110.8
107.9
106.6
108.0
112.6
109.2
108.5
consistency with the
NOTE:
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1980
1973
1970
1960
Item
Productivity and output in this table have not been revised for
Decem ber
1991
comprehensive
112.5
112.4
110.9
115.0
"
L -j—
revisions to the
National Income and Product Accounts.
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years
(1982 = 100)
Item
I9 6 0
1970
1973
1983
1985
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Business:
65.6
21.1
68.8
32.2
33.6
32.6
87.0
36.7
91.3
42.2
42.7
42.4
95.1
45.1
98.1
47.5
52.1
49.0
102.3
103.8
100.6
101.5
107.5
103.4
106.3
113.2
101.5
106.5
120.8
111.2
109.6
123.1
104.6
112.3
125.5
116.6
110.7
128.5
104.8
116.0
130.6
120.8
109.9
133.0
103.5
121.0
136.6
126.1
110.7
140.6
103.8
127.1
139.8
131.2
112.1
147.4
104.4
131.5
144.9
135.9
115.5
154.9
106.6
134.2
148.3
138.8
117.0
160.1
106.9
136.9
150.9
141.5
119.7
165.1
107.5
137.9
156.3
143.9
69.9
22.2
72.4
31.8
33.3
32.3
88.5
37.0
92.0
41.8
43.0
42.2
96.4
45.4
98.7
47.1
49.6
47.9
102.5
104.0
100.8
101.5
109.2
104.0
105.6
112.8
101.1
106.8
121.6
111.6
108.6
122.5
104.1
112.8
126.6
117.2
109.6
127.7
104.2
116.5
131.8
121.4
108.6
132.0
102.7
121.5
137.1
126.5
109.1
139.2
102.8
127.6
140.6
131.8
110.7
146.2
103.6
132.1
146.5
136.7
113.7
153.7
105.7
135.2
149.7
139.9
115.2
158.3
105.7
137.5
153.4
142.6
117.7
163.1
106.2
138.6
159.1
145.2
75.3
23.6
77.0
29.5
31.4
24.8
75.1
34.2
32.3
90.3
38.4
95.4
40.5
42.5
35.5
69.5
41.9
42.3
95.0
46.6
101.2
46.5
49.0
40.2
87.9
49.2
49.1
103.8
103.4
100.2
99.5
99.6
99.3
135.9
106.2
101.8
106.5
112.0
100.4
103.7
105.2
100.1
168.1
112.9
107.7
111.2
120.9
102.7
107.0
108.8
102.5
172.1
115.6
111.0
113.3
125.9
102.7
109.8
111.1
106.4
183.5
120.9
114.3
111.5
130.2
101.3
115.7
116.8
112.9
168.5
123.3
119.0
112.7
137.1
101.3
120.1
121.7
116.3
167.5
125.9
123.1
115.0
143.8
101.9
123.7
125.0
120.5
164.7
128.8
126.3
118.5
150.4
103.5
124.4
126.9
118.0
177.2
129.1
127.7
121.8
154.6
103.3
123.8
127.0
115.8
201.9
132.0
128.6
124.8
158.2
103.0
123.7
126.7
116.0
226.5
136.8
130.0
102.2
102.7
99.5
100.5
113.5
103.8
106.7
111.3
99.8
104.2
120.1
108.2
116.6
118.4
100.6
101.6
134.5
109.8
119.2
123.1
100.4
103.2
147.4
114.3
119.9
127.9
99.5
106.7
153.3
118.4
122.1
134.7
99.5
110.4
153.7
121.2
124.9
141.9
100.5
113.7
157.0
124.5
127.5
147.9
101.7
116.0
157.0
126.3
132.0
152.0
101.5
115.1
160.8
126.5
137.4
154.5
100.6
112.5
N o n fa rm business:
N o nfinan cial c o rpo ra tions:
M anufacturin g:
_
_
_
-
-
Data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
129
Current Labor Statistics: Productivity Data
45.
Annual indexes of output per hour for selected industries
(1987=100)
Industry
SIC
1973
1979
1985
1986
1 51.7
1 42.4
1 68.9
1 173.5
1 86.5
1 51.8
1 48.5
1 54.5
1 110.3
1 92.6
1 76.6
1 93.6
1 85.1
1 83.0
1 95.1
1 79.6
1 109.7
1 92.4
1 90.3
1 95.1
1
1
1
1
1
Canned fruits and v e g e ta b le s ................................
Frozen fruits and v e g e ta b le s ..................................
Flour and other grain mill p ro d u c ts ......................
Cereal breakfast fo o d s ..............................................
Rice milling ...............................................
W et corn milling .........................................................
2011
2013
2015
2022
2026
2033
2037
2041
2043
2044
2046
1 65.1
1 67.2
1 58.0
1 56.6
1 49.5
1 66.0
1 80.1
1 68.5
1 65.6
1 59.3
1 24.1
1 75.0
1 92.8
1 81.7
1 79.8
1 62.7
1 74.0
1 86.6
1 80.5
1 74.2
1 69.3
1 47.1
1 98.3
1 97.8
1 100.5
1 94.7
1 88.3
1 93.0
1 97.0
1 95.8
1 97.1
1 68.6
1 74.6
1 98.7
1 98.6
1 95.6
1 101.1
1 94.0
1 98.4
1 104.9
1 95.9
1 98.6
1 72.7
1 97.3
Prepared feeds for animals and fo w ls ................
Bakery p ro d u c ts ......................................................
Raw and refined cane s u g a r..................................
Beet sugar ....................................................................
M alt b e v e ra g e s .............................................................
Bottled and canned soft d rin ks ..............................
Fresh or frozen fish and s e a fo o d .........................
Cigarettes, chewing and smoking to b a c c o ........
2 047,48
2 051,52
2 061,62
2063
2 082
2 086
2 092
211,3
1 51.6
1 82.3
1 76.7
1 75.9
1 43.3
1 49.2
1 93.2
1 79.4
1 66.5
1 83.8
1 96.4
1 78.3
1 63.8
1 64.4
1 93.8
1 90.3
1 96.9
1 95.6
1 96.6
1 73.4
1 73.7
1 85.2
1 88.0
1 93.5
Cotton and synthetic broadwoven fa b ric s .........
Hosiery .........................................................
Yarn spinning m ills ......................................................
M e n’s and boys’ suits and c o a ts ..........................
221,2
2251,52
2281
231
1 58.1
1 63.2
1 55.9
1 75.6
1 75.6
1 93.3
1 68.3
1 95.9
Sawmills and planing mills, general .....................
Hardwood dimension and flo o rin g ........................
M illw o rk .................................................................
W ood kitchen c ab in e ts ..............................................
Hardwood veneer and p ly w o o d .............................
Softwood veneer and plywood ..............................
W ood c o n ta in ers .........................................................
W ood household furniture .......................................
Upholstered household furnitu re............................
Metal household fu rn itu re ........................................
Mattresses and b e d sp rin g s .....................................
W ood office furn itu re .................................................
Office furniture, except w o o d .................................
Pulp, paper, and paperboard m ills ........................
Corrugated and solid fiber boxes .........................
Folding paperboard b o x e s .......................................
Paper and plastic b a g s .............................................
2421
2426
2431
2434
2435
2436
244
2511,17
2512
2514
2515
2521
2522
261,2,3
2653
2657
2673,74
1 68.3
1 84.0
1 104.2
1 80.5
1 80.2
1 67.7
-
Alkalies and c h lo rin e .................................................
Inorganic pigments .....................................................
Industrial inorganic chemicals, not
elsewhere c la s sifie d .................................................
Synthetic fib e rs .............................................................
Soaps and d e te rg e n ts ...............................................
Cosmetics and other toiletries ...............................
Paints and allied p ro d u c ts .......................................
Industrial organic chemicals, not
elsewhere c la s sifie d .................................................
Nitrogenous fe rtilizers................................................
Phosphatic fertilizers .................................................
Fertilizers, mixing o n ly ...............................................
Agricultural chemicals, not
elsewhere c lassified................................................
1990
1991
103.7
109.8
110.6
101.0
102.2
1 99.5
1 107.8
1 116.5
1 98.1
1 101.9
1 90.0
1 104.5
1 118.5
1 97.0
1 108.3
1 87.0
1 102.9
1 122.1
1 98.1
1 103.6
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 99.5
1 105.6
1 95.9
1 106.4
1 103.9
1 100.2
1 95.1
1 102.0
' 98.6
1 83.8
1 96.6
1 92.2
1 99.8
1 101.2
1 104.3
1 106.7
1 92.5
1 98.9
1 101.6
1 96.0
1 98.6
1 103.0
1 92.9
1 93.6
1 107.7
1 101.1
1 108.0
1 96.2
1 92.3
1 107.0
1 102.0
1 106.9
1 104.7
1 94.9
1 90.8
1 114.2
1 98.9
1 110.7
1 103.4
1 98.7
1 107.4
1 105.3
1 101.1
1 100.1
1 95.2
1 100.1
1 96.9
1 80.8
1 85.1
1 91.4
1 91.2
1 95.3
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 101.2
1 93.8
1 97.5
1 95.3
1 99.1
1 109.9
1 99.2
1 106.8
1 103.1
1 93.2
1 97.4
1 87.9
1 102.0
1 119.3
1 92.9
1 107.3
’ 106.6
1 96.2
1 100.9
1 91.1
1 110.9
1 126.7
1 87.1
1 112.9
1 107.2
1 92.9
' 101.3
1 93.4
1 110.1
1 135.1
1 84.8
1 119.2
1 93.4
1 100.9
1 89.6
1 106.3
1 99.0
' 102.5
1 93.2
1 103.5
1
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 100.3
1 107.0
1 98.6
1 102.5
1
1
1
1
104.5
108.4
103.6
101.9
1 109.3
1 106.0
1 106.7
1 98.8
1 115.2
1 111.3
1 106.3
1 91.3
1 91.2
1 71.9
1 75.6
1 71.6
1 82.5
1 70.6
1 67.1
1 70.3
1 86.4
1 90.7
1 73.3
1 83.0
1 95.4
1 89.1
1 79.6
1 65.6
1 72.9
1 90.4
1 82.8
1 72.5
1 86.2
1 117.0
1 76.7
1 77.3
1 87.2
1 90.7
1 94.1
1 93.5
1 95.1
1 97.4
1 87.1
1 84.5
1 88.3
1 99.6
1 93.3
1 98.6
1 98.8
' 77.2
1 99.4
1 96.9
1 87.6
1 99.6
1 90.0
1 99.7
1 102.3
1 98.8
1 102.2
1 85.2
1 83.2
1 90.4
1 98.7
1 100.2
1 100.6
1 101.7
1 83.1
1 96.2
1 100.6
1 93.3
1 102.8
1 88.5
1 101.8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 101.7
1 97.4
1 98.3
1 97.8
1 98.3
1 100.3
1 103.4
1 101.0
1 99.8
1 100.6
1 99.2
1 94.8
1 96.0
1 102.9
1 99.6
1 99.6
1 97.4
1 101.0
1 96.5
1 97.7
1 91.0
1 97.4
1 102.0
1 108.9
1 100.1
1 101.0
1 100.0
1 105.0
1 94.2
1 99.0
1 103.2
1 97.7
1 101.1
1 93.6
1 101.5
1 95.4
’ 97.9
1 93.7
1 90.2
1 107.3
1 112.0
1 98.8
1 98.5
1 103.9
1 105.7
1 95.8
1 95.7
1 102.1
1 100.3
1 99.4
1 91.4
1 105.0
1 98.2
1 95.8
1 92.6
1 90.7
1 113.0
1 114.2
1 100.2
1 103.4
1 107.3
1 110.3
1 99.1
1 93.0
1 101.5
1 100.0
1 102.8
1 88.6
2812
2816
1 38.4
1 72.6
1 50.8
1 67.8
1 70.8
1 84.4
1 97.7
1 88.6
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.9
1 101.2
1 92.6
1 107.3
1 90.7
1 102.5
1 84.0
1 96.3
2 81 9 pt.
2823,24
2841
2844
285
1 90.6
1 38.4
1 89.1
1 88.6
1 63.2
1
1
1
1
1
91.5
70.9
91.0
93.6
79.8
1 87.3
1 79.3
1 91.5
1 90.3
1 96.9
1 88.6
1 90.8
1 92.3
1 96.6
1 98.0
1
1
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 96.8
1 102.7
1 103.4
1 105.0
1 103.0
1
1
1
1
1
104.3
103.5
110.7
101.6
106.6
1 106.8
1 98.3
1 132.1
1 100.8
1 111.4
1 99.0
1 97.1
1 131.7
1 103.4
1 111.2
2869
2873
2874
2875
1 73.1
1 65.4
1 62.4
1 90.5
1 93.0
1 72.7
1 68.3
1 110.9
1 87.8
1 100.7
1 84.2
1 100.8
1 92.3
1 90.5
1 79.6
1 95.1
1
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 110.7
1 101.7
1 93.4
1 103.4
1 109.9
1 105.4
1 85.6
1 110.8
1 99.5
1 108.9
1 104.5
1 108.7
1 93.2
1 110.1
1 114.5
1 109.3
2879
101
102
12
131
14
Meatpacking p la n ts ....................................
Sausages and other prepared m e a ts ..................
Poultry dressing and processing............................
Cheese, natural and p ro c e s s e d .............................
Fluid m ilk ..................................................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1988
1
1
1
1
1
1 74.3
1 83.6
1 92.9
1 93.2
1 100.0
1 108.4
1 108.9
1 106.2
1 102.8
Petroleum re fin in g .......................................................
Tires and inner tubes ................................................
Rubber and plastics hose and b e ltin g ................
Miscellaneous plastic products, not
elsewhere c lassified ................................................
F o o tw e a r ........................................................................
Glass c o n ta in e rs .........................................................
Cem ent, h y d rau lic .......................................................
Clay construction p ro d u c ts ......................................
Clay refrac to rie s ..........................................................
Concrete p ro d u c ts ......................................................
Ready-mixed concrete ..............................................
291
301
3052
1 84.0
1 56.0
1 79.3
1 82.6
1 63.9
1 80.6
1 84.7
1 89.3
1 100.5
1 94.9
1 92.6
1 102.2
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 105.3
1 104.6
1 107.3
1 109.6
1 107.2
1 96.3
1 109.1
1 108.3
1 100.9
1 106.7
1 109.5
1 93.0
308
314
3221
324
325 1,5 3,5 9
3255
327 1,7 2
3273
1 72.8
1 89.9
1 75.2
1 71.3
1 78.5
1 80.1
1 92.5
1 99.1
1 74.3
1 94.5
1 83.8
1 68.7
1 79.0
1 93.9
1 91.3
1 96.2
1 88.2
1 99.9
1 93.4
1 91.8
1 94.2
1 94.9
1 99.5
1 93.7
1 88.9
1 101.7
1 98.5
1 97.1
1 95.5
1 100.8
1 104.4
1 96.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 98.4
1 102.4
1 101.1
1 103.3
1 103.9
1 101.3
1 102.3
1 100.3
1 97.5
1 101.4
1 104.8
1 110.1
1 96.7
1 97.3
1 105.2
1 101.0
1 100.4
1 93.0
1 112.5
1 112.5
1 100.5
1 102.2
1 104.6
1 99.7
1 100.9
1 93.3
1 114.9
1 108.3
1 95.1
1 96.2
1 105.9
1 96.1
Steel ................................................................................
Gray and ductile iron foun dries..............................
Steel fo u n d rie s .............................................................
Primary c o p p e r .............................................................
Primary alum inum ........................................................
Copper rolling and drawing .....................................
Aluminum rolling and d ra w in g ................................
331
3321
3324,25
3331
3334
3351
335 3,5 4,5 5
1 64.2
1 91.3
1 105.8
1 32.8
1 73.6
1 77.5
1 79.0
1 65.9
1 92.4
1 104.5
1 41.1
1 74.7
1 82.0
1 84.3
1 85.8
1 96.9
’ 99.5
1 73.8
1 97.6
1 86.2
1 85.7
1 89.7
1 99.3
1 104.9
1 88.7
1 102.7
1 92.3
1 95.8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 113.4
1 106.8
1 95.3
1 103.7
1 102.2
1 100.0
1 96.9
1 108.5
1 104.1
1 96.6
1 96.8
1 104.6
1 94.1
1 91.2
1 110.5
1 104.1
1 95.9
1 86.3
1 106.3
1 93.9
1 92.4
1 108.1
1 99.3
1 93.2
1 84.7
1 110.3
1 96.9
1 92.0
S ee footnotes at end of table.
130
1987
1989
Iron mining, usable o r e .....................
Copper mining, recoverable m e ta l....... .................
Coal m in in g .......................................
Crude petroleum and natural g a s .........................
Nonmetallic minerals, except fu e ls ....................
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
45. Continued—Annual indexes of output per hour for selected industries
(1987 = 100)
Industry
Metal c a n s ....................................................................
Hand and edge tools, not elsewhere
c lassified......................................................................
Heating equipment, except e le c tric ......................
Fabricated structural m e ta l......................................
Metal doors, sash, and tr im ....................................
Bolts, nuts, rivets, and w a s h e rs ............................
Automotive s ta m p in g s ...............................................
Metal stampings, not elsewhere
c lassified......................................................................
SIC
1973
1979
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
3411
1 59.2
1 75.2
1 99.2
1 95.9
1 100.0
1 107.4
1 109.0
1 119.1
1 126.0
3423
3433
3441
3442
3452
3465
1 108.6
1 78.0
1 98.1
1 90.5
1 75.8
1 74.9
1 111.6
1 86.2
1 86.0
1 92.6
1 78.9
1 81.4
1 98.8
1 91.9
1 98.6
’ 104.8
1 88.8
1 94.5
1 97.1
1 96.2
1 98.8
1 102.0
1 91.0
1 95.7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 100.9
1 112.7
1 98.9
1 102.4
1 97.0
1 104.5
1 102.1
1 103.2
1 94.7
1 101.5
1 93.8
1 104.7
1 96.4
1 111.2
1 96.8
1 97.0
1 93.7
1 100.8
1 95.0
1 115.4
1 98.3
1 94.7
1 96.2
1 104.2
3469
1 96.8
1 100.2
1 88.6
1 93.9
1 100.0
1 99.6
1 98.3
1 95.1
1 96.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Valves and pipe fittin gs............................................
Fabricated pipe and fittin g s ....................................
Internal combustion engines, not
elsewhere c lassified................................................
Farm machinery and e q u ip m e n t...........................
Lawn and garden equ ip m en t..................................
Construction m achinery............................................
Mining m a ch in e ry ........................................................
Oil and gas field m achinery....................................
3 491,92,94
3 498
1 93.6
1 140.8
1 95.7
1 116.0
1 94.4
1 120.0
1 93.9
1 121.4
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 101.3
1 99.2
1 101.0
1 101.7
1 101.9
1 106.5
1 101.2
1 113.3
3 519
3523
3524
3531
3532
3533
1 83.1
1 108.6
1 70.0
1 87.9
1 102.2
1 105.9
1 86.4
1 112.6
1 83.3
1 91.5
1 89.3
1 100.6
1 92.0
1 101.6
’ 82.4
1 92.2
1 93.7
1 92.3
1 98.5
1 95.7
1 93.2
1 99.1
1 95.1
1 95.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 105.1
1 112.5
1 97.2
1 107.2
1 102.2
1 99.3
1 110.9
1 123.1
1 91.9
1 109.7
1 107.3
1 104.6
1 105.0
' 130.6
1 93.4
1 108.9
1 99.0
1 107.4
1 98.9
1 123.6
1 94.5
1 98.2
1 90.7
1 109.2
Metal-cutting machine tools ...................................
Metal-forming machine to o ls ..................................
M achine tool a cc es s o rie s ........................................
Pumps and pumping e q u ip m e n t...........................
Ball and roller b e a rin g s ............................................
Air and gas com presso rs.........................................
Refrigeration and heating e q u ip m en t..................
Carburetors, pistons, rings, and v a lv e s ...............
3541
3542
3545
3561,94
3562
3563
3585
3592
1 101.4
' 112.5
1 105.9
1 84.0
1 108.0
1 87.6
1 100.3
1 102.9
1 100.9
1 98.5
1 100.6
1 91.4
1 110.2
1 86.1
1 98.8
1 82.0
1 89.9
1 93.1
1 92.3
1 91.9
1 91.6
1 92.2
1 98.1
1 98.9
1 92.0
1 93.7
1 95.0
1 92.7
1 94.1
1 96.0
1 95.8
1 95.7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 96.1
1 113.8
1 99.3
1 107.3
1 102.4
1 104.1
' 103.5
1 108.8
1 101.2
1 109.9
1 104.6
1 101.4
1 98.2
1 106.1
1 105.7
1 117.1
1 103.1
1 100.6
1 107.4
1 103.4
1 92.1
1 109.2
1 104.6
1 110.9
1 100.2
1 91.9
1 109.2
1 102.6
1 88.3
1 111.8
1 102.6
1 110.7
Transformers, except e le c tro n ic ...........................
Switchgear and switchboard a p p a ra tu s ..............
Motors and gen era to rs ..............................................
Household cooking e quipm ent...............................
Household refrigerators and freezers .................
Household laundry e quipm ent................................
Household appliances, not elsewhere
c lassified.....................................................................
Electric la m p s ...............................................................
Lighting fixtures and e q u ip m en t............................
Household audio and video e q u ip m e n t..............
Motor vehicles and equ ip m en t...............................
A irc ra ft............................................................................
Instruments to measure electricity........................
Photographic equipment and s u p p lie s ................
3612
3613
3621
3631
3632
3633
1 100.2
1 88.2
1 89.0
1 61.8
1 70.1
1 72.3
1 109.8
1 87.5
1 89.7
1 79.1
1 86.8
1 84.7
1 97.0
1 95.1
1 94.9
1 90.3
1 104.1
1 93.8
1 99.3
1 95.9
1 96.8
1 104.6
1 101.2
1 97.4
1
1
1
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
102.9
109.5
103.3
116.4
103.1
106.6
1 103.9
1 106.6
1 103.8
1 99.4
1 106.9
1 100.8
1
1
1
1
1
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
3639
3641
364 5,4 6,4 7,4 8
3651
371
3721
3825
386
1 63.7
1 61.3
1 84.1
1 22.3
1 68.7
1 79.2
1 63.7
1 58.9
1 76.1
1 76.1
1 86.2
’ 39.1
1 77.7
1 98.6
1 70.8
1 79.0
1 86.3
1 94.2
1 96.7
1 96.3
1 95.3
' 94.2
1 95.4
1 86.1
1 89.1
1 91.5
1 103.0
1 106.9
1 95.1
1 93.5
1 90.4
1 94.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 101.0
1 101.1
1 98.3
1 107.3
1 103.2
1 104.8
1 106.6
1 106.8
1 98.4
1 86.2
1 97.2
1 122.3
1 103.3
1 108.2
1 109.6
1 115.7
1 91.9
1 91.4
1 96.5
1 128.4
1 102.5
1 109.8
1 108.2
1 111.7
1 81.1
1 97.0
1 94.7
1 142.0
1 96.9
1 126.7
1 111.5
1 115.6
Railroad transportation, revenue tra ffic ...............
Bus carriers, class 1 ..................................................
Trucking, except lo c a l...............................................
Air transportation ........................................................
Petroleum pipelines ...................................................
Telephone com m unications....................................
Electric utilities ............................................................
G as u tilities ...................................................................
Scrap and w aste m a te ria ls ......................................
4011
411,13 ,14 pts.
4213
451 2,1 3,2 2 pts.
4612,13
481
491,493 pt.
492,493 pt.
5093
1 49.3
1 116.8
1 69.5
1 54.3
1 93.2
1 46.2
1 88.4
1 145.5
1 54.0
1 108.3
1 83.9
1 75.5
1 96.9
1 68.7
1 95.3
1 141.4
1 81.1
1 79.8
1 96.1
1 93.8
1 92.0
1 99.9
1 92.6
1 93.0
1 111.9
1 93.4
1 86.1
1 95.6
1 96.8
1 93.8
1 102.0
1 98.1
1 95.2
1 102.1
1 97.7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 109.3
1 107.9
1 105.2
1 99.5
1 104.8
1 107.8
1 104.9
1 105.5
1 94.3
1 115.4
1 104.6
1 109.4
1 95.1
1 103.2
1 113.4
1 107.7
1 103.6
1 87.8
1 122.6
-
1 128.1
-
1 92.2
1 102.5
1 115.1
1 110.0
1 95.0
1 92.2
1 92.5
1 99.1
1 121.8
1 113.3
1 94.2
1 93.1
-
107.8
107.8
102.4
100.1
107.4
104.8
111.4
105.7
106.4
106.2
112.3
111.4
Hardware s to re s ..........................................................
Departm ent s to r e s ......................................................
Variety stores ...............................................................
Grocery s to re s ..............................................................
Retail b a ke ries ..............................................................
New and used car dealers ......................................
Auto and home supply s to r e s ................................
Gasoline service s ta tio n s .........................................
M e n’s and boys’ clothing s to re s ...........................
W om en’s clothing stores .........................................
Family clothing s to r e s ...............................................
Shoe stores ..................................................................
Furniture and homefurnishings s to re s .................
Household appliance s to r e s ...................................
Radio, television, and computer
s to r e s ...........................................................................
525
531
533
541
546
551
553
554
561
562
565
566
571
572
1 83.3
1 60.8
1 148.9
1 109.1
1 125.6
1 85.1
1 71.1
1 59.5
1 77.6
1 58.9
1 76.2
1 81.3
1 83.9
1 59.8
1 97.5
1 74.0
1 123.3
1 106.8
1 112.3
1 86.3
1 80.1
1 73.7
1 82.3
1 72.8
1 75.4
1 90.9
1 91.0
1 72.9
1 95.6
1 92.6
1 129.2
’ 105.7
1 87.6
1 99.8
1 94.5
1 93.5
1 98.3
1 99.8
1 103.1
1 97.6
1 94.8
1 94.9
1 101.6
1 97.4
1 106.7
1 103.8
1 93.6
1 101.6
1 94.3
1 101.8
1 100.7
1 107.0
1 103.3
1 105.5
1 101.2
1 106.5
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 108.7
1 99.4
1 97.3
1 98.6
1 94.2
1 102.7
1 106.5
1 102.4
1 102.6
1 99.4
1 101.3
1 102.7
1 99.5
1 101.1
1 115.4
1 97.4
1 113.7
1 95.8
1 87.3
1 103.8
1 108.9
1 104.0
1 102.3
1 102.9
1 103.2
1 107.3
1 102.6
1 108.7
1 110.5
1 94.8
1 132.1
' 94.8
1 84.8
1 107.1
1 114.2
1 101.0
1 101.6
1 106.7
1 101.5
1 106.3
1 104.3
1 111.2
1 102.5
1 99.2
1 130.2
1 94.0
1 90.0
1 105.6
1 114.6
1 102.0
1 102.0
1 110.1
1 102.3
1 105.5
1 104.2
1 117.4
573
1 45.6
1 53.0
1 89.3
1 94.1
1 100.0
1 122.2
1 122.0
1 131.4
1 146.2
Eating and drinking p la c e s ......................................
Drug and proprietary s to re s .....................................
Liquor s to re s .................................................................
Commercial b a n k s ......................................................
Hotels and m o te ls .......................................................
Laundry, cleaning, and garment s e rv ic e s ..........
Beauty s h o p s ................................................................
Automotive repair s h o p s ..........................................
581
591
592
602
701
721
723
753
1 110.3
1 92.2
1 95.0
1 81.2
1 102.4
1 110.8
1 85.9
1 109.3
1 106.6
1 101.8
1 90.2
1 84.1
1 109.7
1 109.9
1 89.4
1 105.0
1 96.2
1 102.5
1 101.9
1 94.3
1 101.2
1 103.3
1 96.1
1 99.4
1 99.3
1 101.6
1 93.8
1 96.2
1 98.9
1 100.8
1 96.9
1 96.1
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 102.6
1 102.0
1 99.9
’ 103.4
1 95.8
1 97.1
1 93.3
1 105.6
1 101.9
1 102.8
1 104.7
1 102.2
1 91.4
1 98.6
1 96.0
1 107.8
1 103.1
1 104.1
1 110.6
1 108.6
1 90.6
1 99.0
1 91.3
1 106.3
1 104.5
1 105.5
1 112.3
1 112.3
1 91.3
1 96.6
1 87.6
1 99.9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1 Revised.
-
Data not available.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
131
Current Labor Statistics:
International Comparisons Data
46. Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data
seasonally adjusted
Annual average
1993
1994
1995
Country
1993
1994
I
II
III
IV
I
6.1
10.4
9.7
2.9
6.7
11.4
10.9
2.6
6.5
11.2
10.8
2.8
6.6
11.0
10.4
2.8
6.2
10.6
10.0
2.9
6.0
10.2
9.5
3.0
5.6
9.8
9.1
3.0
5.5
9.7
8.9
3.0
F r a n c e ............................................................
Germany .................................................
Italy2 .................................................................
S weden3 .........................................................
United Kingdom ..........................................
11.8
5.8
10.5
8.1
10.4
12.3
6.5
11.6
7.8
9.5
12.0
5.9
10.5
9.2
10.5
12.2
6.2
11.0
8.2
10.1
12.3
6.4
11.0
8.2
9.9
12.3
6.5
11.6
7.6
9.7
12.3
6.5
11.1
8.4
9.5
12.3
6.5
11.8
7.2
9.0
12.1
6.4
12.2
7.7
8.7
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
IV
6.8
11.2
10.9
2.5
’ Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for
1993 and earlier years. For additional information, see the
box note under “ Employment and Unemployment Data" in
the notes to this section.
2 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter.
Break in series beginning in 1993.
3 Break in series beginning in 1993. Data for 1993 on-
132
III
United S tates1 ..............................................
Canada ...........................................................
A u s tra lia ..................................................
Japan .........................................................
July 1995
ward are not seasonally adjusted.
NOTE: Quarterly figures for France, Germany, and the
United Kingdom are calculated by applying annual adjust
ment factors to current published data and therefore should
be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under
U.S. concepts than the annual figures. S ee “ Notes on the
data” for information on breaks in series.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
47. Annual data: Employment status of the working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts, 10
countries
(Numbers in thousands)
Employment status and country
1985
1986
C ivilian lab o r fo rc e
United S tates1 ......................................................................
C anada ...................................................................................
A ustralia..................................................................................
Japan .......................................................................................
France ....................................................................................
G e rm a n y .................................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................................
N e therlands...........................................................................
S w e d e n ...................................................................................
United K ingdom ...................................................................
115,461
13,123
7,300
58,820
23,620
28,020
2 1,800
6,250
4,418
2 7,210
117,834
13,378
7,588
59,410
2 3,760
28,240
2 2,290
6 ,380
4,443
2 7,380
119,865
13,631
7,758
60,050
23,890
28,390
22,350
6,500
4,480
27,720
P a rticipa tion ra te
United States1 ......................................................................
Canada ...................................................................................
Australia..................................................................................
Japan .......................................................................................
France ....................................................................................
G e rm a n y .................................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................................
N e therlands...........................................................................
S w e d e n ...................................................................................
United K ingdom ...................................................................
64.8
65.8
61.6
62.3
56.9
54.7
47.2
55.5
66.9
62.2
65.3
66.3
62.8
62.1
56.9
54.9
47.8
56.0
67.0
62.2
E m ployed
United States1 ......................................................................
Canada ...................................................................................
Australia..................................................................................
Japan .......................................................................................
France ....................................................................................
G e rm a n y .................................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................................
N etherlands ...........................................................................
S w e d e n ...................................................................................
United Kingdom ...................................................................
107,150
11,742
6,697
57,260
21,150
26,010
20,490
5,650
4,293
24,150
E m plo ym en t-p o p u latio n ra tio
United S tates1 ......................................................................
Canada ...................................................................................
A ustralia..................................................................................
Japan .......................................................................................
France ....................................................................................
G e rm a n y .................................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................................
N e therlands...........................................................................
S w e d e n ...................................................................................
United K ingdom ...................................................................
1993
1994
1990
121,669
13,900
7,974
60,860
23,980
28,610
22,660
6,530
4,540
28,150
123,869
14,151
8,228
61,920
24,170
28,840
22,530
6,640
4,599
28,420
124,787
14,329
8,444
63,050
24,300
29,410
22,670
6,770
4,642
28,540
125,303
14,408
8,490
64,280
24,490
29,780
22,940
6 ,870
4,626
28,400
126,982
14,482
8,562
6 5,040
2 4,560
3 0,050
2 2,910
6,970
4,534
28,230
128,040
14,663
8 ,619
6 5,470
2 4,630
2 9,950
22,560
7,070
4 ,385
28,150
131,056
14,832
8,776
6 5,780
2 4,890
-
65.6
66.7
63.0
61.9
56.7
55.0
47.6
56.3
67.1
62.6
65.9
67.2
63.3
61.9
56.4
55.1
47.4
56.1
67.6
63.4
66.5
67.5
64.0
62.2
56.1
55.2
47.3
56.5
68.0
63.8
66.4
67.3
64.6
62.6
55.6
55.0
47.2
56.8
68.1
63.9
66.0
66.7
64.1
63.2
55.6
55.7
48.6
57.5
67.5
63.4
66.3
65.9
63.9
63:4
55.8
55.4
48.5
57.9
66.0
62.8
66.2
65.5
63.6
63.3
55.6
54.7
48.8
58.6
63.8
62.6
66.6
65.3
63.9
63.1
55.9
109,597
12,095
6,974
57,740
21,240
26.380
20,610
5,740
4,326
24,300
112,440
12,422
7,129
58,320
21,320
26,590
20,590
5,850
4,396
24,860
114,968
12,819
7,398
59,310
21,520
26,800
20,870
5,920
4,467
25,730
117,342
13,086
7,720
6 0,500
2 1,850
2 7,200
2 0,770
6 ,070
4,538
26,350
117,914
13,165
7,859
61,710
22,100
27,950
21,080
6,260
4,572
26,580
116,877
12,916
7 ,676
62,920
22,140
28,500
21,360
6,380
4,504
25,910
117,598
12,842
7,637
63,620
22,010
28,670
21,230
6 ,470
4 ,320
25,410
119,306
13,015
7,680
6 3,810
2 1,720
2 8,210
2 0,200
6 ,450
4 ,028
2 5,220
123,060
13,292
7,921
63,860
21,830
60.1
58.9
56.5
60.6
51.0
50.7
44.4
50.1
65.0
55.2
60.7
59.9
57.7
60.4
50.8
51.3
44.2
50.3
65.2
55.2
61.5
60.8
57.9
60.1
50.6
51.5
43.8
50.7
65.8
56.2
62.3
62.0
58.7
60.4
50.6
51.6
43.7
50.8
66.5
57.9
63.0
62.4
60.1
60.8
50.7
52.0
43.6
51.7
67.1
59.1
62.7
61.9
60.1
61.3
50.5
52.2
43.9
52.5
67.0
59.5
61.6
59.8
57.9
61.8
50.3
53.3
45.3
53.4
65.7
57.8
61.4
58.4
57.0
62.0
50.0
52.9
44.9
53.8
62.9
56.5
61.6
58.2
56.6
61.7
49.0
51.5
43.7
53.4
58.6
56.1
62.5
58.5
57.7
61.3
49.1
-
U n em plo yed
United S tates1 ......................................................................
Canada ...................................................................................
Australia..................................................................................
Japan .......................................................................................
France ....................................................................................
G e rm a n y .................................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................................
N etherlands...........................................................................
S w e d e n ...................................................................................
United Kingdom ....................................................................
8,312
1,381
603
1,560
2,470
2,010
1,310
600
125
3,060
8,237
1,283
613
1,670
2,520
1,860
1,680
640
117
3,080
7,425
1,208
629
1,730
2,570
1,800
1,760
650
84
2,860
6,701
1,082
576
1,550
2,460
1,810
1,790
610
73
2,420
6,528
1,065
508
1,420
2,320
1,640
1,760
570
61
2,070
6,874
1,164
585
1,340
2,200
1,460
1,590
510
70
1,960
8 ,426
1,492
8 14
1,360
2,350
1,280
1,580
490
122
2,490
9,384
1,640
925
1,420
2,550
1,380
1,680
500
2 14
2,820
8,734
1,649
939
1,660
2,910
1,740
2,360
620
357
2,930
7 ,996
1,541
8 56
1,920
3 ,060
-
U n e m p lo y m e n t rate
United States1 ......................................................................
Canada ...................................................................................
A ustralia..................................................................................
Japan .......................................................................................
France .....................................................................................
G e rm a n y .................................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................................
N e therlands...........................................................................
S w e d e n ...................................................................................
United K ingdom ...................................................................
7.2
10.5
8.3
2.6
10.5
7.2
6.0
9.6
2.8
11.2
7.0
9.6
8.1
2.8
10.6
6.6
7.5
10.0
2.6
11.2
6.2
8.9
8.1
2.9
10.8
6.3
7.9
10.0
1.9
10.3
5.5
7.8
7.2
2.5
10.3
6.3
7.9
9.3
1.6
8.6
5.3
7.5
6.2
2.3
9.6
5.7
7.8
8.6
1.3
7.3
5.5
8.1
6.9
2.1
9.1
5.0
7.0
7.5
1.5
6.9
6.7
10.4
9.6
2.1
9.6
4.3
6.9
7.1
2.6
8.8
7.4
11.3
10.8
2.2
10.4
4.6
7.3
7.2
4.7
10.0
6.8
11.2
10.9
2.5
11.8
5.8
10.5
8.8
8.1
10.4
6.1
10.4
9.7
2.9
12.3
6.5
11.6
1988
1991
1992
1989
1987
-
4 ,332
-
2
-
-
62.3
-
-
3,990
-
3
1 Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and
earlier years.
For additional information, see the box note under
“ Employment and Unemployment D ata” in the notes to this section.
2 Labor force as a percent of the working-age population.
-
57.4
-
340
-
-
7.8
9.5
3 Employment as a percent of the working-age population.
- Data not available.
NOTE: S ee “ Notes on the data” for information on breaks in series
for Italy and Sweden.
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
133
Current Labor Statistics:
48.
International Comparisons Data
Annual indexes of manufacturing productivity and related measures, 12 countries
(1982 = 100)
Item and country
O u tp u t p e r hou r
United S ta te s .......................................... .............................................
C anada .....................................................................................................
Japan .........................................................................................................
B elgiu m ......................................................................................................
D e n m a rk ...................................................................................................
France .......................................................................................................
G e rm a n y ...................................................................................................
1970
1973
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
51.6
18.5
24.1
32.4
29.6
37.1
29.1
26.5
46.4
36.1
50.3
76.9
50.3
44.0
57.2
58.6
66.4
54.6
52.9
73.0
69.0
72.1
91.9
64.4
57.4
72.7
69.4
77.9
65.2
67.3
85.4
81.2
86.2
103.5
116.3
107.9
117.5
104.3
103.9
109.0
115.7
115.0
112.2
111.9
112.4
106.7
119.8
114.9
119.6
105.0
107.9
113.4
122.3
118.7
115.8
113.6
116.4
109.5
117.9
113.0
121.4
98.9
109.7
114.2
123.7
120.1
114.7
115.4
120.6
116.6
119.0
122.4
123.8
98.4
111.6
112.7
127.2
120.7
120.4
117.6
126.9
119.2
119.5
129.6
128.9
102.1
119.3
116.7
130.0
124.4
119.5
119.3
133.5
119.9
120.0
138.7
134.5
105.6
125.4
120.5
134.0
128.5
125.3
123.1
138.4
122.1
122.0
149.1
134.1
105.5
127.6
125.6
139.3
130.1
129.3
125.0
140.1
124.9
122.9
156.9
137.0
105.5
128.0
130.1
143.8
131.4
130.3
126.1
145.3
127.5
128.0
156.8
142.2
107.7
130.9
128.0
150.8
132.2
132.5
132.8
152.4
131.6
130.9
157.3
146.4
113.9
132.3
130.0
159.2
133.8
135.3
141.5
159.7
44.1
15.1
37.6
45.4
35.1
51.0
28.0
42.7
56.0
51.8
82.9
78.5
55.1
70.4
75.7
72.7
87.0
58.4
80.3
88.4
91.1
110.5
100.0
71.8
86.3
88.5
87.0
96.4
70.7
91.2
101.3
98.7
121.9
111.3
120.2
113.2
109.9
111.7
98.7
104.6
105.4
107.9
105.0
113.6
105.9
114.0
127.0
121.2
111.8
115.3
99.1
108.4
108.9
111.1
108.8
115.7
108.9
115.2
127.9
117.9
111.9
115.3
99.1
110.1
111.5
113.8
108.8
117.1
110.3
123.5
134.1
126.5
112.3
110.6
98.9
108.1
116.3
115.4
110.8
120.0
115.5
130.0
140.9
138.2
118.0
112.3
104.6
111.5
125.0
119.7
105.5
123.7
123.6
131.2
142.1
149.3
125.0
113.6
110.3
115.4
129.7
125.2
103.8
125.1
129.1
130.6
136.8
160.6
126.5
112.4
112.4
121.7
132.3
129.3
104.5
124.3
128.9
128.2
127.5
170.8
125.9
111.1
110.6
126.2
132.1
129.9
102.3
117.4
121.9
130.1
128.3
167.7
125.8
112.5
109.8
123.3
132.4
129.0
104.2
113.3
121.1
135.4
134.7
160.7
120.5
113.2
106.3
113.8
129.6
125.8
105.9
115.1
122.8
94.1
85.5
81.7
156.2
140.0
118.5
137.2
96.2
160.9
120.9
143.7
164.9
106.5
102.1
109.6
159.9
132.3
123.9
131.1
107.0
152.0
121.1
132.0
153.3
112.6
108.8
111.5
150.3
121.8
125.3
123.7
108.3
135.6
118.7
121.6
141.4
107.6
103.3
104.9
93.6
107.1
95.0
96.0
91.1
93.8
93.5
101.5
94.2
106.8
106.0
105.5
93.5
109.8
91.8
95.6
89.0
93.6
94.0
101.9
93.5
105.2
108.5
104.3
92.2
116.6
90.3
96.4
90.1
94.8
94.8
101.5
91.5
106.0
112.7
103.4
90.7
112.4
88.6
95.9
91.4
95.6
92.0
102.0
91.0
109.0
117.9
106.7
91.5
110.0
87.7
95.6
96.1
96.2
88.3
103.6
92.6
109.4
118.4
107.6
93.0
107.6
88.0
95.7
96.8
97.4
82.9
101.6
93.3
107.0
112.2
107.7
94.3
106.6
88.1
96.9
95.0
99.4
80.9
99.4
92.0
102.6
103.7
108.8
91.9
105.3
86.4
97.0
91.8
98.9
78.5
93.1
83.9
102.0
100.3
106.9
88.4
104.4
83.8
96.3
87.8
97.6
78.6
85.4
79.5
102.9
102.9
102.2
82.3
99.4
80.3
87.6
81.4
94.0
78.3
81.4
76.9
N e therlands.............................................................................................
Norway .....................................................................................................
S w e d e n ......................................................................................................
United K ingdom ......................................................................................
16.4
6.6
9.1
7.7
7.6
13.5
3.9
8.9
9.9
9.3
7.1
28.7
25.0
23.2
22.3
18.5
34.5
11.6
27.8
24.6
24.4
14.7
35.9
40.7
35.5
34.5
26.2
48.2
17.7
43.4
35.3
34.3
22.6
106.0
111.1
105.8
114.8
113.0
119.6
110.0
134.3
106.6
120.9
119.6
114.6
111.3
116.8
110.1
122.0
120.6
129.6
116.3
150.9
111.5
132.2
131.8
125.1
115.8
121.3
115.8
127.0
123.1
135.1
121.2
157.1
115.4
145.0
142.4
135.4
118.4
125.0
118.6
130.0
134.6
140.0
126.9
166.0
118.8
165.6
151.9
149.8
123.1
130.5
120.6
132.7
139.4
145.4
131.8
172.5
119.5
175.7
161.8
159.4
127.9
135.4
128.2
139.7
147.3
153.2
138.2
189.5
120.1
183.4
179.0
174.7
134.7
143.0
138.3
147.5
156.5
161.3
147.9
210.8
123.3
193.7
197.5
180.6
141.9
151.7
146.2
156.8
162.2
168.3
157.8
233.1
129.2
202.8
215.1
199.4
147.9
158.1
153.0
164.9
167.2
174.1
165.6
249.7
136.6
208.4
225.0
219.7
152.8
159.0
157.1
171.2
171.4
179.8
177.8
266.1
140.5
210.4
221.6
236.1
U nit lab o r costs: National currency basis
United S ta te s ..........................................................................................
C anada .....................................................................................................
Japan .........................................................................................................
B e lg iu m .....................................................................................................
D e n m a rk ...................................................................................................
France .......................................................................................................
G e rm a n y ...................................................................................................
I t a ly ............................................................................................................
N e the rlands ..............................................................................................
Norway ......................................................................................................
S w e d e n ......................................................................................................
United K ingdom ......................................................................................
31.9
35.5
38.0
23.8
25.7
36.4
13.5
33.4
21.3
25.8
14.2
37.3
49.7
52.6
39.0
31.5
51.9
21.3
52.7
33.7
35.4
20.4
39.1
63.2
61.8
47.4
37.7
61.9
27.1
64.5
41.4
42.2
26.3
102.4
95.5
98.1
97.7
108.3
115.2
101.0
116.1
92.7
107.8
106.9
101.9
104.2
97.6
95.8
102.0
114.9
120.2
102.6
123.4
93.9
114.2
116.1
107.5
105.8
102.9
102.4
104.7
124.5
123.2
106.2
127.1
96.1
126.4
123.4
112.3
101.6
105.0
96.8
105.0
136.8
125.5
112.6
130.5
98.4
137.5
129.1
118.0
103.2
109.2
93.1
103.0
136.5
121.8
113.0
132.6
96.0
147.1
135.6
119.4
106.7
112.8
92.4
103.8
139.5
122.2
114.6
141.4
93.5
146.3
145.4
126.2
110.4
117.2
92.7
110.0
148.3
126.4
117.8
151.3
94.7
149.8
158.0
128.9
113.7
123.4
93.2
114.4
153.8
131.5
121.3
162.1
98.3
155.6
170.6
137.2
116.0
123.5
97.5
115.9
155.1
133.0
129.4
165.6
103.3
157.3
169.5
144.2
116.1
121.4
99.9
117.0
150.5
135.9
136.8
167.2
105.1
155.5
156.6
147.8
U n it la b o r costs: U.S. dollar basis
United S ta te s ..........................................................................................
Canada ......................................................................................................
Japan .........................................................................................................
B e lg iu m .....................................................................................................
D e n m a rk ...................................................................................................
France .......................................................................................................
G e rm a n y ...................................................................................................
Italy ............................................................................................................
N e the rlands ..............................................................................................
Norway ......................................................................................................
S w e d e n ......................................................................................................
United K ingdom ......................................................................................
40.6
24.6
34.9
28.8
34.4
21.2
29.5
23.7
19.3
31.4
22.8
44.1
34.6
48.5
43.4
37.5
34.6
46.0
38.9
30.4
42.8
28.0
48.2
58.1
72.8
65.7
55.9
56.8
63.1
62.0
46.5
60.9
36.8
102.4
91.0
102.9
77.5
87.3
86.7
86.2
89.5
77.2
85.3
81.2
77.9
104.2
88.2
100.1
78.7
90.4
88.0
84.7
87.5
75.6
85.8
84.8
79.8
105.8
91.4
151.5
107.3
128.3
117.0
118.8
115.4
104.8
110.3
108.8
94.3
101.6
97.8
166.8
128.7
166.7
137.3
152.1
136.3
129.8
131.7
127.8
110.7
103.2
109.5
180.9
128.1
169.0
134.5
156.1
137.9
129.8
145.5
138.8
121.6
106.7
117.6
166.7
120.6
159.0
126.0
148.0
139.5
117.7
136.6
141.5
118.3
110.4
124.0
159.3
150.7
200.0
152.7
176.9
170.9
138.9
154.7
167.6
131.6
113.7
132.9
172.5
153.2
200.4
153.2
177.3
176.8
140.3
154.8
177.1
138.7
116.0
126.2
191.6
165.1
214.4
165.3
201.2
182.0
157.0
163.4
182.8
145.7
116.1
116.2
223.9
154.8
193.6
157.8
200.8
143.8
151.0
141.5
126.3
127.0
N e the rlands ..............................................................................................
Norway ......................................................................................................
S w e d e n .....................................................................................................
United K ingdom ......................................................................................
O u tp u t
United S ta te s ..........................................................................................
Canada .....................................................................................................
Japan .........................................................................................................
B elgiu m ......................................................................................................
D e n m a rk ...................................................................................................
France .......................................................................................................
G e rm a n y ...................................................................................................
N eth e rlan d s .............................................................................................
Nonway .....................................................................................................
S w e d e n .....................................................................................................
United K in g d o m .....................................................................................
T o ta l hours
United S ta te s ..........................................................................................
C anada .....................................................................................................
Japan .........................................................................................................
B e lg iu m .....................................................................................................
D e n m a rk ...................................................................................................
France .......................................................................................................
G e rm a n y ...................................................................................................
N eth e rlan d s .............................................................................................
Norway .....................................................................................................
S w e d e n .....................................................................................................
United K ingdom .....................................................................................
C o m p e n s a tio n p e r hou r
United S ta te s ..........................................................................................
Canada .....................................................................................................
Japan .........................................................................................................
B elgiu m ......................................................................................................
D e n m a rk ...................................................................................................
France .......................................................................................................
G e rm a n y ...................................................................................................
-
134
1960
Data not available.
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
49.
Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry,1 United States
Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers3
1986
1985
P R IV A T E S E C T O R
1987
1988
19891
1990
1992
1991
19934
5
Total c a s e s ......................................................................................................................
A g ricu ltu re, fo re s try , an d fish in g
7.9
3.6
64.9
7.9
3.6
65.8
8.3
3.8
69.9
8.6
4.0
76.1
8.6
4.0
78.7
8.8
4.1
84.0
8.4
3.9
86.5
8.9
3.9
93.8
8.5
3.8
11.4
5.7
91.3
11.2
5.6
93.6
11.2
5.7
94.1
10.9
5.6
101.8
10.9
5.7
100.9
11.6
5.9
112.2
10.8
5.4
108.3
11.6
5.4
126.9
11.2
5.0
8.4
4.8
145.3
7.4
4.1
125.9
8.5
4.9
144.0
8.8
5.1
152.1
8.5
4.8
137.2
8.3
5.0
119.5
7.4
4.5
129.6
7.3
4.1
204.7
6.8
3.9
15.2
6.8
128.9
15.2
6.9
134.5
14.7
6.8
135.8
14.6
6.8
142.2
14.3
6.8
143.3
14.2
6.7
147.9
13.0
6.1
148.1
13.1
5.8
161.9
12.2
5.5
15.2
6.8
120.4
14.9
6.6
122.7
14.2
6.5
134.0
14.0
6.4
132.2
13.9
6.5
137.3
13.4
6.4
137.6
12.0
5.5
132.0
12.2
5.4
142.7
11.5
5.1
14.5
6.3
127.3
14.7
6.3
132.9
14.5
6.4
139.1
15.1
7.0
162.3
13.8
6.5
147.1
13.8
6.3
144.6
12.8
6.0
160.1
12.1
5.4
165.8
11.1
5.1
13.8
6.1
168.3
12.8
5.8
-
5
-
M ining
-
C o n stru ctio n
General building contractors:
Total c a s e s .....................................................................................................................
.
.
Heavy construction, except building:
-
Special trade contractors:
15.4
7.0
133.3
15.6
7.2
140.4
15.0
7.1
135.7
14.7
7.0
141.1
14.6
6.9
144.9
14.7
6.9
153.1
13.5
6.3
151.3
10.4
4.6
80.2
10.6
4.7
85.2
11.9
5.3
95.5
13.1
5.7
107.4
13.1
5.8
113.0
13.2
5.8
120.7
12.7
5.6
121.5
12.5
5.4
124.6
12.1
5.3
10.9
4.7
82.0
11.0
4.8
87.1
12.5
5.4
96.8
14.2
5.9
111.1
14.1
6.0
116.5
14.2
6.0
123.3
13.6
5.7
122.9
13.4
5.5
126.7
13.1
5.4
18.5
9.3
171.4
18.9
9.7
177.2
18.9
9.6
176.5
19.5
10.0
189.1
18.4
9.4
177.5
18.1
8.8
172.5
16.8
8.3
172.0
16.3
7.6
165.8
15.9
7.6
15.0
6.3
100.4
15.2
6.3
103.0
15.4
6.7
103.6
16.6
7.3
115.7
16.1
7.2
15.9
7.2
14.8
6.6
128.4
14.6
6.5
13.9
6.7
127.8
13.6
6.5
126.0
14.9
7.1
135.8
16.0
7.5
141.0
15.5
7.4
149.8
15.4
7.3
160.5
14.8
6.8
156.0
13.6
6.1
152.2
13.8
6.3
12.6
5.7
113.8
13.6
6.1
125.5
17.0
7.4
145.8
19.4
8.2
161.3
18.7
8.1
168.3
19.0
8.1
180.2
17.7
7.4
169.1
17.5
7.1
175.5
17.0
7.3
16.3
6.9
110.1
16.0
6.8
115.5
17.0
7.2
121.9
18.8
8.0
138.8
18.5
7.9
147.6
18.7
7.9
155.7
17.4
7.1
146.6
16.8
6.6
144.0
16.2
6.7
10.8
4.2
69.3
10.7
4.2
72.0
11.3
4.4
72.7
12.1
4.7
82.8
12.1
4.8
86.8
12.0
4 .7
88.9
11.2
4.4
86.6
11.1
4 .2
87.7
11.1
4 .2
6.4
2.7
45.7
6.4
2.7
49.8
7.2
3.1
55.9
8.0
3.3
64.6
9.1
3.9
77.5
9.1
3.8
79.4
8.6
3.7
83.0
8.4
3.6
81.2
8.3
3.5
9.0
3.9
71.6
9.6
4.1
79.1
13.5
5.7
105.7
17.7
6.6
134.2
17.7
6.8
138.6
17.8
6.9
153.7
18.3
7.0
166.1
18.7
7.1
186.6
18.5
7.1
5.2
2.2
37.9
5.3
2.3
42.2
5.8
2.4
43.9
6.1
2.6
51.5
5.6
2.5
55.4
5.9
2.7
57.8
6.0
2.7
64.4
5.9
2.7
65.3
5.6
2 .5
9.7
4.2
73.2
10.2
4.3
70.9
10.7
4.6
81.5
11.3
5.1
91.0
11.1
5.1
97.6
11.3
5.1
113.1
11.3
5.1
104.0
10.7
5.0
108.2
10.0
4.6
9.6
10.0
11.1
11.4
11.6
11.7
11.5
11.3
10.7
-
M anufacturin g
-
Durable goods:
-
Lumber and wood products:
-
Furniture and fixtures:
16.9
_7.8
_
-
Stone, clay, and glass products:
.
Primary metal industries:
-
Fabricated metal products:
.
Industrial machinery and equipment:
_
Electronic and other electrical equipment:
.
Transportation equipment:
.
Instruments and related products:
.
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries:
.
Nondurable goods:
S ee footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
July 1995
135
Current Labor Statistics: Injury and Illness Data
49. Continued— Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry,1 United States
Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers3
Industry and type of case2
1985
Printing and publishing:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................................................
Lost workday cases .................................................................................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ............................................................................................................
Chemicals and allied products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................................................
Lost workday cases .................................................................................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ............................................................................................................
Petroleum and coal products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................................................
Lost workday cases .................................................................................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ............................................................................................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................................................
Lost workday cases .................................................................................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ............................................................................................................
Leather and leather products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................................................
Lost workday cases .................................................................................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ............................................................................................................
T ra n s p o rta tio n and public utilities
Total c a s e s ......................................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s .....................................................................................................
Lost workdays ..............................................................................................................
1987
1988
1989'
1990
1992
1991
19934
4.4
77.6
4.6
82.3
5.1
93.5
5.4
101.7
5.5
107.8
5.6
116.9
5.5
119.7
5.3
121.8
5.0
16.7
8.1
138.0
16.5
8.0
137.8
17.7
8.6
153.7
18.5
9.2
169.7
18.5
9.3
174.7
20.0
9.9
202.6
19.5
9.9
207.2
18.8
9.5
211.9
17.6
8.9
-
7.3
3.0
51.7
6.7
2.5
45.6
8.6
2.5
46.4
9.3
2.9
53.0
8.7
3.4
64.2
7.7
3.2
62.3
6.4
2.8
52.0
6.0
2.4
42.9
5.8
2.3
-
7.5
3.0
57.4
7.8
3.1
59.3
9.0
3.6
65.9
9.6
4.0
78.8
10.3
4.2
81.4
9.6
4.0
85.1
10.0
4.4
88.3
9.9
4.2
87.1
9.7
4.1
-
6.7
2.6
44.1
6.7
2.7
49.4
7.4
3.1
59.5
8.1
3.5
68.2
8.6
3.8
80.5
8.8
3.9
92.1
9.2
4.2
99.9
9.5
4.0
104.6
9.0
3.8
-
10.2
4.7
94.6
10.5
4.7
99.5
12.8
5.8
122.3
13.1
5.9
124.3
12.7
5.8
132.9
12.1
5.5
124.8
11.2
5.0
122.7
11.0
5.0
125.9
9.9
4 .6
6.3
2.9
49.2
6.5
2.9
50.8
6.7
3.1
55.1
6.6
3.2
59.8
6.9
3.3
63.8
6.9
3.3
69.8
6.7
3.2
74.5
7.3
3.2
74.8
6.9
3.1
-
5.1
2.3
38.8
6.3
2.7
49.4
7.0
3.1
58.8
7.0
3.3
59.0
7.0
3.2
63.4
6.5
3.1
61.6
6.4
3.1
62.4
6.0
2.8
64.2
5.9
2.7
-
5.1
2.4
49.9
7.1
3.2
67.5
7.3
3.1
65.9
7.0
3.2
68.4
6.6
3.3
68.1
6.6
3.1
77.3
6.2
2.9
68.2
5.9
2.8
71.2
5.2
2.5
-
13.4
6.3
107.4
14.0
6.6
118.2
15.9
7.6
130.8
16.3
8.1
142.9
16.2
8.0
147.2
16.2
7.8
151.3
15.1
7.2
150.9
14.5
6.8
153.3
13.9
6.5
-
10.3
4.6
88.3
10.5
4.8
83.4
12.4
5.8
114.5
11.4
5.6
128.2
13.6
6.5
130.4
12.1
5.9
152.3
12.5
5.9
140.8
12.1
5.4
128.5
12.1
5.5
8.6
5.0
107.1
8.2
4.8
102.1
8.4
4.9
108.1
8.9
5.1
118.6
9.2
5.3
121.5
9.6
5.5
134.1
9.3
5.4
140.0
9.1
5.1
144.0
9.5
5.4
7.4
3.2
50.7
7.7
3.3
54.0
7.7
3.4
56.1
7.8
3.5
60.9
8.0
3.6
63.5
7.9
3.5
65.6
7.6
3.4
72.0
8.4
3.5
80.1
8.1
3.4
-
Lost workday cases .................................................................................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ............................................................................................................
Food and kindred products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................................................
Lost workday cases .................................................................................................
Lost w o rk d a y s .............................................................................................................
Tobacco products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................................................
Lost workday cases .................................................................................................
Lost w o rkd a y s .............................................................................................................
Textile mill products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................................................
Lost workday cases .................................................................................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ............................................................................................................
Apparel and other textile products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................................................
Lost workday cases .................................................................................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ............................................................................................................
Paper and allied products:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................................................................
Lost workday cases .................................................................................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ............................................................................................................
1986
-
-
■
-
W h o le s a le and retail tra d e
Total c a s e s ......................................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ....................................................................................................
Lost w o rkd a y s ................................................................................................................
W holesale trade:
Total c a s e s ......................................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ....................................................................................................
Lost w o rkd a y s ................................................................................................................
Retail trade:
Total c a s e s .....................................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s .....................................................................................................
Lost w o rkd a y s ................................................................................................................
7.2
3.5
59.8
7.2
3.6
62.5
7.4
3.7
64.0
7.6
3.8
69.2
7.7
4.0
71.9
7.4
3.7
71.5
7.2
3.7
79.2
7.6
3.6
82.4
7.8
3.7
-
7.5
3.1
47.0
7.8
3.2
50.5
7.8
3.3
52.9
7.9
3.4
57.6
8.1
3.4
60.0
8.1
3.4
63.2
7.7
3.3
69.1
8.7
3.4
79.2
8.2
3.3
Finance, Insurance, and real e s ta te
Total c a s e s ......................................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s .....................................................................................................
Lost w o rkd a y s ................................................................................................................
2.0
.9
15.4
2.0
.9
17.1
2.0
.9
14.3
2.0
.9
17.2
2.0
.9
17.6
2.4
1.1
27.3
2.4
1.1
24.1
2.9
1.2
32.9
2.9
1.2
5.4
5.3
2.5
43.0
5.5
2.7
45.8
5.4
5.5
2.7
51.2
6.0
2.8
6.2
2.8
7.1
3.0
6.7
2.8
56.4
60.0
68.6
-
S e rv ices
Total c a s e s ...............
Lost workday cases
Lost w o rkd a y s .........
2.6
45.4
are based on the Standard
For this reason, they are not
strictly com parable with data for the years 1985-88, which were based on the
Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972 Edition, 1977 Supplement.
2 Beginning with the 1992 survey, the annual survey measures only
nonfatal injuries and illnesses, while past surveys covered both fatal and
nonfatal incidents. To better address fatalities, a basic elem ent of workplace
safety, BLS implemented the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries.
3 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost
workdays per 100 full-time workers and were calculated as:
(N /E H ) X 2 00,000, where:
1 Data
for
1989
and
subsequent years
Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 Edition.
136
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
July 1995
2.6
47.7
N = number of Injuries and illnesses or lost workdays.
EH = total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year.
200 ,00 0 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per
week, 50 w eeks per year).
4 Beginning with the 1993 survey, lost workday estim ates will not be
generated. As of 1992, BLS began generating percent distributions and the
median number of days away from work by industry and for groups of workers
sustaining similar work disabilities.
5 Excludes farms with few er than 11 em ployees since 1976.
- Data not available.
M
O
N
T
H
L
Y
*
L
A
B
O
R
REVI EW
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
We provide the pieces.
Putting you in touch with the raw data
is our mission.
We help you put them together.
Each issue also brings you our
insights on employment and
unemployment, wages and benefits,
prices and productivity, and the rest of
the economic puzzle.
You get the picture.
Order Processing Code:
Superintendent of Documents Order Form
*5551
□ YE S ,
Charge your order,
It's easy!
^
|
VISA
■
To fax your orders (202) 512-2233
send m e ____ subscription(s) to Monthly Labor Review at □ $25 per year or □ $50 for 2 years.
International customers please add 25% .
The total cost of my order is $ _______ . (Includes regular
shipping and handling.) Price subject to change.
For privacy, check box below:
□ Do not make my name available to other mailers
Check method of payment:
Company or personal name
(Please type or print)
□ Check payable to Superintendent of Documents
Additional address/attention line
Street address
Thank you fo r your order!
City, State, ZIP Code
Daytime phone including area code
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Purchase order number (optional)
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Authorizing signature
5 /9 5
Mail To: Superintendent of Documents
P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington, DC 20212
Second Class Mail
Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
ISSN 0098-1818
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
MLR
FEDER442F ISSDUE011R
1
F E D E R A L RE SE RVE BANK OF STLOU
CAROL THAXTON L I B R A R Y U N I T
P 0 BOX 442
SAINT LOUIS
MO
63 1 66
Schedule of release dates for bls statistical series
Series
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Employment situation
July 7
June
August 4
July
September 1 August
1; 4-20
Producer Price Indexes
July 13
June
August 10
July
Septem bers August
2; 34-36
Consumer Price Indexes
July 14
June
August 11
July
Septem bers August
2; 31-33
Real earnings
July 14
June
August 11
July
Septem bers August
13-16
Employment Cost Index
July 25
2nd quarter
1-3; 21-24
Major collective bargaining settlements
July 25
2ndquarter
3; 26-29
U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes
August 1
June
August 29
July
August 8
2ndquarter
Period
covered
September 29 August
MLR table
number
37-41
Productivity and costs:
Nonfarm business and manufacturing
Nonfinancial corporations
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2; 42-45
September?
2ndquarter
2; 42-45
@FedFRASER